The Scottish Parliament - Finance Committee Report

1. This report considers the components of the Finance and Sustainable Growth portfolio in the Draft Budget 2008-09 which fall within the remit of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, as well as how the Draft Budget contributes to the Scottish Government’s “Purpose” of increasing sustainable economic growth.²

2. To assist with its understanding of the implications of the draft budget proposed by the Scottish Government, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee took oral evidence from the following—

Jack Perry, Chief Executive, Hugh Hall, Chief Financial Officer, and Andrew Downie, Finance Director, Group Operations, Scottish Enterprise;
Sandy Cumming, Chief Executive, Forbes Duthie, Director of Corporate Services, and Sandy Brady, Director of Strategy, Highlands and Islands Enterprise;
Philip Riddle, Chief Executive, and Riddell Graham, Director of Strategy, Partnership and Communications, VisitScotland;
Councillor Alison Hay, Regeneration and Sustainable Development Spokesperson, James Fowlie, Team Leader, Environment and Regeneration, Barbara Lindsay, Strategic Director, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and David Valentine, Head of Economic Development, Angus Council and representative of SOLACE and SLAED; and
John Swinney MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, Jim Mather MSP, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Chris McCrone, Finance Team Leader, Finance Directorate, and Graeme Dickson, Director, Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, Scottish Government.

3. In addition, the Committee also received written evidence from Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, VisitScotland, Scottish Renewables and the Scottish Sustainable Energy Foundation.³

4. The Committee would like to thank Mr Peter Wood, the Committee’s budget adviser, for his support and advice throughout the budget scrutiny process.

Budget scrutiny process

Availability of data

5. The Scottish Government’s Scottish Budget Spending Review document was published on 14 November 2007. The document included the Scottish Government’s proposed spending for the Spending Review period, as well as the Draft Budget for 2008-09. During its scrutiny, the Committee considered the Draft Budget for 2008-09 as well as planned spending for 2009-10 and 2010-11.

6. The information in the Draft Budget 2008-09 was presented in accordance with the portfolios of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretaries and therefore reflected the new structure of the Scottish Government’s Directorates General. The Committee, therefore, only examined spending proposals for components of the Finance and Sustainable Growth portfolio.

7. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable growth emphasised the tight timetable that the Scottish Government had worked to—

“The budget was announced on 14 November, four and a half weeks after the information on the headline budget numbers was provided to the [Scottish] Government by HM Treasury. We turned around a headline budget for the Scottish Government within four and a half weeks.”⁴

8. The Cabinet Secretary also stressed that the Scottish Government had worked to protect the period available for Parliamentary scrutiny, arguing—

“the Government in Scotland has worked expeditiously to ensure that Parliament has a budget to consider. In particular, the parliamentary committees have two months to consider the contents of the budget, as they had under previous arrangements, which I have protected through the timetable by which I have supplied information to Parliament.”⁵

9. The majority of the figures presented in the Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 document were available only as cash figures, with the exception of annex C which applies a GDP deflator of 2.7% to the Total Managed Expenditure by portfolio. As this information was only applied to the Directorate General portfolio headings, the Committee’s budget adviser applied the same deflator to a number of other budget headings.⁶ This provided the Committee with a more detailed understanding of the effect, in real-terms, on a range of budget lines within the Finance and Sustainable Development portfolio of the Scottish Government.

10. Additionally, the Scottish Government’s Draft Budget only presents spending totals for key areas and bodies. The allocations for the three main Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) covered by the Committee’s remit – Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland – are only expressed in terms of the total resource budget totals, with no breakdown provided to indicate strategic spending priorities. Moreover, the totals presented do not take account of the reform of the enterprise networks, announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on 26 September 2007. This reform will involve the transfer of core activities from both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. (the new skills agency) and the transfer of the Business Gateway service and the local regeneration functions to local authorities. It also promotes the co-location of enterprise agency personnel with either local authorities or VisitScotland, as well as the establishment of a network finance centre and a network human resources centre for the enterprise agencies. Therefore, although significant changes are expected to the final operating budgets available to the enterprise agencies, there is no detail in the Draft Budget on the final budgets that will be available to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, nor how these budgets will be broken down according to the organisations’ main functions.

11. With the objective of obtaining more detailed figures, the Convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on 7 November 2007 seeking information on more detailed expenditure in relation to the budget headings for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland in order that the Committee could examine the budgets allocated to areas of strategic spend and to administrative costs.⁷ Further information on spending under the energy and climate change budget line and the third sector budget line was also requested.

12. The Cabinet Secretary subsequently provided a breakdown of expenditure for the enterprise agencies on the basis of three sub-categories: current funding, net investment funding and administration. He also suggested that the Committee request more detailed information on proposed expenditure in particular areas from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise directly. The Cabinet Secretary’s response emphasised that previous budget headings for these NDPBs had not allowed outturn expenditure to be monitored because it did not reflect the way in which these bodies controlled their expenditure. He indicated that in future, the Scottish Government’s monitoring of the resource budget would be in three areas: capital income and expenditure, operational expenditure and management and administration expenditure. The Cabinet Secretary also provided more detail on how the budgets for energy and climate change and third sector development would be used.

13. Consequently, a more detailed breakdown of budgetary expenditure was requested from Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland. These NDPBs had, in the past, provided the Committee’s predecessor in session 2 with more detailed expenditure (to level 4) to facilitate that Committee’s scrutiny of the budget. Only VisitScotland was able to provide a further breakdown in its written evidence that it submitted to the Committee. In oral evidence to the Committee, Jack Perry – Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise – explained that “in view of our timetable, providing such a breakdown would be desperately difficult.” He further elaborated—

“Currently we are trying to engineer profound reforms to the entire network. In addition, we have just been given our budget, and we are working through what it means for our operating plan, the efficiency savings that we can realise and the transfers that have not yet been agreed. We are trying to come up with a balanced budget within the timeframe that we have talked about, which goes beyond your timeframe for scrutinising the budget.”⁸

14. Highlands and Islands Enterprise also indicated that it too was unable to provide more detail at this stage. Sandy Cumming, Chief Executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise said—

“We are constructing the new organisation with three particular thrusts. Therefore, going forward, we will not have the breakdown, but we must identify very quickly the amount of money that, on a budgeting basis, we intend to invest in those three areas, which are high-growth businesses, strengthening local communities and improving regional competitiveness.”⁹

15. Due to the ongoing negotiations concerning the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. and the local authorities, none of the witnesses – including the Cabinet Secretary – was able to provide a final figure for the monetary value of the various activities to be transferred or explain how the continuity of service would be delivered and guaranteed for these transferred activities.

