Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Finance Committee, 14 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999


Contents


Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Convener:

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.

Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):

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.

Forgive me for raising my first point on the general principles of the bill in this forum, but it is important. The policy memorandum makes the point that the bill provides for financial control, accounts and audit matters—

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.

Andrew Wilson:

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.

In current circumstances, there is no problem because the Scottish Executive and the Government at Westminster are the same party. However, we need to take cognisance of the anomaly that exists, because I do not see any way in which the Scottish Parliament can express its view on the moneys that are passed down by the Secretary of State. At the moment, he retains funding merely for administrative matters, but there is nothing to stop him from retaining more.

Secondly, there are no clear means by which we can examine the efficiency of the Secretary of State's administration of his own funds. That remains a matter for Westminster. It is a serious anomaly. If we made known our views and asked the Executive for suggestions about the way in which such means could be set up, it would help promote a healthy relationship between the Parliament and Westminster.

The Convener:

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.

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):

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.

The committee will have a great deal to do with the process of budget revisions and examining secondary legislation. I assume that we will have a say in the consideration of secondary legislation in this area.

The Convener:

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.

I will discuss it with the clerk, but we are not sure whether we could get that suggestion through in time for the revision that is about to take place. In any case, it would not matter if it was delayed until next year's revision—which I understand is to take place in the spring—because the new procedures would not begin until next year's budget. The first budget revision of that year would not be until the autumn of 2000, by which time the new standing orders would have come into play anyway. I hope that I have not complicated things by the way in which I have described them, but it seems that we could get revised standing orders into place in time for the first budget revision, which they would affect.

With your approval, I will suggest to the Procedures Committee that the standing orders be amended or added to in a way that allows the time scale referred to by the minister to take effect.

Andrew mentioned the written understandings. We have been assured that a draft will be with us by stage 2. The bill is in line with the financial issues advisory group report, which we welcomed. With the exception of the matter that we have just discussed, is it the accepted view of the committee that we welcome the bill? Does anyone want to raise anything else on item 1 of the agenda before we go on to the financial memorandum? It seems not.