Financial Scrutiny Inquiry
Agenda item 3 concerns our financial scrutiny inquiry, on which a paper has just been circulated to members. I will speak to the paper, as members have not had a great deal of time to read it.
Members will be familiar with the fact that we intend our next significant inquiry to be on the financial impact of amendments to bills, with a particular interest in those aspects of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 that involve moving to mainstreaming.
The clerks have prepared a paper about our remit, our relationship with the Procedures Committee and the inquiry's timing. The timing is important, because there have been developments since the committee last considered the issue. It will be useful if I point out that I have met the conveners of the Procedures Committee and the Finance Committee to map out what areas the various committees might be responsible for.
The conveners felt that in regard to the procedures for finance and how bills progress it is most appropriate that the Finance Committee has undertaken a great deal of work on that and is continuing to do so. The Procedures Committee is the committee where changes to how the Parliament and its committees operate are considered and therefore any suggestions or recommendations about changes to our procedures would come from that committee. Taking that into account, it was believed that the Audit Committee could be most helpful in looking at procedure during the passage of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, specifically in relation to the amendments that brought about changes to the bill that had financial implications—amendment 113 in particular, which was lodged by the Executive at stage 2. We would draw some conclusions and possibly make some recommendations and we would give those to the Procedures Committee, which could incorporate them into its inquiry into the Parliament's procedures.
Since that discussion there has been some movement by the Procedures Committee in that it has decided to complete its inquiry by the summer, which is a little sooner than we had initially anticipated. As members will see, that is very important for the timing of our investigation.
The clerks have drafted a remit for the inquiry; it is outlined in committee paper AU/S2/04/02/1, which members have before them. It seeks to outline the area that we will look into in respect of how the amendments to the bill were considered and the cost implications of the amendments. We would consider whether the practices and procedures that were in place were sufficient for members to give full consideration to the cost implications, or whether procedures were lacking.
As I said, the role of the Procedures Committee would be to consider our report and produce some suggestions. We would call for written evidence and, following that, we could then consider calling for oral evidence. It may be that at that stage we may want to take oral evidence from some people who were involved in the scrutiny of the bill at stage 2.
It was flagged up in our initial discussions that it might be useful if we were able to have some comparative information about what happens in other legislatures at the stage when amendments that have financial implications are lodged. Considering how other legislatures treat that procedure might give us an idea as to whether it was the case that a lack of evidence or a lack of information contributed to members not being able to see the financial implications of the amendment.
It would still be for the Procedures Committee to make any recommendations. Any research that we did would be passed on to the Procedures Committee and shared with them. However, because of the decision by the Procedures Committee to change the timing of its inquiry and move quite quickly, it is clear that if we were to commission external research, the schedule would be very tight; it may be too difficult to obtain the research on such a tight time scale.
The paper outlines that if we were to commission external research, rather than ask the Scottish Parliament information centre what it can pull together, we would have to seek agreement at the next Conveners Group meeting on 26 February and put out to tender a contract that would give the consultants a month to pull the research together. I do not know how familiar members are with external research, but that would be fairly quick; a good deal more time is usually given. It may be that members feel that that is asking too much or they may feel that we should test the market and see whether there are consultants that could produce the research in time. I am interested in members' views.
If we decide to go down the external research route and nobody comes forward, we would have to ask SPICe to look at the issue. If we decide not to go down the external research route, I suggest that we would look for SPICe to do the research anyway. I seek members' views on that matter. A detailed explanation of the tender process is in the paper.
I invite comments from members on the remit and the research issues, because those are most germane to what we can decide today.
I am slightly confused in that when we discussed the issue originally my understanding was that it was probably more something for the Finance Committee, but obviously you had a discussion with the convener of that committee. The paper states:
"Since then the focus of the Committee's interest has narrowed to concentrate on the consideration of cost bearing amendments in relation to the passage of the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act".
I do not remember that decision being taken. My understanding was that the discussion between this committee and the Finance Committee was on the broader issues and that any research would have been to examine how often there had been mismatch and how that had arisen. I had no understanding that we were going to be looking in detail at the Auditor General's report "Moving to mainstream: The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools".
The whole reason for the inquiry is that that report drew attention to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. We decided not to examine the overall issues in the sense of what is happening out in the schools. We decided that what we should look at—because it was drawn to our attention by the Auditor General's report—is whether there was sufficient information for members to have made a decision.