16. The lack of disaggregated data for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise budgets restricted the Committee’s capacity to reach an informed view on either the implications of the budgetary cuts for these bodies or the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. or to the local authorities.

17. The majority of the Committee¹⁰ recognises the relatively tight timetable in which the Scottish Government had to provide information to the Parliament as part of this year’s budget process. Nevertheless, the majority of the Committee is of the view that the information provided in the budget was insufficient for the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny. This was further compounded by the lack of clarity on the resource implications of the reforms to the enterprise networks and the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. and to the local authorities.

18. Furthermore, in written evidence, neither Scottish Enterprise nor Highlands and Islands Enterprise was able to provide the Committee with any disaggregated data, even as estimates, which would allow the Committee to arrive at an informed opinion on the impact of the budgetary cuts on the ability of these bodies to deliver their core functions of promoting enterprise development and economic growth in Scotland. The Committee commends Highlands and Islands Enterprise, however, for its more constructive approach in oral evidence when it did provide more detail on how its budget would be affected by proposed transfers to Skills Development Scotland Ltd and local authorities and how it planned to adapt its strategic priorities in the new budgetary context.

19. In addition, the figures presented in the Draft Budget Spending Review 2007 document were only provided in cash terms, not in real terms. The Committee was therefore obliged to use its own resources to establish basic information such as the real term figures for key budget lines over the Spending Review period.

20. The Committee calls on the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to provide the Committee with more detailed disaggregated data as soon as it becomes available and to ensure that more detailed figures are provided in future budget documents. This will allow the Committee to take a more informed view on the use of public money and how it will contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Government’s Purpose.

21. The Committee notes that such information, should it be provided, will be received after the Committee is required to complete its scrutiny of the draft budget. Whilst regrettable, the Committee recognises that this is a consequence of the tight timetable for the Spending Review and the ongoing reform of the enterprise agencies and VisitScotland proposed by the Scottish Government. However, this information should be improved in future years from the perspective of allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny.

The Committee’s scrutiny of the Draft Budget 2008-09

22. The Finance Committee issued guidance for subject committees on the Draft Budget 2008-09. The Finance Committee invited the subject committees to consider three main areas in its guidance. These were:

targets set for the subject committee’s areas of interest and whether Ministerial priorities have been reflected in spending decisions;
subject committees’ views and comments on plans for making efficiencies within the appropriate portfolio; and
any alternative spending proposals which the subject committee wished to propose within the appropriate portfolio (although any such changes should be kept within the overall spending limit set by the Draft Budget and therefore, any proposed increases should be offset by proposals for decreases elsewhere).

23. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s consideration of the Draft Budget 2008-09 focused on two areas:

i. The Committee considered how the Draft Budget and Spending Review would contribute to the Scottish Government’s Purpose of focusing government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing economic sustainable growth. This was examined in light of the two principal objectives set out in the Scottish Government’s economic strategy: to raise Scotland’s GDP growth rate to the UK level by 2011 and to match the GDP growth rate of the small independent European Union countries by 2017.

ii. The Committee examined the specific elements of the Finance and Sustainable Growth portfolio which fell within the remit of the Committee.

24. The following sections of the report will first consider the ways in which the Draft Budget 2008-09 supports the Scottish Government’s Purpose, before examining the individual budgetary allocations relevant to the Committee’s remit in the context of the Purpose targets.

The Scottish Government’s Purpose

25. The Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 document sets out the Scottish Government’s national performance framework. The framework has a single overarching Purpose, under which there are a number of high level Purpose targets. The Purpose targets include raising “the GDP growth rate to the UK level by 2011” and matching “the growth rate of small independent EU countries by 2017.”¹¹ A need is also identified to focus on improving Scotland’s productivity and competitiveness, increasing labour market participation and stimulating population growth.

26. The Committee recognises the tighter budgetary settlement for the Spending Review period in comparison to previous years and that Total Managed Expenditure will rise by an average of 1.1% per annum in real terms.¹² The Committee notes that four major spending areas – Rural Affairs and Environment, Justice, Health and Wellbeing and Local Government - have received planned spending increases above the budget average.¹³ However, the Finance and Sustainable Growth portfolio spend rises by only 0.1% per annum over the three-year Spending Review period and the Education and Lifelong Learning portfolio spend falls by an average of 0.3% per annum in real terms. The proposed Enterprise, Energy and Tourism Budget falls by 2.4% in cash terms and 9.7% in real terms between 2007-08 and 2010-11.¹⁴ The Committee also noted that there will be a sharp rise in cash terms in spending on trunk roads of 34.9% (24% in real terms) and ferries of 49% (38% in real terms). The cash figures for trunk roads and ferries in 2010-11 are £303m and £36.6m respectively.

