Finance Committee, 05 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 5, 2001

Official Report 130KB pdf

---

Consultative Steering Group Principles

Item 2 is a notice that we have received from the Procedures Committee relating to the principles of the consultative steering group and the review of those principles after two years of the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps Callum Thomson can clarify the situation. We have all seen a copy of the Procedures Committee's press release of 3 April and the remit of its inquiry. However, given that the financial issues advisory group was a spin-off of the CSG, I am not sure whether it is appropriate for us to comment on that in this context. Should we stick with the four areas outlined by the Procedures Committee?

The intention of the inquiry is to concentrate on the four principles of the CSG, but I will seek clarification from the Procedures Committee clerks as to whether that committee would be interested in comments on FIAG.

Members will note that we will be asked to give individual comments. At issue is whether this committee wants to submit comments. We are not obliged to do that. It would only be worth doing if there were particular points relating to this committee that we felt we could not express adequately in an individual capacity. I am fairly open-minded on this issue, but I am interested to hear other members' comments.

The annual budget process ought to have a fair degree of consultation built into it. We have received responses from various committees suggesting that the consultation process has not been ideal. It is very relevant for this committee to comment on that and to make recommendations if we so choose.

I endorse what Adam Ingram has said. Given the responsibilities with which this committee has been charged by the Parliament, we ought formally to comment on this matter. Some of our comments are included in reports that we have already issued on the budget process and how meaningful it could be. We have done a great deal of work in that area, not all of which has been taken on board. It would be appropriate to feed into the Procedures Committee's considerations a short paper highlighting the areas on which we feel that there is still need for movement. Presumably that committee will want to take a view not just on what the public in Scotland feel about access, but on how other committees of the Parliament are able to access information. Because of our technical role, we have a duty to provide the Procedures Committee with a short response.

I am a member of the Procedures Committee, so I should lead the charge on this. I support what the previous two speakers have said. We should focus on the particular problems that the Finance Committee encounters in attempting to achieve the goals set out for it in the consultative steering group's report.

The note from the Procedures Committee states:

"Written evidence should be submitted by Tuesday, 26 June 2001."

I am conscious of the fact that our clerks will be rather busy between now and the Friday prior to that. I wonder how strict the Procedures Committee will be in enforcing its deadline for receipt of information from this committee. If its deadline is 26 June, the committee cannot do anything with the information received before the summer recess. Perhaps we can submit our response after the deadline. It would be too great a burden on our clerks to expect them to produce it in the next 10 days. They are too polite to say anything, but I can confidently make that comment.

I think it would be appropriate for you to write to the Procedures Committee on behalf of this committee, indicating that we want to submit a response and why. It would then be for the Procedures Committee to decide how to accommodate that.

That is a good suggestion. We might make the briefest of comments in the letter and indicate that we are willing to supplement that with oral evidence in the autumn. We do not need to restrict what we say. If members would like me to speak on behalf of the committee when the time comes, I would be happy to do so.