Draft Budget Scrutiny 2014-15
Agenda item 2 is scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2014-15. I am delighted to say that Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, is still with us, having already spoken in the meeting. I welcome Richard Lochhead and his officials: Jonathan Pryce, director, rural and environment; Linda Rosborough, director, Marine Scotland; and Colin Cook, deputy director, digital strategy and programmes. Is he here? Yes, he is—in the shadows but no doubt in the limelight very soon.
I will begin the questioning, and members will then ask questions on points of interest, as arranged. How was the performance of indicators in the national performance framework that are relevant to the rural affairs and environment budget taken into account in deciding the Scottish Government’s overall draft budget for 2014-15?
Thank you, convener, and good morning again to the committee. I am just taking a few seconds to compose myself and recover after being asked to discuss modulation with no notice at 9.30 in the morning. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here before you to discuss the budget.
You have started by asking what is a good big-picture question as we look at the overall performance of the Scottish Government and how we link our performance indicators to our budget decisions. The committee will recall that, back in 2007, the Scottish Government’s new approach was to have a national performance framework and use that to guide us in terms of the outcomes that we want to achieve for Scotland in the coming years.
Clearly, there are some performance indicators for my portfolios that show improvement, such as waste statistics; there are other indicators that show that existing performance is being maintained; and of course there are some indicators that show worsening performance. We have a number of environmental performance indicators, such as the abundance of terrestrial breeding birds and the number of fish stocks for which the catch limit is consistent with scientific advice.
I pay attention to the performance indicators when looking at our budgets. Because of the very tough financial situation that we are in, we have, unfortunately, not had the opportunity to make big changes to our budgets. Clearly, I would like to devote a lot more resource to some budget headings and address some indicators for which we have concerns, but I simply do not have the budgets available to do that and neither does the Scottish Government, because of the cuts that we are receiving at the moment from Westminster, as you will know. That said, it is important that I pay attention to the indicators.
We must understand the reasons why some indicators are changing. For example, if there is a decline in the breeding of terrestrial birds, we must understand the reasons for that and the extent to which changing the budgets would influence it. We have some species of bird whose populations are in decline, which has largely been put down to weather conditions, climate change and perhaps the availability of food, particularly in the case of seabirds. I take those performance indicators into account in making policy, so we now have the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and we are going to have marine protected areas. A big debate is taking place now on the extent to which a marine protected area should play a role in protecting bird populations. I am engaged in that debate, particularly with our non-governmental organisations and RSPB Scotland, as well as others. In terms of the budgets, Marine Scotland clearly has a big role to play. Over the past few years, its budgets have had to take into account the fact that we now have a marine act in Scotland, and a lot of scientific work is being undertaken to ensure that we are underpinning where the MPAs are located using good scientific evidence. I take such things into account.
In your budget areas, what do you think your best performance has been against your performance indicators? In the part of the budget that you control, are there any really outstanding items that we should tell the world about?
Okay—I will take up the next five hours discussing the various successes in my portfolios.
Well, just the highlights.
I have to look at the broad picture that is facing rural Scotland. A number of sectors are improving, and I would like to think that our budget allocations and Government policy are playing a role in that. A great deal more resource is going into a project that aims to reduce fish discards and put in place sustainable fisheries. As I said before, Marine Scotland has played a big role in that project, and many trials are now being undertaken of measures such as discard reduction projects and selectivity of fishing gear.
In terms of stand-out budgets, the food and drink budget that we established for the first time a few years ago has made a significant difference. A food and drink revolution is taking place in Scotland just now, not only in exports overseas, which are breaking all records, but in the domestic consumption of our own larder. We are undertaking many initiatives in food policy to promote Scotland’s larder, as well as schemes such as the think local initiative.
We are supporting local food projects around the country so that people can access local food networks and celebrate local food and drink in their own communities, and those are proving to be very worth while. Food education is another aspect that we are funding through our food and drink budgets for the first time. Those budgets are relatively new—they were established in the past few years—but they are paying big dividends, given the success of Scotland’s food and drink industry.
During the past few years, we have protected and maintained the innovative climate challenge fund that was established a few years ago, despite the difficult budget situation. Engaging with communities to encourage them to reduce their carbon footprint has been a successful road to go down—it has had cross-party support, and is a highlight in the portfolio.
I could talk for a long time, but there are two or three relatively new budget areas that I feel are paying dividends.
Excellent—thank you.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Can you highlight the ways in which the links between the national performance framework—as it develops and is reviewed, including the next review—and the budget might be strengthened so that they become as transparent as possible? At the moment, those links are quite opaque.
Yes, it is a learning process. As I said before, we are trying to link national performance to our budgets and their effectiveness, which is a new way of trying to achieve transparency. We are transparent, in that we publish the performance indicators so that the public and Parliament can look at them and hold the Government to account if certain areas are failing or there is a downward trend.
The performance indicators relate not only to budget decisions but to policy. The indicator on fish stocks shows a worsening performance, but the catch limit is consistent with scientific advice. The current well-documented international dispute over the mackerel stock means that our stock is not being fished within the internationally agreed management regime, and I am told that the mackerel stock accounts for 40 per cent of the indicator. That is a policy issue; it is not necessarily about changing the budget allocation but getting the international dispute resolved, as that is important.
In a wider sense, I am considering how we build carbon reduction measures into agricultural policy, because I am looking at the performance indicators with regard to Scotland’s carbon footprint and the role that agriculture plays in producing emissions. In addition we have the climate change targets, so we have devoted some resource from our agriculture budget in the past few years to try to engage all farms in Scotland in the farming for a better climate initiative.
I like to think that the performance indicators play a role, but I do not have a simple answer to Claudia Beamish’s question, because linking the performance indicators directly to our budget decisions is a learning process.
09:45
There are ways in which the link between the budget and the outcomes could be more transparent for us, because it is the job of committees to try and see what is happening as a trend, and we often find it difficult to do that. Can you suggest ways in which we could do that more easily, so that we can link one budget with the next?
It strikes me that you are highlighting a good issue and it would be useful to have your views, because I am keen to be as transparent as possible in linking back our budget decisions to the national performance indicators. I have given some examples of how those indicators are taken into account, and that is why we think that they are important, but we want that to be a style of government not just for our Administration but forevermore, so that all Governments link their budget decisions to national performance. If you have ideas for how that can be more transparent and better achieved, I certainly have an open mind.
One thing that I could give a commitment to look at is how we present the information under budget headings alongside the relevant indicators. There might be an opportunity to do that, and I would be willing to take that away and come back to the committee with some ideas on how it could be achieved.
Thank you very much. We turn now to rural broadband issues.
Although the evidence that we received last week on rural broadband was quite positive, we were advised that achieving 95 per cent superfast broadband coverage by 2018 would require the allocation of additional sums to the project. Do you accept that assertion? If so, how much do you think will be needed and where might that money come from?