27. In oral evidence to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, emphasised how the budget as a whole contributed to the Scottish Government’s Purpose—

“The last thing I want the committee to think is that the only money that we have put into economic development is what is spent on Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland. Our economic interventions are much more comprehensive than that. They take into account a formidable investment programme in the transport sector over the next three years, investment in higher and further education sectors, a significant increase in the capital expenditure opportunities for local authorities throughout Scotland and the economic consequences of local authorities’ investment. They also take into account the fact that the [Scottish] Government is putting in place a significant scheme to reduce the cost of doing business for small companies. That measure will have an effect on communities in every part of Scotland and a beneficial effect on smaller companies.”¹⁵

28. The Scottish Government’s Purpose was welcomed by Scottish Enterprise as a move towards alignment—

“During the currency of this budget, Scottish Enterprise will have less than 1 per cent of the Scottish Government’s budget. We cannot be transformational on our own. We can get extremely good leverage for that money – we believe that the economic impact of what we deliver is probably about five times the amount that is put in – but even that cannot be transformational in itself if the rest of the public sector is not aligned behind growth. We welcome the move towards alignment, but a lot of hard work needs to be done to turn it into reality.”¹⁶

29. The Cabinet Secretary stressed the importance of looking more globally at the Scottish Government’s spending proposals. He emphasised that “you will find that the cost of the resource that the Government is allocating to reduce business rates outweighs the reductions in the budgets to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.”¹⁷ He further stated that “expenditure on the small business rates scheme in 2008-09 will be a net additional cost of £37 million, followed by £89 million in 2009-10 and £139 million in 2010-11.”¹⁸ This compares to an allocation in 2007-08 of £24 million to the existing Small Business Rate Relief scheme. In written evidence to the Committee, he provided evidence that under the Small Business Bonus Scheme, businesses with properties with a rateable value of £15,000 or less will make an average saving of £308 in 2008-09, £724 in 2009-10 and £1,002 in 2010-11.¹⁹

30. The Committee noted that the budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise would be cut over the Spending Review period, thus reducing expenditure on direct economic development activity. In comparison to the 2007-08 budget, Scottish Enterprise’s budget would be reduced in real terms by 14% over this period, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s budget would be reduced by 21%. As no figures were available on the respective budgets for these two bodies over the Spending Review period after (i.e. net of) the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. and local authorities, the Committee was unable to ascertain how the costs of the restructuring would be apportioned between the bodies concerned.

31. In the Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 document, the Scottish Government explains the budgetary changes to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, stating that the most significant changes reflect the restructuring plans “which will reduce running and salary costs over the period” and also “include a cut in direct capital funding in line with the enterprise networks’ increasing ability to fund capital projects through receipts from asset sales and collaboration with the private sector.”²⁰ It is important to note, however, that the restructuring referred to here does not include the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd and of the Business Gateway and local economic development function to the local authorities.

32. In evidence to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth provided the following explanation as to how he had constructed the budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise—

“The construction of the budgets and the assessment of the role of the organisations is a product of their existing functions, the different functions that the Government wants them to produce and perform, and the functions that the Government no longer wants them to be involved in nor to produce and perform. Based on all those decisions, assessments are made about the likely components of the budget. All the factors that the Government took into account in assessing the role and responsibilities of the enterprise networks have consequences in terms of the construction of the budget.”²¹

33. The Committee concludes that the Scottish Government has determined that its Purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth can be best achieved by a different approach which includes further reductions in business rates for small businesses under the Small Business Bonus Scheme, as well as a continuing allocation of funding, albeit less than in previous years, to the enterprise agencies and local authorities to perform the function of promoting economic development.

34. The Committee recognises that the Scottish Government is operating in the Spending Review period where Total Managed Expenditure will rise on average by 1.1% in real terms.

35. The Committee recognises that expenditure across budget portfolios is relevant to the achievement of the Scottish Government’s Purpose and its economic growth Purpose targets. The Budget does not, however, present any link between expenditure and outcomes, or show how any particular item of spending will lead to economic growth. With 60% allocated in block grants to NHS boards and local councils, it is not possible for the Committee to assess the economic impact of the budget as a whole.

36. The Committee notes the Scottish Government’s Purpose to increase sustainable economic growth and how it plans to achieve this through its budget proposals. The Committee supports the Scottish Government’s Purpose in this respect. However, at this stage, due to the ongoing nature of some of the proposed reforms, it is too early to say whether this budget will deliver on the Scottish Government’s Purpose.

Budgetary Allocations

37. This section of the report examines the individual budgetary allocations to the three NDPBs - Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, VisitScotland - as well as the other budget lines for grants and programmes which fall within the remit of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. It also considers the transfer of the Business Gateway function to local authorities and the implications for the continued provision of advice and support for business growth and economic development at the local level.

Scottish Enterprise

38. The budget for Scottish Enterprise was £465.1m in 2007-8. Over the three-year Spending Review period it will fall on an annual basis to £448.6m/£433.8m/£431.4m. In real terms, using a simple 2.7% deflator, the figures are £436.81m/£411.57m/£399.07m for this period. In oral evidence to the Committee, Scottish Enterprise stated “the financial settlement that we face over the next three years is extremely challenging, but that is hardly unique to us.”²² The majority of the Committee²³ considered that these figures do not reflect the further reductions to Scottish Enterprise’s budget which will result from the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd and of the Business Gateway and local economic development function to the local authorities.

39. In oral evidence, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth confirmed that the Scottish Government wanted Scottish Enterprise to focus “its efforts on the core function of being an enterprise development organisation that works to provide the quality support that companies require” and that he wanted “Scottish Enterprise to be fully aligned with delivering the Government’s economic strategy.”²⁴ He further explained that he wanted “the remainder of the organisation’s function to concentrate on enterprise development, on company support and on ensuring that we can transform the prospects of companies.”²⁵

40. In its written submission to the Committee, Scottish Enterprise stated that “given the short timescale since the announcement of the Government’s Spending Review on 14 November coupled with the impending changes to Scottish Enterprise’s responsibilities, it has not been possible to provide as much detail on SE’s budget at this stage as in previous years.”²⁶

41. In evidence to the Committee, Jack Perry – the Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise – further explained that it currently did not know how much its total operating budget would be, due to the ongoing negotiations on the structural changes—

“It is not in our gift when those negotiations conclude, although we have had some preliminary discussions with the Scottish Government about what the size of the transfer might be. However, we are involved in some detailed discussions on a few imponderables with regard to local regeneration and physical business infrastructure.” ²⁷

42. Scottish Enterprise stated that if negotiations could be finalised before Christmas, then it would be in a position to put its budget and a final draft business plan and resource allocation to its board by the end of January 2008. This is after the Committee concludes its scrutiny of the Draft Budget 2008-09, which it is required to do by 21 December 2007.

