Item 1 is the budget process. Members have a paper from the clerk on our approach to budget scrutiny. It is evident from the paper that what the enterprise networks do with their budgets will continue to be extremely important and of relevance to the committee. Therefore, the suggestion that we take evidence from the networks is a good one—unless there are dissenters in the committee. I invite members to comment on the paper.
I am content with such an approach. However, it would be useful for members to have a brief summary of what the enterprise networks said about their budgets the last time that we heard from them, which we could compare with what happened. We will want to ascertain whether what is said the next time that we hear from them bears any resemblance to what happens in the year ahead.
Will we take evidence from quangos and other executive agencies through correspondence, rather than by inviting representatives to appear before the committee?
It might be appropriate to take oral evidence from representatives of the national collections, for example, given the level of budget for which they are responsible. As it says in the paper, the budget of the National Galleries of Scotland is £23 million, the budget of the National Library of Scotland is £23 million and the budget of the National Museums of Scotland is £28 million. We could hear from one of those institutions. We could also hear from Historic Scotland, given that it is reviewing its operation and how it deals with other agencies. Historic Scotland's activity is relevant to much of what happens in the economy. Those are my suggestions, but I am open to members' suggestions.
The Scottish Arts Council, sportscotland and VisitScotland all have sizeable budgets, as the paper shows. If we are to invite representatives from organisations to give evidence to the committee, we need more discussion about who should come along and why. The size of the budget might not necessarily be the main factor in our decision to invite someone.
We should consider how an organisation interacts with other organisations and with the public, rather than the size of its budget. Michael Matheson and I have just attended a meeting at which we discussed aspects of VisitScotland's operation with which we are less than satisfied. The size of the budget does not always reflect the work that is being done.
You both make good points, to which I will return.
I strongly support the deputy convener's suggestion that we hear from Historic Scotland. In a global market, Scotland must play to its strengths, one of which is our unique heritage, which is recognised throughout the world.
I am anxious that the committee should scrutinise organisations that it has not previously scrutinised. We have done a fair bit on VisitScotland through our consideration of the reorganisation of the tourist boards and the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill, and the Scottish Arts Council has been subjected to intensive scrutiny on a number of occasions. However, the committee has never scrutinised the national collections other than to raise questions about the National Galleries of Scotland's acquisitions budgets, hence my suggestion that we invite one of those organisations to come in for a discussion.
It is suggested that the format in which Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been asked to submit their budgets is particularly good and clear and that the other agencies that are coming to give evidence should be asked to do likewise so that we can make comparisons between their budgets on the same basis across the range of responsibility. Is that agreed?
Has anybody added up the figures that we have been given?
I confess that I have not done that.
Have you, Karen?
No. That is why I ask the question. If we suggest that the budgets be presented in that format then, if they are to mean anything to us, they must add up to the amount of money that the agencies had at the start of the year. My confusion with budgets is that there are always bits lying about all over the place. I was trying to do a quick count on the back of the figures that we have been given and I do not think that they add up to the right amount of money because of the way that they have been set out. It would be useful for figures about the agencies' budget allocations and how they will be broken down to be presented in a slightly clearer way than the figures have been presented in the paper.
That is a reasonable request. The clerks can pass it on so that we get a balancing figure that clarifies what is and is not included.
Did we not, at a previous budget scrutiny meeting, request figures down to level 4—rather than level 3, which was what was being provided—because we felt that it would give us much more detail on individual areas? I do not know whether that has been actioned or whether we want to pursue it in this budget scrutiny.
The clerks can check the Official Report to see what was asked for and ensure that information is provided to the level that we previously asked for across all the organisations.
That is particularly pertinent to Scottish Enterprise's budget, given that we are not yet sure how the money will filter down to the local enterprise companies and then down to the training budgets.
Is that agreed?
Next
Work Programme