It is heartening that we are now discussing rural broadband at committee sessions, because a few years ago it was not high enough up the agenda, and from a rural development perspective I have been keen, as the cabinet secretary, to push rural broadband much further up the agenda. The Scottish Government does not have responsibility for regulating broadband—as the committee will be aware, the issue is reserved to the United Kingdom Government—but we are quite far behind other countries in terms of rural connectivity, so I welcome the fact that the issue is higher up the agenda now. The Scottish Government is keen to step in with Scottish resources to ensure that we do all that we can to connect our more remote and rural communities to the 21st century.
There is now evidence of people leaving rural communities to live in urban areas due to a lack of connectivity. Although we have had traditional conversations about people leaving rural communities because of lack of access to higher education, affordable housing or employment, there is now an added factor, because poor digital connectivity can also lead to rural depopulation. Some rural research that I have seen in the past year or so is starting to show evidence of that, and it should concern us all.
That is why the Scottish Government is focusing on rural broadband and why we have a community broadband fund, to which Graeme Dey has referred. That is to help those communities that are far behind and need to take a big leap forward to find their own solutions. There are some pioneering projects across the country, including one in my constituency at Glenlivet and Tomintoul, which we hope will benefit from community broadband.
On the funding that needs to be made available, across the whole of government, £280 million has been allocated overall, which includes contributions from local government, the UK Government, European funds and enterprise funds as well as from the Scottish Government. It is very much a partnership approach. We have also had further consequentials from the UK Government in recent months, which currently sit with the infrastructure budgets—not my budget, although that may change as we are at the draft budget stage just now. You may have noticed that the budget heading line actually goes down from £40.8 million to £33.8 million. That is because the consequentials have not been added on to the 2014-15 draft budget yet, but there is actually an overall increase in the budget for rural broadband.
I am happy to bring in Colin Cook, who is our expert on digital broadband. It is very handy that he is here, as he can comment on how we estimate what resource is required to address the gap in rural broadband.
Colin Cook (Scottish Government)
I will emerge from the shadows, if I am still in them.
In evidence to the committee, our partner and contractor on the next-generation step change fund—BT—expressed confidence that we would hit the target. It based that on its experience in Cornwall and elsewhere. I repeat that from my side of the table.
We have in place a team that has delivered the contract on time to date—it has negotiated it to the agreed timetable. We have huge and enthusiastic continuing support from local government. The money that local authorities have made available is important, but so is the support that they can provide on planning issues, which can delay such projects. Gavin Stevenson spoke enthusiastically about that to the committee.
We are confident that we can achieve the 95 per cent objective by the end of 2017-18. That said, current projections indicate that some regions of the country and some local authority areas will be beneath that target. That is why we continue to lobby and argue for more money. The biggest issue remains in the Highlands and Islands, which Alex Paterson talked about last week, where the percentage coverage will probably be somewhere in the low 80s by 2017-18. We are lobbying for more resources to try to deal with that.
When you talk about lobbying for more resources, are you talking about going to Europe or to the United Kingdom Government for them? What sort of additional resources will be required?
There are two ways of going at it: we can extend the current contract that we have with BT—we will look to do that where it makes sense—and we can provide additional funding for community broadband Scotland so that it can facilitate more communities.
The Chancellor for the Exchequer announced that an additional £250 million was being made available for broadband throughout the UK over the next few years, and we are lobbying to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of that. Our cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, is making the case that Scotland needs to be included in that.
We also look to lever future European funds for investment in rural broadband. Local government is supporting that. There is a European regional development fund contribution of around £20 million to the current step change project. We look to increase that in future.
BT suggests that 85 per cent of premises will be covered by the end of 2015-16 and 95 per cent by the end of 2017-18. Is there a map showing which areas will not be covered?
Yes. A high-level map will be published on our website within the next two weeks. A last checking process, if I can call it that, is taking place at the moment—I think that the committee covered that last week—and will carry on for the next couple of months. Once we get to January and the basis of the delivery schedule is agreed with BT, we will be extremely open about it and, on the digital Scotland pages on the Scottish Government website, people will be able to put their postcode into a checker, which will tell them when they are likely to get access to next-generation broadband under the current plan.
We will be completely open once we have data that is totally reliable.
I wonder if I can go past what is being talked about—forgive me, because this is not really about this year’s budget. We would expect to get mains electricity in every household in Scotland, but at what point will we make the conceptual step change that everybody really should have access to broadband? At what point will somebody think about how we close the gap between the 90-whatever per cent and 100 per cent—or get close enough to 100 per cent that broadband is seen as normal?
One of the reasons why we are keen on the community broadband Scotland approach is that it offers a way to tailor solutions to communities that might not be covered by the wider contracts. We have begun that process with the budget that is in place. There are a number of pioneer projects—one has been funded in Applecross, and I referred to another earlier—that will consider satellite and other solutions. Scotland suffers from that gap because of past policies—largely at the UK level, it must be said. We are trying to plug that through the new approach and additional resource.
However, there is a further gap that needs to be plugged, as parts of Scotland will not benefit from even the new approach because of their specific circumstances. Community broadband Scotland was created to try to plug that specific gap, and as a Government we are keen for it to be a success. We will have to build on it to make sure that it is a success and that we get the whole of Scotland covered. We want the whole of Scotland to be on a level playing field. This is not just about ensuring that everyone in Scotland has the same rights; it is about creating jobs and economic benefit. Broadband will help our rural economy greatly, which is why it is really important.
During last week’s oral evidence session, the committee heard that the £5 million for community broadband Scotland is the maximum allowed under European Union state aid rules. What is your understanding of the position?
I will bring in Colin Cook to answer in a minute, but my understanding is that there is not necessarily a limit on what can go into community broadband Scotland, but there is a limit on how many times the same community can be funded from different funds under state aid rules. If a community was going to benefit from the large contract that has been rolled out across the Highlands and Islands, it could not also benefit from community broadband Scotland. That is my understanding, but I ask Colin Cook to confirm it.
That is absolutely the case. Community broadband Scotland is a vehicle for facilitating community action. We have not sought an umbrella state aid notification or agreement for its actions; we approach state aid on a case-by-case basis. The projects that we are talking about are relatively small in financial terms. They typically require support of £20,000 to £80,000. We can continue to take that approach. I am not sure where the notion of the cap came from, because we take a case-by-case approach to getting state aid clearance where we need it.
I want to pursue the issue. The cabinet secretary referred to communities. In my constituency, fibre will pass through Milton of Kildary, and people who live in Lamington, which is about 3 miles up the hill, are asking whether they are in the same community. Is there a recognition that there is no way that those people will get a signal through the existing exchanges and so on and that they will therefore need to approach community broadband Scotland? Will you be allowed to define “community” much more specifically?
