Finance Committee, 16 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999

Official Report 229KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Good morning. I call to order the eighth meeting of the Finance Committee. Members should ensure that all mobile phones are switched off and that all pagers are switched to vibrate.

This morning, I am pleased to welcome representatives of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body: Robert Brown MSP, who is an appointed member of the body; Paul Grice, clerk and chief executive of the Scottish Parliament; and Stewart Gilfillan, director of corporate services in the Parliament.

I know that time is limited, gentlemen, and that you have already delayed a meeting of the SPCB this morning to be here, for which we are grateful. I understand that Robert Brown has an opening statement to make.

Thank you, convener. The SPCB is very glad of the opportunity to give evidence to the Finance Committee. It might be helpful if I start by reminding the committee of the constitution and role of the SPCB, which, unlike most parliamentary committees, is a creature of primary statute.

The SPCB consists of five members, four of whom have been elected by the Parliament under the chairmanship of the fifth member, the Presiding Officer. Although the four elected members are from the four main parties in the chamber, their job is not to represent those parties. The SPCB is the legal entity that represents the Parliament as a whole; it owns property, employs staff and can sue or be sued on behalf of the Parliament. Accordingly, SPCB members act as trustees of the Parliament and are responsible to it.

In short, the SPCB has the sole responsibility for ensuring that Parliament has the property, the staff and the services that it needs, subject only to the Parliament's ability to give special or general directions to the SPCB in the exercise of the body's functions.

The Finance Committee's remit is to consider and report on proposals for public expenditure, including spending by the SPCB. On that basis, the SPCB has agreed to make available to the committee and the Executive a provisional expenditure plan a month in advance of stage 1 of the budget process, and more detailed expenditure proposals a month in advance of stage 2. The body has also agreed that SPCB members and relevant staff should give evidence—I have drawn the short straw today.

I understand that those arrangements will be set out in a formal agreement between the SPCB and the committee. The SPCB takes the view that the Finance Committee's consideration of the budget would most usefully be centred on strategic issues and the main areas of expenditure, rather than on the smaller details, which are mainly matters for the SPCB itself.

Although the officials will deal with the detailed aspects of the figures, I will make a few comments to set those figures in context. First, the SPCB budget, even including Holyrood, forms a tiny part of the whole Scottish block—somewhere around half a per cent.

Secondly, as Sir David Steel made clear in October when he was explaining the budget figures, it is widely acknowledged that the original provision set by the UK Government in March 1998 was pretty much a guesstimate. At that point, there was not much to go on. Nothing remotely akin to the Scottish Parliament had previously been set up and no one knew how it would work or what it would cost to run. The SPCB believes that Scotland requires a Parliament that is properly resourced with services, property and staff, albeit that that is provided with due regard to economy.

Before the request for a more realistic provision went to the Parliament in October, a small sub-group, consisting of Andrew Welsh MSP and me, met officials to go through the figures in some detail; we then reported back to the SPCB. As a result, a number of areas such as travel arrangements and stationery requirements are being re-examined with a view to making efficiency savings. That should allow the SPCB scope for manoeuvre in carrying out its functions as required.

That is all I want to say by way of introduction, convener. Paul Grice will say a few words about the appropriate budgeting and monitoring arrangements and Stewart Gilfillan will deal with more detailed questions about the finances.

Paul, I understand that you will speak about the supplementary estimate and next year's budget.

I am not sure whether you would prefer to deal with the wider issues first, convener. I do not want to say too much; with the time available, I would probably prefer to take questions from the committee. Shall I just say a few words now?

Please do.

Members will know that the most immediate issue was the supplementary estimate for the current year. As Robert Brown said, that figure was set about 18 months ago, before the consultative steering group report and before the Scotland Act 1998 completed its parliamentary passage.

One of the main assumptions underlying that estimate was that the Parliament would not actually get into its stride until about the autumn of its first year—in other words, about now. As a result, it was very much a part-year budget. However, to everyone's pleasant surprise, the Parliament hit the ground running and was operating at full-tilt before the summer. One of the reasons why expenditure is higher in the current year is because the Parliament has done close to a full year's work.

