Budget (Scotland) Act 2005 Amendment (No 2) Order 2006 (Draft)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of the spring budget revision. Accompanying the minister for this item are John Williams and John Nicholson from the finance expenditure policy division at the Scottish Executive. While the officials swap over, I thank David Henderson and Graham Owenson for their contribution to the previous item.
The committee is well used to the budget revisions that take place in the autumn and spring. Members will know that the budget revisions are simply a regular piece of Government business to seek parliamentary authorisation for changes to our spending plans that inevitably arise during the financial year.
Thank you, minister.
The £10.2 million is to meet the costs of compensation claims that we are aware will go through in this financial year. Some money was added in the autumn budget revision to meet the costs of claims that we were sure would go through at that point. Given that this is the final budget revision before the end of the financial year, this is the money that the Justice Department expects it will need to meet all the claims in 2005-06.
That seems to be a substantial amount to be coming forward very late in the financial year.
The Justice Department is only now getting the final budget cover for that, but it may well have been paying out compensation for claims that have been made up to this point using money that it has already voted. It is able to use all the money that it has voted up to this point. It may also be fine tuning the budget at the end of the year to cover everything it needs to do. The £10.2 million is the total additional cost that the department expects will arise from the Napier case.
Given that it is a substantial amount of money to appear in the spring revision, is it possible for us to get an indication—perhaps involving a retrospective look—of the pace of the settlements over the previous 12 months and the expected number of settlements over the next period?
The Justice Department has an indication of how much it thinks it will need next year. Unfortunately, I do not have that figure to hand. If it would be helpful to the committee, we could produce a picture of the trend of payments.
It would be useful to map out the expected costs.
Could we get a figure for the amount of money that has been spent on Napier-related cases in each of the respective financial years and the number of cases that have been dealt with? Can you tell us how many cases the £10.2 million relates to?
No—I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand.
To amend John Swinney's suggestion, I would like a quarterly breakdown of the past year and this year and an indication of how many cases there have been. I would also like to know how many claims in total it is anticipated will eventually be made under the scheme.
You will appreciate, convener, that that number would be an estimate. The scheme is demand led.
Yes—but we have evidence, and the scheme is hardly demand led; rather, it is circumstance led.
We will look into that and reply to the committee in writing.
Does the entry under the Scottish Prison Service of transfer from other current to capital mean that you are building prisons more quickly than you had anticipated?
I do not have detailed explanations for each portfolio; such information is more to do with decisions that are taken in that department. If there is a transfer to capital, I assume that there is an accelerated programme somewhere.
I presume that there is a positive story; I just wanted to get a sense of what it is.
I refer to page 96. There are two adjustments, which I presume relate to money that is not being taken up from the modernising government fund. I refer to the entry on transfer to revenue support grant from the modernising government fund for Glasgow City Council and the entry on transfer to RSG from the EGF in relation to funding allocation to Glasgow council. Given the tight pressures on the authority, I just wonder whether it has met its obligations and therefore does not require the sum.
That might be the case. There are a number of applications under the fund, some of which are still under consideration. It might be that the money has not been taken up.
Would it be better for me to pursue that with the council or do you know the item for which the money might have been allocated but was not taken up? We are talking about a substantial sum of money.
We would be happy to give you more information on that.
I refer to page 10. Under the CAP support heading, an additional £21 million is being put in for changes to the single farm payment scheme. Can you give me more detail on that?
The estimates are to do with the revaluation of sterling, which has resulted in a requirement for the transfer. It is to do with currency movements.
Will that additional money go out to farmers in single farm payments?
Yes.
On the same page there are entries showing the reduced estimating requirement for the farm business development scheme and for the agriculture business development scheme. Both those schemes were introduced to wean farmers off the subsidy culture and on to the market culture. However, there will be an overall reduction in the budget for 2005-06. Is that because of lack of demand or is there another reason for it?
