Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, 26 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 26, 2000

Official Report 216KB pdf

---

Budget Process

We now move on to item 4, which is the annual budget process. We have made some progress since we last met, but we still have some work to do.

I advise the committee that, since the previous discussion on this item, the convener has written to the Minister for Communities to ask her the questions that were identified by the committee. We await her response. I shall also be having a meeting with the reporter to the committee in the next few days. The minister will be attending the committee on 23 May.

I suggest that we write to Wendy Alexander and ask her about another question that has been identified. For the first time, the expenditure proposals contain a separate line item for Scottish Homes that, in view of its changing circumstances, might require some explanation. I ask that the committee write for more detail on the breakdown of that line item.

I shall do that.

Are we up to speed with that? An e-mail went out asking people who had issues that they wanted to flag up to write to Martin. Alex Neil, as reporter, will then work on that and give us feedback.

That is right. The other issue that we need information on is the note from Mike Watson, convener of the Finance Committee, about the gender impact of expenditure. Will the Finance Committee give us general guidance on how it is to be done? Presumably, to make any kind of impact assessment meaningful, the methodology used by all the committees should be similar.

We are at the start of a learning curve. The Engender paper that was circulated was what the Finance Committee used when making its decision. The points included in that paper are therefore the signposts, and the same letter was sent to all committee conveners. That is the most detailed information that we have at this stage. This was drawn to our attention after the process started. The first year is about seeing how the system works. We may want to change how things operate in the second year. I have no more details at the moment, but the Finance Committee thought that it was important to do that work at the start of the process, and I am pleased that we have been able to do that.

We could write to Engender asking whether there are any specific points that it wants to raise. Quite a lot of work has been done on this, has it not?

It has. If you would like to give over part of a session to someone from Engender coming to give evidence, it need not take up more than half an hour or 45 minutes. I am sure that Engender would appreciate that.

It also raises the wider issue of the impact of expenditure on employment and on levels of poverty and social inclusion. That is a longer-term issue but it is one that the committee should begin to consider.

Could you look into that, Alex? Half an hour from Engender would be worth while.

Do you mean that we should invite Engender to give evidence?

Yes. The reporter will consider whether we can incorporate that.

I know that representatives from Engender would be willing to co-operate and to give the committee evidence or general advice.

If we can squeeze them in somewhere it would be worth doing. It might even prepare us for more robust consideration next year. Wendy Alexander will be coming to the committee on 23 May. Are there any other questions about the budget? Members have none.

Before we go into private session, I would like to raise a point. The convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee has asked to meet me so that we can begin to consider areas of overlap. That committee has heard evidence that overlaps with our remit in areas such as employment. Are members agreed that I should discuss those matters with Kate MacLean?

Members indicated agreement.

We shall now move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 12:25.