We have just appointed a manager for community broadband Scotland, who will be looking at all these issues. It might be worth inviting him to appear before the committee at some point if you want to discuss the matter further.
It is almost trite to say this, but community broadband Scotland is about facilitating community action, and the community really defines itself. From January, we will be able to issue all the information that we have about who is going to get what and when they are likely to get access to the fibre to the cabinet project. Realistically, not all communities will get access to that, but communities will know whether they are in the current plans—whether they are in the 95 per cent or the 5 per cent. At that point, communities will be able to make decisions about the approach that they want to take. Of course, there will be a grey area, as fibre may be extended to 96 or 97 per cent as a result of more money or improvements to the technology. We will be able to have that debate with communities from January.
That is very helpful.
On a separate point, I understand that SSE is a major provider of broadband across the country via its pylon lines. Is that included in the overall potential? People have mixed views about pylons, but their views might be sweetened considerably if they thought that they could get access to broadband through them.
We are exploring all innovative ways to try to extend broadband throughout the country. Colleagues in the infrastructure portfolio are in regular discussions with all the power companies about how we can use their assets, not just for broadband but for mobile phone reception. Various discussions are taking place at the moment. I would be happy to come back to you on that specific point.
That would be helpful, as the issue is of interest to a number of communities that are close to pylon lines.
We will move on to questions from Angus MacDonald on climate change and the second report on proposals and policies.
10:00
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You mentioned the farming for a better climate programme. The draft budget allocates £300,000 in 2014-15 and £300,000 in 2015-16 to support that programme. RPP2 attributes to that policy emissions abatement of 62 kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2014 and 75 kilotonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2015. Are you confident that those emissions abatement levels can be achieved with the funding that will be made available to support the programme?
I am confident that we will go in the right direction and make progress. The most recent data shows that emissions from agriculture are very much going in the right direction. I am happy to write to you after the meeting to give you more detail about the data and statistics.
We are tackling the contribution of agriculture on two or three levels. We are funding advisory services to help every farm business to understand the benefits of changing its fertiliser management and its energy profile. How farms manage their livestock can influence emissions—as we all know, that plays a crucial role in the dairy sector. That advisory activity is important, because farms benefit from adopting low-carbon practice by saving money and becoming much more efficient.
The farming for a better climate programme provides advice and involves four climate change demonstration farms, which build on the monitor farms concept that we established a few years ago. I think that a farmer from one of the climate change farms spoke to the committee recently, and sharing best practice, setting an example and having exemplars in the industry is a good approach.
Another aspect is the common agricultural policy reforms and the greening the CAP approach. As the committee knows, I have said—as recently as in last week’s debate in Parliament—that we should take steps to ensure that every farm in Scotland becomes greener. In my book, that includes reducing farming’s carbon footprint, as well as tackling a range of other green issues.
I was frustrated in the negotiations on CAP reform that we could not build that approach more explicitly into the greening measures. However, we are looking at how we can use measures that are available under greening to introduce carbon reduction initiatives. We can have equivalent measures: if farmers do not want to adopt what is on the table from Europe, they can qualify for the greening payments if we can show that we have alternative equivalent measures. We are looking at whether any carbon reduction measures would qualify under equivalence.
I am confident that we will change the profile of Scottish agriculture. As I said, the data shows that we are going in the right direction.
You mentioned your frustration over the greening measures. Will you expand on how the CAP negotiations have impacted on the draft budget?
I will explain the frustration that I referred to. There is a debate about greening the CAP to justify the CAP to the public, and to justify the public expenditure. I argued in Europe and with the UK—although the UK secretary of state does not believe that climate change is a problem and thinks that it is a positive thing, so such conversations are sometimes difficult—that, in greening the CAP, we should look at reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture across Europe. That involves the definition of “green”; it is about biodiversity and other issues such as water quality, but it should also be about reducing the carbon footprint.
Unfortunately, none of the measures that came forward under greening, which as you know accounts for 30 per cent of the budget, relates essentially to carbon reduction. There are some issues around permanent grass, which you could argue is a way of storing carbon and therefore relates to but is not explicitly about carbon reduction. I was disappointed about that. I thought that we should have been adopting some carbon reduction measures as part of the measures to green the whole CAP. We will just have to look at what we can do here in Scotland.
The CAP budget negotiations clearly have a significant overall impact on our budgets here in Scotland. Let us look at pillar 2, which is the funding that is important for the rural development programme and wider rural development measures. Clearly, I will have to take decisions on a budget that is hundreds of millions of pounds less than it could have been, whereas other countries will face much easier decisions because they have much bigger budgets for rural development.
The committee is asking me questions about how we are responding to performance indicators. Many of the answers to those questions—answers that deal with biodiversity, agriculture’s role in protecting bird populations and so on—lie within the rural development programme, but the available rural development budgets are much smaller than those in other countries, so I have less ability to respond to some of the challenges than some other countries have.
While 16 other countries negotiated an uplift in their pillar 2 budget, the UK Government decided not to ask for such an uplift. Therefore, Scotland went into the negotiations with the lowest pillar 2 allocation in the whole of Europe, and we have come out of the negotiations with the lowest pillar 2 allocation in the whole of Europe. That will cost rural communities hundreds of millions of pounds between now and 2020. Of course, that does not take into account the impact of the pillar 1 budget—the direct payments to farms. It looks as if we have come out with the lowest payments in the whole of Europe under that pillar, too. Potentially, there will be a potential cost to us of a billion euros between now and 2020 for the pillar 1 budget alone—never mind the pillar 2 budgets that we have just been discussing.
I take the cabinet secretary back to the farming for a better climate initiative. As you said, we took evidence from Ross Paton from Torr farm in my region. Is it called a climate focus farm? I have lost track. However, it was very interesting for the committee and, I hope, for the wider agricultural community to hear from him. The budget has a focus on this, but to what degree do you think that good practice will be enough? Is it necessary to have more robust regulation in our farming community in the future?
That is a good question, which again brings us back to whether the budget is the relevant factor in changing the carbon profile of agriculture in Scotland. I am keen to ensure that we allocate budgets to the advisory services and to the farming for a better climate initiative and support for our climate change focus farms—to give them their proper name—but we have to address the role of regulation, the CAP compliance conditions and so on. It is only right that, in return for public support, agriculture in Scotland should take steps to safeguard our environment and reduce our carbon footprint. I will therefore look at the possibilities from CAP reform and, as I said, at the equivalent measures that we might want to introduce in Scotland as part of greening the CAP.
For example, we must look at engaging all farms in using less nitrogen fertiliser—that would be one clear way in which we could reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint. We have set targets in that regard, but there is a debate about whether those should be backed by regulation to ensure that we achieve them. We are looking at such issues.