Expenditure is also higher because a number of other assumptions did not hold true. The estimate did not take account of the CSG's recommendations about the structure of committees. Bearing both that and the exercise undertaken by Robert Brown and Andrew Welsh in mind, the SPCB bid for a supplementary estimate of just more than £5 million for the current year, which seems right in the circumstances.

Next year's provision was set out by the then Scottish Office and was more accurate for a full year. We have rolled forward the current year's estimates and also taken into account any exceptional items that we have identified, which gives us our budget of £40.4 million for 2000-01.

At the moment, we are living in an uncertain world. Although I believe that the Parliament is working effectively, we are still feeling our way, as committee members will acknowledge. There are still tremendous pressures across the whole organisation—on the committees, the official report, facilities management and even the Holyrood building. The problem is not just the cost of the building; the staff resource of getting it designed and specified properly is creating enormous pressure.

We are, rightly, the servants of the rest of the Parliament. If, for example, the Parliament decided to extend its hours or to allow the Parliament and committees to meet simultaneously, that would have significant resource implications to which the SPCB and I—as senior official—would have to respond. In such circumstances, budgeting is not a science. However, we apply it with rigour and seek the best economy that we can.

I will leave my comments there. We would much prefer to answer the committee's questions.

Our thanks to Paul Grice and Robert Brown. In light of your remarks, we appreciate that the budget was necessary for the Parliament's first full year in operation and we are aware of the stresses and strains at the moment. I echo your view that, as we complete our first six months, things are working reasonably smoothly.

Committee members will now ask questions. We did not vote on the supplementary estimates last week because we knew that you were coming to see us today and I invite questions either on that issue or on general SPCB issues.

First, I congratulate Paul Grice and his staff on struggling through in the face of adversity. We all appreciate that the Parliament's early start has caused difficulties.

When the Minister for Finance was here a few weeks ago, he talked about an additional supplementary in the spring. Will the SPCB be seeking something from that? Furthermore, will there be any difficulties with the potential move-out during the Church of Scotland general assembly?

Although we will have to find extra resources for the move-out during the general assembly, those will largely be borne in the next financial year. Developments may occur between now and the spring supplementary being tabled; however, at the moment, we are reasonably confident that we will not need any more money in the current financial year.

I want to follow on from David Davidson's second point, although it was not the question that I was going to ask. When do you expect a decision to be made on whether we will be here, at the Royal High School of Edinburgh or somewhere else?

The bureau has been considering that matter weekly—and is considering it again this afternoon—and has been narrowing down the options. A final decision will probably not be taken this afternoon, as we will have to investigate carefully the available options. However, there might be a final decision within two or three weeks.

Mr Grice said that we hit the ground running—perhaps it was more a case of running before we could walk. However, that is now history.

In the CSG report, committees were expected to meet once a fortnight, which was always unrealistic. For example, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, of which I am a member, is meeting twice this week. Committees are sharing clerks, who are under huge pressure. What steps are being taken to increase staff to ensure that Mr Brown's intentions are fulfilled and that committees are properly resourced?

I am well aware of that issue from my attendance at the conveners group and from conversations with colleagues. Although I am very sensitive to those concerns and will respond to them, it is important that I do so across the organisation. It would be easy to throw another couple of clerks at the problem, if you will forgive the expression.

I will talk both to conveners and to the official report, clerking and other staff, build up a picture of where the pressure points are and submit a report to the SPCB. The solution might mean a step change in resources and involve a combination of staff and additional money. In the next two or three weeks, when I have built up that picture, I will take the matter to the conveners group.

We should remember that all committees are not the same. Although they are all under pressure, some are under the most intense pressure while others are just very busy. Any solution that we come up with needs to be sensitive to that and to understand where the knock-on pressures are. At the moment, the official report is perhaps under the most intense pressure. If putting more clerks into committees means that committees generate more work, that affects the official report and does not solve the problem.

I will take the matter to the conveners group and the SPCB and will invite that body to take a decision. In a sense, that comes back to David Davidson's point. The SPCB will need to assess any bid for additional resources against what is available. Although, like Stewart Gilfillan, I am reasonably confident that we can live with our budget this year, we need to consider the knock-on costs for next year.

