I welcome the Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell, and his officials. We are going to deal with the statutory instrument that is before us. Our inquiry will take the form of a debate, which is the first time that such consideration of a statutory instrument has been given within a committee of the Scottish Parliament.
Thank you for inviting me here today to debate the autumn supplementaries that I laid before Parliament on 22 October. I intend to read this speech in full, convener, because I believe that this is a serious and worthwhile occasion. Rather than making a number of political points, I want to go through this in detail.
Thank you, minister. Does any member of the committee want to speak in general on the estimates? Not at this stage, it seems.
Before you move to the detail, may I ask a general question?
Yes.
This is more a request for information and an explanation than anything else. If I am correct in my summings, this supply estimate announces a difference in the budget of around £470 million. The difference in the budget that was announced in October was around £300 million, which arose, as you said, from the carry-over. Where does the extra £150 million come from? I am sure that it is a technical matter, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify that for me.
If you want to answer that minister, you can, but you are welcome to leave it to the end.
I think that it might be helpful to respond, because it raises a point about voted and non-voted expenditures, which I was expecting the committee to want clarified. I have been clarifying that for myself over the past six months.
Would any other members like to make a general statement or ask a general question?
I welcome the opportunity that the minister affords us today. In your preliminary speech, you mentioned openness in the future. You said that you hoped that the explanations would be fuller in future. I think that is a direct quotation. On that point, if we examine any of the votes, the final comment starts with the words
It is intended that next year's estimates will cover that point. I hope that that and a number of other points will be clearly understood between the committee and the Executive when we move into the new system, as outlined in the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Bill and in the written agreements, which will be finalised over the coming weeks.
The committee welcomes that.
In regard to the second adjustment in the spring, will it be a regular occurrence that we have two adjustments per year? How do you expect that the chancellor's possible announcements this afternoon will tie in with your spending? You are more privy than we are—we are simply reading the newspaper reports—to the extra money that the chancellor possibly has available for spending throughout the United Kingdom. How will it work, if he decides to spend more in a certain area or allows for extra public spending? What will the arrangement be with you? How will you inform the committee, and what arrangement is in place to enable us to scrutinise and debate that possible extra spending?
We expect two sets of supplementary estimates each year. I am being told that there might be three. It is possible that we might have to authorise some moneys in the summer, after the end of the financial year, to clarify authorisations that have taken place towards the end of a financial year. The two main occasions on which supplementary estimates will be produced will be in autumn and in spring, and there may be a tidying-up exercise afterwards, in the summer.
Do any members have any other comments at this stage?
No.
In that case, we will now examine the estimates. I propose that we go through all 12 votes individually. If members wish to make a comment or seek clarification, please do so at the appropriate time. I do not propose to allow a lot of time on each one as I assume that members, having had the papers, will know whether they want to make a point under a particular heading.
The minister indicated in his speech that comment might be made in the spring about future spending on agriculture. Will he clarify that?
There have been a number of announcements recently on a UK-wide basis; for example, on assistance to the pig industry. If any of those require alterations to estimates, they will appear in the spring supplementary estimates. We expect that some of them will require alterations. Those will probably be the major element of the supplementaries.
We will now discuss vote 2, on local government, housing, transport, other environment services and European funds.
Will the minister explain the increase in European structural funding that is shown? Can you explain why that has come through, and how it has come through?
That is money allocated to committed European structural fund-supported projects, which was not taken up in the last financial year because of the timetabling of those projects but will be spent by them in this financial year. That is one of the end-year flexibility additions. It is part of the on-going programme of projects that is part of this structural funds round.
The major change in this vote is in housing. Is that related to the new housing partnerships?
There is a change of £57.76 million in the line relating to new housing partnerships, which is the main transfer from non-voted to voted expenditure. That reflects the fact that previously local authorities undertook expenditure on new housing partnerships, using borrowing consent issued by the department. That lead to it being categorised as non-voted expenditure. This transfer will enable payment of new housing partnership grants to local authorities or via Scottish Homes. That is the intention of the department for this money this year, rather than allocating it as borrowing consent to local authorities. I presume that this is an improvement from their point of view, although I am not an expert in that field.
I have two points. First, on roads and transport, can you break down those figures into road building and road maintenance? You will be aware that there is serious concern in some council areas, such as Fife and Perth and Kinross, to name but two, that road maintenance is falling behind. Roads should be renewed every 40 years. In Fife they are being renewed every 276 years.
