Audit Committee, 02 Mar 2004
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Official Report
244KB pdf
Financial Scrutiny Inquiry
Item 6 concerns our financial scrutiny inquiry. I remind members that the clerks have provided a paper, to which I will speak briefly before inviting comments from members.
The paper was drawn up following a meeting that I had with the convener of the Procedures Committee. Members will recall that the committee asked me to seek further clarification from him following the Procedures Committee's decision to hold a review of various matters that might overlap with our interest—arising from the Audit Scotland report "Moving to mainstream"—in the financial impact of amendments to bills.
Our discussion on this agenda item can be brief, because it is clear that, in drawing up a remit, the Procedures Committee decided to focus on the issue of timing rather than on the financial impact of amendments. It will not consider the matters that we intend to examine; its inquiry will involve a broader sweep and will deal with many other issues. However, the remit says that the Procedures Committee will examine
"whether committees involved in considering a Bill after it is first introduced have sufficient opportunity at later Stages to consider the impact of amendments".
As I interpret those words, they include sufficient opportunity to consider the financial implications of a bill.
Following my discussion with the Procedures Committee convener, it became self-evident that we have three options, which are outlined in the clerk's note. First, we could write to the Procedures Committee about the issues that were raised in the Auditor General's report and bring them formally to that committee's attention, requesting that it address those matters under the remit to its current inquiry. Secondly, we could consider sending a submission to the Procedures Committee's inquiry. My view is that that is problematic because of timing and evidence taking—it would almost be like preparing a report ourselves. Finally, we could wait and see what recommendations emerge from the Procedures Committee's inquiry.
Option 3 is not ruled out if we go down the road of option 1. We could write to the Procedures Committee explaining our initial concern and saying that that committee should be able to take into account the matters in which we are interested in its consideration of the term "sufficient opportunity" in relation to the financial impact of amendments. If we flag that up with a formal letter, we would be left with the opportunity to consider the outcome of the committee's deliberations at a later date. That would lessen considerably the amount of work that we have to do and would avoid duplication of another committee's work. I am happy to take members' views.
Under the Procedures Committee's remit, the call for evidence
"invited from any MSP, person or organisation"
covers the points that the Auditor General made to us. Comments can be made directly to the Procedures Committee. There is now no need for us to conduct the inquiry that we had anticipated doing.
I see nods of agreement. Do I have the committee's agreement to draft a letter, which I will put before members, raising our concerns formally with the Procedures Committee, asking that committee to consider those points in its inquiry and drawing the Auditor General's report to its attention?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 12:38.