Rural Affairs Committee, 31 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000

Official Report 233KB pdf

---

Budget 2001-02

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now swapped round and some new faces have joined those who were here for the previous item. The purpose of item 2 on the agenda is to enable the committee to take evidence from the Minister for Rural Development—I understand that his title has changed from Minister for Rural Affairs. He is accompanied by his new deputy and by officials.

We are expected to report to the Finance Committee by 10 November on the detailed proposals in the budget. This committee is not alone in lacking sufficient information to make detailed comment on the budget. I hope that the minister can give us a convincing explanation of what is going on in the department.

There are some specific areas for discussion. Members asked for a fuller explanation of resource accounting and budgeting. A paper has been provided and members will ask questions on the issue. We have also sought information on how the Scottish Executive rural affairs department proposes to monitor the impact of Executive spending generally on rural areas. This is where we start to scrutinise the cross-cutting nature of the rural development role of the minister, who appears to have a new title to reflect that role. Members also asked for information on how the budget proposals reflect the policies and priorities of the Executive.

Before we move on to those wider issues, I invite the Minister for Rural Development to comment on budget issues.

Thank you, convener, for that encouraging welcome. In the course of my opening remarks, I will try to pick up on most of the additional matters to which you referred. However, as I am a qualified chartered accountant, you will understand that the prospects of my explaining resource accounting are pretty slim.

We were worried that we might not understand the explanation.

I have read the explanatory note.

The committee's formal focus at this stage of the process is on level II spending in the rural affairs department for 2001-02. I will refer to the table that is set out on page 22 in "Making a Difference for Scotland" and will address some of the points that you raised.

As part of the new approach to rural policy, all ministers recognise that they have a responsibility for rural Scotland. We have taken rural interests into account in deciding spending priorities across the Executive. I had the good fortune to be involved in that process, which arrived at these level II decisions. Increased or better-targeted expenditure affecting rural areas across all the key themes—economic development, transport, education, the environment and health—have been or will be announced by the relevant department or minister once final level III decisions have been taken. You will appreciate that I cannot discuss today the elements that are still to be announced.

I wrote to you, convener, to explain that work is under way to assess the impact of Executive-led expenditure on rural areas. We have given the committee's request on that matter detailed consideration, because it caused me some concern. Our conclusion was that the substantial work that would be required to provide a statistic showing Executive expenditure in rural areas would not represent an effective use of resources because of the current state of statistics in the Scottish Executive and elsewhere.

As my letter of 11 September noted, what is important is the impact that Executive expenditure has on rural areas. Therefore, we are drawing together existing evidence. However, I must stress that, because expenditure is ultimately spent by bodies that are sometimes once removed from the Executive and because the statistical information in rural areas is not to a high standard, there will be no quick answers from that exercise. Much of the information that is sought will be obtained from future evaluations. Because I share your concern, I will ensure that the committee is kept informed on the issue.

I will now discuss SERAD's expenditure plans. The committee will be aware of the inescapable interaction on a range of schemes of domestically funded expenditure and that funded by the EU. Those are shown separately in the table. Of course, our major spending area—common agricultural policy market support on-farm payment schemes—is entirely funded by Europe. I stress that the table reflects our best estimates at present of likely expenditure based on demand. The figures are only indicative and the amounts will vary annually depending on actual expenditure. Our spending on structural and agri-environmental schemes is funded partly by Europe and partly from domestic resources, so those schemes are shown separately in the table. Bearing in mind the wider financial context, it might be helpful for me to discuss the direction of European policy as it affects our expenditure.

The main increases in my spending plans over the next few years have been determined by the EU Agenda 2000 agreements that were reached by member states in early 1999. Those agreements will largely govern the pattern of EU support to agriculture until 2006. However, there is likely to be an interim review of some CAP regimes, in particular the dairy sector, around 2001-02. The Commission is still considering the review of the sheep annual premium scheme, which was not covered by the Agenda 2000 negotiations. The Scottish Executive will play an active part in all those discussions.

In any event, CAP spending over the next three to six years is likely to be affected by EU enlargement and World Trade Organisation negotiations. The timing and outcome of those negotiations is uncertain but, regrettably, we might expect that they will result in some overall reduction in the levels of support that are permissible for farmers across the EU and some further decoupling of support from production. In the meantime, we have the rural development regulation and the process of modulation, both of which were part of the Agenda 2000 package. They are part of an attempt by the EU to make the CAP more flexible and to recognise the importance of development in rural areas. The rural development regulation, which is now known as the second pillar of the CAP, is designed to assist farmers to adapt to the changes that they face.