The answer to your second point is yes.
Is road maintenance up to local authorities? They feel pressured on that at the moment. What is the Executive's response to that crucial issue?
That is probably an issue for the Transport and the Environment Committee and the transport department, rather than a straightforward accounting or finance issue. It is a policy matter about the balance in the programme. That is the sort of issue that the Transport and the Environment Committee will examine.
On page 12, under the nationalised industries' external finance heading, there is a drop in funding for Highlands and Islands airport. What is the explanation for that?
I think that that drop reflects the delay in improvements at Sumburgh. There are decisions outstanding about renewal at the airport.
You have just answered one of the questions that I was going to ask.
In terms of the accounting, I do not think that it matters too much, but it is revenue. It is funding projects by Caledonian MacBrayne and independent harbour trusts projects that slipped from the previous year. In the main, it is slippage from last year's programme moving into this year. It is money that has been spent, but would have been spent last year if it had been taken up before the end of the financial year.
It is a rollover?
Yes.
I congratulate the minister on his explanation of voted and non-voted expenditure, which continues to flummox me. Could he give the committee a note to explain that in detail, because it is not something that I followed? That is the last time that I will say that to you.
That is additional resources, which we allocated as an Executive to social inclusion partnership action teams. It was a conscious decision to allocate some of the end-year flexibility money to the priorities of the Executive. Some of those supplementaries show money that has stayed in the same departmental budget and has been allocated in this financial year, because it was not spent in the past financial year. Some of the supplementaries reflect new money; for example, the roads budget change is new money in the roads budget; it is not a carry-over from an underspend last year.
If there is nothing else on this vote, we will move on to vote 3, on education, industry, arts and libraries.
On the increase of £32 million on education, I am not entirely sure what the difference is between education A and education B. Will the minister explain the difference between those? What is the £32 million adjustment for? Is there anything in the figures that accommodates the financial aid package that your colleague Mr Galbraith announced for teachers' pay?
The £32 million comprises three different elements in this financial year. To cover the development of higher still, there is an additional £4 million, which the department and the Executive believed was required. There is a carry-forward of end-year flexibility of just over £28 million to meet a variety of commitments, including the teachers' pay package. There is also a very small amount that had to be included, as an internal transfer from the administration vote, to cover the expenses of the youth parliament, which, under our new arrangements, has been transferred to this department.
On page 16 of the supply estimates paper, the figures at E4 and E5 on industry, enterprise and training seem to show a shifting of funds. Will the minister explain what is going where?
There are quite a few transfers. There is a transfer from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of almost £1.5 million, which covers funding for the Energy Saving Trust and the promotion of energy efficiency. To cover the first year of the education maintenance allowance pilot, there are Scottish Executive budget changes of £3 million. There is also £1 million this financial year to cover the first year of the aid for infectious salmon anaemia. There is an allocation of just over £5 million for EYF, which will go to a variety of the department's priorities. I understand that that includes a millennium bug training subsidy, inward investment in the Highlands and Islands, the Borders railway feasibility study, and the expenses of the Cubie committee. Those are the four main issues of interest that are covered, although there will be others.
I am sorry, but the question was slightly different. At E4 and E5, one shows an increase and the other a decrease, around the £40 million point. You have highlighted something that comes to about £15 million or £16 million.
The figures that I just gave you cover not only E4 and E5 but E2. If one puts those three figures together, that gives a total of just over £10 million. The amounts that I outlined are spread over the three budget lines. After the meeting, I could provide more detail of which amounts come under which budget lines, if you think that that would be helpful.
That would be helpful.
I would like an explanation of figure beside the words LZ Education on page 17. What exactly are the appropriations in aid?
Let me be sure that I get this right. The figure gives the reduction in receipts as a result of the postponement of the sale of the student loan debt, which we were expecting to happen earlier. It is being met by an agreed claim on the UK reserve, rather than by a call on something else in the budget.
To clarify, there are fewer receipts coming in from the sale of the student loan debt. The net change is positive. If there is a reduction in the receipts, how is that showing up in the expenditure?
If there are fewer receipts, there will be more net expenditure.
Is that being met from a call on the reserve?
It is being met from the UK reserve. It is not a call on the Scottish budget. It will be a call on the Scottish budget once it is in, but it has come from the UK budget.
That helps to explain a lot. We have been able to call on £120 million from the UK reserve. When did that negotiation take place?
