Objective 2 Draft Plans
We will now revert to the agenda as printed. Jack McConnell, the Minister for Finance, is now here to talk to the committee about the objective 2 draft plans.
Last time Jack was about to address a gathering at which the committee was present, the fire alarm went off. I do not know whether any of his speech will trigger the system this afternoon. We are delighted to have the minister here again, and are appreciative of the time that he is taking to consult the committee on many of the issues that we are considering.
Thank you. I concur with the comments that were made around the table about the visit last week. It seemed to me to be a success and an indication of what we can achieve when MEPs, the committee, the Executive and other colleagues work together to influence what is happening in Brussels at an early stage rather than being left to react to issues. I hope that it will be the start of a regular dialogue involving members of the committee at the European end, as well as here.
I am here today to discuss the draft objective 2 plans. As I have already stated in a letter to the committee, I think that the plans are very much on the right lines. They have been put together by the local partnerships, which we all recognise are important, and reflect both regional and local priorities and the Scottish priorities that we wanted to ensure were included. A great deal of good work has gone into the documents and I would like to put on record my thanks to everybody who has been involved. The time scale was tight and the task was difficult, but it was carried out with some skill at all levels.
I have studied carefully the committee's draft report on the plans and am very happy to answer questions on the issues that it raises. The points that the committee has made are very helpful and I am already taking them into account. I would be very happy to produce a formal response to the report after today's discussion—I suspect early next week. We should be able to submit the plans to the Commission before the end of the month—probably before Easter.
I would like to make three introductory points, all of which will, I believe, be welcomed by the committee. The first relates to the objective 2 map. As members know, before Christmas the Commission agreed in principle that the objective 2 map from Scotland and the rest of the UK would be acceptable. It has now officially confirmed its approval of the UK's objective 2 map. That means that the details of the Scottish map and the percentage of the population it covers are set in stone and we can submit the plans. We expect to be able formally to notify the committee next week of the final position in relation to funding, which may be more favourable to Scotland than we had originally expected—particularly in the transitional areas. I will clarify that within the next few days and notify the committee properly next week. Although we will be in recess, I will write to the convener about that. I may also provide the information in a written answer, so that members can be made aware of the final position. It will certainly not be worse than was previously suggested and there may be additional money, which would be helpful.
My second point concerns the link with European social fund programmes. As members know, we were involved in discussions with the Commission about how much ESF money could be included in the objective 2 plans. Last Friday, officials met the Commission again. The position that they agreed reflects what is set out in my letter to the committee—that the prime programme for delivering ESF money is objective 3 and that there need to be effective co-ordinating mechanisms between objective 2 and objective 3. Where the case has been properly established, it is possible to include ESF money in objective 2 programmes.
However—perhaps not surprisingly—the Commission has questioned the rationale behind the proposal for small amounts of ESF money in the plans for East of Scotland and South of Scotland, given the heavy administrative burden that is involved in managing programmes with an ESF component. It is suggested that we build the elements of ESF funding for those areas that are proposed under objective 2 into the objective 3 programme. As there is already provision for higher-level skills and social inclusion activities in objective 3, I do not believe that that will be difficult. I have asked officials to discuss with the plan teams over the next two weeks how that can be achieved.
My final point arises from a question, which I was asked at the committee's meeting of 21 March, about the gap in funding for programmes, particularly those involving the voluntary sector. I said that we had to be clear that any support that we provided to fill the gap between the old programmes and the new ones should not substitute for the core funding of organisations. All the organisations that were involved in Europe-funded projects were aware that the gap was a possibility. The projects have to have added value and make maximum impact, so I do not want to dilute the funds that are available for that.
I recognise that there are a number of vulnerable community-based projects—perhaps up to 100—that are organised by voluntary sector groups and do not necessarily have the core funding to allow them to continue across that gap period, which may run from June to October. In particular, there are genuine concerns about work-related training for particular target groups. I have received genuine and well-considered representations from a good number of organisations, which say that they may have to scale back their activities and make redundant some of the trainers and care workers for that short period, which would create a serious break in programmes.
It is important that, if that gap is to be filled, those projects also receive funding from some of the match funders, as there are wider obligations than those on the Executive. However, I intend to guarantee funding for projects for vulnerable community groups over the summer period, while the applications for objective 3 are being considered. The most likely option is that the organisations that would like to continue their activity over the summer and believe that their projects meet the terms of the new objective 3 programme would be guaranteed funding at about the level of the ESF grant, whether or not their applications for ESF support succeed in the autumn. If they succeed in getting that funding, perhaps that funding can be back-dated, but I am prepared to set aside funds to cover their costs if they do not succeed in getting funding in the new programmes and are in difficulties. The element of risk for those groups will be taken out of the equation.