That reflects partly the changing demand under the scheme and is also partly to do with how the figures are now presented—we now present a net budget, which makes a change to the figures. The contribution from modulation of CAP support payments is £28.701 million.
The bottom line figure on page 15 is £28.701 million. Further up the page, the figure for the rural stewardship scheme is minus £11 million and for the land management contracts it is minus £18 million. Is it coincidence that those figures added together come out at the modulation figure? They are both major reductions.
The example that you used was land management contracts. The budget initially contained budget cover that we provide and budget cover that is provided by the CAP modulation. We showed the contributions from CAP modulation as a negative figure. We are now showing the net budget and the reduction in the CAP modulation receipts—which is now zero—offset by reductions in expenditure and the variety of the annual managed expenditure lines above. They should net off overall, although there are some other slight adjustments to the figures.
Page 16 shows a major change in support for the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency. Although it has new research laboratories this year, why is it necessary to introduce such a major change to its provision at this late stage?
That is linked to completion of SASA's new headquarters.
Thank you.
On page 98 on the local government budget, I note that income from non-domestic rates is down by £111.744 million and revenue support grant is up by £158.556 million. What is the story behind that? In previous years, we have seen more than expected moneys being collected in non-domestic rates and then used for other purposes. Why is the non-domestic rates amount approximately £112 million less than expected this year?
The estimate was put at the top of the range, which proved to be somewhat optimistic. With hindsight, the estimate should have been in the middle range. That has resulted in a shortfall of income, but it is starting to correct itself. The shortfall next year will be down to about £22 million. The projections for future years are—
That has been picked up only now. It seems like yesterday when we had the previous revision. I do not recall any mention of that programme then.
We need to wait until the end of the year to decide the best possible estimates of actual income. All our indications are that the shortfall exists. It has to do with the original budget estimates being at the top end of the scale. It would have been more prudent to go for a mid-range estimate.
There are also transfers from the central reserve to the revenue support grant and from the modernising government fund to the revenue support grant. The modernising government fund was £13.759 million. Is that money earmarked—particularly in the light of our previous discussions on equal pay settlements—for information and communications technology or is it more generally available for modernising services?
That is the modernising government fund. There was a change to its method of distribution. It is now distributed through the revenue support grant.
In previous years it tended to be for ICT projects more than anything else.
There has been a merging of funds that has resulted in the efficient government fund.
My question might be too detailed. Is there an explanation for the estimating reduction in provision for the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh on page 11?
I will have to write to you on that, if you do not mind.
I want to focus on the figures for European Union structural funds on pages 38 and 40. I note that the change of approximately £8.7 million will be from a transfer from the central reserve fund. Does the total amount—£112 million—come from the central reserve?
The £8 million comes from the central reserve. The remainder will be borrowed from us to be paid back in 2007-08. It is simply a reprofiling of expenditure.
Is there an audit trail so that we can see whether the £112 million comes from central Government or whether it genuinely comes from the EU?
The £112 million is all from the EU.
It all comes from the EU and is not part of the Barnett formula funding for Scotland. That is fine.
That is actually page 41.
My apologies. I had page 53 down in my notes. Page 53 gives the detail.
It is simply that there were savings on the Caledonian MacBrayne piers and harbours grant in 2005-06, which has been redeployed to meet pressures on the northern isles ferries.
Will the northern isles ferries run forward at that higher cost of £26 million?
We have no indication of that at the moment.
How are the CalMac savings—the £4 million—accrued to you?
That is going down to quite tight detail.
I understand that, but I asked the question because Argyll and Bute Council is talking about removing its subsidy for piers and harbours. One of its councillors said that those reduced subsidies will be "more than marginal". I am therefore concerned that that may have a spin-off effect on fares.
We will look into that and provide you with more detail.
There are two figures on page 41: a transfer from the CalMac piers and harbours grant to northern isles ferries of £4 million and a transfer to northern isles ferries from the CalMac piers and harbours grant of £4 million. Is that simply a balancing arrangement or is it an error?