Our spending plans reflect our use of both those new measures—the rural development regulation and modulation—to assist farming during the period of inescapable adjustment. The plans reflect my earlier announcements on modulation. As I have said, RDR spending will be covered by the sums that will be modulated from on-farm payments, which will be matched pound for pound by sums from the UK Exchequer.

There are additions to previous plans for the new hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. I understand the significance of that support for farmers and crofters who operate in the hill areas of Scotland, which suffer from inherent disadvantages of climate and topography. I know that the committee has expressed concerns about the issue. I make no apology for the prolonged discussions that we held with the Commission about the scheme. I was not prepared to bow down to pressure from Europe to accept a simplistic scheme that did not reflect the difficult and complex situation in Scotland. I regret the effect of the delay on farming interests, but I do not apologise for holding out for a scheme that was much more suited to our needs. I now expect that gross payments to the industry will be £63 million in 2001, £59 million in 2002, and £56 million in 2003.

The rural-development-related spending plans are clearly linked to two of our key policy priorities: the promotion of improved environmental, employment and living conditions in rural areas; and the promotion of the adaptation of Scotland's agriculture to a sustainable future. I am under no illusion that the increased spending will offer a complete answer. It will not, but we have allocated the funds in the best way.

Elsewhere in the table, there are increases for agricultural services, agencies and fisheries. I have yet to consider the details of the level III funding but I will give members the main reasons for the increases. There is increased support for Scotland's excellent agricultural and biological science base, which accounts for the bulk of our agricultural services spending. That will enable the research institutes to expand their programmes and take advantage of the exciting new opportunities in biological sciences, thus paving the way for the application of the knowledge so generated to improvements in agricultural practice, to care of the environment, to the benefit of the food and biotechnology sectors, and to improvements to health.

There is increased capital investment for the new fishery protection vessels for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and to allow for possible relocation costs for the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency—some £4 million in 2002-03 and more than £6 million in 2003-04. Increased provision for fishery grants, which were referred to earlier, under the EU FIFG grant scheme and the domestic back-up grant scheme, will give £2 million, £3.5 million and £3.5 million on top of the Highlands and Islands transitional objective 1 programme support of £2 million a year. As I indicated earlier, we are considering the particular priorities for allocating money to programmes.

The committee will note that the provision for the Forestry Commission remains unchanged over the review period. I should mention that some £50 million of the annual provision represents resource costs—mainly capital charges on the commission's large forest estate. The underlying cash provision is £30 million. Because of the steep decline in timber prices, the commission's income forecasts are significantly lower than the levels assumed in the 1998 comprehensive spending review, which was the baseline that we inherited. As that problem is GB-wide, the Treasury has been engaged in a wide-ranging review of the commission's finances. We, along with GB forestry ministers, have been discussing that review and the devolved funding consequences. Pending the outcome of those discussions, our budget plans are being left unchanged.

I am conscious of the time-pressures on this committee. I hope that my introduction will assist members in the questions that they may wish to ask.

I have a brief question on the level III figures. We have been asked to prepare information for the Finance Committee by 10 November. Are we likely to have figures by then?

Level III figures? From your opening remarks, convener, I gathered that that was what you were looking for. However, there seems to be some confusion. I have been advised that formal announcements on level III will not happen until early January. We seem to be at cross-purposes. I apologise for that—I am not deliberately trying to withhold figures. My understanding was that we were required to publish in January. If you are now being required by the Finance Committee to give a report, I can understand that that gives rise to confusion. We will have to take up that issue outwith this meeting, and I apologise for that.

I want to ask about the footnote on page 22. Is all of the common agricultural policy market support outside your department's budget? Does it all come from the Exchequer?

No, not from the Exchequer. The figures represent the annually managed expenditure under EU funded moneys. The estimates are done on a UK basis, and we submit our expectations of demand. The appropriate proportions then come under the heading of CAP market support .

Considering the real-terms figures—and regardless of where the money comes from—it seems that, over the next four years, significantly less money will go into agriculture by 2003-04 than goes in now.

Those moneys are not settled within the block. The provisions are the annually managed expenditure and the totals are therefore not fixed within the review period. I can only stress that they are our best estimates. I share Mr Morgan's concern that the figures may indicate some reductions, but I am not sure that we should lay too great a store on them, as they represent annually managed expenditure.