I have asked officials to meet representatives of the voluntary sector and the plan teams as a matter of urgency and to give me recommendations on how best to implement that guarantee. There is the fundamental point that several local training projects are geared towards some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It would be wrong to leave them uncertain between now and June or to leave them without training or other activities in the gap period, just because the new programmes are not quite ready. I want to be as helpful as I can. There will have to be a rigorous system to ensure that we do not hand out money willy-nilly, but it is important that the principles are established and that we start work on that urgently.
The most likely possibility is that people might prepare their new application. The discipline of working on the new application will be good for projects. As soon as we have more details, I will give them to the committee—again by parliamentary answer and a letter to the convener.
I hope that that has been helpful and that it deals with a major concern that the committee expressed at its previous meeting. The action that the Executive has taken in conjunction with its partners is important, and I hope that it will be widely welcomed by voluntary groups across Scotland. I am happy to take questions on that or on the plans for the objective 2 programmes.
I welcome your response to the committee's concerns on gap funding. I do not want all our discussion to concentrate on that because we cannot lose sight of the important issues relating to the plans, on which I welcome your general comments. It is important that we cover the statement, because of the concern that has been expressed not only to you, but to committee members.
I certainly welcome a number of the minister's points. I have, like other committee members, received a number of representations from the voluntary sector. The minister will be aware that, in a previous life, I worked in the voluntary sector and therefore have some knowledge of the realities of life, which can sometimes be somewhat different from what may appear to be the case on paper.
I welcome the identification of opportunities to fill some of the gaps. This problem was not highlighted recently; it was identified around 18 months ago, when a number of the projects identified that there were likely to be problems. Can we have assurances that all the projects which were vulnerable have now been brought into the equation?
I am concerned that some redundancy or 90-day notices have already gone out, creating anxiety and problems in the voluntary sector. If those workers then decide to seek other employment, exactly the work that the minister has suggested on on-going applications might not come to fruition. I wondered whether we could have some assurances on that point.
I also seek assurance on the time scale. The minister suggested that some of the organisations involved are concerned that the summer might not be sufficient, and that some flexibility might be required for the rest of this year, to allow all the organisations to complete the process and secure the appropriate funding.
I have to be very clear. This concerns all projects that clearly intend to apply for the new programmes. I do not think that we can fund projects that will not be running between June and September, or even between June and December—when the new programmes will not even apply. We have to start from that basis.
There might also be projects in the same category that do not require such an emergency guarantee. It is important that we target any money that might be available on the projects that need it most. The intention would be to ensure that people who come forward to use the guarantee are people who will apply—preferably those who have a chance of success with their applications.
I was deliberately vague on the time scale. We are not too clear on that because there will be some projects for which funding between July and September is perfectly sufficient; others might need more or less. We should be a little bit flexible at the edges.
The purpose is to ensure that no project closes unnecessarily between programmes. If we keep that purpose in mind, I hope that we can be sufficiently flexible at the margins to ensure that we provide the necessary support. At least one organisation has submitted some redundancy letters—or potential redundancy letters—to members of staff in the past week. I would have preferred to have made this announcement before last Friday, but it was important to ensure that we could deliver on such a guarantee. I can put that forward to the committee today with all surety.
It is important that we now move quickly to firm up the details of how this will work in practice, and to advise those concerned on how best to secure their position. It is a difficult time, but we can provide some assistance.
I ask members to stick with this issue for now before moving on.
I am glad that you said that, because I want to return to one particular point concerning rural areas and objective 2.
Thank you for making your position plain at the beginning, minister, on transitional funding for some major organisations in the voluntary sector. The timing is vital for such organisations. I am sure that there will be initial relief at your announcement today—which we welcome. I understand that you couched it in very careful terms, and that initial relief might not always become long-term relief for some organisations.
A number of organisations have written to Hugh Henry, and the Scottish Association for Mental Health has written a round robin letter to all members of the committee. The urgency for that organisation cannot be stressed enough; its letter said that 54 redundancies were possible and that 500 vocational training places were in jeopardy. Although an announcement has been made today, I would like the minister to tell us when we will be able to let such organisations know what they can expect and when they can expect it. They must have some assurance that their training programmes can continue, so that they can retain the staff required to deliver those programmes. Urgency is required.
