Official Report 296KB pdf
I remind members that we still have a full agenda in front of us.
Do members want me to say something?
Feel free.
I am here to try to improve the Finance Committee's understanding of the issues of concern in its subject area that the Rural Development Committee might have with the Executive's spending strategy for the 2002-03 year and beyond.
I have been told that it is the end of May.
Right.
We should be concerned about the likely impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak on the broader budget. There were several estimates in the papers over the weekend of the total cost. The figures indicated that the cost would be significant if it had to be dealt with entirely through the Executive's budget.
When we knew that we would be reviewing the budgets, nobody could have anticipated the foot-and-mouth problems. Having to look across a whole range of budget lines gives me cause for concern. More questions could be asked at the moment than there are answers.
I agree that we must include the financial effects of the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
An important issue that does not fall within the rural development budget heading is the funding that was potentially available to local authorities. In the broader context, we should consider taking a cross-cutting approach, particularly in relation to authorities, such as Dumfries and Galloway Council and those in Ayrshire and the south-west of Scotland, that have borne the brunt of the measures that have been taken in response to foot-and-mouth disease.
When we examine budgets, we should bear in mind the fact that we should consider them from the equalities point of view and how they impact on certain groups in communities.
I agree with Elaine Murray's point about trying to work through the Executive's guidance, which is a complete nightmare. I make a serious point: I do not understand why MSPs have never been sent on a crash course on the budget—that is one of the first things that should happen to MSPs after they are elected to the Parliament.
Do all members have in front of them the private briefing paper on the budget, which is headed private: members only? [Members: "Yes."] I am wondering how I managed to lose it.
My final point is that, when the Executive publishes the budget, perhaps it could also issue notes to explain why budgets have changed drastically. For example, if there is a reason for those changes, it could simply issue an explanatory note.
To be fair, the "Annual Expenditure Report" is a significant improvement on last year's budget documents. I do not know whether members have managed to work their way through the document yet, but the Executive took on board many of the recommendations that the Finance Committee made. However, it is not an easy read, to say the least.
I agree with Adam Ingram. An improvement that has been made is that the EU and non-EU moneys that come to the department have been divided. Last year, we were given extremely complex information about that, but the division is clearer this year, because the Rural Affairs Committee drew the Government's attention to that matter.
The paper that is in front of members is based on our previous discussions and decisions, although certain areas might require clarification. Are members content with the way in which the paper is set out and with what it leads us to discuss?
Are you talking about the paper that makes a suggestion about something called CHABOS, of which I have never heard.
A note has just been passed to me about that. CHABOS stands for the committee of the heads of agricultural and biological organisations of Scotland—I have written it out carefully.
How long has CHABOS existed?
I do not know. The best answer that I can get is that it has existed for a few years.
The minister is coming to address budget issues on that day. Is there anybody else from whom the committee wants to take evidence?
Members who represent the south of Scotland are conferring. Alex Fergusson and I met Tony Fitzpatrick of Dumfries and Galloway Council last week. He has interesting views about the need for rural diversification following the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, in terms of rural communities' becoming involved in different types of developments. He has suggestions concerning the way in which article 33 of the European rural development regulations might be used to achieve that. I wonder whether it might be worth hearing more from Tony Fitzpatrick.
I support that. I was at that meeting. Tony Fitzpatrick has some innovative ideas, which we would benefit from hearing about, especially concerning the interpretation of the European rural development regulations. He is also worth listening to on the issue of recovery from the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, which I hope we shall soon be doing.
Does that meet with the approval of other members?
As several councils are involved, perhaps the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities might be asked whether it wants to send a representative of councils in rural areas.
We have received a written response from COSLA. Did members find that response unsatisfactory? We could ask those who submitted written responses to come and discuss their evidence further. However, we also have the option to invite individuals who have ideas of their own, and who are able to contribute to the discussion in which we are involved. Elaine Murray's and Alex Fergusson's suggestion is the kind of action that we need to take, to provide some new thinking in the process.
Alex Fergusson and I just remarked that we might want to invite COSLA, but it would probably send the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, who is its rural matters spokesperson. That would take us round in a circle. There are issues for other councils, but some of Tony Fitzpatrick's views on rural development are not related purely to the council that he represents, and they have interesting implications for rural communities throughout Scotland.
One of the difficulties that we face might be in distinguishing between considering rural development in its broader context—a good thing that we should be doing—and focusing on some of the budgetary questions that we need to answer now. We must be clear about our purpose in inviting more witnesses.
Yes. The reason must be related to the budget.
So many issues relate to the impact on local authorities of the recent foot-and-mouth outbreak that it might be worth giving members the opportunity to ask further questions. If that means inviting the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, so be it.
So—to whom should we talk?
Tony Fitzpatrick.
I suggest that we invite COSLA to send a representative. We could cover the issues that we have been discussing and those that have been raised by other rural councils. That one person could cover all the issues. Even if that person came from Dumfries and Galloway Council, as a representative of COSLA, they could put forward points of view from other councils as well.
We have a combination of ideas. If we put them together and express them to COSLA, we might be able to please everybody.
I am quite happy with that. Tony Fitzpatrick heads up a group that has representatives of all the councils that are affected by objective 5b funding, and he is a multi-council representative on issues of European funding. However, I am perfectly happy for the committee to approach COSLA.
Do we need any information further to that which we have received? If so, from whom? Is there anyone from whom members would like to request additional information?
As there are no suggestions, we have probably approached all those with whom we want to deal.
There has been murmuring about the Scottish Agricultural College.
The SAC is part of the organisation that we have already agreed to invite. Previously, we discussed the possibility that, given that there have been changes in the finance arrangements for the SAC, there might be a conflict of interests if we invited representatives from SAC to speak to the committee on that matter.
Are there any bodies working with communities, other than local government bodies? I am thinking of charitable or voluntary organisations.
It is difficult to see how such bodies tie in with the budget of the rural affairs department.
The Government has just given money out of the rural affairs budget to rural stress organisations, for example.
We must ensure that we deal specifically with issues that are raised by the budget. The Finance Committee will expect a report based on that. If members have other suggestions, they should contact the clerks within the next 24 hours.
No.
No.
Okay. We will take the opportunity to ensure that a paper that contains possible questions is circulated so that, if members' infinite imaginations run dry, they will be able to keep the process going. I doubt that that will be necessary.