My discussions with the convener of the Finance Committee established that that committee is particularly jealous of its interests in relation to the actions that it has taken since the Auditor General drafted his report, the changes that have been made and the fact that it is keen to make further changes. When I reported back to the Audit Committee previously, it was purely to suggest that we should therefore consider what happened at stage 2 of the bill that subsequently became the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. It is a minuted decision that we stated that we would consider that aspect so that we could say, in relation to the Auditor General's comments in his report, what happened at stage 2. That may be of use to the Procedures Committee when it discusses whether changes to procedures should be made. There was no intention of going beyond what happened at stage 2 of the bill.
The paper is certainly helpful, because it provides further information; up until now there has been a lack of information. Having read it, I feel that my view is clear. The issue is a fundamental one for the Procedures Committee, in order that it can consider how bills progress through the various stages of the parliamentary process and examine what procedures should be put in place to overcome the issues that have been identified with regard to the passage of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill.
Having come to that view and having considered the other points in the paper, I believe that were we to undertake the inquiry the schedule would be far too tight to include within it a proper piece of research. We should perhaps say to the Procedures Committee that we will not be involved in that. Given that the Procedures Committee has set the timetable, it is for that committee to have that research done.
I hear what Margaret Jamieson says, but it does not really matter which committee does the research, as long as it is done, because we are trying to resolve a problem—one that arose through a difficulty in procedures. Before I relinquish ownership, I want clarification that the Procedures Committee will consider the matter from the perspective that we would want. Some research would be beneficial, but it would be fairly limited. It would amount only to some letters or phone calls to a small number of people here or there. All that we need to know is whether there are checks and balances to ensure that financial implications do not rocket.
My only worry about the Procedures Committee is that it might be less specific than we would be, and much too general. There may be an argument for our having a specific look at the bill that rocketed and then adding that research to the general research of the Procedures Committee.
Originally, when we looked at Audit Scotland's report on mainstreaming, the issue that leapt out of the page was how on earth legislation was passed without the huge financial impact being recognised. It clearly was not recognised as the bill went through committee procedures.
What I want—just as I did when we first discussed this—is reassurance that what happened will be looked into in some detail and appropriate measures taken to alter the procedures of the Parliament to ensure that it can never happen again. This paper from the clerks leads me to ask how we can achieve that and what the Audit Committee's role will be. The clerks have made it clear that this inquiry would be quite different from
"the Committee's normal scrutiny of whether public funds have been spent with due propriety, economy, efficiency and effectiveness."
There seems to be a complete overlap between what we are proposing to do and what the Procedures Committee and Finance Committee are already doing. Like Kenny MacAskill, I want a categorical assurance from the Procedures Committee that, if we relinquish this piece of work, we will get a cast-iron guarantee that it will investigate the matter properly and come up with recommendations to ensure that it does not happen again. I hope that the committee will agree that we should write to the Procedures Committee and get that assurance. If we get it, I will certainly be happy to allow the Procedures Committee to deal with this, because it is, after all, a procedural matter. The paper makes that quite clear. The Audit Committee's role is to sound the alarm bells about how the situation arose, but it is not up to us then to sort out the procedures. That is for the Procedures Committee.
We must be assured that the matter will be looked into in detail by the Procedures Committee and the Finance Committee, which has a role because it scrutinises the financial memorandums that accompany bills. Only once we have that assurance will I be prepared to pass the investigation over to those committees.
It might be useful if I go back to the discussions that I have had with the conveners of the Finance Committee and the Procedures Committee and try to answer your points—not speaking for those conveners but interpreting what they have said to me.
The idea of doing research came from this committee during previous discussions. We have no commitment to do research and there is no statement from the Procedures Committee that it wants research to be done. Any research will be purely up to us. We may want to ask SPICe to consider whether any useful information can be gathered, or we may want to commission further research. At our initial discussion, there seemed to be adequate time for research. That door now seems to be only ajar, rather than fully open.
Members seem to be asking whether this committee has any role in the matter at all. The Procedures Committee has a lot to look at and I cannot guarantee that it will give this issue the priority that members of this committee might want it to receive.
On the effect that procedures have on amendments at stage 2—be they from a committee, members of the Parliament or the Executive—our purpose, as we have discussed, was simply to consider what happened and to relay our evidence. When it comes to making changes, the Procedures Committee can then take that evidence on board.
We should not be sidetracked by the research issue. If we want to make this issue an important one on the probity and prudence of how we conduct our affairs in relation to their financial implications, the best way to achieve that would be to produce our own report and give it to the Procedures Committee. If the Procedures Committee receives a report from us, it will have to give that report due recognition. If we produce a report, we will give the issue a priority that leaving this to the Procedures Committee alone would not. It is important that we do some work on this, but I am not by any means saying that we must commission research in order to do that. The Official Report offers enough written evidence of what happened. Having considered that evidence, I think that it might be worth asking a minister or an official along to explain what the thinking was. We will need to tease out the best way of taking oral evidence.