I do not know, but I will find out and let you know.
Let us move to vote 4, on hospital, community health, family health, other health services and welfare food.
In your statement on 6 October, you announced £10.5 million for the drugs enforcement agency. You also announced a comprehensive audit of all treatment and after-care services connected with drug misuse. I have taken this up with you before, and I wondered whether you were yet in a position to let me know how much that will cost and from whose budget the money will come. Obviously, tackling drug misuse cuts across the ministries, but I presume that it comes under vote 4.
The second question is a matter for my colleagues in the Executive to consider at the appropriate time. The first point is a matter for my colleague Mr MacKay, who is co-ordinating the audit. I imagine that he will inform members in the near future of his timetable. Officials of all departments are helping with the audit, which is being co-ordinated by the ministerial committee.
Audits cost money. Presumably Mr MacKay will have to clear the cost of it with you.
Unless the cost was easily accommodated in the existing departmental budget, which, to the best of my knowledge, it is.
We will encourage you.
Will you expand a little on what appears, on page 20, to be a hit on national health service trusts? I do not doubt that, somewhere in the figures, there are some movements that will explain it. I am especially concerned that, with the removal of general practitioner fundholding, the trusts might have to pick up some of the support that currently comes through GPs. Where will that be funded from?
My notes are not entirely clear on that, but I think that it is a transfer from voted to non-voted expenditure. It is a transfer out of the cash accounting of the consolidated fund into borrowing consents. However, before giving that as a definite answer, I would like to clarify it. I will be happy to do so as soon as possible after the committee meeting.
I would be grateful for that.
Of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on page 19, (c) is interesting but (b) is more important for us. How is the figure of £1,130,000 in paragraph (c) arrived at? How do you decide on how much has to be transferred to treat Scottish residents in English hospitals? Is there a list that gives the cost of each operation? Perhaps, rather than answering now, you could give us a note on that.
Rather than my trying to describe that now, we would prefer to provide a note. We would be happy to do so.
That is perfectly reasonable. On page 21, under the sub-heading of "Other expenditure outside Departmental Expenditure Limits", appropriations in aid of £0.5 billion or thereabouts are shown for national insurance contributions. Subsequently there is what appears to be a decrease in expenditure. A note on how that happens would be helpful, because it is new to me.
It is a straight calculation by the Inland Revenue. We are notified by it of what the cost to us will be. The figures show a technical change to reflect that.
Andrew, does that deal with your point, or do you want something else in writing?
No, that is all right.
We will move to vote 5 on law and order.
I might have misheard what you said in your opening statement on the drugs enforcement agency. In your statement on public expenditure on 6 October, you gave a figure of £10.5 million. In your opening statement today, you broke that down into setting-up costs of £0.5 million and £5 million a year subsequently. Could you clarify the on-going expenditure, and help me to bridge the gap between the figure of 6 October and the figure today?
I might have made a mistake—did I say £0.5 million in my introductory remarks? And did I say £5 million for future years?
I think that you said £5 million for subsequent years, on an annual basis.
To clarify: £0.5 million this year, £5 million next year, and £5 million the year after that.
Will you tell us the on-going costs of running the agency? The figures that you have just given are presumably the initial £10.5 million. What happens after that?
The annual running cost is £5 million. I will be expecting to hear from you from time to time about that.
You can count on it.
What are the miscellaneous services that are referred to on page 24? An increase of £27.83 million is shown. The word "miscellaneous" can cover a lot of sins.
It covers a variety of different elements of funding, including, for example, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and police telecommunications expenditure. It reflects moneys allocated for the Scottish parliamentary elections, which, because of the number of candidates and the introduction of the new voting system, were a substantial overspend to which we had to allocate additional money. Although the heading "miscellaneous" is in vote 5, on the police, it covers a multitude of sins. I hope that it allows us to wrap up a number of outstanding matters.
The figure for police grants on page 24 seems barely to cover inflation. Have I missed something?
The allocation shown is not the annual increase in police grants; it is an additional amount of money. The amount required could not be clear in the spring, but now it is. It will cover the additional police costs for the millennium period.
On page 24, a considerable increase is shown for the running costs of the Scottish Prison Service. Does that reflect the number of prisoners, or is there more to it than that?