43. Scottish Enterprise indicated that approximately 200 staff would leave the organisation through the voluntary severance programme and that it planned “to fund the severance programme in the current financial year with a payback period of circa 2 years”²⁸ in order that Scottish Enterprise “could get the benefits in the three years following”.²⁹ Jack Perry stated in oral evidence to the Committee that Scottish Enterprise had “allocated no more than £25 million” for its voluntary severance programme.³⁰

44. The Committee explored the implications of the cuts to Scottish Enterprise’s budget in terms of its ongoing activities. Scottish Enterprise explained that it had “a commitment to realise about £10 million of efficiency savings”, but that it was unable to inform the Committee “at this stage what will be prioritised.”³¹

45. Scottish Enterprise confirmed that it would maintain its twelve Local Enterprise company offices, which would continue to be responsible for delivering services to customers, major projects and the initiation and identification of projects.

46. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, stressed the value of the reform to the enterprise network, arguing that “abolishing the local enterprise companies abolishes with them a level of bureaucracy that had to be addressed” and also there were advantages in the enterprise companies and VisitScotland “sharing the type of services it is not essential for each organisation to have in place separately and distinctively.”³² In a letter to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary provided further detail on the activities that would no longer be necessary following the abolition of the Local Enterprise Companies (LECs), but confirmed that he was “unable to provide the committee with a specific figure at this point” for the monetary value of the savings.³³

47. Scottish Enterprise clarified how savings would be made in relation to the abolition of LECs. It stated that this would represent real savings “although they will not be huge.”³⁴ It further elaborated that as the directors of local enterprise agencies are all volunteers, “there is absolutely no cost saving in doing away with them, although we will save quite a bit of time on non-productive activities…and on the cost of servicing the statutory requirements of those companies.” It perceived a more significant saving arising from an ability to “delayer the management of the organisation – which is where the 200 redundancies largely come from – that services the local enterprise company network from Atlantic Quay.”³⁵

48. Scottish Enterprise welcomed the opportunity to co-locate staff “where it is sensible to do so, with council economic development offices and/or VisitScotland”,³⁶ and indicated that “once we understand the operational models, we will examine how we might co-locate with other bodies.”³⁷

49. The Committee considers that there is a lack of clarity concerning the activities and functions to be retained by Scottish Enterprise and therefore on what Scottish Enterprise’s final operational budget will be for the next three years. The lack of information from Scottish Enterprise on the activities that will need to be adjusted to adapt to the new budget suggests that a strategic approach to the reform of Scottish Enterprise has not been fully developed and that there is scarce evidence provided by Scottish Enterprise on how it will tailor its strategic priorities over the next three years.

50. The Committee is concerned by the length of time that negotiations are taking on agreeing the transfer of Scottish Enterprise activities. The Committee urges all involved to conclude the discussions as soon as possible.

51. The Committee looks forward to receiving a copy of Scottish Enterprise’s new operating plan so that it can consider the impact of the reform of the enterprise networks on Scottish Enterprise and how the latter has redefined its strategic priorities. It will also help the Committee to decide whether the abolition of Scottish Enterprise’s Local Enterprise Companies will achieve a reduction in the overall operating costs of Scottish Enterprise and whether the pursuit of co-location opportunities and the sharing of resources will allow the agency to deliver its strategic priorities more effectively, and at a lower cost.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise

52. The Committee is aware that the cut to the budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise is proportionately greater than the one proposed in the budget for Scottish Enterprise. In comparison to a 2007-08 figure of £103.0m, the draft budget and the plans for the remainder of the Spending Review period are £91.9m/£88.8m/£88.3m. In real terms, using a simple 2.7% deflator, the figures are £89.39m/£84.25m/£81.68m. This represents a 21% real terms reduction in Highlands and Islands budget, compared to a 14% real terms reduction for Scottish Enterprise. No explanation was offered by the Cabinet Secretary either in the budget documents or oral evidence for the higher level of the cut to HIE’s budget.

53. The Committee noted the positive comments by the Chief Executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise about the prospect of “a period of significant change” and that he is “excited by that change and the opportunity to create an integrated regional development agency that will prove its worth in 21st century Scotland.”³⁸

54. The budget for HIE also represents the figure before the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd and to local authorities. In evidence to the Committee, Sandy Cumming – the Chief Executive of HIE – was, unlike his counterparts in Scottish Enterprise, able to provide more information on the likely implications of the transfers for his organisation. He said that:

“National training programmes alone account for more than £10 million. The salaries bill and other costs related to Careers Scotland staff amount to another £4 million to £5 million. Those two figures alone produce a minimum of £15 million. Beyond that, there is a greyness about how much might have to be transferred for the business gateway and any other skills activity. We are negotiating on such matters.”³⁹

55. However, Highlands and Islands Enterprise was unable to provide detailed disaggregated data on its budget, although it did elaborate in oral evidence on how it planned to adapt its activities to the reductions in its operating budget. In written evidence to the Committee, it noted that it “faces a significant challenge over the planning cycle of the next few months to align its activities with the strategic priorities and targets of the economic strategy and to do so with the reduced financial and staffing resources available.”⁴⁰

56. HIE indicated that it planned to adapt to the budgetary cuts by focusing on three broad areas: support for high-growth business, strengthening local communities and creating the infrastructure and conditions to improve regional competitiveness. Furthermore, HIE stated that it planned to review the amount of money that it invested in property activity in the Highlands and Islands, and reduce it from £15-20m by approximately £10m annually. Given the reduced level of market failure in the Highlands and Islands, HIE considered that this role could be taken over by the private sector. HIE also stated the intention to use its resources where it could “get best value for money and the best outcomes for the Highlands and Islands” in terms of the three areas it focuses on in the future. HIE estimated the cost of Business Gateway functions to be in the region of £2 million.⁴¹ HIE confirmed to the Committee that it was pursuing co-location opportunities in order to reduce its costs further.

