Rural Development Committee, 02 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Official Report 281KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2002-03

Let us move on rapidly. Members have received papers—I know that they will have read them. The note explains how the committee might deal with the Executive's budget proposals. The minister's reply to our stage 1 report and a briefing note from the Scottish Parliament information centre on how the figures in the revised allocation compare with those in the original plans are included in the papers. We also have a private briefing from the Finance Committee, which includes an annexe detailing the Executive's revised allocation of spending; the plans have changed substantially since we considered the first draft at stage 1.

It might be helpful to point out that paragraph 10 of the clerk's note should help us to focus our thoughts. We have to determine the main points to be pursued or to take up with the minister on 23 October, which is our first meeting after the recess. We have scheduled a private briefing that morning with David Dalgetty, who has previously endeavoured to make plain to us that which is not.

We should take up the suggestion, made in paragraph 10 of the briefing note, of taking evidence from the minister. We should do that before we make our stage 2 report. The Finance Committee has invited us to pursue the issues that we identified in stage 1. In our stage 1 report, we identified that the share of rural affairs expenditure, when compared with other departments, has declined. The minister has commented on that and we should pursue that.

At stage 1, the minister said in evidence that he felt he could not renegotiate the environment and rural affairs department's share of budget with the Cabinet. In the light of subsequent and recent developments, he might be prepared to reconsider that. I would like the opportunity to ask him about that. Pursuant to that point, we find in Tom Edwards' useful paper for the Scottish Parliament information centre the revelation of Angus MacKay's announcement of the £66.8 million underspend in the environment and rural affairs portfolios. The money is to be carried forward to the next financial year, but Tom Edwards is not able to say, as he does not know, how the £66.8 million underspend is to be divided between environment and rural affairs. If a large chunk of money came into the rural affairs budget, it would have a significant, and possibly beneficial, impact. I would like to have further information on that, so that we are better able to deal with the stage 2 report.

The SPICe paper shows that the current realignment process in the environment and rural affairs department has led to a cut of £6 million. That cut was made partly to find the extra money for care of the elderly, McCrone and so on, which many of us support. The SPICe paper shows that the £6 million cut was made by a reduction in crofting grants and loans and a cut in the funding of the agricultural and biological research institutes. We took evidence from the institutes at stage 1. It might be beneficial to follow up on how decisions were taken in the realignment process on which budget lines were to be cut.

Are members content that those are the two main lines of questioning that we want to put to the minister? We hope that he is free to come on 23 October; approaches have been made to get him to come on that day.

Members indicated agreement.