Budget Documents 2003-04
I welcome members of the press and public to this afternoon's meeting of the Finance Committee. Our first item of business is consideration of "Scotland's Budget Documents 2003-04". I extend a warm welcome to the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services and his officials. He will make some opening remarks before we move to questions.
I have two points to make. After three years' experience of the process, our committee and some of the subject committees are beginning to flag up a degree of repetitiveness. Although everyone acknowledges that proper scrutiny of the budget is essential, a case could be made for a re-examination of the processes that we use. That would help us to avoid the repetition and enable us to free up parliamentary time for other important matters.
My second point is for the minister. Later, we will have a discussion on amendments to the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill. Therefore, it would be helpful if the minister could refrain from commenting on those amendments at this point.
The convener mentioned the repetitiveness of the budget process. We are on a similar wavelength in that regard. As well as dealing with that issue later, I will mention it briefly in my initial remarks. I intend to go through a number of issues, which I hope will help with the succeeding discussion. Although I accept the convener's point about the budget process, we should not underestimate the progress that has been made over a significant period. I suspect that we have one of the most open budget scrutiny processes of any modern Parliament. Those processes are certainly more open than they were in pre-devolution days—there is now much more opportunity for scrutiny.
I have been involved in three budget bills. I have observed the process almost from the beginning and have noted year-on-year improvements. During that period, the Finance Committee has been responsible for making significant suggestions to help that process. However, it is clear to us all that the process is highly repetitive. At this time of year, we debate the same matter three times in as many weeks. That follows on closely from the committee's stage 2 consideration, which covers exactly the same ground. Far from adding anything to the process, such repetition might have the effect of detracting from its overall value.
As recent speeches on the budget have shown, it is hard for members, let alone ministers, to find anything new to say. I confess that, in the most recent debate, I resorted to parodying Monty Python sketches in an effort to say "something completely different."
I would be happy to discuss the bill and the wider process with the committee before we give formal consideration to the amendments to the bill. To a large extent, the bill embodies the spending plans that were set out at the end of the spending review process. The most significant change is the transfer of £145 million from the Department for Work and Pensions for housing support services. That represents a transfer of functions, rather than the creation of new functions. There have been a number of similar transfers, both from Whitehall and between Executive departments.
I realise that members—including ministers—find it difficult to reconcile many of the numbers with those that were given in the draft budget. I will return to that point later.
Before that, I want to mention two things that are not in the bill. As the committee will know, next year we will reduce the rate for capital charges from 6 per cent to 3.5 per cent, to keep in line with changes that the Treasury made. That resulted from an unbundling of the discount rate and is to do with the rate of return for long-dated index-linked gilts. If the committee would like a fuller explanation of that, I would be happy to provide it in writing.
We decided not to implement that change through the present Budget Bill for two main reasons. First, as our process runs ahead of that of the Treasury, the final details have yet to be agreed. Secondly, the change will affect every budget with capital charges. We wanted to avoid changing more figures than necessary between the draft budget and the Budget Bill.
We will introduce change through a revision early in the new parliamentary session. There will not be a real impact on spending or on the value of spending. We will simply make an accounting adjustment to reflect the new discount rate. The adjustment will alter the total resources that are sought by around £400 million.
The second issue that is not covered in the bill relates to the Parliament building. I gather that the committee will question a representative of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body after I have given evidence. I do not doubt that members, their advisers and the clerks have noticed a difference between the SPCB's most recent budget submission to the committee and the figures in the Budget Bill. The corporate body will, of course, receive the provision that it requires to deliver the new building, as agreed by the committee. Members will know that the most recent cost estimates for the Holyrood project became apparent only last month, long after the spending review and after the Budget Bill numbers had been finalised.
In light of that, we have decided to stick with the figures that we have used to date for the Budget Bill. We can and will deal with the subsequent revisions in a budget revision in the summer. Another reason for taking that approach is that, by then, we should be far closer to the building's opening and have even greater cost certainty. We do not wish to over-provide for the project any more than we wish to under-provide for it. In final budgetary terms, the budget will provide what is agreed for the project. At present, the key question is simply of cash flow and not of adjusting any agreed totals.
By giving ourselves a little more time, we are able not only to align the budget better through a revision for the final cash requirements, but to have a better handle on the early spending against the Executive's budget into the new year and the outturn figures for the current year's budget. In that way, it will be easier to manage the source of the cash in the budget. The cash is likely to come from a combination of the reserve and our more exact insight into end-year flexibility.
As the convener said, we will deal with the amendments that we have lodged to the Budget Bill later. None of the amendments is terribly substantive.
I will spend a little time reviewing the budget documentation and the process. The student loans amendment is interesting because it relates to a previous year and because it helps to show why members and ministers find it hard to read across from the draft budget to the Budget Bill. The amendment brings into the total cash authorisation for the Executive and the resources that have been sought for the enterprise and lifelong learning department spending that is outside total managed expenditure and does not score in our Whitehall estimates.
