Budget (Scotland) Act 2004 (Amendment) Order 2004 (draft)
Good morning. I welcome the press and public to the 15th meeting of the Finance Committee in 2004. I remind people to switch off all pagers and mobile phones. We have apologies from Wendy Alexander.
Thank you, convener. Richard Dennis has been reminding me all morning not to move the motion until you tell me to, because I understand that that might truncate debate, which would be a dreadful thing.
Just before I open up the discussion to questions from committee members, will you clarify that you refer not to Executive EYF, but to EYF in the corporate body's budget?
That is correct.
So it is transfer spend—unspent money.
The EYF money is a direct consequence of the programme to complete the Holyrood building—it is money that has been carried forward from 2003-04 into 2004-05.
So the money was already in the budget and you require authorisation to move it from one budget category into another.
Yes, it is money that was not spent last year. We wish to roll it forward into 2004-05 under normal EYF procedures. It is not additional money.
So it is money that you were unable to spend last year, given progress on the Holyrood project—in other words, it is Holyrood money, if I may put it that way.
That is exactly right.
That is helpful. I invite questions from members. I remind John Swinburne that we are asking technical and not political questions at this point.
I will ask Paul Grice a technical question, as the convener wishes. Can you explain the figure of £45.046 million, which is £5 million in excess of the original estimate? How accurate is that figure? The money was laid aside to pay for certain contracts in the previous financial year. Those contracts were not completed, therefore they should cost us more when they are completed. How much have you allowed for the increase that will undoubtedly take place in all those packages because they were not completed in time?
I do not understand your first question about the extra £5 million—that does not ring any bells with me.
The original estimate for the Parliament building was £40 million and we are now discussing £45 million as an add-on.
That is completely irrelevant to the current debate on EYF. However, in answer to your other point, the money that was allocated to contracts has simply been rolled forward. The extra £29.4 million, which was reported to the Finance Committee in February by the Presiding Officer and on which we gave evidence at the time, was principally due to prolongation and disruption of costs. One must consider the two sums together. The £45.046 million is simply unspent capital that is already allocated to the project and was unspent last year because of programme difficulties; it has now been rolled forward to the current year.
Will you guarantee that there will be no increased costs because of the delays caused by the programme difficulties and that there will be no increase to the £45.046 million?
This is simply a technical transfer. The estimates that we provided in February, which the Presiding Officer reported to the committee, remain our estimates. If the project is finished in the summer, that will remain the cost. That has not changed.
The report in February related to the £29 million. The other lot of money is for stuff that has not been finished on time, so it will cost more. The procrastination, delays and all the rest of it down at Holyrood cost money and the figures make no provision for that.
No. The position remains as we reported it in February. The overall estimate that we provided then, which was for a range up to £431 million including VAT, fees and other items, remains the current total estimated cost, provided that we complete the building this summer.
Can we obtain sight of the contracts that make up the £45 million, or are they covered by confidentiality or something else that prevents us from seeing them?
John Swinburne is beginning to stray from the issue. That might be a legitimate question to ask when we receive a Holyrood report, but we are being asked to consider a budget transfer. Technical questions should be based on the budget transfer process.
We are being asked for a sum of money that is based on the figure of £431 million. Does any witness know whether that remains the total? Since we last received a report, have the minister or Mr Grice received information that indicates an increase beyond £431 million?
The latest information that I have is that no further Davis Langdon & Everest cost report has been issued. I understand that, provided that we hit the summer completion date, £431 million remains the estimated total cost of completing the building. I have no further information to report to the committee. Obviously, we will provide a further report to the committee in line with our normal reporting procedures. Any change would be reported through that mechanism but, as of today, I have no information other than the £431 million.
At Holyrood progress group meetings that have occurred since the last report was made to the committee, has no indication been given to the group of an increase beyond £431 million?
That question would have to be directed to the Holyrood progress group. Nobody has alerted me to anything. I am clear that the position as I understand it is that that remains the current estimated total cost of the building, provided that we finish this summer. If you have a detailed question on that, it should be raised with the progress group.
I will ask the minister the same question. Mr Robert Gordon has given evidence that he reports approximately monthly either orally or in writing to the Executive—to the Minister for Parliamentary Business or the First Minister—on the Holyrood progress group's discussions and the information that it has received. Does the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services have access to those reports?
