Official Report 289KB pdf
Our next item of business is consideration of the Scottish Executive's 2003-04 budget. The Scottish Parliament information centre has prepared a paper to identify a number of issues. I invite comments from members before we agree on the process that we will follow.
I will skip straight to point 6, which recommends areas for our examination. I will chip in by saying that I would be interested if we examined specific grants. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the excellence fund is an important part of funding education. As the excellence fund is outwith the general area of education funding, it merits greater explanation. That would enable us to see what is happening.
I agree with much of what Brian Monteith said, with two additions. I echo that the Gaelic situation is worrying. The money has remained static and no new rights have been given to parents of Gaelic-speaking children. We must examine that carefully. I asked questions about that during the previous round of budget discussions.
We need to consider expenditure on schools and get a grip on the detail of what is allocated through the local government budget. Without overburdening the committee, I would also like us to consider children and young people and matters such as sure start grants and pre-five provision. The extent to which that funding is hypothecated or allocated generally is part of a wider debate that we must have with the minister. I would like that to inform discussions.
I echo what Brian Monteith said about special educational needs. We need a clearer picture of the commitments that legislation is putting on local authorities and how they are being funded—the way in which the money is distributed and the volume of it. We can ask generally about ring fencing.
I echo the ring-fencing idea.
I echo that, too.
The proportion of money that is ring-fenced must be clear. The convener raised that issue this morning as part of the Borders inquiry. We do not know enough about whether that amount is growing or reducing. I suspect that it is growing substantially. We do not know enough about the areas that it covers or how much of it remains unspent, which is an interesting issue. Ring fencing should be one focus of our inquiry.
The focus has been on the education remit. Do we want to consider anything on the culture and sport side?
The national companies are an interesting topic. I would like to probe below the real-terms increase in expenditure. The administrative costs of the Scottish Arts Council should also be scrutinised with a fine scrute.
I am unsure whether Mike Russell is talking about the national institutions or the national companies within the Arts Council.
I am talking about the national institutions and the national companies. Despite the figures, we know that the national institutions have a problem. We should explore that funding and how it works.
I do not know what the committee's practice is. I assume that the minister will be present to answer questions.
The usual practice is that we appoint a reporter, who examines in more detail the points that committee members have raised. The reporter comes back to the committee with a report. At that point, we invite the ministers and relevant officials to the committee to question them on the issues. As usual, we are operating to a relatively tight time scale. I suggest that we try to appoint a reporter today.
The reporter has usually been the deputy convener.
Yes, it has been.
We are considering just five big things in a week and a half.
We know that you do not have much to do with your life.
I think that the deputy convener is an entirely suitable person to undertake the task.
I agree.
When will we get the report back?
I suggest 12 March as a suitable date for reporting back to the committee. Is that agreed?
Previous
Scottish Qualifications Authority