Rural Development Sub-Committee
Report on the Draft Budget for the Rural Affairs Department
December 2010
1. The Rural Development Sub-Committee met on 25 November 2010 to consider the draft budget for the Department of Rural Affairs, which was published on 17 November 2010.
2. The Committee took evidence from Elin Jones, Minister for Rural Affairs; Rory O’Sullivan, Director of Rural Affairs; Dean Medcraft, Deputy Director of Finance within Sustainable Futures group
3. The Committee sought clarification and further details on the following points during their scrutiny session with the Minister:
The Minister’s key priorities for revenue and capital funding within the budget;
Areas where the Minister made cuts or achieved efficiency savings within the Rural Affairs budget;
Possible savings which may be made through the review of environmental delivery;
Consideration given to ensuring that the budget provides equality of opportunity for all;
Applications by the department for Rural Affairs through the Invest-to-Save and Efficiency and Innovation programmes;
The funding for TB compensation payments;
The management of resources within the Glastir budget;
The funding for food and drink promotion in Wales.
4. Following the evidence received from the Minister, the Committee expressed concern in the following areas and would recommend the Minister and future Governments seek to address these points:
The Minister reported that as TB compensation payments were demand led, it was likely that there would be overspend on this budget. The Committee recommends that the Minister adjust this budget, in line with best estimates and expenditure in previous years, to reflect the actual levels of compensation payments for TB. The Committee believes that this will highlight the true nature of the TB problem in Wales as well as allowing for more accurate budget scrutiny.
Although the Minister undertook to safeguard the funding for the Rural Development Plan, she did not undertake to maintain the budget for Glastir at the current level. The Committee would like an assurance from the Minister that the money will be available for Glastir in the longer term.
The Committee were very concerned that the Minister had decided to make cuts to the food and drink marketing budget but were encouraged to hear that the Minister was considering the role of the processing and marketing grant within the Rural Development Plan. The Committee would urge the Minister to move forward with accepting new applications to this grant, to minimise the impact of cuts in this area.
The Minister stated that although she felt confident that the current resource implications of the proposed legislation on dog breeding could be found from within her budget further resource implications may come to light through the consultation process on the legislation. The Committee would welcome further information on the resource implications of this legislation as they become apparent and urges the Minister to take these into account in future budgeting rounds.
The Minister informed the Committee that match funding for the European Fisheries Fund, which provides grants to individuals within the fishing industry, would be protected despite the cuts in the food and fisheries budget. However, the Minister did not provide the Committee with any information as to how the budget had taken account of the additional fisheries responsibilities given to the Minister under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Committee urges the Minister to outline in further detail how these additional responsibilities will be resourced.
5. In addition to the above points on the budget for the Rural Affairs department, the Committee was also concerned from a wider perspective about the use of underspend within budgets to meet compensation payments, and the impact this may have on the process of robust budget scrutiny. The Committee understands and supports the need for flexibility within budgets, but is concerned about the potential for changing political priorities through planning underspends in some areas to offset other areas. This practice makes scrutinising spending priorities within departments difficult, as the emphasis for expenditure in the budget may not reflect the actual priorities of the department.
