The agenda has been circulated. Today, we will consider stage 1 of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Bill. We will first consider the general principles of the bill that are relevant to the committee. It is our role to report to the Audit Committee, which has been designated as the lead committee for the bill. It is not our role today to go into detailed discussion on alterations or amendments to the bill or to comment on the detail of the bill, as that can be done at stage 2. Formally, we have to say that having considered the general principles of the bill, we find nothing on which we wish to comment. We are in uncharted territory. I invite comment from members on the general principles of the bill.
We all accept the broad principles. We discussed in earlier meetings some of the points that were brought to our attention. There are some details that we will have to consider later, but at this stage we should put down a marker on written understandings and on the form of accounts. We all agree that there is a need for close dialogue—Jack McConnell, the Minister for Finance, is in favour of that. He has said that he will not legislate for the form of accounts. That will be more flexible. We should make it clear to him—as the convener has done in his correspondence—that there is a need for on-going dialogue.
Are you talking about the financial memorandum?
No, the policy memorandum.
Which page is that?
It is headed "policy memorandum" and sets out the policy objectives of the bill.
It is on page 1.
It clearly says that—put very simply—the bill sets out the manner in which the Parliament can examine the auditing, accounting and control of all funds paid out of the Scottish consolidated fund. My concern is that the bill should clarify the relationship between the Scotland Office, the Advocate General's office and the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Scottish consolidated fund falls out of the grant that is conferred on the Scottish Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can see no constitutional means for examining the basis on which the allocation is made.
That is an issue of the moment, in as much as there is the suggestion of increased expenditure from the Scotland Office, where that money comes from; as is whether we will have the chance to express a view on it. I note what you say. Does anyone want to comment on that matter before we decide what to do? Otherwise, I suggest that we write to the minister with those views and invite him to comment.
The minister's acceptance that the budget bill should be introduced by way of primary legislation is to be welcomed. In an earlier meeting, we largely came to the conclusion that we want the budget bill and any revisions in primary legislation. The feedback from external organisations with expertise in this area and the consideration that has been given to the matter by the minister suggest that a sensible position has been arrived at, which allows us to legislate for the budget but to have an efficient process of carrying out budget revisions.
We commented on that in our meeting with Jack McConnell prior to the recess. He is not just saying that secondary rather than primary legislation will be used, but that standing orders can be devised to allow for the curtailment of the process. If you remember, our main concern was the time that it would take. In terms of the wording, this should not just be about amending the standing orders. I suggest that we recommend the introduction of new standing orders, to provide a set time scale to meet the objectives of the committee that we outlined when we met in June.