The numbers that we have here for the CAP market support are the numbers that were struck by the UK Treasury at the end of the Whitehall spending review, based on its assessment at that time, which was based on all sorts of assumptions about sterling values and so on. At the conclusion of the spending review, the actual spending totals for CAP in the years to come remain to be seen. They will depend on the sterling-euro exchange rate and the demand on the schemes. Whatever the cost, there will be no cost to the Scottish block: those costs will be borne by the UK Exchequer.

We cannot rely greatly on these figures. Unlike the figures in the top half of the table, which are firm, planned figures, these figures are simply a snapshot that has been taken at this stage.

I realise that the sums do not come out of the rural affairs department's money. However, any department that considers the income of one of the main industries for which it is responsible must make some assessment of where that industry will be in a few years. I know that we must say that these figures are just estimates and projections, but, given that they are the best projections that you can make, and given that they indicate a significant drop in the income that is going into agriculture, you cannot say that they indicate a happy situation. Do you have any comments on that?

That is a perfectly good question—it is the same question that I asked. I am slightly concerned. I understand that that is the way in which the figures have always been presented. However, that is not an excuse. I asked that question, and the answer that I gave you is exactly the answer that I received. We get this block channelled through Europe to ourselves. We have examined that, and our internal estimates and later assumptions suggest that spending may be rather higher than that. However, we could not spend that amount because the figures would not then relate to the proportions that were agreed at the end of the UK spending review, in relation to the draw-down on European funding that was anticipated.

I do not believe that it is right to conclude that the level of either increase or decrease would necessarily reflect that; that is based on assumptions regarding levels of inflation, of exchange rates and of demand. I do not think that it is helpful. The committee and I might want to pursue that matter, to avoid giving a false picture to the agriculture industry.

That might be of interest to anybody who is making a decision on whether to stay in agriculture, although they would not necessarily base such a decision on this document.

I understand that perfectly. That was a major question that I asked my officials. The answer is technical and makes resource accounting seem quite simple.

The farmers ought to concentrate on the existence, or otherwise, of the respective regimes. Their ability to draw down the cash—whether through the beef regime, the sheep regime or whatever—is dependent on the regulation that affects those regimes. Unless there is a change in the technical definition of those regimes, the farmers' ability to draw down the income will not be affected.

Was the modulation announcement that you made last August in terms of cash-based accounting or resource accounting? In the budget, why are the two objectives that you highlighted—sustainable development and agricultural modernisation—not capable of being separated out for action? They are gathered together. Can you give us more information on how much resource will be put into the whole sustainable development issue and how much will be put specifically into agricultural modernisation?

The answer to your first question is cash. The answer to your second question is that we now have the fixed amounts of the money that is available, under the headings of structural and agri-environmental measures and CAP market support. I am going to get into difficulties because of the timing. I hope that the way in which I structure that spending will be driven by the agricultural strategy document that I am currently pursuing as fast as I can. It would be sensible to make allocations more specifically on the basis of having a clearer view on how that strategy panned out and, therefore, the areas into which we ought to be directing—as far as we can—the agri-environmental measures and structural support.

I do not want to seem evasive, as those are two key areas, but, given that the process is being conducted in consultation with the industry and others with an interest in sustainable land use, it would seem sensible for me to match my plans to meet that strategy rather than announce the plans today and then say that the strategy will come later.

I understand that. However, the way that the budget is set up makes it difficult to distil from it the projected spend, specifically on sustainable environmental and economic development issues, separate from general agricultural support. That is perhaps the opposite question to the one that Alasdair Morgan is asking.

Yes. I understand that question.

There appears to be an increase in spending on the agricultural agencies, which you explained are predominantly the Scottish agriculture and biological research institutes. Is there a real increase in spending, or is the apparent increase a result of a change in the basis of the accounting, from a cash-based system to a resource-based system? Does that reflect the capital that is tied up in buildings and equipment in the laboratories, or is it a further investment in the research that is being carried out?

A similar situation occurs in the resources for less-favoured areas. Did the increase in support for less-favoured areas happen because you won a better deal than was expected, or is it a reflection of currency disparities?

