Transport and the Environment Committee, 29 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000

Official Report 130KB pdf

---

Budget

The second agenda item is also a financial matter: a briefing paper on the procedures for considering the Executive budget for 2001-02.

As members will be aware, the publication of the Executive's annual departmental report, which will start the budget process each year, is due to take place on 31 March. We must consider and agree the procedural and practical arrangements for the committee's involvement in the budget process. Next week, we can have preliminary discussion on the details of the departmental report and request from the Executive any additional information that we need.

Are there any comments on the paper before we go through the substantive points for agreement?

I want to reinforce the point that I have already made this morning, convener: that we should investigate the Borders railway line, which is a worthwhile project, and consider the grant allocation to Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. There does not seem to be any way for us to examine the ScotRail payments, or to do anything other than ensure that the SPTA payments are being made. It may be that the SPTA payments are a matter for the Local Government Committee, as they come through a grant to local councils, but that does not apply to the payments made to ScotRail. We must consider the ScotRail payments, the SPTA payments and the challenge funding as well as any aspect of rail expenditure that goes through local councils. We may not be the lead committee on that, but we should be able to consider such things. Apart from that, everything seems to be okay.

Remembering that this is an historical document—

I began by saying that.

We have laid down markers that we would require further information on that.

Are there any other comments on the content of the report? First, I want to seek the committee's approval for the proposed time scale for the committee's consideration of the spending plans at stage 1. Secondly, I want ask the committee whether we should examine the Executive's spending plans in general terms. Are there any areas of particular focus or concern, such as that raised by Murray Tosh?

We need some idea of the scope of evidence taking on those matters. We must consider whether the committee should, in advance of the Easter recess, identify organisations and individuals from whom to take oral evidence on the basis of the discussions on the Executive's departmental report, assuming that that is made available to us as we expect. We must also consider whether the committee should take evidence from the Minister for Transport and the Environment and relevant Executive officials. Finally, we must decide on the format of the committee's report to the Finance Committee.

Those are the decision areas that we must consider and agree upon.

We must consider the Executive spending plans in general terms as this is our first run through the process. I flagged up the railways as an issue of particular concern, because much is happening in that area, including the Westminster Transport Bill and the rail regulator's consideration of payments.

The other area that we might want to consider is water industry funding. The Executive is planning to introduce proposals to respond to some of the concerns about the inflexibility of the current capital funding regime. We might want to consider that and the balance of expenditure—water boards appear to be funding much capital expenditure from current revenue and there has been fairly heavyweight correspondence in the newspapers about that. Other members may have suggestions.

I am concerned about taking evidence prior to Easter. Would we be able to take evidence from the rail regulator, who is responsible for setting out the definitions of the east coast main line? The east coast main line runs from London to Edinburgh. We are arguing that it should run from London to Aberdeen, which would have an impact on spending plans. The franchise commitments follow on from the rail regulator's definition of certain areas.

It looks as though we are already committing ourselves to spending quite a lot of time on the Executive's financial plans. I am concerned that that might infringe on other matters that we might want to put on our timetable for next year. I am very reluctant to extend the amount of time that we commit to the Executive's budget.

We are going to discuss the overall work plan. In the proposals for considering the budget, we have tried to ensure that we can meet other aspects of our remit. In many ways, two oral evidence sessions would be quite lean, but we need at least that. I doubt whether we could manage with any less.

I accept your point, Robin. We must take forward our own work programme. Like many committees, we are having difficulties with the way in which the work of the Executive is affecting those plans. We might have further discussion of our priorities later in the agenda.

I am comfortable with the process that is set out in annexe D. I also take on board Murray Tosh's point about discussing the matter in general terms.

We can timetable some initial discussion for the meeting on 4 April, after the departmental report has been published.

Are there any other comments? Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you.