We move on to questions on EU support from Jim Hume.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. On EU support and related services, I note that the new CAP will not be in place for 1 January 2014. The Scottish Government has made an announcement about transitional arrangements, but the change will perhaps result in fewer rural development measures being in place. Will the Scottish Government make a saving on its rural development budget spending in 2014?
We are having to budget for circumstances that we cannot quite predict. I have said that, during the gap year between the existing Scotland rural development programme stopping and the new one beginning, I want certain schemes to continue and we will use domestic funding for them. That includes woodland grants, less-favoured area schemes and support for new entrants, and we are considering what else we are able to fund to plug the gap. Under the proposals from Europe, we are allowed to plug the gap for the things that I have just mentioned, but we are not allowed to continue support for food and drink budgets or, I understand, for LEADER.
The budget continues the budget lines for the areas that I mentioned on the assumption that, if we cannot use European funds, we will have to use domestic funds in some shape or form to support them. That is why the budget lines for those measures are not being reduced for the transition years. We recognise that we must, first, argue with Europe to allow us to continue those programmes and, secondly, look for alternative ways in which to support the communities that might lose out if they cannot use the rural development programme or equivalent measures.
I appreciate the complexities of the situation but—just to clarify—will your Government put in more or less than last year overall from its own budget rather than from the EU part?
We will not make a saving. If anything, we will use additional resource because we will have no European funding. If we want to come remotely near the same level of support for certain projects, we will have to add in more domestic funding.
That clarifies the point.
Graeme Dey has a supplementary question on that issue.
Thank you for indulging me, convener. I have a layman’s question. You talked about plugging the gap. Will you be able to recoup the funds retrospectively? Will you get them back from the EU eventually, or is it just that Scottish Government money has to be found from somewhere to plug the gap and that it will then be gone?
We will have to use Scottish Government money. We do that in any case, but we usually get part of the funding from Europe and part from the domestic budget. In this case, we will have at least to keep the areas financially supported through our own domestic budgets.
Given the way in which the years work out and when we claim the European money back, we will be able to smoothly use European funding for less-favoured area support scheme payments, which are the biggest payments. I do not want to mislead the committee by saying that we will use purely domestic money for the year. Given the arrangements for the year in which we claim the money back from Europe compared with when we pay it out to our farmers, there is enough flexibility to allow us to continue LFASS through the gap year. In the big picture, those payments will still benefit from European funding, but for the other areas that I have discussed we will have to plug the gap from domestic funds—I guess wholly.
Thank you. That is helpful.
We go back to Jim Hume.
That was a useful question.
I would like to explore more deeply the EU support and related services budget. The business development budget line increases by £4.1 million in 2014-15, which is explained in the text as
“reflecting the pressure that may arise from less EU funding for SRDP during the 2014-15 transition year.”
That is fine, but in 2015-16 there is a further £25 million increase. What is that to be spent on?
10:15
To answer your initial point, that is an example of where we are budgeting in the expectation that we will require more domestic resource to meet some of the pressures. There is therefore an increase in the budget.
The £25 million budget increase is due to the financial transaction ability that we now have through the UK Government’s financial transaction policy, which is effectively for loans. I have bid for part of that under my portfolios, although we have not yet decided how to use that funding. That comes from a new mechanism that has been made available by the UK Government, and we have the ability to use part of it in Scotland.
The bid that I have made is for around £30 million. The budget head that you see is plus £25 million. The £30 million is effectively sitting in the budget at the moment, because I bid for it. There will be an ability to loan to certain sectors but, as I say, we have not yet taken a decision on how to use the funding.
Speaking through the chair—sorry: I should say “through the convener”, as I do not want to call you an inanimate object—I think that sounds quite interesting. I realise that you do not have the exact detail for that, but could the funding be described as for soft loans for helping enterprises in the rural environment under your portfolio? Do you have any early thoughts as to what you may use the funding for on the ground?
It could be used for a variety of things. We have to be careful how we intervene in any particular sector. It is certainly for loans and not grants—just to make that point clear. Be it in the food industry or in fisheries, for instance, we will have the ability to intervene where we feel that interventions are required to secure a reasonable resource to help a sector to adapt. Because we are in the early stages, I just had to bid for the money. Looking across some of my portfolios, I can see a need for the funding, but how and when we use it is still up in the air at the moment.
Thank you.
We return to the subject of zero waste.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have spoken about performance indicators and what your successes have been. One of the successes that you have had since 2007 has been an improvement in waste recycling. I am concerned, however, about one point in the budget that is described as a technical adjustment. The funding for zero waste has been reduced from £26.4 million to £23 million. “Technical adjustment” is quite innovative terminology; I always thought that that was a cut. Can you give me the reason for that technical adjustment? Are you confident that the budget of £23 million for 2014-15 is sufficient to support the delivery of Scotland’s zero waste plan, which you have been the main driver behind?
I welcome your comments on our zero waste policy, which I believe is making a genuine difference. It is a very ambitious policy, which is setting a much higher standard. Other countries are now looking to do what Scotland is doing regarding waste regulations and our desire to understand how the whole concept of the circular economy can benefit Scotland.
I have great expectations about what the policy can deliver for Scotland’s economy, as well as how it relates to our environmental footprint in the years ahead. The policy is on what is very much a medium to long-term path but, now that we are on that path, the policy is already paying dividends.
Did you know that I have commissioned a feasibility study into deposit-and-return schemes? We are also introducing a levy for carrier bags. There are a number of measures in the pipeline, which I think will help Scotland greatly.
As far as the budget is concerned, many of those measures are delivered for us through Zero Waste Scotland’s programme. Its budget remains flat: £23 million from the budget goes to Zero Waste Scotland, and that will continue to be the case.
The reason for the change is a technical matter. It takes £3.4 million from that line, but there is a correspondent increase in the natural assets and flooding line, where that money is much more relevant. We have simply taken it from zero waste and put it into the natural assets and flooding line, which is where it really belongs. We thought that that made more sense. The figure has gone down in one budget and up in another budget.
That is commonly known as shifting it.
“Shifting it”—or “technical adjustments”, as we like to say in my colleagues’ language.
I thought that that was really innovative.
I agree that we have too much waste from carrier bags. My wife now takes her own bags when we go shopping. It amazes me how many shops ask whether we want a bag for one item. I take great delight in saying “No. I want to save the planet.” Do you know how much we will raise from the levy on plastic bags and where that money will go?
A central part of the regime is that the money will go to environmental causes. Our bigger retailers will have to publish the details of where the funding goes in order to be transparent. I think that that is the right way to go forward.
The model is successful in other countries. Clearly, it is a win-win situation, because it will raise funds worth a few million pounds per year for environmental causes. Obviously, the more that people reuse their existing bags, the fewer bags they will buy, which means that less money will be raised over time for environmental causes. However, that will be a sign of success, as time goes on.
I am happy to send you the figures. There is a grid of estimated figures for the coming years of what sums could be raised for environmental causes.
