Members will be aware that item 7 relates to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill and the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. My note questions the value of the role that we are playing and asks whether that role might more usefully be passed on to the subject committees. I would like to hear comments on whether the sort of activity that we are undertaking today would most usefully be done by this committee. There might be some feeling that we should hold on to that power.
I agree with what the note is saying. However, if the subject committee, in considering the financial memorandum, felt that it was not properly covered in the budget, or had not been budgeted for, it might want to refer it to us for comment. I can see that it would be able to scrutinise the matter better than us, but if an issue came up, it could refer it back to us to consider.
We seem to have assumed that role—it is not set down anywhere. The question is whether we should have that role in future. For another committee to refer the matter to us would be perfectly acceptable, if it considered that to be appropriate.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying. We have a thoroughly unsatisfactory process at the moment, in that we are trying to make decisions without enough information and we are doing little more than rubber-stamping what the Presiding Officer has already done.
I take your point, but we do not officially have that remit to endorse. That is for the Parliament.
Why are we doing it at the moment?
We just drifted into it. It would seem to be the most obvious place for that to be referred to. It is not provided for in the standing orders.
I agree with Kenneth Macintosh. The same process that we operate for the budget as a whole should be used in this instance. Subject committees should be asked to comment on the decisions about where money will be found. If additional money is required, the matter should come back to this committee, which would decide where the money should be found.
Do you mean relationships with the subject committees?
Yes.
The memorandum is useful. The current situation is unsatisfactory, but I am loth to give up the power that the committee has. Kenneth Macintosh made a good point about working through the subject committees. I find some of the financial memorandums distinctly unhelpful. The memorandum attached to the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill says that it has not been possible to estimate the costs that would be incurred by the Administration in relation to the inclusion of the additional question. That is not helpful.
We do not have the power to ask committees to do that. This committee has assumed that role. A glitch might result from the fact that the subject committees have already expressed concern about how they will fit the budget process into their programmes of work. They must do that, however, but they might not welcome the fact that they might also have to consider financial memorandums. I have not spoken to any members of other committees about that, but some concern was expressed at the conveners group, in particular regarding this year's budget.
I, too, found your note helpful.
That is what was done in regard to the budget, and the reaction to it was as I said. If the subject committees are to be involved, it would make sense to do as you suggest.
This harks back to a discussion that we had at one of the committee's earliest meetings. When I seek to promote the Scottish Parliament to people outside the Parliament, I mention the fact that bills have attached to them detailed assessments of costs to the private sector, to local government, to the voluntary sector and so on. Such attachments are very good, but that practice has not always been used. Is that due to the fact that the financial issues advisory group's recommendations are being met only in spirit? As Keith Raffan pointed out, there is no assessment of financial implications in the two accompanying documents to which we have referred. We can make representations to try to ensure that the documents that accompany any bill include a proper stab at such an assessment.
We need not make a decision today—there is no urgency.
Subject committees have more relevant information that would allow them to rubber-stamp bills. They will know about financial implications of bills through their processes of scrutiny.
I disagree. It is important that we establish a process and a routine. It is not a huge burden on a committee to indicate to us that there is a problem. The form could be kept simple so that it does not involve a lot of extra paperwork.
That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The decisions should relate to the people who have to meet that expenditure. If it is a local government issue, the Local Government Committee should ask whether local government will have to meet the cost from within its funds or from other funds that will be made available. If it is felt to be appropriate, the committee should have a debate with the people who will have to meet the expenditure. The same applies to health: if a matter is being passed to a health board to absorb, the Health and Community Care Committee should say that there will be no additional money.
There seems to be general agreement that the subject committees should play a greater role in the process.
If the subject committees play a greater role, we should ensure that they have the tools with which to work. Nothing in this or in any other bill gives us that ability. I believe that we have discussed this before. If Sarah Davidson advises us who drafts the policy memorandums, we could ask that the format and the detail be more robust. At the moment, no one can make decisions on the basis of those documents.
We can do that. I assume that we would talk to the appropriate officials in whichever department the bill comes from.
The clerk could investigate the extent of the responsibility of someone who produces a bill to include a clear financial statement in the policy memorandum. I thought that the standing orders hinted that an indication of the cost of a bill was obligatory.
From my personal experience of organising a member's bill, I can say that there is a requirement to include an indication of the cost. If there are financial implications, the bill is put on an entirely different footing.
If that is the case, why is the Executive exempt from that requirement?
It is not exempt from the requirement.
Previous
Accounting Policies