We can react immediately. It might take until May to firm up the details, but early discussions with the SAMH and other organisations will be helpful. I am well aware of the urgency of the situation and of the importance of the SAMH's local projects. I visited its project at the Etna training centre in Wishaw two weeks ago. The quality of work being done there is significant and life enhancing. It is important that no threat, uncertainty or unnecessary pressure should be put on vulnerable projects, and I want to ensure that the staff and trainees can feel secure.
We will involve those people in discussions as soon as possible, to ensure that the guarantees that we can provide will give them maximum assistance. Given the reduced amount of European funding available to Scotland in the new programme, they will have to make a judgment about whether they are likely to have such a wide range of projects in the new programme, and will have to consider the extent to which the guarantee might cover them. However, anybody who intends to apply, preferably with good reason, for the new programme should be covered by that guarantee.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I shall take Irene Oldfather's question and then come back to you.
I appreciate today's announcement, but I feel that it has come awfully late. When you came to the committee on 31 August last year, I raised the issue of a possible gap in funding. That has now come to fruition in my constituency, where redundancy notices have been issued for a SAMH project. I am concerned that those redundancy notices have already been issued and about the vagueness of the period of cover. Can you give me an assurance that those organisations will be covered from the end of June until the end of September?
I can give an assurance that no vulnerable group or local project will close unnecessarily before the start of the new programme. That is a better assurance than putting a date on it. That could mean September or October, or slightly later, depending on what happens between now and then. The important thing is that a vulnerable group, especially one that is likely to succeed in the new programme, should not have to close over the summer. That is an important principle and we shall work out the details around that.
The committee first discussed the matter on 31 August last year. Since then, we have made two announcements about providing funding to cover the gap—one for a short period and one for a longer period until June. The gap is now longer than we had anticipated, and the original target of resolving the matter before the end of March has been slightly missed. However, I hope that today's announcement has come early enough to ensure that nobody is left in severe difficulty.
I wish to clarify how proactive the process is. Will groups have to come to you, or will you, either separately or through the existing partnerships, seek to identify effective groups? I have been contacted by smaller groups, operating in Dumfries and Galloway. Some of the larger groups that we deal with are much more switched on to the process.
I am happy to give the guarantee and I am happy to deal with the correspondence, but the groups would be more successful if they did not apply directly to me. To be serious, as well as there being direct discussions with the national group, the partnerships are the right vehicle for this. People will presumably be notified with the details as soon as they are available. In the meantime, they should get in touch with their normal contacts, to find out what is happening.
This is a small point—I am trying to be helpful. Adam Ingram, Michael Russell and Margo MacDonald all spoke to me about this on my way here today. I am sure that the same will be happening to committee members within their own parties. Committee members are often contacted in relation to people who wish to know how to secure their positions. It would be useful if you could inform MSPs, especially those in the eight areas that the Scottish Association for Mental Health has made me aware of, about the outcomes from your announcement today. We have to find some way to get the information to those MSPs, so that they can respond in a more positive tone than they might otherwise have done. It might be useful—I am not trying to tell you how to do your job.
That is not a bad idea. The convener could ask me a parliamentary question and I could provide the right answer; if that were published this week, it would mean that everybody would have the information that is helpful and is desired.
Or, if we anticipate that that will cause delays, a letter could be circulated. At the end of the meeting, we could discuss the quickest way of circulating the information.
I am happy to do that.
Following David Mundell's point, can we be assured that all those groups will get to know about your new announcement?
Yes.
You referred to a financial announcement that will be made fairly soon. You initially referred to the submission of a parliamentary answer to make the announcement, then you changed that to a response to a parliamentary question. That seems to be letting the cat out of the bag, in the sense that you have in mind the planting of a question, possibly through some friendly Labour or Liberal Democrat MSP. In future, would it not be better, when you have an important announcement to make on European Union funding, for it to be made to the committee? That would give the committee the status that it deserves and it would give committee members the opportunity to ask questions about your funding announcement.
At the end of the Parliament's first year, the records of this committee will probably show that there have been more announcements, more details given and more ministerial discussions here than in any other part of the Parliament. I am prepared to stand by that.