Thank you.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am going to ask some questions about food and drink, to which you referred in your opening comments.
It is heartening to see the progress that has been made and the achievements in the food and drink sectors. I am interested in local food initiatives and how our budgets can be used to support food initiatives such as the think local project. You mentioned the circular economy in answer to a previous question, and I am interested in the issue of shorter supply chains. How are we going to develop and support such approaches, move away from just project-based activity and change the way in which the sector works? Is there any scope for looking at such issues?
That is a very good topic and something that I am very interested in.
Again, I am proud of the fact that we have taken some measures over the past two years, by creating certain funding streams out of the food and drink budget line, that have never been taken before. The think local project, to which you referred, is one example. It is about supporting local food events and initiatives whereby there are, by definition, shorter supply chains, and encouraging people to eat more of the food that is on their own doorstep.
We are also looking at some industry initiatives as well. I recently visited a food business, which might be in my colleague Angus MacDonald’s constituency, and I discussed with the management where the ingredients came from for the ready meals that the business makes for Marks and Spencer. It is clear to me, having visited lots of other such companies in the past couple of years, that if we can urge our manufacturers to source more ingredients locally, there will be an economic benefit for local businesses.
We are now funding the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society to consider how we can encourage food manufacturers to source locally, which they would often happily do. We might buy a locally prepared salad from a supermarket shelf, but I want the tatties, onions and carrots to be from Scotland as well. There is untapped potential in that regard.
We are investing in those sorts of initiative. If you are asking me whether we are investing enough, I say that I would like to have much bigger budgets available in the future for such initiatives, because I think that there are really big dividends to be captured from them for the Scottish economy and our food and drink sector, and for local food as well.
That leads us nicely to my next question. A lot of funding is going into the food and drink sector. Do you think that there will come a point at which the cost benefit analysis indicates that the sector could continue to develop with less funding, or can you justify continuing to increase the funding on a never-ending basis?
In the foreseeable future, given the success of our food and drink industry in Scotland—and I am utterly convinced that we are only scratching the surface—we should continue to invest and, if we can find the opportunity, to increase our investment.
I visit companies all the time whose orders are going through the roof. There is an increase in the cost of raw materials, so their profits are not always going through the roof, but the volume of sales is increasing and, in many cases, the profits are also going through the roof, especially in the whisky industry.
However, we are still scratching the surface, so we must seize the moment for the Scottish food and drink industry. The next few years will be as crucial as the past few have been in terms of continued investment. That is why I am keen to use the next rural development programme to support food businesses to develop and expand, as well as the food and drink industry budget line that you are looking at now.
Finally, where overall budget decisions are concerned, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that our food policy will need to be refreshed. We want to continue the good things, but we might want to find new dimensions. Food is not just about what we produce but about what we eat. Although food policy is about industry and about business being successful and developing, it is also about other things in society. I would therefore like to see food budget headings increased in the future.
Thank you.
Moving on to the subject of research, we have our own don here—Nigel Don.
The first thing to say on the research budget is that I am pleased to see that it has more or less stood still, because it would be a relatively soft budget to have a go at if needs must. I note that the level 4 commentary suggests that the small reduction has been delivered through a combination of efficiency savings, completion of specific work and support of the main research providers through alternative sources of funding. Can the cabinet secretary expand on what alternative sources of funding might be available?
As Nigel Don will be aware, we are lucky with our research institutions in Scotland at the moment. In virtually every case, they are building up an international reputation for excellence, and that reputation attracts funding from the private sector and from outside Scotland. When I meet the research providers, I am always fascinated by the great stories that I hear about the new contracts that they have won for research in animal health, climate change and other fields.
We are lucky with the expertise that we have, but the more external funding they can attract the less reliant they are on public funding. There is certainly a case for public funding, which I have always defended and protected. Over the past few years, despite the tough budget decisions that we have had to take, there has generally speaking been a flat budget for research providers in Scotland. They have not had to suffer the cuts that other agencies and sectors have had.
I have done my best to protect the research budgets, and the level 4 commentary to which Nigel Don referred makes that very point. However, we expect our research providers to continue to explore external sources of funding, and they are very good at doing that. They always make the point to Government that if it was not for our funding they would not be able to attract the external funding to match it, to establish the programmes in the first place or to attract external funding thereafter. We are protecting the budgets and there is a small decrease, but we expect the research providers to continue to source external funding.
That eloquently expresses the dilemma. You have to support those institutions to be truly excellent if other people are going to invest their money in them. If at any point you allow that excellence to disappear, the other funding goes with it. That applies not just to those institutions but also, of course, to our universities.
Again, I agree with that. That is why I went out of my way to protect the research providers’ budgets over the past few years of difficult budget negotiations and irrespective of the cuts to the Scottish block by the UK Government.
I will do my best to protect those budgets, but I do not want any institution—be it one of our fantastic research providers or any other institution—to rest on its laurels. Institutions must have a commercial dimension to what they do, as we want to attract as much external funding to Scotland as possible.
Members have the figures in front of them: the budget for research programmes is £56.7 million in 2013-14 and £55.7 million in 2014-15. In the past, such funding has attracted around £23 million of external funding, so—as members can see—every pound that we put in helps to attract external funding.
10:30
Very good. Claudia Beamish has a supplementary on that.
Yes—I wanted some reassurance on efficiency savings, as I find the idea that those could be made in research and analysis a bit perplexing. Can you shed any light on that?
With regard to the research providers?
Yes.
We have been asking our research providers to find efficiency savings because, even though we are trying to protect the budgets, we are not in a position to offer increased budgets. There is no doubt that the providers’ costs are increasing at the same time, and they have to attract the best staff, so they must ensure that they are being as efficient as possible with the budgets that they have.
In the past, we have engaged with research providers to work better together, and—as members will know—there have been some mergers. There are, therefore, successful examples of efficiency savings that I do not believe have compromised the research work that institutions are undertaking; there is certainly no evidence of that.
The research providers continue to go from strength to strength. The mergers and the closer working, which avoids duplication, mean that institutions can be more efficient, and I hope that we are still in a good place in that regard.
Do the efficiency savings also apply to the Scottish Government?
We have undertaken massive efficiency savings across the Scottish Government—one has only to look at how dramatically the Scottish Government’s administration budget has been cut in the past few years to see how efficient our own staff and portfolios have had to become. It is fair to say that our own colleagues have taken on their fair share of efficiency savings.
When I have spoken to research providers, they have expressed frustration with not the funding from Government, but the extent to which their work is promoted by Government—not the Scottish Government, but the UK Government through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The good work that is done in Scotland is not always pushed across the European Union in a way that could lead to external funding.
Has that frustration been expressed to you?
There is no doubt that our research providers are giving a lot more attention to European sources of funding. We have an international reputation and our providers want to capitalise on that by attracting European funding.
