The last item on our agenda is our work programme for next year. Members will have received a copy of the proposals. The suggestion is that we move to fortnightly meetings. The only point that I want to make relates to the week after the spring recess, for which no meeting is scheduled. If we do not meet that week, we will not meet for more than a month. Given that we will not have met in the week immediately prior to the recess, I do not understand why a meeting is not scheduled for the first week after the recess.
The committee office has placed committees on a two-week rota. Provisionally, the Finance Committee is on the second week of the rota. That means that we would not meet in the first week after the spring recess.
I understand that, but I am not happy about it. Perhaps I have misread the paper—I said that we would not have met in the week prior to the recess.
We will meet in the week prior to the recess, on 13 February.
One of the dates given in the paper is wrong—it should read 6 March, rather than 3 March.
The fundamental question is, why are we moving to meetings once a fortnight?
That will be the pattern in future. The conveners group has discussed moving to a pattern of fortnightly meetings. That pattern will not be absolutely firm, but the committee office will schedule a programme of meetings that fits in with it. That does not mean that we cannot meet between scheduled meetings. If committees need to fill in the gaps to deal with legislation or other matters, they are at liberty to do so—subject to accommodation being available.
Most of our programme relates to the inquiry into resource accounting and budgeting. There are other things on the stocks that we need to do. I suggest that this might be a good time to conduct some of the more substantial inquiries that have been proposed, because we do not have much on.
Was the decision to move to fortnightly meetings made by the conveners or by the Parliamentary Bureau? The issue was not raised in last week's debate on committee restructuring—if it had been, the result of that debate might have been different. To the extent that the proposal introduces an element of greater flexibility, it is quite a good thing. I might not be a member of the committee next year but, if I were, I would be concerned about the Finance Committee meeting only fortnightly during stages 1 and 2 of the budget, when the committee will receive reports from other committees.
That is a fair point. The conveners came up with the idea of fortnightly meetings. I am not aware of the Parliamentary Bureau having been involved, or even of its having a view on the proposal. I do not imagine that the bureau would be greatly concerned either way. The conveners reached their decision on the basis of their experience of how committees have operated in the first year and a half of Parliament.
This committee's business has been better managed than that of some others. The work loads of some committees have got ridiculously out of hand. I know of one committee—with which the convener may also be familiar—that has sometimes ended up meeting twice a week.
For those who are not aware of it, Keith Raffan is referring to what will shortly become the social justice committee—the deputy convener of the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee made that very point at the conveners group meeting. She did not feel that the social justice committee could get by on fortnightly meetings. My experience would endorse that view.
If we consider the programme of work that we have carried out during the past year, although the public seem to think that we have only met once a fortnight, we have had a meeting on most Tuesday mornings. I am concerned that, if we give up the Tuesday morning slot, it will be filled by some other being. Either that, or we will simply not have the appropriate facility.
That is a reasonable proviso, and my understanding of the situation is the same. As convener, I would not want it any other way. I do not think that anything else is intended. We will accept the work plan—which will stand for the first three months of next year—for the moment but, at a meeting early in the new year, we will consider whether we wish to get involved in any other issues.
What are the implications of the decision? Does it affect rudimentary matters, such as the booking of rooms? Unless I am in a minority of one on this, I would rather commence another inquiry, or at least fill the committee's time with something. There are things that we can do to add to the process. I am not comfortable with the work plan—I would rather be doing things, to be honest. We are holding back a number of the inquiries that we had suggested. There is no slot in the programme, for example, for reporting on the budget process inquiry in which we are involved at present. There are other things to do. To put it frankly, I would rather that the committee met every week.
Speaking absolutely personally, I share that view, particularly in view of the fact that members will generally now be on one committee rather than two, following committee restructuring.
That is fine, convener.
If Andrew Wilson is asking whether we should commit ourselves now to the dates on the programme, I would say no. We will fill many of the gaps, but our main programme will be based on a fortnightly cycle.
What is the deadline for the report on the budget process? I presume that it comes before we embark on the whole business again in April and that we have a deadline at the end of March.
I do not think that we have a deadline, but Keith Raffan is right to identify that that is effectively a self-imposed deadline. We could consider that and get a report on the matter at our first January meeting, which would therefore put it on the agenda for 16 January.
There is nothing else on the agenda, but I wish to do two things before closing the meeting. First—I do this perhaps a little prematurely but, the way things work out, I am probably not too far out of line—I thank those committee members for whom this will almost certainly be the last Finance Committee meeting. I do not think that I am out of line in mentioning that Rhoda Grant, Ken Macintosh, Keith Raffan and George Lyon—George is not here today—are moving on to other committees. I thank them for their contribution during the past year and a half. It has been an important 18-month period, which has been informative, not only for this committee, but for the development of the Parliament's budget process. Everybody has played a part in that and, although we are by no means at the end of the process, we can be proud of the way in which the committee has operated and shaped that process. I thank all members for their contributions, and I wish them good luck and success in their new challenges.
And a merry Christmas to you, convener.
Meeting closed at 11:06.
Previous
Budget Process