Official Report 216KB pdf
Item 1 is the budget process. Members will be familiar with the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which provides an important place for committees in the consideration of departmental budgets as part of the Executive's overall budget. Late last week, we were circulated with extracts relating to enterprise and lifelong learning of the proposed budget document that will be issued by the Minister for Finance. We have also received documents on local government and European funds because they touch on some issues that relate to the policy area in which the committee is interested. The officials who are here to give evidence will respond to points about the enterprise and lifelong learning department material only.
Thank you, convener.
Thank you.
That is because the copy you have is a printer's proof—the first figure that you mention is wrong.
The figure should be £1.88 billion—that clears up the issue of the missing millions.
The figures do not include any adjustments that are based on decisions relating to the advice of the Cubie committee.
Are there any other aspects of policy change since the start of the parliamentary year that are not spelt out in the balance of expenditure that is indicated?
Yes. The recent announcement by Mr McLeish on additional money for tourism—£5 million for Ossian—is not included. That will be included in a supplementary report later in the year.
Are you in a position to tell the committee how the Executive will decide where the money will come from that will be required to implement the Cubie committee recommendations and the tourism strategy? How will the committee be advised of any proposed changes to the expenditure proposals that have been set out by the Executive in the document before us?
We will put advice to ministers on where the money to fund Cubie might come from. Ultimately, the decision will be for ministers and I imagine that Mr McLeish will report to the committee on how that decision was made.
What is the likely time scale for that? To put that in a wider context, the information that we have does not take into account the changes to public expenditure that were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget a few weeks ago. Reallocations will also be required to take account of the circumstances that you mentioned regarding Cubie and tourism. When are the figures likely to become clear?
Ministers have yet to decide how to deal with the proposals that arose from the budget. I hope that that will happen in the next couple of months.
Okay. I will broaden the questioning out to other members.
Thank you, convener.
They show the figures in cash terms, with the exception of student loans; that figure is shown in resource accounting terms.
So the figures do not take account of the effect of inflation?
To the extent that—. Yes.
Could the figures be presented in real terms, showing the effect of inflation?
At level III?
At all levels.
Yes; we could do that.
That would be helpful in allowing us to make a comparison of the real value of money, year on year, on each budget line. That is much appreciated.
A set of objectives is shown alongside each table. I assume that those are your key performance indicators.
Are those objectives, or KPIs, new or on-going? Do you—or will you—report your progress against those objectives somewhere?
They are a mixture of old and new. Some come from the programme for government; others existed beforehand. The majority will be reported elsewhere, in more detail. For example, the Scottish Tourist Board will report its objectives in its annual report. Similarly, Scottish Enterprise will include its performance in its annual report, as will the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.
On table 3.11, page 45, what has happened to the £36 million that is shown as unallocated in 1999-2000? Has it been subsumed in the figures for the next years, or is it in a pot elsewhere, which we can access?
Most of it has been subsumed in meeting commitments in the current financial year and the following year. Table 3.11 shows that the amount that is unallocated for 2001-02 is £1.1 million.
So the real amount of money that has come out of the Scottish budget in 2000-01 and 2001-02 is reduced by £36 million, because that sum was unallocated reserves from prior years?
It has been reallocated into those future years. Yes.
Thank you.
That was one of my questions. The other relates to level III, table 3.10, and regional selective assistance. There seems to be a planned reduction of £10 million; that is reversed in the second projected year, which shows a planned increase to £84 million. The explanatory note says that RSA is "demand led". Does the 2001 figure reflect a lack of demand? As I believe RSA should be extended and probably increased, I would be interested to learn whether that figure reflects lack of demand or a policy change.
The figure is lower for 2000-01 because we had money for the Hyundai project; we moved that money to the following year because we did not think that we would need it this year.
Indigenous firms typically account for 80 per cent of RSA offers that we issue and about 40 per cent of the spend. To put it the other way round, inward investors get about 60 per cent of the spend. You could characterise that differently by saying that big projects account for 60 per cent of spend and that, largely, inward investors have the big projects.
I take that point, but would a significant increase in allocations to inward investment have an adverse effect on your ability to meet indigenous companies' demand for RSA?
Yes, in theory, but that has never happened. We have always managed to meet our obligations to both.
I am looking at the funding of Scottish higher education and trying to reconcile tables 3.3 and 3.19. Apart from the fact that the latter is in real terms, there seems to be quite a disparity in the baseline figures. Is there a straightforward explanation for that?
Are you looking at the difference for 2001 between £609.4 million and the real-terms figure of £581.5 million?
Absolutely.
I assume that that is the impact of inflation. Is that right?
I think that it is because of inflation. Both tables show £531.9 million for 1998-99, but for 1999-2000 it looks as if the effect of inflation has been taken into account in table 3.19 but not in table 3.3.
