| (a) | We consider that there should no longer be a requirement that motions on days set aside for the consideration of expenditure plans be linked to the Estimates themselves. Instead, the select committee seeking the debate should be free to propose a motion to the Liaison Committee, which would determine which motions should be tabled. Many of these motions might refer to Departmental plans or reports, rather than the Estimates themselves. (paragraph 25)
|
| | |
| (b) | The principle of the financial initiative of the crown rightly precludes motions recommending increases to the Estimates themselves. However, we consider that when motions are directed to future plans, motions recommending that 'in the opinion of the House' increases in expenditure or transfers between certain budgets are desirable, should be permissible. (paragraph 27)
|
| | |
| (c) | In making its choice of report and motion the Liaison Committee should have regard to an order of priority of select committee reports, which depends on the degree to which they affect government financial proposals. (paragraph 31)
|
| | |
| (d) | We recommend that "Estimates Days" should never be used for or substituted by debates on the adjournment. Our aim is to make debates, and possibly votes, on substantive motions on the Government's financial plans part of the normal working of the House, not a matter of confidence. The more often such debates are held, the more likely is this to be achieved. (paragraph 32)
|
| | |
| (e) | We recommend that there should continue to be three days on the floor of the House allotted for debate on expenditure, linked to a committee report. (paragraph 33)
|
| | |
| (f) | If a committee produced a critical report on a Supplementary Estimate, we would expect that Estimate to be formally considered if the committee wished and the Liaison Committee agreed, although the Liaison Committee could decide half a day's debate would be adequate. In other cases, we do not see why debates on financial plans should necessarily be linked to the approval of Supplementary Estimates. (paragraph 36)
|
| | |
| (g) | We recommend that it should be possible to take at least two of the days allotted to examination of the Estimates and associated financial documents as half days. (paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| (h) | We recommend one further reform. At present, when Estimates are considered under Standing Order No. 54, votes are deferred until ten o'clock, whatever time the debate on the Estimates set down for consideration may end. We consider that votes should be taken immediately after the conclusion of debate on the relevant Estimate or motion related to a department's financial plans. (paragraph 39)
|
| | |
| (i) | Given that, almost without exception, committees do in fact undertake some examination of their department's annual report, we do not believe that a formal referral of Estimates to committees would present them with too great a burden. (paragraph 45)
|
| | |
| (j) | We propose that a Standing Order should provide that, when laid, the Main Estimates should automatically be referred to the relevant select committee, together with the relevant departmental plan and, later in the year, the departmental report. (paragraph 46)
|
| | |
| (k) | There is no point in referring the Estimates if committees are not required to report back to the House, however briefly. We recommend that committees should, at the minimum, produce a short report to the effect that "the Committee has examined the Departmental plans and the Estimates and has no comment to make". (paragraph 47)
|
| | |
| (l) | If the Estimates and associated documents are automatically referred, the Government should be under an obligation to wait for a committee's report before the Estimates are voted. (paragraph 48)
|
| | |
| (m) | We recommend that, to ensure that the Government can be confident that the financial cycle will not be delayed by committees' dilatoriness, Standing Orders should provide that the committee concerned should report within sixty days of the documents being referred. (paragraph 48)
|
| | |
| (n) | The Treasury has told us that the rules for Resource Accounting and Budgeting will provide for Supplementary Estimates to contain explanatory notes explaining why the department concerned has needed to change its expenditure plans. We regard this as vital, if committees are properly to consider the Supplementary Estimates. We consider that such explanations should be given to the relevant committees as early in the process as possible and, at the latest, at the same time as the proof of the Estimate concerned. (paragraph 50)
|
| | |
| (o) | We consider that some extra resources, in the form of high quality and well qualified staff, will be needed if committees are to be expected to undertake more work on the Government's financial plans. In principle, each committee could appoint Specialist Advisers to examine the financial material available. We would not wish to prevent any committee from doing so. But this would not be enough. The Estimates cover the whole of Government expenditure, department by department, and, as many of our witnesses asserted, there is a need for some overview. (paragraph 52)
|
| | |
| (p) | Whether the House chooses to have a specialist panel of advisers on call, a free standing "Estimates Office", or to give extra responsibility to the Treasury Committee, we note that the Comptroller and Auditor General has indicated he would be happy to second NAO staff to the House to assist in the examination of the Estimates. We consider that such staff would be excellently qualified to provide the House with the expertise required. (paragraph 53)
|
| | |
| (q) | We welcome the fact that the departmental plan will include the detailed Resource Estimate for the forthcoming year and will set out the department's plans in the context of comparative data for the current year. This close association of plan and Estimate should be helpful. (paragraph 56)
|
| | |
| (r) | The experience of the simplified Estimates and the introduction of departmental reports has shown that changes to documentation can have unexpected procedural side effects. (paragraph 57)
|
| | |
| (s) | We recommend that the House should be robust in ensuring that the new forms for the Estimates, and associated financial documents, meet its needs. (paragraph 57)
|