This is a serious point. At Westminster—to use the big bogey word—select committees are separate from standing committees, which scrutinise legislation. Here, we have hybrid select and standing committees. Committees at Westminster are better resourced than ours and do not have the same constraints in terms of travelling outside. Do you agree that it is important that we do not suffer from such constraints?

I agree.

To what extent is the Holyrood building over budget at the moment?

The building is on programme and on budget.

So it is both on schedule and on budget.

Yes. However, my points about pressures also apply there. Understandably, members have many and varied views on what we might do down in Holyrood and the SPCB has an enormously difficult task in reconciling all those demands. Although, at the moment, the project is on budget, I will not underestimate the difficulties of remaining in that position.

I have spoken to several architects who have said that with such a major project—comparable, for example, with the extension to the National Museum of Scotland—the gap between planning and completion is usually nine years. We are trying to complete the project in a third of that time. Is that wise?

If you will forgive me, I think that that is a question for the politicians. Perhaps Robert would like to comment.

The SPCB and the Parliament inherited the project from the then Scottish Office, so decisions such as the fast-track approach and the site itself were made by our predecessors. We have to work within those constraints, following Parliament's vote on the matter.

As Keith Raffan has asked one of my questions, I will raise some other points. In his opening remarks, Mr Brown said that he and Andrew Welsh had carried out a review of a number of administration functions. There seems to be a pressure point on the administration side. For example, people in the allowances section have told me about a huge turnover in staff and a shortage of staff during the summer. Are some of those issues being addressed? Perhaps Robert can expand on his sub-group's findings.

One of the difficulties was the open-ended nature of some of the budgetary provision. For example, stationery costs are met by the Parliament; they are not part of the office allowance in the normal way. That open-ended budget has gone far beyond what people had originally anticipated, because of the work load that MSPs have taken on.

Similarly, travel and accommodation costs are open-ended. They are obviously necessary to enable MSPs to live in Edinburgh, but it is difficult to predict the requirements for such allowances over a full budget period. We are examining such matters as whether there are ways of bulk buying Edinburgh to Glasgow rail tickets, but I will not go into too much detail about those inquiries, as we are awaiting reports from officials. We need to see whether economies can be made without damaging the functions of the Parliament.

I take it that there is no thought of capping MSPs' allowances. If that happens, it would limit their ability to carry out their duties.

Some allowances are capped, of course.

I am talking about capping general allowances.

It is recognised that that is not possible. Nevertheless, there may be costs involved in occasional events in London, and the corporate body must take a view on the appropriateness of meeting such costs. We are trying to develop policy to enable us to deal with such demands in a reasonable and predictable fashion that will take account of budgetary implications. However, we do not intend to cap any allowances budgets.

I understand that there are problems with allowances staff. Are those problems being resolved?

I am sorry. What in particular are you referring to?

I am referring to the number and retention of staff. I understand that there is a fair churn rate of staff not staying on, so that temporary staff are being used to get through the work load.

You raise an important general point about behind-the-scenes administrative staff in procurement and in many other departments. We are not using a lot of temporary staff, but we are having problems attracting and retaining staff. That is a problem for the public sector in general, especially in Edinburgh, where the economy is buoyant.

We are considering ways of paying special allowances to certain staff, but members will appreciate that there are difficulties involved in paying too many such allowances across the board. That would hike up the entire pay bill, which has implications for the total budget.

Allowances, as members will know, is a high-pressure area. Day in, day out, allowances staff are trying to guide members through the maze of the allowances resolution and helping to resolve some difficult local issues. Having spoken to MSPs and to allowances staff, I am encouraged by the fact that, by and large, the process is successful. It usually comes to my notice only at times when the system is not working properly, but we are working hard to recruit in those areas and to provide senior management support. That is particularly true in the allowances department, where Stewart Gilfillan and I personally become involved in many issues.

We recognise that, until we have been round the course once or twice, there will be so many novel and difficult issues that we will just have to work them through. However, I sense that we are making progress with allowances. As members are probably aware, an interim consideration of the scheme is currently under way, examining where there are rough edges that may be knocked off to make the operation easier for members and more straightforward for staff.

I want to ask a brief follow-up question about staff retention. A month or so ago, a newspaper report claimed that there were real difficulties with security staff being trained and then leaving fairly quickly. The major reason for that, according to the article, was that the pay for security staff was extremely low. Is retention in that department still a problem and, regardless of whether it is, have pay levels been addressed as a result of that report?