Mr Gordon's submission to the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business is circulated in the Scottish Executive.
Will you therefore please answer the question that I asked Paul Grice? We are being asked for a sum of money today and I am concerned about whether we will be asked for another sum of money in a late summer budget revision.
No. I can say—
With respect, can I finish the question? From Mr Gordon's most recent reports, has the minister received any indication of an increase beyond £431 million?
No.
The business that is before us is whether to recommend approval of the draft order. The draft order has two purposes. It covers an increase that was reported to us in February, which prompted universal severe disappointment in the committee—and, I am sure, in other places too—that the cost had risen again. We are also being asked to recommend approval of a transfer of moneys from the previous financial year to this financial year to cover the cost of some contracts. As it is our job to decide whether to recommend approval of those provisions, will you advise us what would happen if we did not recommend approval?
The simple answer is that that would create a significant risk that we would run out of cash on the project. If we hit the timetable for the summer, our judgment—in line with the report that was made to the committee in February—is that that amount of cash will be required to settle accounts for work that has been undertaken on the project. Without the transfer and the finance to support the bid that we made to the committee in February, the risk is that we would run out of cash.
I presume that construction or contracts would cease.
Work would be disrupted. No public body can put itself in the position of being unable to pay for works. The Parliament is no different from the Executive or any other public body. It is prudent and responsible for us to ensure that we have the finance in place. As I said, within the overall total that has been reported to the committee, it is simply a question of ensuring that the finance is in place to support that. The judgment is—I am advised—that if we do not take the finance now but wait until the autumn, there would be a significant risk of our not having the finance to meet the requirements.
I presume that if that happened and construction was further delayed, costs could increase again.
In that scenario, of course that could happen.
I am interested in what will be left in the contingency fund after the £29.4 million is transferred.
Which contingency fund?
I understand that the £29.4 million will be transferred from the contingency fund.
That is probably a question that should be directed to the Executive.
That is a question for us. Jim Mather will know that the contingency fund figure for 2004-05 that we published in the annual evaluation report is £55 million.
So the amount left will be £55 million less £29 million.
Yes. That leaves £26 million. We might expect that to be topped up in part from EYF, if ministers choose to operate the same 75:25 rule as before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is occasionally generous with in-year consequentials, so they might top up the figure.
What is likely to be added to the contingency fund in 2005-06? Is a standard formula used for incrementing the contingency fund?
No. A number has been published for 2005-06 in the annual evaluation report. I think that the number is £180 million, but I can check that and confirm the figure to the clerks.
The figure is £171 million.
So the fund is being refreshed. To have a clear understanding, it would be useful to have a mechanism for seeing the total budget of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body set against the contingency fund, the draw-down pattern from the contingency fund and the contingency balance. It would also help us to have a view on the percentage of the total budget that is drawn down for the contingency fund. Could that information be provided?
Yes—I do not see why not.
If the worst came to the worst and the Executive was between a rock and a hard place, could money be borrowed to get out of the problem? If the contingency fund were depleted, what would be plan B?
In terms of the Executive, members will remember that when we announced the partnership agreement allocations, Andy Kerr said that he had deliberately left some money to one side to cover pressures up to 2006-07. We could simply borrow some of that money in advance. Another spending review is coming up, which will involve considering plans for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, so plenty of opportunities for reprofiling are available.
The contingency fund shows a considerable drop from 2003-04, when it was set at £120.22 million, to £56.95 million in 2004-05, after which it goes up to £171.66 million. Will the information that you provide to the committee in writing give the reason for that significant drop? Was that due to the increase in the Parliament building's cost?
No. The committee may recall that we gave members a technical informal briefing last September, when we explained that the contingency fund numbers were slightly skewed by the fact that negotiations were continuing about the cost of meeting some partnership agreement commitments, so money was temporarily parked in reserve for those. Therefore, the real profile of the contingency fund is not that which one would get from looking only at the numbers. One would expect the contingency fund to get bigger the further into the future one goes because there will be more unforeseen things the further one tries to foresee.