There have been some budget issues south of the border, and some of our institutions have raised with me the impact of the cuts. Many of the budgets that are affected are UK budgets that apply to institutions across the UK and not just south of the border, so our institutions suffer as a result of the cuts from down south. There is therefore a great incentive for our research providers not only to tell their Government how important that funding is, but to source—we hope—external funding from elsewhere in Europe. That is certainly an issue, but there is not much more that I can add as I am not a research provider.
We come to marine issues and fisheries. Claudia Beamish will go first.
Cabinet secretary, I draw your attention to page 98 of the Scottish draft budget, which states:
“The need for marine expertise and capability is growing, and will continue to grow with the development of renewable energy and ever increasing international obligations and requirements.”
The following page states:
“In 2014-15 and 2015-16 we will”
—as the final bullet point notes—
“sustain our science base to provide robust evidence in support of policy developments and delivery.”
Given the complexities of development interests and how they fit with the marine protected areas, which you highlighted in your earlier remarks, I am curious to know why Marine Scotland’s funding is declining from £49 million in 2013-14 to £47.9 million in 2015-16. Will you comment on that, please?
I recognise the additional pressures that Marine Scotland faces. In the past few years, in the context of cuts across Government, we have managed largely to protect the Marine Scotland budget and, indeed, increase it at times. However, at the same time, Marine Scotland has undertaken efficiency savings.
On the small budget cut to which you refer, which works out at 1.2 per cent, there was a transfer of £400,000, which simply went from the Marine Scotland budget into the Scottish Government’s central administration budget because it is for information technology costs that it will pick up. That transfer accounts for £400,000 of the figure. A further reduction of £1 million will be delivered by reducing administration and operational costs and trying to increase receipts at the same time. That is just a case of efficiency savings.
It is worth saying that because of the significant responsibilities that Marine Scotland, as you rightly highlighted, has in respect of offshore renewables, marine protected areas and continuing fisheries science, it is recruiting more scientists and going to great efforts to ensure that it attracts great talent. I do not want the committee to have the impression that there is a decline of expertise in Marine Scotland because of efficiency savings. It is recruiting more talent into the service at the moment.
One issue with which we always wrestle is to what extent we should increase receipts for Marine Scotland. It carries out many licensing functions, from which there are receipts, but we should always keep such matters under review because we must ensure that Marine Scotland is equipped to deal with the industries that it serves. The industries should pick up part of the tab for doing that. I do not have a clear proposal yet in that regard but I am sure that, as part of the wider debate, the committee will want to be aware that we must ensure not only that we devote public funds to supporting industries but that successful industries put something back into the pot.
In evidence that has come to the committee in the past few months, particular concerns have been expressed about the feeding grounds for seabirds, for instance. To go back to the RPP and future research, which will be important for blue carbon, I seek reassurance from you on the importance of helping to accommodate future conservation of the marine environment given the range of developers that are coming forward.
Many of the issues you raise are new, 21st century agendas. We have been building up a lot of expertise on the future of our marine environments as well as how we underpin marine protected areas with scientific evidence.
I make the obvious point that, in every subject with which I deal, the answer is often that we need more research. There are only so many people in the world who can be top researchers in their chosen field and, although we always want to carry out more research into a range of activities, I can never fulfil the expectations of NGOs and the others who are always calling for more research.
I sympathise and agree with many of the calls that we receive for more research, because we want as much information at our fingertips as possible, but it is simply not possible to fulfil people’s expectations for more and more research in every subject, so we must prioritise.
We have a research programme that is being followed by not only Marine Scotland but Scottish Natural Heritage and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is a UK-wide body. Research on the issues that you mentioned, such as bird populations and the marine environment, is often carried out jointly by SNH and the JNCC, with a role for Marine Scotland as well in some cases. Some of the issues that you mentioned are therefore not just for this budget.
What additional responsibilities will Marine Scotland have at ports due to the common fisheries policy reforms, especially in relation to extra landings and unwanted species? Have those been accounted for in the budget?
A lot of discussion is going on about that. We have a lot of detail to work out in considering how to implement the new common fisheries policy. The landing obligation for fish caught outwith quota, which is part of the discard bans, will be challenging to monitor and police, and a lot of thinking is going into how to do that on the ground. Clearly, Marine Scotland compliance officers are already in place and are doing their existing job, and they will have to build that into their responsibilities. They are based at the ports.
I ask Linda Rosborough to comment because she heads up Marine Scotland and is wrestling with all these new issues that are coming on to the agenda, so she can perhaps give you a bit of insight.
Linda Rosborough (Scottish Government)
It will certainly be challenging to deliver a land-all obligation and we will need to work on that on a regional basis with our partners. Work has started on setting up the structures for that to happen, and we have also started the pilots, which are looking at the technologies, behaviours and management regime that might work. We will study the implications carefully, and they will have to be worked through in terms of the European structures.
On your question about the money and the resources to do the work, a key element of that is the new European maritime and fisheries fund that is coming along. That is still under negotiation in Europe; it has been delayed from January next year, which might have been thought to be the start date. The original ambition was that the common fisheries policy reform and the new grant scheme would come in at the same time. Now, the earliest that we might expect it to be agreed is April next year. That is quite a challenging timetable.
There is an increase in the budget line in relation to European fisheries grants specifically to allow for the new programme coming in—it will be a key part of funding the new requirement under the common fisheries policy—at the same time as the European fisheries fund, with its existing responsibilities, finishes. That is why we have the uplift in the budget line.
There appears to be an inconsistency in the draft budget for 2014-15 as it states that there is a £1.8 million reduction rather than the actual £3.3 million reduction. The reason given for the reduction is that it reflects
“realistic levels of spend at the beginning of the next programme, which has been delayed until later in 2014.”
What is the reason for that, and what might be the subsequent effect on the fishing sector?
The difference between the figures that you mentioned in your first question is the difference between the net and the gross figures. The £1.8 million figure is the Scottish Government’s contribution, and £3.3 million is the total, allowing for the European contribution.
Secondly, you asked about the delay. The reason for that is exactly the issue that I have already mentioned. The agreement on the measure at the European level was decoupled from the common fisheries policy negotiations and is taking place on a slightly slower timescale. Therefore, the programme will start not on 1 January 2014 but later in the year, on a date that we do not yet know.
10:45
I will stick with marine issues. Linda Rosborough mentioned the European maritime and fisheries fund. I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on that fund and its impact on the draft budget. In July, the cabinet secretary said that Scotland’s fishing and aquaculture sectors deserve a fairer share of the EMFF, particularly given that Scotland has 61 per cent of the UK’s fishing zone and 17 per cent of the EU’s total employment in aquaculture. Has a fairer share of the EMFF been forthcoming? What has been the impact on the draft budget?