We have had quite a high turnover among the security staff. There could be many reasons for that—pay may be one of them. We pay the same rate as the Scottish Executive does, and the whole package is reasonably attractive, with a non-contributory pension and quite long holidays. I recognise the fact that security staff are paid relatively low wages—that is something that we must examine. However, we must bear in mind the pay structure across the whole organisation. It is dangerous to tackle one department in isolation; we must consider the situation in the round.

In collaboration with the unions, we are currently negotiating a settlement ahead of the corporate body issuing contracts to all staff. Those negotiations should enable us to discover whether there are any specific measures that could be introduced to solve the problem that has been highlighted. Although there has been quite a turnover, we are just about up to complement on the security staff, and the calibre and commitment of those staff remain extremely high.

Whenever we notice high staff turnover, we should examine the situation to find out what is behind it. The expectations of some staff may be a factor. When we set up the Parliament staff, we had a huge response and it is inevitable that to some extent staff numbers fall away in some jobs. Nevertheless, I am confident that, as we work with the unions to offer permanent contracts of employment, our staff turnover will settle down. Already, it seems to have hit a plateau over the past month.

I return to the point that Robert Brown made about the fact that the proposed budget from the corporate body will come to the Finance Committee a month before stage 1. That is a welcome contribution to our debate. However, I am concerned about how we resolve the amounts in the budget for the Parliament. We have a fixed sum of money, from which the costs of the Parliament must be met, and I am concerned that we do not have the right mechanisms in place to give the Parliament what it wants. It would be easy for the Executive to apply pressure on the parliamentary budget to guarantee that it is contained within a certain limit.

The paper that you have circulated shows costs for the current year, for the next financial year and for the year after that. My interpretation of the figures is that you are assuming that we will reach our optimum level of operation in the next financial year and that that will then roll forward. I am concerned about that as a working assumption. I can understand why you have arrived at it, but I think that the committees will be determined to contribute arguments of substance to the formulation of policy within the Parliament. My experience so far leads me to believe that that function will undoubtedly be constrained by the resources that are available to the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is doing remarkably well given the limited resources at its disposal and the many calls on its time.

There ought to be a true and effective balance between the committee structure of the Parliament and its ability to compete in the debate with the Executive on the formulation of policy, given the resources that the Executive has at its disposal. However, I am concerned that the equipment and the process do not exist to enable Parliament to demand the resources that it requires.

As I said, the corporate body has taken a fairly robust view on that. We formed an efficiency savings group to discover whether efficiencies could be made. The corporate body was determined that the purpose of that investigation was not to make cuts, but to find out how the Parliament's requirements could be met more effectively. Officials have advised us that the budget figures are robust and will stand up to those requirements.

If the Parliament requires additional input, because of more committee meetings outside Edinburgh, for example, those things must be paid for from the budget. There is already some provision for that but, if there are significant increases in demand, we must look at the figures again. At the moment, given the anticipated follow-through next year, the present view is that a supplementary estimate will probably not be required, but we reserve the right to come back to Parliament if there are changes in the light of committee experience.

As Paul Grice said, the point that Keith Raffan made about additional support for committees is being taken on board. A report is coming back to the corporate body shortly on that matter and the committee of conveners will have an input into it. A decision will then be made on whether additional resources are required.

The only other thing that I want to point out is that the Parliament has been working even at semi-full stretch only since the end of August, when we resumed after the summer recess. Although we feel that the figures are firming up as we gain experience, there will still be an element of uncertainty about them until we have had the experience of a full year's running.

Do you think that the process is the right one to enable the Parliament and the corporate body to listen to all the views that are coming from the committees, away from the influence of party whips in the Parliament, and to take a dispassionate view about what Scottish democracy requires?

The setting up of the committee of conveners is a further leg in the process to represent the committees' requirements. That is a useful development that will allow the corporate body to have an input into discussions of what the committee conveners require. It will allow a more clear-cut accounting of the costs and a clearer view of how they can be accommodated and whether new resources are required.