So is inflation the explanation for the disparity? I am looking at 2001-02. In table 3.3 we have £641.6 million, but in real terms—in table 3.19—the figure drops to £597.2 million. I am sorry; I am a novice at these things, and I find it—
I am sorry too; this is the first time we have seen the figures, so it is difficult to talk about them without doing some mental arithmetic.
The difference between cash terms and real terms—if my anorak mind is correct—should be simply the effect of inflation. If it is not, there may be wider issues.
There is quite a disparity in the figures.
Yes. The base year is 1998-99, so by the time we get to 2001-02, the effect of inflation is that much greater and it would deflate the numbers—
So there is a cumulative component in the figures?
Yes.
What rate is inflation worked out at? Do you project an out-turn rate for inflation?
We have gross domestic product deflators, which the Treasury provides. We apply them to each year.
To the figures that—
I am happy to go back and check the figures.
I would be grateful if you would. My next question concerns the fact that what is set down in the document is not what actually reaches our higher education institutions. I have already raised that point with the First Minister in the chamber. Is there any dialogue between the department and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council about the final release of funds?
We provide the funding council with a guidance letter and a grant offer letter every year. SHEFC's grant for financial year 2000-01 is £609 million, as shown in the table. It is up to the council to decide how the grant is allocated to individual institutions, because under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 the Executive is prevented from directing the council toward any individual institution or course.
Is it within the domain of your department to engage in dialogue with higher education institutions and listen to their representations about the council's final allocation? That may not be on a pleading-hard-cases basis; if money is being top-sliced by SHEFC for whatever reason, all higher education institutions have to make pre-emptive bids at short notice.
Yes, in this case we have done, and not just at official level. The university principals made the same point to Henry McLeish.
You will be required to pay student tuition fees for this coming year and the next number of years. Is that built in to the figures that we have in front of us? If so, how much will it cost in years 1, 2 and 3?
Table 3.2 shows a breakdown of expenditure by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland. The first line shows a combined figure for awards and fees. It does not take account of the changes following the Cubie report. I do not have to hand a split showing fees, but we can provide that for the committee.
But it is in that budget figure?
Yes.
Are the fees paid directly to the Student Awards Agency, which then pays the universities?
The addition to the Student Awards Agency that will be needed for 2000-01 is between £20 million and £27 million. The agency will pay the money directly to institutions on behalf of each student, irrespective of family income.
In the interests of propriety, I should have stated that I am a member of the court of the University of Strathclyde, which is a declarable interest.
We are beginning to get the message on that point.
Like Annabel, I was confused by some of the figures for higher education. I do not find this report terribly useful. There is not enough detail and explanation in it. I presume that this is just a public document and wonder whether a more detailed analysis will be provided for the committee—it is difficult to get the necessary information. For example, I would be interested to know what is spent on science and research in Scotland; there is no way to find that information in this document.
Mr Dickson, would you like to deal with the point on higher education?
Yes. One of the reasons the figures show a downturn in real terms this year is that the cash increase is understated. The main reason for that is that the figures for 1999-2000 include a specific allocation that was given to fund the new University of Edinburgh medical school buildings at Edinburgh royal infirmary and the Western general hospital. There will also be allocations for the next two years, but they are not shown in the forward plans because the money comes from the health department and is then transferred to the funding council. Until the building contractors for the new institutions have run their profile and worked out how much of the share is from the medical schools, the transfer cannot be made. That is one of the reasons. There is probably about another £10 million to go into the higher education budget this year. Other additions are not shown in a table that is based on such broad categories. For example, it does not take account of Open University funding in Scotland from this year and the change in designation of Bell College of Technology, which will move from one sector to another.
So, to get to the point, this document is for public consumption. Will a more detailed breakdown be made available to the committee?
I think that we can provide a breakdown to the next level down, which I hope will answer some of your concerns.
I understand that we will return to this matter later in the year, when some of the implications of the Cubie committee and the tourism budget will become clear. We will raise with ministers some of the points that Elaine Murray has made.
How much of the further education budget is ring-fenced? Last year, there was some ring-fencing for social inclusion. What are the targets for quantitative, as well as qualitative, measures? There was a change last year. Can you provide that information now, or will you provide it later?
The question is how much of the further education budget is ring-fenced for specific purposes. Mr McLeish issued the main letter of guidance to the funding council on 29 March. As with higher education, the council is given a large sum of money but a few items are ring-fenced for specific initiatives or purposes. It is essentially for the funding council to decide the breakdown between the money which—
I was asking a specific question. Last year there was an allocation for social inclusion to encourage colleges to recruit students who come from disadvantaged groups. What is that allocation this year?
I can provide that information to the committee later.
You had a question, Nick.
My question has been asked.