Thank you for raising that issue, which follows on from the previous exchange. We have again put the case for a fairer share of an existing European budget, but I am disappointed that, just as our farmers and rural communities have lost out because of the UK Government’s unwillingness to stand up for us in Europe and secure a fairer share of the agriculture and rural development budgets—from which other countries received uplifts, despite starting from a better place than Scotland was in—so the same situation applies to the fisheries funds. We get 40 per cent of the UK’s allocation under fisheries funds, but we estimate that we are entitled to 60 per cent. We will continue to make the case for that.
In the wider European negotiations, the UK Government did not want to argue for a greater share of the fisheries funds for Scotland. The examples of what other countries received show in stark terms how much Scotland is losing out on. Under the current arrangements, our share is a third of what Denmark receives and less than half of the allocation to Latvia. Scotland—a coastal, fishing and marine nation—gets a poorer share by far of the marine and fisheries funds than is given to those countries, which are the same size as or smaller than Scotland, and although we are in a much better place to argue for a greater share of the funds because of the importance of coastal communities and fishing industries here.
That is what happens when the UK Government does not share our priorities. We were unsuccessful in persuading the UK Government to argue for a greater share of the fisheries budget for Scotland.
As with the agriculture funds, the debate has turned to how we split the UK budget under the fisheries funds. I assure you that I will continue to make the case that we deserve a greater share of those funds, which are used, for instance, to adapt to discard-free fisheries; to help fish processing and onshore sectors to expand and build new, better or more efficient units; and to help fishing vessels to become more energy efficient. The funds support an array of projects. Because we are getting less than our fair share, not as many projects will benefit the Scottish economy as could have benefited it.
I presume that you will press the case with the new fisheries minister in the UK Government. Has the UK Government’s justification for its stance been explained?
You mention the new fisheries minister, whom I very much look forward to meeting. I wish the outgoing minister, Richard Benyon—with whom I worked well—all the best for the future. He was a good man to work with and I hope that he has a good future ahead of him. I thank him for working with me in the past three years or so.
I am disappointed that we face the prospect of having to educate the new minister who has been appointed and familiarise him with the situation. I think that he is the fifth such minister that I have had to deal with in the past few years. I will have to ensure that he is brought up to date as soon as possible with Scotland’s priorities, the nature of Scotland’s fishing communities, the big challenges that we face and the asks that we have, particularly as we are on the eve of the next round of talks to resolve the mackerel dispute. We are also on the eve of implementing the new common fisheries policy and of the end-of-year fishing negotiations.
Once again—for the fifth time, or it might even be the sixth time; I will have to calculate, as I have lost count—I will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to bring the UK fisheries minister up to speed on what really matters to Scotland.
The fact that there has been such a high turnover of fishing ministers in the UK Government perhaps illustrates a lack of commitment. The lack of continuity causes significant problems for other Administrations and, first and foremost, for our fishing industries and fishing communities, which have to get used to the new face and have lost the person with whom they were dealing closely.
I have got that off my chest. I very much look forward to working with the new minister and am very keen to meet him as soon as possible given the number of pressing matters on our agenda. I could say the same thing for agriculture ministers, because my agriculture counterpart from Whitehall has also been moved on, so I have another new face to get to know. I have a lot of introductions to do over the next few days.
The case that the UK Government makes for fisheries funds is clearly one issue to which I will ask the new fishing minister to take a refreshing approach that perhaps shows more sympathy for Scotland’s case for a better share of those fisheries funds. As I said, we are in the middle of the debate about the allocation of the UK’s fisheries funds, so I await with interest to hear how the UK Government defends the status quo.
I have a couple of supplementary questions, but I will recommend to my committee colleagues that we invite Dan Rogerson, the agriculture minister, and George Eustice, the fisheries minister, to come and speak to the committee—as their predecessors did—at an early stage so that we, too, can get a handle on their approach to these urgent matters.
It was interesting to pick up concerns at the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation dinner about whether the views of fishermen on the actual levels of stocks and so on, which are now sought, are being taken seriously in the process. Although they are collaborating with the science, how well are their views being taken into account when the quotas are being debated and agreed?
First, we should highlight the good news that Scotland’s fish stocks are recovering. That has largely been down to a huge effort from our fishing fleets, which have made significant sacrifices, have gone through constant change and adaptation, have had to adopt new technical gears and selective gears and have had to deal with a myriad of complex European regulations and sometimes also Scottish ones.
I pay tribute to the fishing industry for how far we have come, but clearly there are many diverse issues across Scotland’s fisheries. The issues facing a Western Isles prawn fisherman are different from those facing the Clyde fishermen, which are different from those facing the north-east of Scotland fishermen. Vessels vary from the large vessels in the mackerel sector down to the small inshore vessels of Pittenweem or south-west Scotland. We have a diverse sector.
As you can imagine, I have many robust debates about the future of fishing policy with many different sectors on many different subjects as we face up to on-going significant challenges on certain fish stocks in many local areas in Scotland. Nevertheless, we should recognise that the general picture on the recovery of fish stocks is more positive than it has been for a long time.
As we address some of the challenges, I always want to explore new ways to involve the fishing industry at the heart of decision making and to help us collect the data that we require in the first place and work with our scientists to ensure that we have the best possible information. I was very pleased when I recently visited the University of Aberdeen to see a training session for skippers who had been invited to come along to work with the scientists. Once they have done that training, they can participate in some trials for us—for the Government and Marine Scotland—with their vessels. I want to engage our skippers and fishermen closely with the science and help them to help with the science when they are at sea by collecting information and feeding it back into the process.
Indeed, the committee will be aware that we launched a £6 million package—out of this year’s budget, so perhaps it is not really part of today’s discussion of next year’s budget—and half of that funding goes towards working with the fleets on scientific trials and employing the fleets to undertake some of the scientific work for us. That is partly why that training course took place.
I think that we are moving forward. It is a difficult policy area as there are many different views and it is a diverse sector, so I am not saying that regulators and fisheries ministers are always the most popular people with our fishing communities or our fishing industry. However, we are working well together in a number of key areas.
I want to highlight the citizen science involved, which is an important concept. I hope that the fisheries labs will increasingly take on board the fishermen’s views as they become involved in the process of working on the scientific trials.
On a technical matter, we talked about how fish are handled—how we are dealing with stocks at sea. Are we looking for stocks to be handled by being weighed at sea? If there are going to be issues related to discards or unwanted species, is it possible that all the amounts could be weighed at sea in future, rather than having to be weighed or sampled onshore?
Clearly, we have the new weighing regulation from Europe, which had some teething issues and was causing some concern among our fishermen about how to implement it in Scotland. Of course, we sought some flexibility to help us with that. Weighing at sea is something that should be considered and I am happy to write to you on where we think we might go with that in the future.
We are looking at some interesting trials of how the landing ban would be implemented. How we can account for everything that comes on to a ship is a key part of that, so we are actively working on that with skippers.