In budget bills and revisions, the key aggregate figures on which Parliament controls the Executive are total cash and total resources other than accruing resources. However, in the spending review publications, the annual expenditure report and the draft report, we report against our departmental expenditure limit—the key aggregate against which the Treasury measures us.
For example, non-departmental public body budgets are given in cash terms in the Budget Bill and in resource terms in the draft budget. Capital charges are in the Budget Bill but not in the draft budget. The numbers in the two documents are always different, even if the spending plans that underlie them are the same. There is little that we can do about that without revising the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which has, arguably, the unintended effect of undermining the joint aim of the Executive and the committee to provide greater transparency in the budget process.
I know that members have examined the supporting documents to the budget in considerable detail. That was apparent from questions that I was asked during the stage 1 debate. I will return for a moment to my parody of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch, which I use to describe the current condition of the Conservative party in Scotland. Few might have noticed that Mr Monteith's intervention in that stage 1 debate moved us from one Monty Python sketch to another, which involved a Hungarian-English phrasebook. Mr Monteith's knowledge of Monty Python is obviously deep. The reference that he made is useful to the debate, because I wonder whether the supporting document to the Budget Bill has become akin to the Hungarian-English phrasebook in the Monty Python sketch. The supporting document is capable of misinterpretation when read with the Budget Bill and all the other documentation that is available.
Members will be glad to know that, unlike that Monty Python sketch and Mr Monteith's intervention, the bill does not provide for a hovercraft full of eels. However, the documentation might make as much sense as that sketch did. The supporting document to the Budget Bill has no legal standing. It is meant to help MSPs, including those on the committee, and has evolved as part of our dialogue over the parliamentary session. However, as it has a different accounting basis from that of the draft budget, it has created the potential for significant confusion for MSPs who are less well versed in matters than committee members are, let alone the wider public and commentators on the budget process.
The document is almost three times as long as the equivalent document for 2000-01 and, when it is taken together with the AER, the draft budget and the supporting documents for revisions, we offer the committee more than 1,500 pages to explain the same numbers. I welcome the committee's views on whether that deluge of information is helpful or whether—to revert back to the Monty Python sketch—it is as helpful as that Hungarian-English phrasebook. I wonder whether something akin to the schedule 2s in the supporting document together with a list of changes from the draft budget might be more useful. To be more radical, a simple list of changes from the plans at the draft budget stage might be enough for everybody's purposes.
As the convener said, the budget process is repetitive, although the timing of the coming election and the arrangement for next year's AER mean that the process will be shorter and simpler next year. In effect, we will cut out stage 1 of the process, which will be a useful experiment. This year, leaving aside the committee hearings and the revision process, we have had five full debates in the chamber and votes on the same budget.
I do not want to limit Parliament's opportunities to scrutinise the budget and to hold the Executive to account for its plans. Scrutiny has already been helpful in changing the Executive's practice on budgetary matters and in providing a closer focus on finance and financial control and a much better and more thorough internal budgeting process. Scrutiny is hugely important in the process.
I welcome views from committee members on whether the present process makes best use of the available time. My view is that we should not automatically return to the full three-stage process in 2004-05 simply because we can. There might be scope to merge the debate on the committee report on stage 2 of the process with the debate on stage 1 of the bill. The real debate ought to take place at the conclusion of stage 2 of the process, which is the debate on the committee report.
This year, the first amendment was lodged to a budget bill, which reflected the fact that, at that point, the process is still fluid—beyond that stage, only the Executive can amend the bill. We have all had experience of the three stages of the budget bill and we know how repetitive it has become. After stage 2 of the bill, there might be a case for going straight to a vote without debate at stage 3 if there are no amendments at that stage.
There are a number of possibilities and, in the spirit in which the convener began the discussion, it would be useful if our respective officials and advisers considered the various options and reported back, having reflected fully on the committee's thoughts and my contribution. I believe that there is considerable scope for streamlining the system without compromising its openness or the scope for effective scrutiny.
I have covered a fair amount of ground and I hope that my comments will be helpful in opening up discussion on the matter. We can do much more to develop the documentation and the budget process. I look forward to hearing the committee's views.
I prefix other members' questions by highlighting the figures on health and finance, on which there are significant differences between the Budget Bill and the draft budget. Will you comment on that before members ask their questions?
Perhaps my officials will help with particular differences. In part, I accounted for the differences in the information that I gave in my opening remarks. Are there particular figures that you wish to draw to our attention?
Richard Dennis (Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department):
I draw to members' attention the reconciliation that I provided earlier.
Perhaps the differences are simply apparent, but carry on.
The differences are largely apparent and are a result of different treatments in the draft budget and the Budget Bill.