When the Parliament was set up, a number of commitments were made to the Scottish people. One of those was that committees and parliamentarians would engage with communities outwith Edinburgh. What resources are there in the budget to allow that to happen? Given some of the media reports on issues such as the cost of the Parliament, does the corporate body feel constrained from making decisions that are in the best interests of the Parliament?

There is a balance to be struck at all times. Clearly, nobody wants the Parliament to run amok and have unnecessary expenditure all over the place. However, the corporate body is of the view that the Parliament should be properly resourced to do the kind of things that you have mentioned. I shall ask Paul to say a little more about how much has been allocated for those things.

When a committee travels out of Edinburgh, a range of costs is incurred—John Swinney has done this, whereas I am simply talking about it, so he is perhaps better placed to advise us. Cash is needed to hire premises, procure broadcasting equipment and arrange travel and subsistence. There are several pots for that in several different budgets, and Stewart will be able to give you more details about that.

There are also costs in terms of staff time, with staff being diverted from other jobs or working overtime. It is therefore not easy to give a precise answer. In the current year, however, there is quite generous provision, and the corporate body does not stand in the way of any committee that wants to meet outside Edinburgh. As you know, the Parliamentary Bureau has to approve every case, but it considers applications not from a value-for-money point of view, but from the angle of whether there are relevant local connections.

There is no overriding financial constraint for the current year. If a committee has a good reason for meeting outwith Edinburgh, that will be allowed. In setting our budget for next year, we will look at the experience of this year's visits. We have learned a tremendous amount from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting in Inverness, and I hope that we will get a better idea of the likely pattern of remote meetings for next year.

We will also have a better idea of costs. The committee of conveners was willing to consider innovative and imaginative ways of meeting outside Edinburgh. There can be full-blown meetings, like the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting in Inverness, but other committees have also sent small groups or individual members to informal meetings. That is a very cost-effective way of taking committee work outside Edinburgh, and I hope that, before a cast-iron budget is set for next year, we will be able to draw on more experience of remote committee meetings. I hope—I think that the corporate body would agree—that there will not be an artificial financial constraint on that aspect of committee work, bearing in mind Robert Brown's point about the need to strike a balance.

We must be aware of the time.

It is important that committees go out and about, because many areas in Scotland do not have access to the Parliament. I represent the Highlands and Islands and I know that many people up there would like some kind of access. Holding a committee meeting in the area would help to provide that.

I understand what you are saying about sending a couple of members from a committee, but it is important that people in more distant areas get to see most of the committee. Is there any other way of making savings, perhaps by cutting the number of support staff who travel with the committee, to allow that?

That is one of the options that we have considered, but we must strike a balance. We want to ensure that the Parliament fulfils its functions adequately and that committees are able to travel when it is appropriate to do so. Several sources must contribute to the decision about appropriateness.

If a committee decides to go out for an informal session, it does not need to take all the electronic equipment or the official reporters. If those two pieces of the jigsaw are not included, substantial savings can be made.

Yes. It is important that people have access, although not necessarily to a formal committee meeting. They need access to the members of the committee to get their views across and to be involved in the decision-making process.

On the other hand, it is sometimes appropriate for a committee to meet formally, and we are keen to encourage that. Again, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee was a good example. It was important for the committee to be seen to be doing it properly and formally.

I can assure members that whenever a committee meets outwith Edinburgh—in whatever form—we consider carefully every member of the support staff who goes. We ask tough questions; we hold discussions with the convener, through the clerk, to find out what is aspired to for the outside meeting. We think hard about the matter and we do not send people out of Edinburgh lightly. Apart from the cost, it is an extra drain on staff time. We are, however, willing and keen to facilitate outside meetings and we have evidence to suggest that that has already been a success.

We have run out of time and that is a problem because at least three other members want to put questions. I want to ask a question about the supplementary estimate and the budget.

We are happy to accommodate you.

If members can put questions that relate specifically to the estimated budget, we could ask you back for a discussion on general issues another time.

Absolutely.

I have two points. My first point relates to the terms of the budget and to the figures that you supplied. The capital figures over the three years from 1999 to 2002—you say that most of that cost is due to the Holyrood project and the new building—amount to what has been reported as the total cost of the Holyrood build. Does that mean that the cost of Holyrood is spread over those three years alone and will not spill over into 2002-03?