I understand that many of the transfers are to do with the building and will be reflected in the capital element of the corporate body's budget. However, in looking through and scrutinising the annual evaluation report, I am struck by the fact that it details a number of target areas for departmental spending and activity. I am wondering about something from the minister's point of view. Even without considering its running funds as outlined in the budget, the corporate body is not too dissimilar to the Crown Office, which has 11 performance targets. Does the Executive think that it would be appropriate to have equivalent performance targets for what is, in effect, taxpayers' money? There does not seem to be consistency. A similar pattern does not seem to be followed by which we can hold purse-bearers to account.
That might be an issue for the Parliament rather than for the Executive.
I am sure that the chief executive will answer after the minister.
In terms of propriety, I would have thought that it would not be for the Executive to suggest to the corporate body that it might set targets. The corporate body is accountable for financial issues through us to the Parliament.
We have been provided with evidence of the kind of discussions that go on between ministers, ministers with responsibility for finance and officials on performance—no doubt those gentlemanly conversations have an element of teeth. I wonder why the corporate body has no equivalent targets. The Parliament's officials are accountable to us through a different mechanism, but they still draw down on the public purse.
The convener is right. It is appropriate that the corporate body and Parliament's chief executive are responsible to the Finance Committee and to the Parliament for the stewardship of the finances that are available for running the institution. I think that Parliament would howl if ministers started to impose any kind of target on the corporate body—after all, that is why we elect four members from among our number to serve on the corporate body and to represent our interests, as it were. That is the appropriate manner in which to do things.
I wonder whether the chief executive has a view. We are considering the AER, which has a number of performance targets per budget. The Crown Office, which has a running budget of only £6 million more than the corporate body, has 11 performance targets, which are published and open; we can receive evidence on those targets and scrutinise them. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent to those are in the corporate body.
Obviously, I entirely endorse what the minister has said about the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive. Of course, the corporate body has a range of performance measures for the services that we supply to members, including, for example, services to committees such as the Finance Committee. As the committee knows, the corporate body also publishes an annual report, which contains a lot of information, and the Parliament and committees such as the Finance Committee produce annual reports. There is a lot of openness on behalf of the Parliament and its committees in respect of what they seek to do with public funds. Therefore, I would not accept that there is a distinction between the Parliament and bodies such as the Crown Office, although I am not familiar with how the Crown Office operates in respect of its clear performance measures.
As we are seeking to approve a transfer of funds to the corporate body, in relation to other devolved Parliaments around the world—
Come on, Jeremy. You are getting way out of the area that we are discussing.
I want to ask about the internal reporting practices for accounting within the corporate body.
That is a legitimate matter to ask about in a different context, but we are discussing a specific budgetary transfer. There is a process and a time for discussing the general budgetary arrangements of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
The corporate body will manage the transfer of funds and, therefore, with regard to the internal reporting and accounting practices of that body, I wanted to ask the chief executive how our practices compare with those of devolved Parliaments around the world. I think that that is a legitimate question to ask.
I am not sure that it is in this context, but I will let the chief executive respond briefly to it. We must then move on.
I confess that I am not particularly up to speed on the accounting practices of other Parliaments. What really matters is that we are governed by the budget acts and the Parliament's arrangements, and I assure the committee that we operate within those terms. If there are wider issues relating to budgetary processes and acts, those are almost matters for the committee to consider, if I may make that suggestion. We conform with the requirements that are set out by the Parliament and are obviously governed by the committee. That is why we are here today. Comparing our arrangements with those in other Parliaments is a separate exercise, which the committee might want to consider. I am afraid that I cannot shed any more light on the matter than that.
I would like to return to something that the chief executive said. I think that he has qualified his confidence that the draw-down figures are correct three times, by saying "if" we hit the completion target in June. I noticed that what he said was conditional. I suppose that my question is half technical and half real. What is plan B if the target is not hit?
I have nothing more to say than what I said to the committee previously.
Where will the money come from? What will be transferred? If you do not hit the target, will you run out of money? What will happen?
I explained the position of the programme last time.
I think that the chief executive said to us at the previous meeting that the financial plans for Holyrood were dependent on achieving the timetable and the target, and that the current assumptions were the only basis on which there could be planning. If I understand what has been said, I presume that the programme for draw down is projected on the same basis.
I am very much following the Presiding Officer's lead, which has been backed by the corporate body, that we should put all our energy and effort into completing the building by the summer. That is why we are here today. As I said at the previous meeting, it is not the view of the Presiding Officer or the corporate body that speculating on what might happen is helpful in that context.