The figures represent two separate lines in the same subsection of the budget. One shows the reduction in the CalMac line and the other one shows the increase in the northern isles ferries line. The total effect is zero because it is just a movement between two lines within the same subheading.
My recollection of the autumn budget revisions that we considered a few weeks ago is that there was quite a substantial reduction in the strategic waste fund. Is that correct?
Yes.
If we undertook major revisions a short time ago, why are we looking at a £4 million uplift in the strategic waste fund at this stage in the budget?
We want to try to ensure that councils meet the percentage target—25 per cent, I think—that we have set. It was decided that by injecting that £4 million it is more likely that we will achieve that target.
That confirms my suspicion. The criticism that I have heard from local authorities is that it has been difficult for them to make progress on important recycling targets because the Executive has been so slow to make decisions on the strategic waste fund. That is why I have concerns about why we took money out of the strategic waste fund in the autumn budget revisions but are putting it back now. Has the Government realised that it is not providing the financial resources for modernisation of waste-handling processes that are required to allow local authorities to avoid the significant penalties that they will incur if they do not achieve their recycling targets?
No—not at all. The £4 million is really just a final tweaking of the sums that will be necessary this year in order to ensure that local authorities meet the percentage target. I cannot get into the detail of the argument—if indeed it exists—between the Executive and local authorities about where responsibility lies, and about whether local authorities have been slow in submitting bids or whether bids have been insufficiently detailed to allow consideration and decision. There was a process of going back and forth between the Executive and the local authorities. If the committee feels that the time the Executive takes to consider and decide on bids is a problem, we can provide you with more information on that.
I raised the issue with the deputy minister a few weeks ago. As I understand it, although local authorities were required to submit bids for the strategic waste fund by 31 January, the Executive plans to respond to them only by the autumn. That strikes me as being a particularly dilatory response, given that local authorities face the possibility of being fined if they cannot achieve levels of recycling that will be possible only if they invest locally in the equipment and facilities that will enable them to undertake that work.
The money is being paid out for bids that have already been received and decided on. You are talking about something slightly different—you are saying that when bids are received, the Executive might take too long to consider them.
I am making the point that, given that the bids that the local authorities had to get in by 31 January 2006 will not be responded to by the Executive until the autumn of 2006, that is pretty slow. If we were to give significant impetus to local authorities' recycling activities before 31 March in the provision for this financial year, that might mean that council tax payers will not have to pay fines that would be imposed on local authorities for failing to reach recycling targets—which I think we all agree would be a complete waste of their money.
There is no doubt that we want the system to be as efficient as possible. Some of Mr Swinney's remarks might be predicated on the existence of a problem at Executive level. It would be worth our while to examine the reality in order to establish whether bids have been submitted that were not comprehensive enough or not sufficiently detailed and on which extended discussion has had to take place. That may or may not be the case, but it would be useful if I asked my colleague Mr Finnie to comment on the reasons for any local authority concerns that exist. I would be more than happy to do that.
That would be helpful, thank you.
I have a question about the administration budget. Page 87 of the budget revision document identifies a proposed increase of £5 million in Scottish Executive staff costs. Does that figure relate to new staff or to additional remuneration for existing staff?
It relates to the conclusion of the pay deal. It was necessary to transfer that amount of money to meet our obligations under the pay deal.
No new staff will be employed using that £5 million.
No.
As there are no more technical questions, we move to the second phase of consideration. I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S2M-3910. Once the minister has done that, we can have a debate.
Motion moved,
That the Finance Committee recommends that the Draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2005 Amendment (No.2) Order 2006 be approved.—[Mr Tom McCabe.]
Does any member want to debate the motion?
I think that we have dealt with all the various issues.
Motion agreed to.
We are now required to report to Parliament. As such reports are usually very brief, I propose that we seek to agree the text of our report by e-mail. Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the minister and his officials for coming along and responding to our questions.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—