57. HIE anticipated that “going forward, we expect that the level of additional income that the organisation generates will be maintained at around £16.4 million.”⁴² HIE explained that this additional funding was derived from property sales, loan income, investment returns and European income and would be maintained at that level.

58. HIE did provide more detail to the Committee in oral evidence on the progress of implementing the enterprise networks review. HIE indicated that it had set up a joint task force with local authorities to introduce the Business Gateway model into the Highlands and Islands. HIE explained that there was still a need for clarity on whether it would have a role in workforce development and as a delivery body for the new skills agency in the north of Scotland.

59. HIE noted in written evidence to the Committee that it would be necessary to reduce the number of staff by around 50 posts and that the savings would be reinvested in HIE’s regional and local activities. Sandy Cumming, the Chief Executive of HIE stated, “We will slim down in Inverness, but I think that the cuts will be made throughout the Highlands and Islands.”⁴³

60. The lack of available information on the implications of the transfer of activities to the new skills agency and on how HIE will allocate its budget strategically over the Spending Review period makes it difficult for the Committee to reach an informed view on the implications of the budgetary cuts to HIE and its activities.

61. The Committee is of the view that HIE, as an organisation, seems to be more advanced in planning how it will adjust its activities in the context of the budgetary cuts than Scottish Enterprise. The Committee notes Highland and Islands Enterprise’s intention to reduce its investment in property by up to £10 million per year in order to adjust to the reduced size of its budget. However, at this stage, the Committee has seen no evidence as to whether the adjustments to HIE’s property acquisitions will be sufficient to compensate for the reduction in its operating grant.

62. By division, the Committee agreed⁴⁴ that it is very concerned by the higher proportionate cut to HIE’s budget and the impact that this will have on its capacity to deliver support in the more fragile economic environment of the Highlands and Islands.

63. The Committee is also concerned by the length of time that negotiations are taking on agreeing the transfer of Highlands and Islands Enterprise activities. The Committee urges all involved to conclude the discussions as soon as possible.

64. The Committee looks forward to receiving a copy of Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s new operating plan so that it can consider the impact of the reform of the enterprise networks on the agency and how the latter has redefined its strategic priorities. It will also help the Committee to decide whether the abolition of Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s Local Enterprise Companies will achieve a reduction in the overall operating costs of the agency and whether the pursuit of co-location opportunities and the sharing of resources will allow the agency to deliver its strategic priorities more effectively, and at a lower cost.

Local authorities and the Business Gateway function

65. In his announcement on the future of the enterprise networks, made on 26 September 2007, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth announced that in order “to create greater cohesion in the provision of local economic and enterprise development services in Scotland”⁴⁵, local authorities would take over the Business Gateway function and local regeneration activity in the Scottish Enterprise area. He also committed to providing the Business Gateway service in the Highlands and Islands area. In evidence to the Committee, COSLA emphasised that this statement was the first information that they received on the transfer of activities, stating “we did not know what was going to happen until we heard the words come out of the cabinet secretary’s mouth.”⁴⁶

66. In evidence to the Committee, as noted above, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise both indicated that negotiations were ongoing as to the extent of the transfer of activities to the local authorities. COSLA confirmed this—

“We are not yet sure about the budget that will transfer to us from the enterprise networks and the changes that are about to occur as a result of the transfer of functions from the networks, so we are presently in negotiation with both sides … to enable us to take account of the budget and changes, come to a conclusion and take that conclusion to the Government as a basis for negotiation. I am not sure whether that is what you want to hear, but sums are not exactly at the forefront of our negotiations at the moment.”⁴⁷

67. COSLA’s view was that the cost of the transfer of contracts for the Business Gateway for the Scottish Enterprise area was £10.5m. However, COSLA also stressed that it was—

“…a prerequisite…that we bring with the gateway contracts the central performance management unit, the responsibility for marketing – and the budget that goes with it – and the fulfilment centre. Without that, the transfer is really not a viable proposition for local authorities, because we would be nothing but a postbox. We would not be responsible for the vision or leadership and strategy.”⁴⁸

68. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth confirmed in oral evidence that negotiations were ongoing as to the eventual location of the central management function of the Business Gateway contracts, acknowledging that “there is some sense in drawing it all together within a local authority sphere; there is also a sense to keeping it within the Scottish Enterprise sphere.”⁴⁹

69. COSLA also expressed its understanding that the budget for regeneration activities carried out currently by Scottish Enterprise was in the region of £100m. Furthermore, COSLA indicated that it had “been promised an open-book approach over at least five years, project by project and area by area, so we can gain an understanding and enter into a dialogue about what should be retained centrally and what should come over to local authorities.”⁵⁰

70. The Committee is surprised that local authorities only became aware of the Scottish Government’s intentions to transfer a local development function to them when the Cabinet Secretary made his announcement to Parliament on 26 September 2007.

71. The Committee looks forward to being able to consider the detail of the final transfer of the Business Gateway service and regeneration functions from the enterprise agencies to the local authorities and the impact – if any – that this will have on the delivery of services at the local level.

VisitScotland

72. VisitScotland’s budget is set to increase in cash terms from a 2007-08 base of £43.8m to £47.9m/£46.8m/£46.8m over the three-year Spending Review period. In real terms, this represents a slight dip of 1.16% on the 2007-08 figure by 2010-11. The real terms figures, using a simple 2.7% deflator, are £46.54m/£44.4/£43.29m for the period. The Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 document explains that the additional expenditure for VisitScotland includes the promotion of the Ryder Cup and maintenance of VistScotland’s capital estate.

73. VisitScotland indicated that it “was comfortable with the spending review” as “it has continued the progression of interest in and support for tourism.”⁵¹ It explained that the additional funding for the Ryder Cup was reflected in the budget for EventScotland, which would increase from £5.5m in the current budgetary year to £7m for the three years of the Spending Review period. The increase in the capital budget was to respond to the increased stock of capital assets that had resulted from the integration of the 14 area tourist boards two years ago.