I have two quite different answers. The answer to your first question is substantially yes. Under resource accounting, one provides for the cost of capital that was not previously provided under the cash-based system. In so far as the agencies are far and away the main users of capital assets—ships, aircraft or whatever—the agencies' figures reflect the cost of that capital. Comparing the current system of resource accounting with the previous system is largely the reason for the apparent increase. We will incur further capital expenditure under that heading.

I have a slightly more complex answer on LFA support. That had to be negotiated from the UK position. The Treasury took the position that the maximum for that line should be set at an annual expenditure of around £40 million. That was increased to £60 million two years ago, simply as a reaction to the difficulties in hill farming, and it was said then to be a one-off. We have been fortunate, in the past year, to be able to argue that that was a short-term view and that the situation is sufficiently parlous that we should increase that figure yet again to £60 million.

Because of the importance of LFA support to Scottish agriculture, I was keen for us to get as close as we could to sustaining that line. As a result, although I was disappointed in some regards with the outcome of the LFA negotiations as part of the rural development regulation, the latest line of expenditure that I am projecting means that, taken across the three years, the farmers will have the certainty of being only £2 million short of that annual £60 million. That more properly reflects the degree of permanent disadvantage that our LFA farmers suffer.

Important though the subjects of farming, fishing and forestry are, I would like to take the focus away from expenditure on those specific fields. You said to us this afternoon that, in your view, it was not cost-effective to assess the impact on rural development issues of spending across the board in the Scottish Executive. The Executive has at its disposal huge areas of expenditure that are far in excess of the funds that are available for farming, fishing and forestry. For instance, in the local government settlements for Highland Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council or Aberdeenshire Council, there are large sums of Executive money going into rural development. It would be useful if you could outline what your role is in the Scottish Executive in ensuring that adequate funds are spent across the Executive's departments on rural development.

The first thing that I want to emphasise is that I am delighted that we now have a Rural Affairs Committee and a Minister for Rural Development. If nothing else, we have been able to prove that the statistical basis on which the Government, local authorities and other agencies have been maintaining information on rural issues is poor. That is not a surprise to anyone, but, in my extensive travels in the past 15 months, I have discovered that it is poor at every level.

I would love to have the information that you talk about. My job would be made easier as I would have a better handle on the impact of expenditure. I regret to say, however, that at health board level, local authority level, local enterprise company level and so on, the information does not exist. That is why I believe it is not cost-effective to assess the impact on rural development issues of spending across the board in the Scottish Executive.

My role—now shared with Rhona Brankin—is to ask where we are and what we are doing about increases in expenditure across the departments and, in particular, to ask what the departments intend to do. For example, we were concerned to find out how the financial settlement's budget increases for the enterprise and lifelong learning department would affect Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Enterprise budget. We do not want to know what would happen generally, but what the department will do about the allocations of expenditure under the rural programme that the department seeks to develop.

With regard to the increase in transport spending, we have been arguing for additional funds to be spent in the Highlands and Islands and for improvements in the rural transport funds. We know that the minister will announce specific projects within those programmes that will impact on rural areas. With regard to education, the minister has not made a final announcement, but has indicated that there will be a considerable increase in spending on school refurbishment. We have engaged in discussions about how that money will need to be spent in rural areas. Our focus is constant; it is like a rural-proofing exercise in the sense that Rhona Brankin and I have the opportunity to ensure that, when applying programmes in Scotland, the Executive departments not only allocate the money but ensure that the mechanism for delivering the policy will be appropriate to rural areas.

I will probably need an explanatory note to explain the explanatory note on resource accounts and budgeting. Given that it says that

"Resource accounting is the application of accruals accounting",

I will try to keep my question simple. How does the percentage increase that was received by the minister's department under the spending review compare with the percentage increases received by other Executive departments?

The percentages are relatively small for obvious reasons, one of which is that a substantial proportion of the money is common agricultural policy money. As I explained to Alasdair Morgan, we have no reason to believe that the instruments will not allow us to access the same money. Nevertheless, the conventions, which are even less easy to understand than resource accounting is, are as I explained them to Alasdair.

The percentages that relate specifically to our agriculture services and agencies, fisheries services and the Forestry Commission met our requirements. What was important, as far as I was concerned, was that the amounts available for the agriculture industry were adequate per se. More particularly, I was concerned that consequential expenditure in the areas to which Mike Rumbles referred would be applied fairly, especially in rural areas. The budget is heavily skewed, as you can see, by the total EU provision.

If each minister bid for a slice of the cake from the extra £5 billion that was available under the spending review, how much did the rural affairs department get compared with other departments? What was the percentage increase?