Do you have a question on a technical matter, Margo?
I want to see the building finished as much as anybody else does, for all sorts of reasons. However, all I want to know is whether, if there is a doubt, the draw-down money that the committee is considering covers all contingencies, or would more money need to be drawn down from the £26 million that is still in the contingency fund? The Parliament will be in recess and I am simply asking about the mechanism.
I refer to the Presiding Officer's letter to the committee of 24 February, which made it clear that the £431 million—of which the money that we are talking about is, of course, part and to which it is not additional—is predicated on finishing the building this summer. That is what we are focusing on. There are mechanisms, including the autumn budget revision process, for any matter for which there are not funds in any public body, including the corporate body. That would be the process to which one would look, if that was necessary.
I wonder whether I could persuade you to be a little more specific about what will happen with the £45 million that will be drawn down. As John Swinburne said, the sum that we are talking about is not inconsiderable—it is £5 million more than the original estimates. We are being asked—for what I am sure are perfectly valid reasons—simply to sign away yet another £45 million, although I accept that that is not on top of the £431 million. Can we get a breakdown of that £45 million? Without it, what elements would be delayed? Where will the money actually go?
I hope that you do not mind, but I must challenge the idea that the committee is being asked to sign away money. In a sense, the money has already been approved and is now simply being transferred. Forgive me for making that point, but it is important that we do not give any such impression to the wider public.
At the risk of sounding lavatorially obsessed, I seek clarification at least on the question that I raised with you two months ago about the massive increases for these wretched toilets and on why, apparently, no Scottish firm was allowed to tender for the contract. At the time, I was promised a detailed breakdown of what had happened, but I have heard nothing since then. I raised the matter again last week.
I thought that you received a letter.
Last week, I got a note from you saying that the reply would come soon, but I have still not seen a breakdown of those costs.
I have seen a draft of the reply, which I thought had been issued—otherwise I would have ensured that it was sent before today. However, I will chase that up. The draft reply that I saw explained the detail of the contract, which was part of a wider package.
Will any part of the £45 million that is being sought go towards toilets fit-out?
Quite possibly. As was explained previously, the toilets fit-out is part of the wider fit-out package. Given that the fit-out work continues and will continue right up till the end of completion, it is reasonable to expect that some of the money that we are seeking today will be part of that. However, let me repeat that we are not seeking additional money. The money was allocated against the package last year and has been rolled forward to this year because, like other packages, the fit-out package has been subject to prolongation and disruption.
May I presume that the complete breakdown of that package will be on my desk when I get back to the office?
The minute I leave this meeting, I will find out where the reply has got to and chase it along.
We are agog with anticipation about the unravelling of the great Shanks & McEwan mystery—coming soon to a convenience near you, no doubt.
We have targets for that. I think that 30 days is the target that we work to.
The target will be 30 days or some other specified period. I think that payment within 30 days is the Executive's recommended practice for public bodies. Is that broadly correct?
Yes.
If bills are not paid on time, the contractor is entitled to interest for late payment. Is that correct?
Yes, under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
Therefore, if the SPCB did not have the money to pay bills within 30 days, it would incur additional costs as a consequence. The SPCB would then need to ask that those costs be paid for from some other resource, such as the Executive's contingency fund.
As accountable officer, I simply could not sanction works being undertaken if I was not confident that we had the funds to pay for them. That applies to any accountable officer. In other words, we cannot allow contractors to undertake work if we are not confident that we have the money to pay for them. To do so would be irresponsible. You make a fair point that we could also be liable for additional costs on top of that. The responsible thing to do is to ensure that we have the finance to meet the contractual obligations of which we are aware.
So, no matter what our personal views may be of the Scottish Parliament building project—let us put them to one side—the effect of refusing the budget revision today might be to add to the project's costs.
Yes.
Fine. Thank you.
In the absence of any further technical questions from members, I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S2M-1231, in the name of Andy Kerr.
I have nothing to add to our previous discussion and the questions that have been answered on behalf of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
That the Finance Committee recommends that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2004 Amendment Order 2004 be approved.
Motion agreed to.
We are required to report our decision to Parliament. Such reports are normally very brief, so I propose that we seek to agree the text of our report by e-mail correspondence. Is that agreed?