The reason I even hint at the possibility of clarifying the funding today is so that the committee is notified before anybody else is. I cannot provide the committee with a firm decision on the allocations today, but I will be able to do so. I have said very carefully that I would write to the convener, as well as answer a parliamentary question. In fact, when that has happened in the past on European matters, the convener and I have sometimes liaised to ensure that the right and proper person—either the convener or deputy convener of the committee—asks the question and is provided with the answer. I have tried to use that model—it is a good way to do it.
As I understand it, the committee is not meeting next Monday or Tuesday; therefore, it would be difficult for me to make an announcement to the committee. It would be good if the information were in the parliamentary domain as quickly as possible. I will do it in writing, rather than verbally.
In our discussion today, I believe that the Executive has announced a significant change, and I welcome that. We wish to have further details as soon as possible. Before Dennis Canavan asked his question, I made the point that I want the details to be firmed up as quickly as possible.
May I make one point?
Nicol Stephen is supposed to be coming at 3 o'clock, and we still have to address the objective 2 plan, so we should move on to that part of the discussion, because we have covered most of the points on gap funding.
There is a huge amount of detail in the objective 2 plan. I welcome the points that the minister made about the committee's work. We have our own draft report, and we can decide today whether to confirm, amend or update it as we see fit. The minister has already commented on some of the content of that report. I will throw open the discussion to the committee, either to comment on the report in the light of the minister's statements, or to ask questions of the minister. Does the minister wish to say something first?
I am listening to what you are saying about time. Would it—
I would like to finish this item today if we can, rather than allow it to drag on.
I have seen a copy of the letter that was sent to the convener in March, on objective 2 funding. Was it dated 30 March?
Yes.
At the first meeting that we had with officials on objective 2 funding, a number of committee members referred to the development of area strategies and area targets. While I accept that those are appropriate ways in which to deal with, for example, social inclusion partnerships in urban areas, I have some difficulty with area targeting and area-based strategies for rural areas. From your background, you will know that Stirling in particular has been successful in accessing European funding for rural areas.
You tried to put some flesh on that in your letter, particularly with regard to the role of area-based strategies. You said that in rural areas, for
"strategic economic development, reference can be made to the structure plan and enterprise network and local authority economic development strategies."
That is a reasonable attempt to help people in those areas, and I understand what you are trying to do, but economic development in rural communities does not always come from those types of strategies. It tends to come from community organisations that are set up either by individuals acting in their own right, or through limited companies for rural partnerships. Some of the kernel work does not find its way into local authority structure plans or economic development strategies. As the former leader of a council, I would be the first to concede that.
While I appreciate what you are trying to achieve by building in another step—which I hope will not contravene European structural funding rules—we need to go further to ensure that we get innovative projects and that the seeds that we find are able to grow. I am far from convinced that we have the right framework to achieve those aims for objective 2 funding in rural areas. The matter must be looked at again.
I agree. Before the end of the month, the East of Scotland plan team will look at the possibility of another, more thematic strand to run alongside the area-based strategies, particularly in the East of Scotland where it might be a challenge. I know that you represent that area and that that is behind your question. It is important that we have a degree of flexibility in area-based strategies to build upon. That is reflected in my letter.
Since I sent the letter to the committee, I have seen the committee's draft report, and the East of Scotland plan team, in its consultation, also received a number of comments on the matters that were raised. It is working on the possibility of a more thematic strand to run alongside the area-based strategies in the final programme, but to some extent it will have to be developed as the process develops. It is important to have an element of that strand in the plan, but it is also important that the committee, the Commission and I recognise that the monitoring committees and implementation teams will need to keep a careful eye on the matter and carry out developments as the programmes get under way.
On much the same theme, but perhaps from a different perspective, I am not 100 per cent sure that I agree with much of what has been said about transitional areas. You said that more money was to be allocated to those areas, but while I understand the concerns of a number of members, it could be argued that the case for rural areas is overstated and misunderstands what the new objective 2 programmes are designed to do.
In the East and West programmes, the urban industrial areas are fully eligible and will have the highest level of grant, whereas the majority of rural areas are in transition because they do not meet the criteria for full eligibility and will have substantially fewer resources allocated over a shorter period. In reality, the rural areas are not priority areas. The programmes are regional and cover both fully eligible and transitional areas, but the policy focus has to be on the fully eligible areas, because the programmes are required to keep the financing of the fully eligible and transitional areas separate. That requirement, together with the greater financial controls that have been exercised, means that if the programmes' priorities are dominated by the transitional areas, they are not able to spend the resources. In other words, if they are out of synchronisation with the priorities of the priority urban areas, they will not be able to spend and the resources will be lost to the programmes as a whole.
