Finance Committee, 24 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002

Official Report 111KB pdf

---

Financial Scrutiny Review

It is some time since we monitored the progress of our review of financial scrutiny arrangements. The clerk and Murray McVicar of the Scottish Parliament research and information group have put together an update that sets out the state of play of the review. The paper details the various initiatives that are under way, each of which is designed to improve the level and quality of the scrutiny in which we are involved. Although a lot of work has been put into the review and immediate gains have been secured, there is still quite a bit to do.

The paper seeks our input to various items and asks us to consider what long-term work may be undertaken. Once the individual strands of the review are complete and their effects known, the committee may want to consider a more fundamental review of the three-stage process, for example.

I suggest that we add a reference to the work that Arthur Midwinter has done with the budget advisers to other committees on dealing with stages 1 and 2 of the budget process. That work has been very helpful to the subject committees and to the Finance Committee. For the sake of completeness, it would be useful for us to document that work in a future version of the paper, which summarises the changes that we have made to the budget process.

This year I have sat in on meetings of one other committee. The role of the advisers to other committees could be enhanced if at the beginning of the process they received an informal briefing from the Finance Committee and Arthur Midwinter. Many advisers sit silently through meetings, even although one senses that they would like to say something. It might be better for advisers to make their comments at the beginning of meetings, during the informal briefings that they give in order to prepare members. Perhaps that refinement could be built into the process. I know that it would mean an extra meeting for the Finance Committee, but it could ensure that the thinking of the Finance Committee is translated through to the work of the subject committees.

I have met privately most of the advisers before they attend committee meetings. I suspect that the phenomenon that David Davidson describes is a consequence more of some advisers' lack of experience than of the current arrangements. Members are always on their side of the table, so they might not realise that advisers can find attending a committee meeting for the first time an intimidating experience. Several advisers phone me regularly about issues that are due to come before them.

Perhaps we should take up David Davidson's suggestion. If the suggestion is worthwhile, the advisers will want to continue holding meetings of the sort that have been proposed. Some advisers are very worried before attending their first committee meeting.

We may want to consider whether such briefings would be better held informally or formally; we might get more out of them in an informal context.

Some of the budget advisers are building relationships with the relevant subject committees. It is likely that they will be called on to perform the same function in subsequent years. That will allow them to build up expertise in, and understanding of, the process, which could be very helpful.

I am not criticising any of the advisers. My suggestion was aimed at refining the process.

The paper gathers together different strands of work that we have set in train over the past seven or eight months. It shows that the process of refining financial scrutiny is well under way. Significant changes are being made in the way in which the Parliament works. The document is very valuable.