Finance Committee, 05 Sep 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 5, 2000

Official Report 128KB pdf

---

Correspondence

The first item concerns the budget for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. A letter from Mr Gilfillan, dated 31 August, has been circulated with the papers that members have received. The revised figures are being discussed at the SPCB's meeting this morning and those figures will be available to the committee at our next meeting. If we agree to what has been suggested, that might not be for two weeks. I understand that officials are not available to give evidence to the committee on that date, so it is suggested that the date on which they will give evidence is 3 October. Are there any comments on that?

I intended to update the committee on the Holyrood project quite soon after the summer recess, possibly at this meeting. However, as the SPCB figures have not been released, I have decided to do so at the committee's next meeting.

I met the Auditor General, whose report is to come out on the same day as our next meeting, on 19 September—at least, he hopes that it will be released then. That will be a substantial report, which will address the management and the reasons for the cost increases in the Holyrood project so far. We should receive that report and digest it before we discuss the matter. I would, therefore, be happy if we returned to the SPCB on 3 October. I might then have something to say about the Holyrood project—I might produce a paper or something.

Thanks for that.

I take it that members are comfortable with the fact that the budgeting process agreement is not being met this year.

We will come to that.

We have failed to receive a provisional calculation of expenditure—but that is probably fair enough this year.

It is fair to say that we are not comfortable with that situation. The question is whether, in the first year, we are prepared to tolerate it, given the circumstances.

I agree. Because of the hiccups in the various projects, which we all experienced last year, the best thing that we can do is accept the situation and give a date by which we must receive the figures. However, we should lay down a proviso that all parts of the parliamentary system must conform to the budget process next year. Otherwise, our job cannot be done efficiently and effectively.

I am sure that that view is shared by the whole committee.

Do we want to invite the officials and appointed members of the SPCB to our next meeting but one, subject to the agreement of dates?

Members indicated agreement.

The second item on the agenda is similar to the first, and relates to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. Letters have been received from Patricia Ferguson, the convener of the commission, and from Mr Bill Magee, the secretary of Audit Scotland.

Keith Raffan is a member of the commission. Do you want to comment?

Not really. The letter speaks for itself. If colleagues have any questions, I will be happy to try to answer them.

Do you believe that Audit Scotland can deliver to the budget timetable next year?

We had problems this year, as members know, because of the gap between the available money and Audit Scotland's supposed requirements—let me rephrase that—and what Audit Scotland believed was required. Audit Scotland provided Robert Black with convincing evidence to suggest that it should receive that money, especially in its initial year.

Unlike other bodies that have undergone notable changes in the past couple of years—the Scottish Qualifications Authority comes to mind—Audit Scotland is being set up methodically and thoroughly. I would hope that it meets its deadlines next year. However, to be fair, it is the organisation's first year—one must give it a bit of latitude.

Is there anything else on that? Are we agreed that we accept the late arrival of figures for the SCPA for the first year?

Members indicated agreement.