You seem to be giving us a choice between commissioning our own research and asking SPICe to produce something for us.
If we want research.
Could we ask SPICe to produce a report, at the end of which it could say whether it felt that any further research was necessary? We could then proceed to commission research to fill that gap.
If we believe that external research is needed—and I sense from members that it is not—we would have to agree on that today because time is so short. We cannot wait.
We have a busy agenda so, before I let George Lyon back in, I would say that I want to bring this item to a close.
I do not think that this lies within our remit. There is a correlation with individual learning accounts; in that situation, we got a report from the Auditor General, we got accountable officers in, and we demanded changes. We wanted reassurance that the department would introduce the new ILAs and meet all our concerns. What we did not do was commission research and then say to people, "This is how you fix ILAs."
In this case, we have had a report from the Auditor General and we have flagged up our genuine concerns. It is now up to the Procedures Committee—which, after all, is dedicated full-time to dealing with the procedures of the Parliament—to go away and listen to our criticisms. I am sorry to say it, but if the Procedures Committee does not respond to what we want, we will go public and criticise that committee.
Is that a proposal? At the moment, the position of the committee is that we will conduct an inquiry. We have discussed that. If the committee is now minded that we should not conduct an inquiry into what happened at the amendment stage of the bill, it strikes me that, if we want the issue to receive the priority that I think we want it to receive, we will have to take some other form of action. Do you propose that we write to the Procedures Committee to suggest that the timing is such that it would be difficult for us to conduct the type of inquiry that we want to?
We want a cast-iron guarantee from the Procedures Committee that it will carry out its own inquiry and that we can be assured that it will deal with the matter to our satisfaction. This committee has a huge work programme. Given that the Procedures Committee is dedicated to looking at procedures, it is not ridiculous to ask it to do that and to come back to us when the work has been completed. We can judge then whether that committee has satisfied our concerns.
I understand where George Lyon is coming from, but I am more hesitant. The Procedures Committee will look at the situation from a generalist point of view, predicated on the interests of business managers. We are looking at the financial results from a specialist point of view. Given that both committees are trying to work in the best interests of the Parliament, a brief piece of comparative research by SPICe would enable us to pass our perspective on to the Procedures Committee—rather than imposing it on the Parliament—because that committee's perspective is not the same as ours. If the Procedures Committee chose not to accept our perspective, we would need to go public, but I think that it might welcome some input because it will be looking at an array of other matters from a different perspective.
I support that suggestion. It could be fitted into our programme. It is just a question of considering a SPICe report and deciding whether to pass it on to the Procedures Committee. There is no doubt that we would pass it to that committee for its further consideration, with some recommendations attached to it.
We have a report from the convener on what the Finance Committee is doing, but that committee takes the view that it has looked at the matter. It feels that it has considered the issues and implications of what the Auditor General's report said. We are getting to the overkill stage.
The Finance Committee does not intend to look at the financial scrutiny aspect. When the report came out and our response was that we were interested in that particular aspect, the Finance Committee acknowledged that. That committee has looked at issues of financial memoranda as well as making some other changes, but it has not taken up the financial scrutiny aspect of the report. We would have to reconvene a meeting of conveners to work out where we are going with the issue if we do not proceed along the lines that we agreed previously.
What about my proposal?
Yes, we have a proposal from George Lyon that, instead of holding an inquiry into the matter, we should draft a letter to the Procedures Committee to say that we wish it to take up the financial scrutiny aspect. If we were to ask a committee to give us guarantees, it would probably be received with raised eyebrows, so all that we can do is to ask it to take up the issue and explain what priority we think that it should receive. Kenny MacAskill has given his view, but do others wish to comment before I seek to resolve the matter?
I do not know whether I missed the relevant committee meeting so perhaps I am culpable, but I certainly had a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the committee in relation to that work. I support asking the Procedures Committee to undertake it.
Okay. Am I right in sensing that, were we to go ahead with the work, we would not undertake the research? Given the timing, the research would not be commissioned. That being the case, and given the divergence of views on the line that we should take, the timing becomes less problematic. It would be possible for me, therefore, to meet the Procedures Committee convener to ascertain what that committee is willing to do, to explain our concerns and to find out whether that committee is willing to take them up—those proposals will be in the Official Report because we are in open session. I will then report back to our committee so that we can take a final decision about whether we or the Procedures Committee should take up the financial scrutiny aspect.
That will do fine and I will speak to the Procedures Committee convener as well.
Everybody is free to speak to him. I will arrange that meeting and then report back.