It would be useful to get some more information about that, because there are ports and fishermen who would like to be up to speed on that.
We have a couple of questions about onshore matters next.
Back in 2001, I was presiding over the Lothian and Borders National Farmers Union, so I remember well everything about the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak—God forbid we ever see such an outbreak again. One of the issues then was that, although animal health was a devolved matter, the budget was reserved, if I recall correctly. I believe that that was changed in the last parliamentary session. Do you have an identified contingency fund within your budget for any future outbreaks of diseases such as foot and mouth? As I said, God forbid that there are any.
I am pleased that Scotland’s animal health record is getting better all the time. I am grateful that we do not have to deal with some of the animal health issues that other countries do. I feel for them having to go through what they are going through just now—in particular, what they are going through south of the border with bovine tuberculosis and the eradication plan that they have in place, which is clearly very painful for all parts of the debate down south.
Clearly, my priority is to ensure that another foot-and-mouth outbreak does not happen in Scotland. If there is another outbreak, there is definitely a contingency plan, but there is no contingency fund. That is not Government practice.
Before the animal health budget was devolved from Westminster, the debate during previous outbreaks was to persuade the UK Government to access the UK Treasury contingency, which of course the UK ministers refused to do. As a result, we did not get UK funds to help us cope with the additional cost of dealing with those outbreaks in Scotland. The animal health budget has been devolved since then, as you rightly highlighted, but we do not keep a contingency fund and any requirement for such a fund would be a cross-Government issue. We would expect the Scottish Government to step in, and I would knock on John Swinney’s door if that were the case.
11:00
Are you saying that it is common practice for all Governments not to keep such a fund?
It is not recommended as good practice for how I steward my finances across my portfolios. I think that you will find that the position was exemplified by the UK Government’s recent refusal to access even its Treasury funds to help Scotland. I doubt that DEFRA has a contingency fund for a foot-and-mouth outbreak. All that I am saying is that, should such an occasion arise, the policy is that the wider Scottish Government would step in to help.
Can you outline the process for identifying and allocating carry forward from previous years’ budgets? Can you advise us whether you have any carry forward to play with from last year?
I will ask Jonathan Pryce, who deals with our finances and our financial colleagues elsewhere in the Scottish Government, to respond in a moment. However, in essence, the answer to your last question is no. Clearly, there is flexibility across the Government that takes into account the circumstances of each portfolio. For example, we have had a hardship fund for weather payments for agriculture and we have also recently delivered a £6 million package for the fishing industry, which I just referred to. For some of those circumstances, we have had to ask for help from outwith our portfolios and the Scottish Government has worked collectively on such issues. Jonathan might wish to add something.
Jonathan Pryce (Scottish Government)
I will reinforce that point. We manage the Scottish Government finances across all the Scottish Government portfolios. If there were a question of a carry forward, it would not sit with the individual portfolio. As the cabinet secretary explained, we take advantage of that. As the year goes on, emerging underspends in some parts of the Scottish Government are offset against overspends in other parts. The rural and environment portfolio has made use of that.
There is a Treasury mechanism called the budget exchange mechanism, which enables resources to be carried forward in the overall Scottish Government budget from one year to the next. However, that is managed centrally by John Swinney and his finance team.
We will move on to equalities issues.
As you will know, cabinet secretary, all parliamentary committees have been asked by the Equal Opportunities Committee to look at the mainstreaming of equalities across the range of portfolios. As we all know, of course, an equalities statement is issued with the budget and this year, perhaps in synergy with the Equal Opportunities Committee, our committee agreed to focus its inquiries in this respect mainly, but not exclusively, on disability issues in rural areas. Obviously, some disability issues will come within your portfolio—for example, the assessment of disability in relation to rural broadband and the possibilities there. As well as working on equalities issues in your own portfolios, what discussions have you had with Cabinet colleagues and what work have you done with them to ensure that equalities issues in remote and rural areas are reflected in the development and delivery of policies in health, transport and education? That is a broad-ranging question.
Yes, it is a very broad question. However, the reason why the Government publishes an equalities statement alongside the budget is because equalities is a very important issue and we are conscious that we must be mindful of testing all our policies to ensure that people who are disadvantaged or who face difficult circumstances are not precluded from benefiting from our policies. For example, the Forestry Commission has high up its agenda the need to ensure that people with disabilities can access forest estates for leisure and health reasons. Likewise, the national parks authorities factor the issue into their work.
You mentioned broadband and transport. My colleagues have primary responsibility for those portfolios and we coordinate with them on the rural dimensions. Equalities issues are largely driven by the relevant minister—so the transport minister would drive equalities issues in relation to transport, and Nicola Sturgeon, who has responsibility for infrastructure, would drive issues in relation to rural broadband. Of course, I interject so that there is rural-proofing, to ensure that there is a rural dimension across all Government policy. We are very conscious of the matter in relation to our portfolios—the issue is largely about access to the outdoors in that regard.
Thank you. Can you reassure me that, in discussions about the budget with Cabinet colleagues in other portfolio areas, equalities issues will continue to be raised? For example, I am thinking about the accessibility of modes of transport in rural areas.
Yes. I will make a point of giving the matter attention, to ensure that we can give you comfort on that point.
Thank you.
We have a number of questions about how equalities issues fit in, but first I will bring in Jamie McGrigor, who has a supplementary question.
Cabinet secretary, on increasing the number of people who can use the outdoors, are you aware of Highland Disabled Ramblers, which is based in the Black Isle? I have to admit that I am honorary president of the organisation, which uses scooters to get people on outdoor rambles. It is a very good model, which could be followed in other parts of Scotland.
Thank you for the information. I cannot profess to be familiar with the organisation, so it is interesting to hear your comments. There is an initiative that is funded through the climate challenge fund, through which electric bikes have been introduced in areas around Scotland, including Aviemore, to enable people to get out who might not otherwise be able to cycle long distances.
As I said, we are keen to help in any way we can. We build in support for the national parks authorities and the Forestry Commission to ensure that there is access for people of all abilities.
Let us get into policy. It says on page 58 of the equality statement:
“EU programmes run on a seven-year cycle ... The opportunity to design these programmes to impact positively on equality groups in the future is an ongoing task”.
In relation to the rural portfolio, how can we find out what steps are being taken to design programmes that impact positively on equality groups?
I will be happy to write to you about current work with the rural development programme. We are in the middle of a consultation and we will have a further consultation on the SRDP—in November, I think. As part of the consultation process and as we rebuild the seven-year programmes, we will take the matter into account. I can write back to you on how that will be done.
That would be helpful, thank you. Did Jayne Baxter have a question?
I think that it has been answered, convener.
I think that we have covered most of the houses. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their answers, which give us a chance to make as constructive as possible a contribution to the budget debate.
11:09
Meeting suspended.
11:16
On resuming—