74. The Committee notes the views of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth included written evidence that VisitScotland will retain local offices “to ensure that they remain close to the customers and can deliver effective local services in partnership with local authorities and other agencies.”⁵²

75. The Committee is of the view that the changes to the budgetary allocations to VisitScotland over the Spending Review period will be broadly neutral with a 6.8% cash increase and a 1.2% real-terms decrease in Visit Scotland’s operating budget over the Spending Review period. It also considers that opportunities to co-locate with other agencies should help to reduce operating costs.

76. The Committee’s inquiry into tourism will address areas relevant to the budgets of VisitScotland and its spending priorities.

Other budget lines

77. There are some relatively significant increases in some of the other budget lines in the Enterprise, Energy and Tourism portfolio. The energy and climate change budget increases from £19.9m in 2007-08 to £33.5m/£33m/£33m over the Spending Review period. However, as disaggregated figures have not been provided there is little in the Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007 document on how these funds will be allocated apart from an indication that it includes a contribution to the costs of the UK Committee on Climate Change and will cover the costs in 2008-09 of the consultation for the Scottish Climate Change Bill.

78. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth did provide more detail in his letter to the Convener and in evidence to the Committee. He explained that “funding will be directed to energy efficiency programmes, to the development and deployment of emerging renewable technologies (e.g. marine, hydrogen), to increasing the use of forms of clean energy not currently well exploited in Scotland (e.g. biomass) and so supporting wider uptake of microgeneration.”⁵³ In evidence to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary further explained that spending on community and household renewables, which forms part of this budget, will be trebled to £13m annually.

79. In response to questioning by the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed, that in his view, this budget was sufficient to achieve the Government’s ambition to become a global powerhouse in renewable energy. He explained that there would also be a number of private sector interventions in this area which would contribute “formidably to the generation of new sources of power.”⁵⁴

80.There is an increase in funding for Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Policy from £5.3m in 2001-08 to £8m annually over the Spending Review period, although the Committee notes that the £52million budget line for innovation and investment grants, including regional selective assistance, stands still in cash terms and therefore falls in real terms across the three years of the Spending Review.

81. European Programming Administration and Consultancies expenditure rises to an annual spend of £1.7m in comparison to £0.3m for 2007-08. The explanation provided for this increase is that it is needed, in part, to respond to the new arrangements required by the European Commission to fund the administration of the programme. It is not clear where the ‘requirement’ for consultancies arises. It is also not clear why a reduction in the number of programme management executives (that administered these EU funds) from five to two has resulted in increased costs.

82. The Third Sector Development Budget increases significantly from £15.1m in 2007-08 to £19.2m/£22.2m/£22.2m in the Spending Review period. In addition, a new Scottish Investment Fund is established to “support enterprise in the third sector by investing assets, business development and the skills of people working in the sector with funding of £4m/£10m/£16m over the Spending Review period.”⁵⁵

83. The Committee also noted the following new or increased budgets:⁵⁶

The new Saltire and Horizon prizes will cost £2m in 2008-09 and 2009-10 and £12m in 2010-11.
An additional £1m is provided to Business Gateway International Trade in 2008-09.
Funding of £13.6m/£16m/£16.2m has been allocated to establish a National Procurement Centre of Expertise and to take forward the Scottish Government’s plans for more e-procurement.
Funding, to the tune of £0.4m/£0.4m/£0.4m has been provided for the newly established Council of Economic Advisers, but no further detail has been provided.
Specific funding has been found to enhance life sciences in Dundee (£2m/£3m/£5m) although it is unclear what this will be used for and why Dundee alone seems to have been identified as the recipient of such sums.

84. The Committee welcomes the increase to the third sector development budget and looks forward to greater detail on how this money will be spent and contribute to the Purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth.

85. The Committee welcomes the allocation of money to the Saltire and Horizon prizes. It also welcomes the increased budget for the National Procurement Centre of Expertise and the support it will provide to the Scottish Government’s plans for promoting e-procurement.

86. Although the Committee welcomes the increases to the energy and climate change budget, it does not share the Cabinet Secretary’s conviction that this increased support to energy projects at these levels will be sufficient in and of itself to ensure that Scotland becomes a global powerhouse for renewable energy. This is because there are a significant number of obstacles – such as planning consent, the capacity of the national grid and grid connection charges - that still need to be overcome. This is a subject the Committee will return to in its energy inquiry in the course of 2008.

87. The Committee calls for the Scottish Government to provide more disaggregated data on the planned use of the budgets listed above. The Committee believes that this is necessary to make the budget process a transparent one and also to provide more information on policy intentions.

Additional in-year allocations

88. In evidence to the Committee, both VisitScotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise indicated that in previous financial years they had benefited from the receipt of additional funding from end-year flexibility for specific projects. HIE confirmed that it had benefited from in-year allocations in recent years, but was uncertain as to whether such funding would be available in the future. VisitScotland confirmed that it had “received an additional £55 million over and above our core grant over the years since 2001” and confirmed that if the opportunity arose in the future it would make the case for investment in tourism.⁵⁷

89. When questioned by the Committee on the future potential for additional funding to be sought by bodies such as HIE and VisitScotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth stated “room would be available only in the context of in-year adjustments, for example if budget lines for other areas had not performed as expected – slippage on a capital programme is a not uncommon factor; revenue demands might not have been as great as we thought.”⁵⁸

90. On the basis of the evidence provided by the Cabinet Secretary, the Committee believes that bodies such as VisitScotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are less likely to benefit from additional funding as the result of in-year adjustments due to the fact that the Scottish Government has over-budgeted for the 2008-09 budgetary year and the Spending Review period.

Efficiency savings

91. The Draft Budget Spending Review 2007 document states that a new Efficient Government Programme for 2008-11 “provides a new commitment to delivering 2 per cent cash-releasing efficiencies each year over the next three years.”⁵⁹ It anticipated that the “majority of efficiency gains are expected to be delivered by business improvement, more effective management of public assets and the application of shared services, including improved collaborative procurement.”⁶⁰

92. In oral evidence to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth explained that due to tighter financial climate “I have applied a much tougher level of efficiency savings than I previously envisaged applying, so that we can guarantee that greater value will be delivered from the public expenditure that we have at our disposal.”⁶¹ He also confirmed that the 2 per cent efficiency savings target would be applied to the whole budget of the NDPBs, but that they would be able to reallocate those funds within their budgets.

