Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 23 Jun 2009
Meeting date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Official Report
253KB pdf
Budget Process 2010-11
The next item is consideration of a paper on the budget process for the draft budget for 2010-11. The paper asks us to consider what the primary focus of our scrutiny of the forthcoming budget should be. A number of options are included.
I will ask members for their comments, but my view is that it would be odd for us not to spend at least some time considering the carbon assessment project, given that the 2010-11 budget is the first in which any attempt will be made to apply the process, albeit only to specific portfolio areas in the first instance. We have had some opportunities to hear informally about progress, but the budget process will give us an opportunity formally to consider what the carbon assessment process looks like and to scrutinise it with ministers.
The second point that I highlight is that, in the past two years, we have repeatedly commented on active and sustainable travel and what has happened to those budget lines. It is probably important that we try to move that on a bit, rather than simply make the same comment for the third time in a row. We should push ministers for some progress on that.
We cannot let two years pass without looking at the transport budget in some depth and detail. Since the previous budget, we have had the strategic transport projects review. The three transport issues that are identified in the paper—the funding of major capital projects, active travel, and concessionary fares—form a good package of things for us to consider. If we are to opt for a budget adviser, I suggest that we choose an adviser on transport to bring those three things together.
Having said that, convener, I am not deaf to your point about the carbon assessment process. I suggest that we have a couple of evidence-taking sessions on that. Rather than have an adviser on it, we should get two or three experts in to talk about it and then have the minister before us so that we interrogate him on how the process is operating. However, I suspect the point at which to come to a judgment on it might be the following year, once we have had a chance to see it from inception through to execution.
My preference is to focus our budget activity and advisory resource on the transport issues that are identified in the paper, and to schedule a couple of evidence-taking sessions on the carbon assessment process.
If we can do the two things alongside each other, that would seem to be the answer. Are there any other comments?
I agree with the approach that Des McNulty suggested.
So do I.
Many thanks for that.
Meeting continued in private until 16:47.