Again, that is a taking up of end-year flexibility. There was some publicity recently about EYF and the Prison Service. The amount that was quoted related to accumulated EYF from previous years, money that the Prison Service had accumulated and that we were able to disburse. The money shown on page 24 is the EYF from last year, which the Prison Service has been given permission to keep and to spend in full. There might have been some misunderstandings about that during the past two or three weeks, and I am glad to clarify it today.
We will move to vote 6, on administration.
A figure is included for the running costs of the Food Standards Agency, but what about the set-up costs?
That figure is the set-up cost.
Is any of the money shown for administration to be allocated to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or is it all for the Executive to spend?
It comes from the Scottish consolidated fund and has nothing to do with the secretary of state.
How much more detail will be available on A1, and to what extent does Mr McConnell think that other figures are required?
I will need to consider that. I will do so and let the committee know my answer.
Do members have anything to say on vote 7, on the General Register Office for Scotland?
What about vote 8, on the National Archives of Scotland?
That section says that it reflects changes laid out in the programme for government. How does that relate to the archives? Are the collected works of ministers to be stored there? [Laughter.]
We do not plan to put the coalition in the archive yet, Mr Raffan.
Some might.
That section relates to a number of changes reflecting mostly running costs of the National Archives of Scotland and take-up of EYF. I will happily provide more information on that if it would be helpful.
We move to vote 10, on the Forestry Commission (Scotland).
What is happening here? The limit has increased considerably. Could you provide more details?
That is a good question, which deserves a good answer. Dr Simpson also raised that question in advance of the meeting.
I was hoping not to ask you any questions, but what has happened to vote 9?
There were no changes to vote 9.
Are there any further points on vote 10?
In view of the difficulties that the commission is experiencing as a result of the market, will the money be a grant or will it be treated as a loan?
It will be treated as an increase in the commission's financial allocation for this year, and there will be an increase next year. We do not intend to claw that money back if the commercial situation improves.
Has the Forestry Commission been given additional funding to deal with potential outcomes from the changes in the access rules and the management that that will require?
No.
We will move to vote 11, on the Crown Office.
My question is the same as that which I asked about general administration. It would be useful to know why the administration costs are being increased by 89 per cent. That is an unusually large increase.
It results from the take-up of end-year finance. It is to be spent mainly on new information and communications technology systems that will link up the headquarters of the Crown Office with other offices around Scotland.
We have agreed not to ask you questions on vote 12. We will have the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body before us next week, and we will raise issues with it. As you might know, we will be pursuing a written understanding between the committee and the SPCB.
I would like the minister to answer a question on vote 6, which I think will be of help to us when we meet the SPCB. Vote 6 refers to the
That is the result of costs that were in place before 1 July and costs that were put in place after 1 July, when the corporate body took up its responsibilities. Some of the additional costs have been met by the Executive's budget, which was responsible for all the costs before July, since when they have been the responsibility of the corporate body.
I thought initially that it was a pre and post-July division, but under vote 6, the document refers to "continuing services".
It refers to the situation before and after 1 July, but there might be some difficulty associated with the wording in the document. If further clarification is required, we will provide it as soon as possible.
I would like some clarification on end-year flexibility. What happened to underspent budgets in previous years? Was the money clawed back by Westminster, or was it rolled over to the next financial year? What has changed now? What has created this flexibility? Is that the result of a negotiation with the Treasury?
In essence, it is. There have always been some EYF arrangements, for example, in relation to health boards, the Prison Service in recent years and some other agencies. The comprehensive spending review and the arrangements that were introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have created the practice of departmental expenditure limits and annually managed expenditures. The efforts to encourage three-year forward planning in the budget process mean that it is important to discourage people as much as possible from rushing to spend at the end of a financial year.
I would like to make a general point. I do not—and I am sure that the minister does not—regard the document as user-friendly. Within the next couple of weeks, the minister will be coming forward with a consultation document on how in future we will consult the public on public expenditure. In view of that, it is important that such documents are user-friendly to the public. I am not sure that they are user-friendly to MSPs—they are certainly not user-friendly to the public.
I am not sure that they are even user-friendly to the officials, who are among the few who understand them.
I hope that this afternoon the chancellor will give the minister a further opportunity to practise improving the documents before the spring.
If there are no further points that members wish to make, I shall put the question.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament Finance Committee in consideration of The Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Appropriations) Amendment Order 1999 recommends that the Order be approved.
I thank the minister and his officials for their time and for giving full answers to members' questions.
Meeting closed at 12:58.
Previous
Committee Decisions