93. Scottish Enterprise stated that “the Spending Review settlement does present SE with some real challenges going forwards in terms of delivering its growing pipeline of projects and realising a further 2% efficiency savings.”⁶²

94. The Committee considers that the requirement to achieve 2 per cent cash releasing efficiencies annually will represent a particular challenge for the enterprise networks over the Spending Review period. Both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have to achieve these efficiency savings at the same time as financing their voluntary severance programmes and undergoing major structural reorganisation. The Committee notes the Cabinet Secretary’s explanation concerning the way that cash-releasing savings will be delivered, but considers that it is unclear how the need to achieve 2 per cent cash-releasing savings will impact on the budgets of the enterprise agencies.

Conclusions & recommendations

95. In addressing its conclusions to the Finance Committee, the Committee would also like to include comments on its capacity to scrutinise the budget on the basis of the evidence available, as well as considering the three areas identified in the Finance Committee’s guidance.

The Committee’s ability to scrutinise the Draft Budget

96. The Committee recognises the relatively tight timetable by which the Scottish Government had to provide information to Parliament as part of this year’s budget scrutiny process and the tighter budgetary settlement for the Spending Review period in comparison to previous years. However, the Committee considers that the information made available to it was insufficient to allow proper scrutiny of the Draft Budget. The Scottish Budget Draft Spending Review 2007 document only provided total budgets for the three NDPBs within the Committee’s remit and no detail on their strategic spending plans. Similarly, there was no transparent breakdown of the budgets for programmes or grants. Furthermore, the figures were all presented in cash terms, with no inclusion of real terms data beyond the portfolio headings. Despite repeated requests both to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and to the NDPBs concerned, the Committee was unable to obtain a meaningful set of figures which would allow it to consider fully how the Scottish Government’s plans to tackle economic growth were reflected in its spending decisions.

97. The majority of the Committee⁶³ recognises the relatively tight timetable in which the Scottish Government had to provide information to the Parliament as part of this year’s budget process. Nevertheless, the majority of the Committee is of the view that the information provided in the budget was insufficient for the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny. This was further compounded by the lack of clarity on the resource implications of the reforms to the enterprise networks and the transfer of activities to Skills Development Scotland Ltd. and to the local authorities.

98. Furthermore, in written evidence, neither Scottish Enterprise nor Highlands and Islands Enterprise was able to provide the Committee with any disaggregated data, even as estimates, which would allow the Committee to arrive at an informed opinion on the impact of the budgetary cuts on the ability of these bodies to deliver their core functions of promoting enterprise development and economic growth in Scotland. The Committee commends Highlands and Islands Enterprise, however, for its more constructive approach in oral evidence when it did provide more detail on how its budget would be affected by proposed transfers to Skills Development Scotland Ltd and local authorities and how it planned to adapt its strategic priorities in the new budgetary context.

99. In addition, the figures presented in the Draft Budget Spending Review 2007 document were only provided in cash terms, not in real terms. The Committee was therefore obliged to use its own resources to establish basic information such as the real term figures for key budget lines over the Spending Review period.

100. The Committee calls on the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to provide the Committee with more detailed disaggregated data as soon as it becomes available and to ensure that more detailed figures are provided in future budget documents. This will allow the Committee to take a more informed view of the use of public money and how it will contribute to the achievement of the Scottish Government’s Purpose.

101. The Committee notes that such information, should it be provided, will be received after the Committee is required to complete its scrutiny of the draft budget. Whilst regrettable, the Committee recognises that this is a consequence of the tight timetable for the Spending Review and the ongoing reform of the enterprise agencies and VisitScotland proposed by the Scottish Government. However, this information should be improved in future years from the perspective of allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny.

102. The Committee therefore recommends that the Finance Committee ask the Scottish Government to provide disaggregated data on budget line expenditure in future budgets, both in cash and real terms, including information on local authority Grant Aided Expenditure and specific grants relevant to achieving sustainable economic growth.

103. The Committee will seek an opportunity early in the New Year to scrutinise the operating plans and budgets of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise once these have been agreed by their respective boards.

The Committee’s views on targets set for the its areas of interest and the reflection of Ministerial priorities in spending decisions

104. The Committee considered both the Scottish Government’s Purpose and the Purpose targets linked to economic growth in its consideration of the Draft Budget. The Committee recognises that spending across the budget portfolios may contribute to the Scottish Government’s Purpose.

105. The Committee notes the Scottish Government’s Purpose to increase sustainable economic growth and how it plans to achieve this through its budget proposals. The Committee supports the Scottish Government’s Purpose in this respect. However, at this stage, due to the ongoing nature of some of the proposed reforms, it is too early to say whether this budget will deliver on the Scottish Government’s Purpose.

106. The Committee concludes that the Scottish Government has determined that its Purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth can be best achieved by a different approach which includes further reductions in business rates for small businesses under the Small Business Bonus Scheme, as well as a continuing allocation of funding, albeit less than in previous years, to the enterprise agencies and local authorities to perform the function of promoting economic development.

The enterprise networks

107. A majority of the Committee⁶⁴ recommends to the Finance Committee and the Scottish Government that time be set aside to permit a debate in the Chamber on a further report issued by this Committee into the final budgetary situation for the enterprise agencies and how much has been transferred to the new skills agency and to local authorities.

108. The Committee considers that there is a lack of clarity concerning the activities and functions to be retained by Scottish Enterprise and therefore on what Scottish Enterprise’s final operational budget will be for the next three years. The lack of information from Scottish Enterprise on the activities that will need to be adjusted to adapt to the new budget suggests that a strategic approach to the reform of Scottish Enterprise has not been fully developed and that there is scarce evidence provided by Scottish Enterprise on how it will tailor its strategic priorities over the next three years.