I think that the cost does spill over slightly. However, the main costs, which the Executive has already undertaken to meet out of its existing programmes, would be for works around the parliamentary complex. There may be a slight carry over, but the cost is principally contained in those three years. It is not inconceivable that there will be some spill over, but we will be well over the hump, so to speak, so it should be modest.

Most of the expenditure that falls in 2002-03 will be for associated landscaping works. The Executive has made a commitment, working through the local authority, Historic Scotland and others, to meet that cost. We will have to keep it under careful review. If there was any suggestion of significant slippage into years beyond the planning horizon, we would give you as much warning as possible.

I am encouraged that you are on course on both the budget and completion date.

My second point relates to Robert Brown's statement that the SPCB is happy to comment on strategic issues relating to areas of expenditure, but less happy to comment on the detail. The committee would want to reserve the right to decide on the level of detail. What did you have in mind? In the paper that you presented to us, general administration costs are broken down into several headings. I think that I am speaking on behalf of the committee when I say that we would consider those as legitimate areas on which to question you. Is that within the level of detail on which you thought that you would be questioned?

The view is that this is a broad approach. We accept that it is not possible to make a precise division between detail and broad principles. It is not the desire of the corporate body to obstruct the Finance Committee in any way. Ask reasonable questions and we will give you reasonable answers.

Fair enough.

Earlier on, Robert Brown said that the budget had been inherited. We have now heard that the budget needs a lot of tweaking and that many things should be taken into consideration. I appreciate that you are going for value for money. Following John Swinney's question, has the Executive given you any indication of constraints that it might place on the likely moneys that you may wish to bid for in the future?

I do not think that there has been any constraint on that. There has been no formal contact between the SPCB and the Executive on that matter. Obviously, there have been discussions between officials at various levels and Sir David Steel has had discussions with the Executive. Those discussions relate to the approach to the matter, rather than the detail. As far as I am aware—Paul might confirm this—no constraint has been imposed on the SPCB's budget.

There is a danger of our straying into your territory. It is not for the Executive to dictate to the Parliament its level of resources. We well understand that we are all operating from a finite pool; every pound that we take, it cannot have and vice versa. One reason why the corporate body was particularly keen to come and talk to the Finance Committee is that, subject to your views, this is the proper dialogue—the corporate body, the committee and ultimately the Parliament. However, we must have due regard for programmes across Scotland.

I do not think that there is any sense in which the corporate body accepts that the Executive has any sort of veto over SPCB resources. Perhaps that answers John Swinney's point.

I appreciate what are you saying about the fact that the original figure was very much a guesstimate, as Robert called it, and that you are working in unknown territory. I want to work out the range of that estimate. I assume that the capital is fairly predictable for all three years and that income will not change that much. Therefore, most of your guessing is on the current costs. According to the second table, staff pay, MSP accommodation and staff costs, and MSP pay are fixed, predictable costs. Am I wrong to assume that?

Those costs are not totally fixed. The MSP accommodation costs are capped, but that does not mean that people will spend the full amount. There is an element of uncertainty there.

What I mean is that those costs cannot rise, although they could fall. I am trying to get an idea of the amount by which the figures might vary. We are narrowing it down to the general administration costs and a couple of other areas. That is a budget block of roughly £10 million to £15 million, and so the budget might vary by a couple of million either way. Am I right in that assumption?

The parliamentary office, accommodation and staff costs are not entirely capped—travel and living accommodation costs are not capped—so there is an element of uncertainty about that. Patterns are beginning to emerge as we go along. As you rightly say, general administration is the other element about which there is uncertainty. That is the area relating to support structure and so on.

I am trying to get a feel for the extent to which the total budget will vary. Will it vary by £10 million, £20 million or £2 million? The variation seems to be quite small. I know that a variation of £1 million or £2 million is quite large, but in the context of the overall budget, is that roughly the amount by which your figures might be out?

I would think so. You said that you did not think that staff pay would vary. Staff pay is one of the areas that will vary if we respond to pressure for more staff to service committees. That is another area in which costs may rise. However, if you want me to say whether the variation in the budget is likely to be about £10 million, £5 million or £2 million, I would say that it would be about £2 million, or, I hope, much less.

