Official Report 193KB pdf
As we agreed not to take item 4 in private, we now move to consideration of the draft report on the budget process 2002-03. We are fortunate in having had two reporters—Elaine Murray and Stewart Stevenson—to develop the draft report in conjunction with the clerks. I offer them the chance to speak to the draft paper if they would like to do so.
First, I thank Mark Brough for his very considerable assistance to our authorship. He did much of the work, but it is just a fact of life that his name does not appear at the bottom as a reporter.
Would you care to add to that, Elaine?
I do not have much to add other than that I, too, thank Mark Brough for producing the report. He managed to produce it after an hour of Stewart Stevenson and me waffling on at him, so he did very well.
I should point out that we must report to the Finance Committee on this matter by tomorrow. Any changes that we need to make to our report must be suggested now.
I propose no change to the substance of the report, but I would like to reinforce the points that Elaine Murray made. In my view, the most important bullet point in the conclusions is the last of the five. In presentational terms, it is unfortunate that that point appears on the last page of the report, which means that it might not be noticed immediately by someone reading the report. I refer to the point that Elaine Murray has just made and which we made last year too. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development recognises that the Executive needs to develop robust methods for measuring the impact of Executive spending in rural Scotland. That is the most important point that we make in the report. Is there any way of ensuring that that point is not lost on its own on the last page of the report?
I may or may not agree with what Mike Rumbles says, but the report will form part of the Finance Committee's report and the pagination may change somewhat. We do not have any control over that. Is the member suggesting that we make the point to which he referred our No 1 conclusion?
I am not suggesting that. However, if there is any way of ensuring that the conclusions are held together, that would be helpful.
Do members have any ideas for how that might be done? We could write to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to flag up the point.
The minister well understands the issue. The point that I am making is purely presentational. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to pull together the report's conclusions on the same page.
So you are asking that in our report to the Finance Committee our conclusions be drawn together on the same page, if possible.
Yes, please.
That is noted.
I understand that the Finance Committee asks us to report on gender issues in the budget. I know that Elaine Smith asked about that and that it is impossible to report on those issues in the rural development budget. In our report we should indicate that we asked about gender issues but were unable to consider them because the relevant information was not available.
Are members happy that that point should be incorporated into our report?
I regret that I was ill for the meeting at which Elaine Smith asked her question and that I have not perused the Official Report of that meeting as thoroughly as I should have.
I asked the Minister for Environment and Rural Development why the budget was decreasing. He replied that it took into consideration forthcoming European programmes, which depended on uptake and applications for funding. The Executive foresaw that that money might not be applied for in the same quantities as it had been previously. The minister said that the budget figure was a guesstimate at best. The actual figure could be higher or lower than that, depending on uptake.
That is very useful.
That highlights the point that was made about the departmental expenditure limit and annually managed expenditure. Annually managed expenditure is demand driven. As demand arises within the rural development portfolio, money will be drawn in from Europe and elsewhere. That is almost not part of the budget that we have to consider. The budget that we must consider is the departmental expenditure limit. However, it is entirely proper that annually managed expenditure should be shown as it is spent on behalf of rural development.
As no other member wishes to comment on the report and everyone is happy, I, too, congratulate Mark Brough on his work. One or two small changes have been suggested, but the report will go forward to the Finance Committee tomorrow to be part of its report.
You should remember that the committee is not in private session.
Thank you, Mr Rumbles—I am aware of that.
At a previous meeting of the Rural Development Committee, I was appointed as a reporter on sea cage fish farming. Nothing much has happened since then.
No.
I thank John Farquhar Munro for bringing up the issue, but we are constricted by procedure. The subject is not on the agenda and we should not talk about it. It is on next week's agenda, with a question mark. John may want to draw up a short written report for next week's meeting.
A short report by John Farquhar Munro that outlines what he has said today and what he sees as the way forward would be useful. At this stage, I would not want anything else.
I agree. We could briefly consider it next week if we survive that long.
Meeting closed at 15:42.