109. The Committee looks forward to receiving a copy of Scottish Enterprise’s new operating plan so that it can consider the impact of the reform of the enterprise network on Scottish Enterprise and how the latter has redefined its strategic priorities. It will also help the Committee to decide whether the abolition of Scottish Enterprise’s Local Enterprise Companies will achieve a reduction in the overall operating costs of Scottish Enterprise and whether the pursuit of co-location opportunities and the sharing of resources will allow the agency to deliver its strategic priorities more effectively, and at a lower cost.

110. The lack of available information on the implications of the transfer of activities to the new skills agency and on how Highlands and Islands Enterprise will allocate its budget strategically over the Spending Review period makes it difficult for the Committee to reach an informed view on the implications of the budgetary cuts to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its activities.

111. The Committee is of the view that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as an organisation, seems to be more advanced in planning how it will adjust its activities in the context of the budgetary cuts than Scottish Enterprise. The Committee notes Highland and Islands Enterprise’s intention to reduce its investment in property by up to £10 million per year in order to adjust to the reduced size of its budget. However, at this stage, the Committee has seen no evidence as to whether the adjustments to Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s property acquisitions will be sufficient to compensate for the reduction in its operating grant.

112. By division, the Committee agreed⁶⁵ that it is very concerned by the higher proportionate cut to Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s budget and the impact that this will have on its capacity to deliver support in the more fragile economic environment of the Highlands and Islands.

113. The Committee looks forward to receiving a copy of Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s new operating plan so that it can consider the impact of the reform of the enterprise network on the agency and how the latter has redefined its strategic priorities. It will also help the Committee to decide whether the abolition of Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s Local Enterprise Companies will achieve a reduction in the overall operating costs of the agency and whether the pursuit of co-location opportunities and the sharing of resources will allow the agency to deliver its strategic priorities more effectively, and at a lower cost.

114. The Committee is concerned by the length of time that negotiations are taking on agreeing the transfer of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise activities. The Committee urges all involved to conclude the discussions as soon as possible.

115. The Committee acknowledges that there may be some savings in the long-term due to the co-location of offices and the sharing of certain services between the enterprise agencies and other bodies. In principle, the Committee supports this approach to reducing costs, but is keen to see how this will be put into practice over the coming years without affecting the services provided.

116. The Committee is surprised that local authorities only became aware of the Scottish Government’s intentions to transfer a local development function to them when the Cabinet Secretary made his announcement to Parliament on 26 September 2007.

117. The Committee looks forward to being able to consider the detail of the final transfer of the Business Gateway service and regeneration functions from the enterprise agencies to the local authorities and the impact – if any – that this will have on the delivery of services at the local level.

Other budget lines

118. The Committee is of the view that the changes to the budgetary allocations to VisitScotland over the Spending Review period will be broadly neutral with a 6.8% cash increase and a 1.2% real-terms decrease in Visit Scotland’s operating budget over the Spending Review period. It also considers that opportunities to co-locate with other agencies should help to reduce operating costs.

119. The Committee welcomes the increase to the third sector development budget and looks forward to greater detail on how this money will be spent and contribute to the Purpose of promoting sustainable economic growth.

120. The Committee welcomes the allocation of money to the Saltire and Horizon prizes. It also welcomes the increased budget for the National Procurement Centre of Expertise and the support it will provide to the Scottish Government’s plans for promoting e-procurement.

121. Although the Committee welcomes the increases to the energy and climate change budget, it does not share the Cabinet Secretary’s conviction that this increased support to energy projects at these levels will be sufficient in and of itself to ensure that Scotland becomes a global powerhouse for renewable energy. This is because there are a significant number of obstacles – such as planning consent, the capacity of the national grid and grid connection charges - that still need to be overcome. This is a subject the Committee will return to in its energy inquiry in the course of 2008.

122. The Committee calls for the Scottish Government to provide more disaggregated data on the planned use of the budgets listed in paragraph 81. The Committee believes that this is necessary to make the budget process a transparent one and also to provide more information on policy intentions.

Additional in-year funding

123. On the basis of the evidence provided by the Cabinet Secretary on additional in-year allocations, the Committee believes that bodies such as VisitScotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are less likely to benefit from additional funding as the result of in-year adjustments due to the fact that the Scottish Government has over-budgeted for the 2008-09 budgetary year and the Spending Review period.

Proposals for cash-releasing efficiency savings

124. The Committee considers that the requirement to achieve 2 per cent cash releasing efficiencies annually will represent a particular challenge for the enterprise networks over the Spending Review period. Both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have to achieve these efficiency savings at the same time as financing their voluntary severance programmes and undergoing major structural reorganisation. The Committee notes the Cabinet Secretary’s explanation concerning the way that cash-releasing savings will be delivered, but considers that it is unclear how the need to achieve 2 per cent cash-releasing savings will impact on the budgets of the enterprise agencies.

Alternative spending proposals which the Committee wishes to propose within the appropriate portfolio

125. The Committee considered two alternative spending proposals submitted by David Whitton MSP and Marilyn Livingstone MSP respectively. In divisions, both of these alternative spending proposals were defeated.⁶⁶

ANNEX (pdf)

EXTRACTs FROM THE MINUTES OF ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM COMMITTEE

3rd Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 5 September 2007

Budget process 2008-09 (Stage 2): The Committee agreed to seek to appoint an adviser on the budget process 2008-09.

4th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 19 September 2007

Decision on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to consider a shortlist of candidates and agree the appointment of a Budget Adviser in private.

Budget process 2008-09 (Stage 2): (in private): The Committee considered a shortlist of candidates and agreed the appointment of a Budget Adviser.

5th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 3 October 2007

Decision on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to consider a shortlist of candidates and agree the appointment of a Budget Adviser in private.

Budget process 2008-09 (Stage 2): (in private): The Committee considered a shortlist of candidates and agreed the appointment of a Budget Adviser.

7th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 7 November 2007