Some of the academic argument on the hidden nature of rural poverty has to be treated with caution; at least, I understand that when the rural areas were asked to give evidence of their concerns, they were unable to provide the relevant indicators that would substantiate their case.
Will those concerns be addressed in the distribution of transitional funding?
On your final point, work is continuing to try to improve—or create—information on the indicators of rural poverty; that might be helpful for the Executive as well as for the European programmes.
We must recognise that there are different issues in different parts of Scotland; the position on fully eligible and transitional areas—in terms of the balance, and even area-based strategies—is not the same in the west as in the east. For example, some transitional areas in the west have SIPs, or are linked closely to such arrangements, whereas transitional areas in the east are spread across a large area, and a relatively small amount of money is involved, so area-based targeting might be counter-productive and a more thematic approach might work better.
We can try to be prescriptive at the beginning of a programme; we can try to tie down full areas as more eligible than transitional areas and some spending priorities as more important than others, but sometimes those balances will be mixed. Sometimes there will be opportunities just outside the geographical boundary of a full area—or inside a transitional area—that would provide real training or work opportunities for people who live inside the full eligibility area. We must be careful to monitor the impact of all that as we go along.
The design of the programmes is important because it sets a framework, but what is really important is what we get at the end of the day for the money that we spend. That requires flexibility and co-ordination; it requires, if I dare use the phrase, the cross-cutting or joined-up operation that would allow us, in the end, to get maximum impact. The key thing is to get that maximum impact in the next seven years, because the money will not all be there in seven years' time.
I accept that, but the obvious point to be made is that if the balance is wrong, the impact will be minimised, because the funds that would otherwise be available to meet the priority need will be lost. It is crucial that the priority of those who spend the money is that they get the balance right.
I think that the balance in the plans is right, but during the consultation there will be comments about implementation, which we need to tweak.
Is it correct that, in finalising the plans, nothing will be done that will inhibit the ability to spend money in the areas to which that money has been allocated by, for example, getting priorities out of kilter?
That will not happen.
You are right to address through a thematic approach the concerns that Bruce Crawford raised. I think that Allan Wilson is saying that he feels that there is the potential for imbalance if criteria are set that do not allow us to spend the money.
Nothing of that sort will be done. It is my firm intention that the plans that are submitted before the end of the month should be robust and able to stand the tests that will be applied to them by the Commission. The more robust they are, the more likely it is that they will be approved quickly, so that we can get the programmes under way.
I am reassured by that answer, because I accept the premise that underlies a number of things that Allan Wilson said. In our previous discussions with Mr Imrie, we accepted that the current rural deprivation analysis factors were not adequate for their purpose; you seem to be aware of that. In respect of funding, Dumfries and Galloway Council applied for funding from another source for which it was ineligible because the criteria did not match.
On joined-up government, I am still not clear—in relation to each of the plans, but particularly the plan for the South of Scotland—how the Executive's activities will dovetail with those plans to ensure that we get the most from the funding. Is there a process whereby the Executive examines the plans? I do not expect you to commit to upgrading the A75 today, but I would like to know that there is a process by which the Executive examines the plans and the requirements identified in the plans. Does the Executive consider such examination to be part of a joined-up process?
Local authorities also have a responsibility because they are part of the planning process. They write things into the plans that they consider important. That should join up with the ways in which they spend their money—it is important that they think about that now. They must not use the plans as a lever to press for money at a later date. If there are local roads issues that would link with some of the initiatives that are given priority in the plans, it is important that the authorities that are responsible for those roads treat them as priorities in their programmes. They should not come back at a later date to say, "You agreed with the European plan—now we need money for that local road."
It is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that the plans tie in with our priorities and that they relate closely to them. Partnerships must work at a local level, because local authorities and local public bodies must link the plans to their priorities.
I stress that the European programmes—however important they might be—are only a small part of the activities of the public sector in Scotland's economic and social development. To some extent they are the tail and we are the dove, if there is dovetailing to be done. We must be seen to ensure that the overall priorities on policies and initiatives throughout Scotland are complemented and have value added to them by European plans—those priorities must not be diverted by them.
There are two ways in which we will do that. The first is the annual review process, in which the committee will now also be involved, along with the Executive. That is an important change to the way in which plans are monitored. Secondly, the more day-to-day approach is that the Executive, which is the body through which funds are channelled in Scotland, will chair the bodies that administer the funds. The Executive therefore has a direct role in ensuring that the way in which funds are implemented ties in with what is happening elsewhere in the public sector in Scotland.
