The committee will now return to agenda item 4, on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which we did not manage to reach earlier. Members will have noted that the financial memorandum begins on page 29 of the explanatory notes. There is not a great deal on additional costs—the new housing partnership appears to be the main issue. Do members wish to comment?
The financial memorandum makes it clear that the bill is substantial and has significant implications for the budgets of the Executive, local authorities and others. As with the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill, no attempt has been made to indicate the scope of the costs.
We could seek that information. I draw members' attention to the fact that the Minister for Social Justice, Jackie Baillie, will give evidence on the bill to the Social Justice Committee on 14 February. If members have any questions, they might avail themselves of the opportunity of joining that meeting. I intend to do that, because I have been following the bill rather closely. Some members could write to the Social Justice Committee and try to arrange for the required information to emerge when the minister gives evidence. I am not clear about what Andrew Wilson is suggesting. Should we invite the minister or her officials to give evidence, or can we deal with your query in writing?
It was not a precedent, but the response that we received to our request for information on the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill was full and first class. If we received something along the same lines—taking into account the fact that ranges are to be provided, as with the graduate endowment—that would be adequate. If an official gave evidence to supplement the document, that would be great, but I am not fussed about that. I simply want guidance about the potential implications.
Perhaps we could ask for written information. When we receive that, we can consider whether we want to ask more questions. I am pretty sure that we will get what we need in writing.
The issue has been discussed several times and ministers have made several suggestions. Could we suggest to ministers that they review how some of the information is presented, especially as we were extremely happy with the information that we eventually received on the graduate endowment? We could ask them to consider the issue and make some progress for all future bills.
That is becoming a well-worn record. Every time that we see a financial memorandum, we say the same thing, yet we seem no nearer to divesting ourselves of the responsibility. We can make a pretty firm case.
I agree. The issue has arisen time and again. Many open-ended commitments appear without any descriptions. We ought to have a written agreement with the relevant minister, because if another committee inherits the work, it will be in the same position as us. We have a duty, throughout the budget process, to ensure that the other committees can work easily within the structure.
Do not forget that we will keep an eye on the accompanying documents in the future. If we get our way, we will pass formal responsibility to the subject committee, but we will retain the right to call in any document that we feel is worthy of scrutiny.
Do we know what progress is being made to pass consideration to subject committees?
The issue is still active. A working group, of which Callum Thomson is a member, is still considering it.
The working group is due to have another meeting tomorrow, at which we hope to discuss possible wordings for the revisions to standing orders. Things are moving, but not as quickly as the committee would like them to.
We will seek information, as Andrew Wilson suggested, and place the item on next week's agenda, when we can evaluate the information that we have received.
Meeting continued in private until 12:23.