In terms of specific services, which are a much smaller proportion of the total Executive budget, we got what was required to progress various elements of our work. Where that money comes from is less important than what it actually does. The total amount, for agriculture and for agri-environmental support measures, certainly reflects that. Even if we were to bid for more money under the headings in the document, we might not necessarily be able to use it.

You must understand that those moneys are directly related to the allowability of expenditure under the CAP regimes in which we operate. If, for example, we were to bid for another £100 million, we would probably be unable to spend it under the terms of basic support for CAP regimes. We are heavily constrained, even in bidding for more money for fisheries. Under fisheries legislation, the amounts that we can offer the industry are tightly constrained. More important for rural development are the sums that have been achieved by other departments, which will be applied fairly and proportionately in rural Scotland.

When I asked a parliamentary question a couple of months ago about how much of the budget the minister has control over that is not linked to Europe, the answer was 21 per cent for 2000-01 and 20 per cent for the following year. Surely the Minister for Rural Development would want to bid for more money to increase the share of the budget that he has control over. Has that percentage increased as a result of your bidding for money?

The amount of money has certainly increased.

I am not talking about European money.

I bid for money based on the outcome that I wanted. I need a new vessel for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. That is vital. I need to relocate SASA for the efficient provision of that service. We do not submit bids in terms of percentages; we bid for the things that we need to improve the delivery of services in rural areas. We could play a percentage game all night and argue about the sums provided for the Crofters Commission or the Deer Commission for Scotland. Within the limited amount of money that is spent directly by the department, we bid for all those things, but I am not aware that we have lost out on anything that would benefit rural areas.

It is my understanding that the Minister for Health and Community Care would bid for as much of the cake as possible to improve the health service and that other ministers would do likewise for their departments.

I think that you misunderstand what ministers are bidding for. We do not just say, "Well, I'd like 50 per cent."

The committee could give you a wish list.

Exactly, but this is based on the things that are under one's control, and the things that are under my control are, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. I needed new money for a new vessel, because one of the vessels is very inefficient to run. It uses an old fuel system and costs us a lot of money. There is also the relocation of SASA. I am sure that the Minister for Health and Community Care did the same as I did. She did not pluck a percentage out of the air; she had programmes for delivering health that she required additional resources for.

There are huge issues, such as the food processors who are petitioning your department for financial aid to meet waste water bills. Is not that an issue for which you could have bid for money?

Waste water regulation comes under the environment.

Food processors are looking to offset the cost, which would come out of the rural affairs budget.

I am not imposing those bills. There is a mismatch with the department that is imposing the cost.

Does Richard Lochhead mean the waste difficulty for fish processors in particular?

Yes.

The new FIFG programme, which concerns the significant sums that were referred to earlier, will make provision for awards to be made to fish processors for capital investments, which will help them to address the problems. There are increases in the programme, which are at least in part intended to address the problem to which you refer.

I accept that, but it escapes me why the rural affairs department is not bidding for more cash to have more discretion over rural Scotland.

Under what area, specifically? There is no point in my bidding for expenditure that is under the control of another minister.

In other words, you are saying that you are unable to spend cash outwith the headings in the budget proposals.

No. You are looking for a duplication in ministries, which is grossly inefficient.

You are the Minister for Rural Development, not the minister for agriculture and fisheries.

I accept that. To avoid unnecessary duplication, we are organised so that we have absolute access to the discussions that take place in other departments. You are surely not suggesting that we start taking officials and bits and pieces out of Pentland House and build a new mezzanine floor of officials, who will haggle with other officials. The sensible arrangement is to ensure that the appropriate expenditure is spent on health, education and roads in rural areas. Allocating the budget in a different way is not sensible.

On a point of order, convener. Committee members will acknowledge that we have had about five questions, which have been the same question asked in a slightly different way each time, and we have had the same answer. We are not making progress and other members wish to question the minister.

Technically, that is not a point of order, but a statement of fact.

I have a brief question, which I hope does not cover the same point. Does the flexibility exist at the moment, or would it be desirable for it to exist in future, so that, if you felt that it would be useful for another department to carry out a particular project—for example, building a hospital in a rural area—but that department did not feel that it could justify the measure in its budget, you could contribute funds from the rural affairs budget? Do you see the department getting to that position, where you could enable another department to do something that it did not feel it had the cash for?