I would like to ask one further question about objectives. Gender impact analysis was discussed at the Finance Committee yesterday. Is gender one of the criteria that you use to monitor objectives? None of your objectives mentions gender.
Some of the funding councils' more detailed objectives may use gender as a criterion, but I do not know.
In higher education, student intake is broken down across socio-economic groups and by gender to measure improvements in the balance in socio-economic groups. The gender balance in higher education is already about 50-50.
One of the objectives is to assist new business starts; the objective is 100,000 new businesses across Scotland by 2009. From what you have said, no data on gender is held on that. Would such data be of value?
That is one of the programme for Government targets. As far as I am aware, it is not being monitored or audited in terms of the gender of the director of the company. We can take back that suggestion.
How is that number being monitored?
An overall assessment of the programme for government targets is going on. We will continue to monitor all the targets so that we have the statistical sources and information to ensure that we can monitor them over time. A similar exercise has been done for the social justice milestones.
Is that framework in place?
It is in place for new businesses, about which there is good information. The information on each target varies; we have good information on some and are improving information on others. We have fairly good information on new businesses.
Is there a framework that provides for monitoring all the indicators in the programme for government since that programme was published, for example—in respect of enterprise and lifelong learning—the number of modern apprenticeships, new exporters, or new starts in training?
Yes. That has been put in place.
Could there be a year one report on the programme for government by September this year—one year after the programme was published—which would show the original target and progress towards it for each of those indicators?
I am not aware that any commitment has been made to do that. An exercise is under way to assess and monitor each target, as you would expect.
Could you look at page 46 and the level II real-terms table—table 3.19—which includes figures for the estimated budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The budget for Scottish Enterprise for 1999-2000 is £368 million; that figure will rise to £402 million by 2001-2002, which represents an increase of 9 per cent over the two-year period. The figure for HIE falls from £64 million to £61.6 million, which represents a cut of 4 per cent. Can you explain that disparity of treatment?
The principal reason, which I mentioned earlier, was the Hyundai project. In effect, money was reallocated from 1999-2000 into 2001-2002. If you look along the line, you will see that the Scottish Enterprise budget has varied significantly. If you make the same comparison between 1998-1999 and 2001-2002, the Scottish Enterprise budget has gone up to some extent, but the difference is not as marked.
Were those budget figures fixed before the announcement of redundancies at Barmac?
Yes.
Will they be reviewed?
As you are probably aware, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has made representation to the department for additional funds; that is being considered.
Table 3.9 on page 43 is about tourism. You said earlier that the new money that has been announced for tourism is not included in the table; I appreciate that, but it would appear that the allocation for promotion and development of tourism is on the decrease, whereas the allocation for administration of tourism is on the increase. Is there an explanation for that—for example, is it connected with the development of Project Ossian?
Staffing for the development of Project Ossian is part of the reason. The change is primarily a reallocation; some staff who supported promotion and development activities have been moved into administration.
If members have no further comments, I will make some concluding points.
It should be pretty concrete now. It is based on the appropriation accounts, which were published last August.
That is the estimated figure.
I beg your pardon. The figures will become concrete in August.
Before we take our next stab at the budget, which will happen once we know the impact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget and the decisions on Cubie and tourism, will we have the 1999-2000 outturn figures?
Those figures do not become final, formally, until the National Audit Office sign them off. There should be almost-final drafts before that.
I do not understand where table 3.11 fits into the department's total budget. I can see where every other budget line fits into table 3.1, but I cannot get table 3.11 to fit into that table. Perhaps I have found another printer's proof error.
It is another printer's proof error.
So the other line in table 3.1 should tie in with table 3.11. Okay.
It was. I think that there has been a third renewables order—at least that has been proposed, if it has not happened—so we have retained the provision to deal with the outcome of that order.
The unallocated figure of £35.9 million, which we talked about earlier, is a figure within the 1999-2000 budget, for which there was no departmental home at the outset of the year. You are now budgeting much more up to the ceiling. Is it a contingency?
No. That figure arose partly from money not spent on Hyundai and partly from a large regional RSA claim that was expected to come in, but did not. We were able to carry the money forward to allow for those claims coming in in future years, or to meet other commitments.
The money not spent on Hyundai has been mentioned twice, in relation to the unallocated figure and the Scottish Enterprise figure. What was the total allocation for Hyundai? How much has been spent?
I will have to come back to you on that; I do not have the information with me.
Would you do that?
Yes.
We have to find out where Hyundai fits into the equation, because it is having an impact on our deliberations. It would be useful to have a note that set out exactly what has happened with the Hyundai allocation. We need to know its impact on the budget lines; it either has an impact on a number of budget lines, in which case we will have to consider how they add up, or it has an impact on only one budget line. We need to know the assumptions that have been made in reallocating money to future provision. That would get to the heart of some of our concerns.