Finance Committee, 25 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Official Report 174KB pdf

---

Cross-cutting Reviews

Our second agenda item is on cross-cutting expenditure reviews. Murray McVicar will say a few words of introduction on the paper that is before the committee.

I am joined by my colleague Simon Wakefield, who is a principal research specialist in the Scottish Parliament information centre and who will shortly be taking over my responsibility for public finance. We thought that it would be helpful for him to attend the meeting.

Members will remember that, last year, the committee agreed on operational practices with regard to future cross-cutting reviews and asked SPICe to scope some options for future reviews, with a view to recommending a topic to the successor Finance Committee, although, obviously, that committee will not be bound by any recommendation. The paper on cross-cutting expenditure reviews offers some general options and ways to proceed. If members agree on a topic, a more detailed paper with a draft remit, methodology and list of participants can be prepared for early in the new session. The aim is to enable the new committee to hit the ground running with a cross-cutting review, if that is what it decides to do.

I am not an expert on all the topics that the paper covers; it was produced with the assistance of my SPICe colleagues, whom I thank. In identifying options, we focused either on areas on which members have previously expressed an interest in doing a cross-cutting review or on areas that are major Executive cross-cutting priorities.

We came up with six topics. Drug misuse has been suggested previously as a cross-cutting option. In November, the committee also expressed an interest in a review of expenditure in rural areas, and the Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report on the budget requested that the Finance Committee carry out some kind of cross-cutting review on the issue. Economic development and youth crime are Executive priorities. Sustainable development is a cross-cutting priority that has a budget document attached to it. Finally, the Gaelic college on Skye has been identified as an area in which some members are interested.

I hope that that outline of the paper is helpful.

I have two favourite areas to recommend, but I wonder what would be involved in such a review. My first suggestion is a review of economic development. There are difficulties with the economy and we must examine the available tools. I presume that the basis of a review is to answer the questions of who does what, where, and whether there is overlap and room for improvement. What time would be required to run such a review?

We suggest that, if a recommendation goes to the successor Finance Committee and is accepted, we will carry out preparatory work during the summer. The committee work could then be done in the autumn and early in 2004, although the timetable will depend on which review is chosen because when we get into a review, we might end up with more information than we expect. We are aiming for all the reviews to report by spring 2004, but there might be slippage.

I am not sure whether you have had requests from committees other than the Rural Development Committee, but I know that other committees are interested in some of the proposed subjects. For example, the Audit Committee is keen on the drugs issue and has discussed it in various ways. As I recall, the Rural Development Committee asked for a review not only last year, but previously. I am not sure whether it made a formal request through the budget process, but the Rural Development Committee certainly became interested in a review once it realised that it was not just about agriculture and fishing but was concerned with the totality of expenditure in rural areas. Has your department done any preparatory work in conjunction with the clerking team for the Rural Development Committee?

No. We did not want to go too far without getting committee approval for the topic. The purpose of the paper is to identify the options. Once we have the feedback, we will develop a more detailed paper for the next committee, if it decides to go with rural expenditure.

It is interesting to have the selection before us, but would it not be more appropriate for the new committee to make choices for itself than for us to make suggestions? Of course, the officials might find it helpful so that they can do some preparatory work, but that work might be wasted if the new committee chooses to go down a different route.

We will certainly refer the paper to the new committee. We have previously indicated that the present committee would prefer to give the new committee a steer. Members are at liberty to change their view and simply refer the paper.

The drug misuse review is of considerable interest, but the Executive has had a good look at that issue. If we have to make a choice, I would not necessarily want to pursue that one.

I was intrigued by the sustainable development suggestion. That might be well worth pursuing. I do not think that any committee has done a lot of work on that so far. Also, following our trip to Skye, we are almost duty-bound to advise the new committee to look at the Gaelic college.

To say duty-bound is a bit strong, but I understand your point.

It would be helpful for us to make recommendations, but it will be up to the new committee to decide what it wants to do.

I suggest the economic development option and also potentially the sustainable development one. I have sat on both the Finance Committee and on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. There are several aspects of the economy that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has not dealt with and perhaps they need to be dealt with at a slightly different level or in a slightly different way. It might be useful for the new committee to do work on that which could inform work going on elsewhere.

We could also consider the sustainable development proposal. Again, it is not clear which of the other committees might focus on that subject. The subject requires a substantial mind shift that might impact considerably on policies and the way in which many different departments might operate. We are talking about the priority areas that have been identified under "Meeting the Needs"—resource use, energy and travel. Those issues are all critical. It would therefore be useful for us to consider that area.

I am broadly in agreement with Elaine Thomson. Economic development and sustainable development are the two options that I would recommend.

On drugs and youth crime, one possibility is that if another committee takes the lead on those issues on a reporting basis, a member of the Finance Committee could be allocated to that committee, rather than the Finance Committee taking on the issue. We might have to think more about structure. Equally, if the Finance Committee is reviewing economic development, it might seek involvement from some members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. That is just an observation.

So far, the economic development, sustainable development and Gaelic college options have been suggested. Do members agree that we should rank them in that order?

Members indicated agreement.