Members will recall the discussions that we had in December on the draft agreement between the SPCB and the committee. I invite questions on the draft. In my opinion, paragraph 9 is the only one that causes concern. It is worded rather tendentiously and I think that it should be loosened, as it seems to go too far in favour of the SPCB.
I agree. My main concern, as I have said before, is that the Finance Committee should, if not sign off, at least express some view on, the SPCB budget in advance of the Executive budget. How does the date of 1 March relate to the Executive's plans? The concern was the possibility of a bun fight between the SPCB and the Executive. If we go through the SPCB budget in advance, that would be very helpful.
I am concerned about paragraph 9 too. We ask the Executive for level 2 or even level 3 figures, but we seem to be getting only level 1 figures from the SPCB—we cannot let it off with that.
I agree. I cannot agree to the phrase
If it were the Executive, we would be pinning it down.
In fairness, we made some of those points when Robert Brown gave evidence. None the less, the paragraph seems to be too tightly drawn.
Does the SPCB produce monthly management accounts?
I do not know.
It would be very useful if they could be circulated to us. We could then add an item to our agenda and deal with it in committee if necessary. We must be seen to have much more of a watching brief.
That might be a matter for the Audit Committee. Presumably the SPCB is subject to the Audit Committee—it is obviously trying not to be subject to anybody.
I do not disagree about the Audit Committee's role, but that is a matter for that committee.
I do not think that it is a matter for the Audit Committee, the remit of which is to consider National Audit Office reports.
Yes.
How far in advance?
One month.
Will we get a redraft of paragraph 9?
Yes. We are saying that comments such as
I suggest that we delete from the comma in line four after, "submitting expenditure plans" to the end and insert, "provide the maximum amount of detail available." I see no reason for the rest of it.
Do you also want to delete, "concentrate on the strategic level"?
Yes. What does it mean? The paragraph would then read: "The SPCB will, in submitting expenditure plans, provide the maximum information available". We are trying to be helpful to it.
Just take the rest out.
Yes. What is the point?
I agree—it is outrageous, quite frankly. The SPCB has to trust us.
I suspect that it will not accept that rewording, but we may get a rewording that is more acceptable to us.
I am not entirely convinced about that wording. I see what Andrew is getting at, but saying "the maximum information available" could result in us being given rather more detail than we would want.
Also, the word "available" is rather subjective, is it not?
In submitting its expenditure plans, the SPCB should provide the same type of information that the committee demands of the Executive.
Perhaps the SPCB should be made more aware that we are trying to prevent conflict. It is better if any details come before us.
Why is the paragraph drafted like that? What is the reasoning behind it?
I can only speculate that the SPCB wants to keep as much information to itself as it can.
It was not a negotiated document.
Who wrote it?
The SPCB.
It is from the SPCB, following on from the evidence that it gave. In fairness, paragraph 9 very much reflects what Robert Brown said when he spoke to us. Andrew's proposal—or John's, if we are taking it one step further and asking for the same information that we expect the Executive to provide—will be our response to this. I suspect that the SPCB will say that our suggested rewording is not acceptable and that we will arrive at a wording that is a bit better than this.
We should make it clear, in the gentlest and most supportive way possible, that if £16 billion is being spent in Scotland, we want to be able to scrutinise every penny of it in the same fashion. If we impose a certain standard on the Executive, we must impose the same standard on the SPCB. I would like to impose the same standard on the slice of the consolidated fund that goes to the Secretary of State for Scotland, although that is another issue. If the SPCB wants the support of this committee in its legitimate parliamentary work—and I am all for that—we must be reassured that we are acting in a way that is fair to the Executive as well.
We will say to the SPCB that we expect the same information from it as we do from the Executive and await its response.
There is a risk that a dramatic cutback in the budget will produce a Parliament complex that is unworkable. We have to be sensitive to the SPCB and say, "Look, it may well be that you have to spend to save in the long term. You have to consider the maintenance and so on." As Richard Simpson said, it needs us as an ally.
It will be clear from reading the report of this meeting that we are putting forward such a suggestion.
We will all have constituents who write to us, demanding information about, for example, the cost of the Holyrood building project. I have received a number of letters from constituents, raising legitimate concerns on that subject. I want information that I can use to reassure my constituents that such issues have been properly considered.
It works both ways. For example, I have received letters saying: "What is this about using Chinese granite? It is a disgrace. We must have Scottish granite in our Scottish Parliament." It would cost a bit more, but our job as our constituents' ally should be to support them and to say that if there is to be any granite in the building, it should be Scottish.
We could always recall the Scottish granite that built the Houses of Parliament.
I have to tell you gently, convener, that that will not do you any favours. [Laughter.]
We have arrived at a fairly clear position, and we will see what the SPCB says in response.
Next
Deputy Convener