I understand the question, but I will turn it round. When the discussions were taking place about a range of subjects—the kind of wish list that Richard Lochhead referred to—under the Minister for Health and Community Care's domain, my question to the minister and her officials was, "What is the rural dimension? Has it been taken into account?" If the answer is yes, there is not much point in my arguing with the Minister for Finance that I should have a contingency fund just in case the Minister for Health and Community Care does not deliver. My job is to ensure that the assurances are delivered on. We then benefit from the fact that the officials who have considered a proposal are experienced in health matters across Scotland, including rural Scotland. I understand where you are coming from. The process that we are engaged in did not take place previously as there was no mechanism, before the existence of a Rural Affairs Committee and a Minister for Rural Affairs, to ask those questions.

I was interested to learn that, rather like the shellfish, the figures on pages 22 and 23 carry a Government health warning. The only constant seems to be uncertainty, which is not an ideal situation. I have a simple question. Is there any European Union money or budget line that will not be utilised to the hilt between now and 2003-04?

I do not mean pejoratively to describe that as a clever lawyer's question. Even Alasdair Morgan could see that coming. [Laughter.] There may be a supplementary to that question. If you are referring to optional measures at a UK level, that is one thing. However, if you are talking about the access to compulsory spending in those lines of expenditure, there is no chance that we will not use it.

It was a question to which I do not know the whole answer; it therefore had a Forrest Gump-like quality to it. I hope that the Official Report will show the rather long pause between my question—smart or otherwise—and the eventual answer.

It was a difficult question.

My point is really quite simple. There is grave concern among communities in rural and perhaps urban Scotland that there are budgets and resources in Europe that could be made available to Scotland but are not. The current method of reporting financial information makes it difficult to work out what is happening. I know that there will be a debate on openness and transparency tomorrow—

I think that you are referring to the optional elements of agrimonetary compensation, which Governments have to decide as states whether to draw down—there is no money there that we will not draw down. If there is compulsory agrimonetary compensation to be paid, it will be paid—there is no question about that. Of course, its availability is on the decline—a matter that is slightly exaggerated in certain quarters. Some people are eligible for it. However, there is a wide range of schemes.

I am sure that this subject will run and run. It would be extremely useful to all members if the rural affairs department could provide at an early date an exhaustive and detailed list of all the schemes to which the minister referred that are not compulsory, but optional, where we may not be receiving the full benefit. Such a list would be extremely useful in helping us to assess to what extent it would be desirable or possible to take up the benefits that we are not accessing at present.

I am not aware of any other schemes, but I will check on that. If there are others, it should be relatively simple to do as you ask. You are referring to the optional element of agrimonetary compensation.

One scheme to which access is not being utilised to the full—so I have read—is the scheme for compensation in the arable sector. I believe that the deadline is today.

That is exactly what I am talking about. It is one category: the optional, as opposed to the compulsory, element of agrimonetary compensation. I have made my position on that clear to UK agriculture ministers. I have prosecuted the case that the money should be paid, because I believe that that is justified for Scottish farmers.

What was the verdict of that prosecution?

I do not know the verdict, because the decision is, I believe, being taken today.

Are there any further questions? If not, we have probably come to the end of this item. I thank the Minister for Rural Development, Ross Finnie, his new deputy, Rhona Brankin, and their officials for their assistance.

Before we leave this agenda item, let me say that, as we mentioned, we have a fairly tight time scale for reporting to the Finance Committee. Ideally, we would have had a draft report for our next meeting, which may not now be possible. We hoped that we could therefore appoint two reporters to work with the clerk to ensure that we are up to speed on the draft report as quickly as possible. When we have appointed two reporters on issues such as this in the past, we have taken one from the Executive side and one from the Opposition side. Are there any nominations?

I propose Des McNulty.

Des has gone, so we cannot ask him. I was going to propose Elaine Murray.

I second that.

Is there a nomination from the Opposition? If not, is there a volunteer?

Am I allowed to propose Richard Lochhead? Probably not.

No, you cannot propose Richard, as you are not a member of the committee.

I will propose him.

Would you like to take it on, Richard?

I did it last year, so I thought that somebody else might want to do it this year, but I am the only Opposition member here. This is Alasdair Morgan's last meeting and Fergus Ewing is not on the committee.

We will accept those two reporters. We should come up with a draft report by next week or possibly later, if we are allowed an extension. It is normal practice to discuss draft reports in private. Does that meet with the approval of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.