Official Report 168KB pdf
The first item on the agenda is stage 2 of the budget process. All members should have a note from the clerk that explains how the committee might deal with the Executive's budget proposals. Members should also have the "Making a Difference for Scotland" document and a document on the spending plans that was published this week by the Scottish Parliament information centre. We will examine the spending proposals in detail when they are submitted.
Yes and no. It is clearer than last year's document, but some parts are not too clear.
The second point in the minister's letter relates to how we can scrutinise the effectiveness of the rural affairs department's cross-cutting with other departments. Do members think that the minister is dealing effectively with the issue?
The minister indicates that he thinks that the indicator of success will be the impact of spending decisions on rural communities, rather than the expenditure figures themselves. He says that preliminary work is in hand, but we do not yet have the details of that. Until we know exactly what the Executive plans to do about assessing the impact of the spending, it is difficult to know whether we will be able to make a better assessment of how effective it has been or whether sufficient funding has been allocated.
In the third paragraph, the minister says:
It is only fair that we progress through the information that we have. We had originally planned to discuss the budget with the minister on 3 October, but it looks as though we will not have full details before that date, although I have been advised that the minister will be able to give us an inkling of the broad thinking. We have also been advised that the main increases will be concentrated in the structural and agri-environmental plans, as outlined in the minister's August statement.
Any information that we could get in advance would be useful; if the minister could speak to us on 3 October, that would be helpful.
On 3 October, we would take the opportunity to have the minister introduce some of the additional information to us. We would be able to deal with it in a detailed way four weeks later on 31 October. Would it be helpful to progress in that way?
Are there issues on which we specifically require clarification? Having ministers coming along when neither the committee nor the minister is absolutely clear what they have come along for is not the most productive use of time. If we require clarification of certain issues, however, it is probably justified.
I understand that Professor Shucksmith is available to come along on 3 October, so we should be able to finalise the report by the time you suggest.
Following Des McNulty's point, I would appreciate an explanatory note on resource accounting and its implications for the rural affairs department budget.
That would be valuable. It would be useful to have someone develop comparisons between resource accounting and cash accounting.
A dummy's guide would be useful—for me, of course.
My thoughts exactly.
Rather than having the minister come before us twice, we would find it useful to get written explanations. We could ask for clarification of those explanations when the minister comes on 31 October.
If we are trying both to finalise our report and to have Professor Shucksmith before us on 3 October, the session might be heavy anyway.
Is the committee agreed to leave the main session with the minister until 31 October and to ask for the clarifications that he has suggested that he might be able to give, and the specific clarifications that we desire, in a letter for reply in advance of our meeting on 3 October?
If anything arises before next week that members think requires clarification, they can inform the clerk.
One of the main difficulties that we encountered was in determining what was Executive money and what was European money. A paper on that would not go amiss.
The SPICe paper tackles that to an extent, but more detail would be useful.
I share Rhoda Grant's view on the need to consider European resources alongside the Scottish Executive budget. When the minister comes, our main focus will be on the Scottish Executive budget. It might be useful if we could have a separate item under which to discuss the minister's view of the direction of European policy and how that might affect the concerns of the Rural Affairs Committee.
I have asked a number of written questions on this subject. I received quite full answers, which the clerks can pass round to members before the minister comes.
Would members like any other information?
It is important that we do not just focus on the money that is available for direct spending, but address the issue of the preliminary work that Ross Finnie mentions in his letter. It is important that we know specifically what preliminary work is in hand to assess the impact of expenditure across the range of spending departments so that we can see the total picture.
I understand that there could be problems with the time scale of that work, but we need to get whatever information is available at the earliest opportunity. If it is not available, we may have to raise that with the minister when he is here.
A number of priorities have been identified relating to rural affairs. It might be worth asking the minister to say how the budget matches the policy priorities that have been identified. If the Executive has chosen the priorities, it should be able to indicate clearly how they are reflected in expenditure patterns.
Ideally, we should have an early response.
We can say that that issue might be a focus of questioning by the committee. We do not want the minister to come here and be vague about these issues. I would like him to be prepared to respond to questions on that matter.
Are there any other comments on the budget? If not, we will contact the minister in writing and let him know the points that have been raised today. We will make arrangements for the minister to come before the committee on 31 October, which should be near the completion of the process. We can but hope.
Before we move on, convener, may I ask what the position is on taking evidence on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill? We decided last week that we were going to take oral evidence. I presumed that something would be made available at today's meeting indicating how you were planning to proceed.
I mentioned at the start of the meeting, just before you arrived, that we have carried over that issue to next week's agenda. I hope next week to consult members of the committee informally so that we can produce a schedule that has the unanimous backing of the committee. If we can address the issue and have something in place before the recess, we will be well set to deal with the bill in the subsequent months.
Were not dates identified in the preliminary work of the committee?
There are no official dates. What we agreed last week was in effect just a decision to proceed with a particular way of gathering evidence, but we should be in a position to lay out a schedule and formalise it at next week's meeting.