Finance Committee, 31 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000

Official Report 176KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2001-02

The fourth item on the agenda is consideration of the budget process 2001-02. Members have received a report from the clerks containing information about the visit to Aberdeen, which has now been confirmed for Monday 20 November, and an update from the reporter groups. I do not think that the clerks have anything to add to the report. In due course, members will be offered options for travel and accommodation arrangements; it will be up to individual members to decide whether they want to travel on Sunday or Monday morning.

I stress that there will be a morning session, which all members should attend; I do not want members saying that they will come for only the afternoon session, when we will take evidence from the Minister for Finance. Members should attend both sessions. Indeed, we should aim to maximise the attendance at the meeting, as this is the committee's first visit furth of Edinburgh and the first time that a Scottish Executive minister will give evidence to a parliamentary committee outwith Edinburgh. Do members have comments on any aspects of the report?

This is an important occasion; the meeting will also be the first time that a full parliamentary committee has met in Aberdeen and I know that the city is looking forward to seeing everyone.

I should mention that it is considerably easier to travel from Edinburgh to Aberdeen than from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, and it is possible to arrive in Aberdeen first thing in the morning.

That is not a bid to meet permanently in Aberdeen, is it?

Not at all, convener.

I assume that it was the outgoing Minister for Finance who agreed to give evidence to the committee.

It was indeed Jack McConnell who did so, but it is reasonable to assume that the new Minister for Finance and Local Government, Angus MacKay, will take over the Minister for Finance's diary. We had to wait some time for space to be cleared in the minister's diary for a meeting with the committee, so it would be an understatement to say that it would be a severe disappointment if that appointment were not respected—I am sure that it will be.

I feel a summons coming on.

I have been reminded by the clerk that we should address the question of the information that we have to examine stage 2 of the current process. We had understood that level III figures would be available, but that is not the case. Members will have noticed that the two spending announcements that were made before the October recess on justice and on transport and the environment were at level II. It seems that we will not receive level III figures. The committee has to consider how we should proceed. If we accept that we do not have level III figures because this is the first full year of the process and the Executive departments are not fully up to speed, we might be being too magnanimous. Although there has been a comprehensive spending review, it was announced as long ago as the first or second week of July. If we cannot have level III figures for stage 2 consideration in a CSR year, we will not have such figures every second year. I hope that the committee will agree that that is not satisfactory.

We have to consider what we will do about getting level III information. It seems that we cannot get it this year because the necessary work has not, or could not, be done at departmental level. Do we want to make it clear that it is our definite expectation that level III figures will be available for stage 2 of the process, as we had understood that they would be, and that steps will be taken to ensure that they are?

What progress have you made with the Executive over the past few months, convener? The time in which the committees can do their work and submit a report to us has been squashed into about a week. That begins to raise the question whether the budget process as it has evolved will be a feasible operation, allowing people enough time to scrutinise everything, take evidence if necessary and have proper debate. The committee accepted that there were difficulties in the first year but, if the problem is on-going, we ought to find out whether the Executive is comfortable with the process. If the Executive cannot meet the demands of the budget process, we will need to take advice from the financial issues advisory group or a similar body on what we should do in future. Will we need to opt for a simplified version of the budget process?

I take on board the points that you make. We cannot accept that the current timetable cannot be met. The budget process cannot be stretched, as by definition it extends over a year. We have a review under way, and we can examine the matter again after the reporter groups have completed their consideration. The work has to be done at departmental level. We should get the level II figures from the finance department and the individual departments should be told to provide us with level III information. The departments need to carry out forward planning to enable us to have those figures. If that means that the departments' timetables are a bit tight in a CSR year, that is fine, as they have room for movement—we have a year and no more in which to deal with the budget process.

I echo David Davidson's concern. It is worrying for us all that what happened last year could, for different reasons, happen again this year. The onus is on us to stipulate that we would be extremely concerned if we did not receive level III figures from the Executive.

In many ways, the Finance Committee has to be a driving force. I am aware of the difficulty that the Executive faces; I am also aware of the fact that committees are finding it extremely difficult to find the time to consider the budget process. However, somebody must drive this along, and the Finance Committee is the only body that can do that.

If we allow two years to pass, with deadlines—such as the SPCB's, the Executive's and the committees'—slipping, the process will fail fundamentally. We must address this matter now and alert the Executive and our colleagues to our worries, perhaps through the conveners liaison group or by writing to the other committees.

Fine. I am happy to consider that. It seems that we need action on a departmental level. That means dealing with the committees, which have the right to ask for information. Some of the committees have said that they have not received sufficient information to do the job; others have said that they do not have sufficient time to do the job. Those are distinct issues. Committees must learn to schedule stages 1 and 2 of the budget process in their programme for the year. The Finance Committee should also ask the First Minister to ensure that the various departments come up with level III information for future years.

I agree with Ken Macintosh's suggestion, although I think that, rather than putting the matter on the CLG's agenda, I should write to the conveners of the relevant committees, asking them to highlight their need to receive the information in future years.

Will you also raise the general issue with the Executive?

Yes. I shall write to the First Minister saying that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive to provide that information and that it is incumbent on him to ensure that his ministers tell the various departments that they must provide the information.

My understanding is that the problem has arisen because money that is going into the comprehensive spending review has not yet been allocated at level III. One assumes that money has been allocated, because the Executive needs to know where money is going. Could we be provided with at least draft level III figures, which would include money that had already been allocated and an amount of unallocated funding that we could follow through the process? Getting nothing at all to work on makes our task difficult.

The subject committees have to report to us by 10 November—the end of next week. Even if the figures that you suggest could be made available—and I do not know whether that is possible—the committees would not have received them in sufficient time to consider them. We must ensure that this problem does not arise again; our review will undoubtedly contain some pretty strong words on the matter.

I shall take the action that has been suggested. I shall write to the First Minister and committee conveners, alerting them to the problems and saying that we expect something to be done about them in future.