I want to add a rider to that last point. There are potentially major shocks. I do not want to over-egg the pudding, but for example, if there were simultaneous meetings of the Parliament and of committees, that would have a huge impact. Whereas I can and do ask staff to work longer hours, they cannot work in two places at once. That would have a tremendous impact on the official report and on the clerks.

Major decisions that could be taken by the bureau, for perfectly legitimate reasons, would have a significant cost impact. If that sort of decision were taken, I would not be confident that the budget variation would be £2 million—it could be more.

Although we have worked hard on the budgets, there are certain decisions outwith the gift of the corporate body and the officials, to which we would have to respond. That would not be a question of an odd extra person here or there. It would require significant enhancements of the teams. If that is what the Parliament decides it wants, we are duty bound to respond.

Aside from that, I think that Stewart is right. However, I would not want the committee to leave with an overly confident impression.

To return to the move next May, can you tell us the time scale and the likely range of the cost? I do not want to pursue the matter too far, because I am on the bureau, but can you give us an idea of the range?

It will probably take three weeks. It partly depends on the contract that we make with the company that dismantles the equipment in the Assembly Hall. The faster we want the company to do it, the more it is likely to charge us—there is a certain trade-off. I think that we are talking about a few hundred thousand pounds, rather than millions.

We will ask the bureau to take many decisions about the level of service—broadcasting or official report and so on—which would have a significant impact on the cost. We could keep it relatively modest, but the judgment might be that if we are going outside Edinburgh, we should operate a similar service to the one that we have here. It may be that people feel that they can survive on the road with limited resources. There are one or two critical decisions that the bureau will be invited to make, which will have a significant impact on costs. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise. In a couple of weeks we might have clearer idea.

What about—

Sorry Keith, but I must cap that contribution.

I want to return to the point that I made earlier. Robert Brown said that the corporate body could not believe that the Executive had a veto on the corporate body's budget. Does the corporate body believe that the Executive has a veto on the formulation of its budget? For example, it is quite conceivable that the demands might increase and that the current costs could increase by £2 million to £4 million on a running basis. Is the corporate body able to say, "That is what Parliament wants and that is what Parliament will get"? What are the constraints on that?

I do not think that there are constraints of that sort on the corporate body. Ultimately, the corporate body is responsible to Parliament for the exercise of its functions. The Parliament can require the corporate body to spend £5 million extra to do certain things. Backed by—if I may say so—the robust view of the Finance Committee, which is normally expected to be on the cheeseparing end of the scale, the corporate body takes the view that the Parliament's function should be properly supported. That is how we approach business, with, at the same time, a due regard for economy and efficiency.

Thank you, gentlemen. We overran the scheduled time slightly. It is clear from the number of issues that have arisen that we would like to see you again, perhaps in a more general capacity. Before I close this part of the meeting, I thank you for your attendance.

Will you let us have a draft of an agreement between the SPCB and the Finance Committee for us to consider? That will allow us to set out the method under which we will operate in future.

That is currently being prepared.

We look forward to receiving it.

Will you allow the committee to consider the efficiency report, once it is complete, so that we can see whether we are getting value for money?

What is the status of that report?

It is a series of reports.

Yes, that is correct.

May I write to the convener with a summary of the conclusions? The efficiency report is not a single document—it is an on-going process that examines all sorts of areas. If the committee would find it helpful, I am sure that we could pull together a summary of conclusions, to give you an idea of the areas that the corporate body is examining and where it thinks economies might be made. Would that be helpful? As I said, it is not a report as such—it is an on-going process of challenge and scrutiny.

It is important for us to see it, so that we can judge value for money.

I am sure that a summary would be helpful. We look forward to receiving it and to seeing you again at some time in the not too distant future.

A number of members feel that we should have had a longer session on that subject. However, the session was tight because the SPCB meets at 10 o'clock every Tuesday and had delayed the start of its meeting today to accommodate this evidence session. If we want to meet with the SPCB again, we may have to consider changing either our meeting or the SPCB's meeting, to allow us a longer run.

I suggest that we do not discuss the matter further now and that we suspend the meeting for some 15 minutes. Coffee is about to be served and the evidence from Stephen Boyle and Brian Ashcroft is not due to start until 10.45 am. Therefore, I suggest that we suspend the meeting and resume at 10.45 am.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—