The Scottish Executive's responsibilities are identified in the plans. If some of those things are never going to happen and are contrary to your policy and forward planning, it would only be fair to make that clear at this stage. My concern is that there are things in the plan with which the Executive—for legitimate policy reasons—may not want to proceed, despite the fact that part of the plan is predicated on their happening.
There is nothing in the plans that conflicts with the policies of the Executive. However, one of the things that is built into the South of Scotland plan, for example, is a presumption of economic development. It would be possible to argue that the potential for economic development in South of Scotland would be improved if there were a railway through the eastern side of South of Scotland. The fact that we are committing ourselves to economic development in South of Scotland is not the same as committing ourselves to funding a Borders railway. It is important that nothing in the plans conflicts with the Executive's policies, but there is a responsibility on the people at a local level—who agree the plans that are submitted to us—to accept that their priorities must tie in. It cannot all be left to the Executive; this is a real partnership and that works both ways.
Urban dereliction in West of Scotland is correctly identified as a weakness in the revised SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats—analysis. It affects my area. Given that this could be our last opportunity to access funds, will the minister give a commitment to recognising the importance of using this opportunity to attempt to increase the impact and leave a better legacy? We have an opportunity to enter into land reclamation. Some of the German Länder have successfully used structural funds to do that. I note that in his letter to the convener, the minister said that he sees urban dereliction as an important problem that may require a slight increase in the financial allocation to the sector. Can he give a commitment on that today?
There is no decision yet, but I gave a firm steer that that may be required in that letter and to the plan team. Last Monday, when the committee had its early events in Brussels, I had a good discussion with the Brussels office of North Rhine Westphalia. Its land reclamation work, much of which involved structural funds, has been very impressive. We discussed holding a seminar to exchange ideas and best practice some time in the future. As the member with the biggest brownfield site in the whole of Europe in his constituency, I have more than a slight interest in the matter. I can assure the member that I am on the case.
I cannot not come back on what Allan Wilson said. We need rural deprivation indicators. The sooner we get them, the sooner they will help the European Committee in this exercise—and the Local Government Committee when it considers the independent review. One of the key issues is access in rural communities.
It is interesting that the report mentions the possibility of providing money—perhaps European money—to encourage forestry, but notes that there is a distinct problem with the infrastructure for that. Although there is no doubt that infrastructure is a problem, another issue is that if many forestry lorries are pounding the roads, we may create a lot of expense for local authorities, which many will be unable to meet. The partnership and the arrangement you mentioned, whereby local councils work together to think through their objectives, are not, therefore, easy to achieve. That is starkly so in relation to forestry.
I took exception to what Allan Wilson said—I do not usually—about the most needy objective 2 areas. We fought hard in the committee and the Parliament to show that some of the most disadvantaged wards in Scotland do not get objective 2 funding because of the clustering ward arrangement. That is what happened in my constituency. I would like to put that on record because I am very angry about Allan Wilson's statement.
Far be it from me to come between the member for Cunninghame North and the member for Stirling, given my connection with both places. I will stick to the forward plans rather than comment on the committee's debates.
Forestry is a good example of where those who are involved in the plan teams have to take account of the local resources that are available to deliver other elements of the package. If the development of the timber industry requires road improvements, the local authorities that are in the plan teams have to be aware of that when the plans are put together and take it into account. I do not suggest that anyone is doing this, but I can imagine circumstances in which it might suit some of the bodies that are largely funded by the Executive to include things in the plans and then, two years down the line, tell the Executive that, as it agreed to the plan, it has to come up with the money. I hope that all the partners involved ensure that funding ties in with what they have said are the local priorities.
I will draw the discussion to a conclusion. I thank the minister again for taking time to meet us. His comments have been helpful. If, following this discussion, any member wishes to alter anything in the report or submit something to it, they should speak to Stephen Imrie as soon as possible so that we can reflect what we have heard today. Broadly, the thrust of the report seems to be going in the right direction.
I want to put on record my thanks to the committee for all the discussions that we have had over the past six months. The committee's input has been particularly important for producing the best plans for Scotland. We have a good story to tell on the work that has been done nationally and locally. This is an example of the Parliament working well in practice. I hope that—as your report says—in the implementation phase, as we consider the annual reviews and monitor the progress of the programmes, we can keep our constructive relationship. I look forward to that and I am sure that you do too.