The health example is fairly simple. The difference between the two is about £582 million, £574 million of which is the result of the treatment of national insurance contributions, which are included in the bill but not in the draft budget. The two changes to the health budget might account for the remaining £8 million difference. The first is a transfer from Her Majesty's Treasury to reflect the fact that Edinburgh royal infirmary has been brought on to the balance sheet. I think that we gave the committee information about that earlier. The second is the transfer of functions relating to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care from the finance and central services department. Together, those figures match the difference between the Budget Bill and the draft budget.
The finance example is rather more complicated. If I may, I will highlight only the main elements—I am happy to go through the details with the clerks or the committee adviser later. The difference between the Budget Bill and the draft budget is rather more than £1 billion. That is largely because there are three elements that are not voted in the bill but are included in the draft budget: specific grants, which in the bill are included in the budgets of individual departments; capital spending, which is funded by borrowing and therefore not voted in the bill; and the centrally managed funds, such as the capital modernisation fund and the public sector reform fund, which are not voted until after they have been allocated. If those elements are taken out, the two can be fairly easily reconciled. As I said, I am happy to go through the details with Professor Midwinter or the clerks.
That is helpful, thank you.
I accept what Mr Peacock says about the process and that it is not now open to Parliament to alter the bill. Given that the bill has already had substantial scrutiny, it does not seem sensible to spend even more time talking about something that ultimately will just be passed or not, as the case may be. Moreover, having heard the minister's attempts to do Monty Python, I think that he should concentrate on his day job, although Mr Monteith might have an alternative career ahead of him.
I want to talk about the differences between the draft bill and the Budget Bill. I understand that the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 determines that one document deals with cash and the other deals with resources. How easy would it be to change the legislation to allow that part of both documents to be the same?
The second area of difference relates to where the vote in the bill covers what, in the budget documents, are two or more different portfolio areas. What determines what constitutes the different votes in the bill? What prevents us from changing that so that the budget documents match? Thirdly, can you explain why national insurance has to be treated differently in the two documents?
My fourth question relates to capital expenditure. I understand—I think—that, as capital expenditure is borrowing, it does not represent money that we are voting in the bill. How can we ensure that, when people pick up the two documents, they see only the substantial differences as opposed to the different accounting treatments?
I will ask my officials to pick up on the technical details. You have helpfully illustrated the point that I was trying to make earlier. We need to sit down and use the experience that we have gained over the past four budgets. Most committee members have experience of at least three budgets. We must reflect on all that experience and work out what we have to change. Once we have come to a consensus about what requires to be done, we would have to go through the standard parliamentary process to effect any change to the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. That would obviously depend on parliamentary time, as members are well aware.
In the first instance, however, we have to come to a firmer agreement about the way in which to handle these matters. Your point about capital spending was right. We must make the figures more visible and transparent so that people who pick up the documents can reconcile the different figures—at times, we find it difficult to reconcile the figures.
I was trying to say earlier that the way in which the process works now does not add to transparency and scrutiny—indeed, it might obscure the process, which is not in our interests. We ought to work out precisely what we would have to change to deal with that issue. Richard Dennis will cover the points about national insurance and votes.
The Budget Bill is the document that is formally audited by Audit Scotland and through which we are held to account. So far, we have taken the view that the focus of the budget should be departments rather than portfolios, because portfolios are not necessarily stable. In order to present figures that could be easily read from one year to the next, we have therefore used departmental figures. In fact, for departments that cover more than one portfolio, there is a relatively clear divide between level 2s so that in almost all cases level 2s are either wholly in one portfolio or wholly in another. Therefore, there can be reconciliation. Perhaps officials and clerks could consider that issue when thinking about what should be in the supporting documents in future.
National insurance contributions are a highly technical area, which I think I understand, but members should forgive me if I fail to explain things properly. The health department receives as receipts from the Inland Revenue the Scottish share of that part of the national insurance fund that is set aside for health. It is a kind of cash funding. It does not affect the health department's DEL, its resources or what it can spend. It simply affects how much of that spending is funded from the national insurance fund and how much is funded from the Scottish consolidated fund. As it does not affect the budget and does not impact on the DEL, it is not shown in the draft budget, although it is shown in the Budget Bill, as there are receipts and we need to take authority for spending.
I would be more than happy to come back with an answer to your other question on that matter.
How is the share determined?
It is determined by population.
It is determined by population despite the fact that national insurance is an income-related contribution.
Yes. In effect, there is no real-world impact. Even if we receive nothing in that line, health spending will be exactly the same.
Professor Arthur Midwinter (Adviser):
We could just receive less in the grant.
I think that I will wait and read the Official Report of the meeting.
I thank the minister for the openness of his approach to the problems that we are beginning to see after the four years that we have been at this game. Some areas in particular need to be considered. Many subject committees have been fazed by the budget process and are not successfully joining in with it. Part of the reason for that is the complexity of the documentation, particularly when those committees are doing a lot of work on legislative changes, for example, within their spending briefs. Another factor has been highlighted by what Richard Dennis said about the differences between portfolios and departments.
Obviously, the subject committees want to look at services and to get information quickly in a form that translates into actual spend, as opposed to information about where the money comes from, for example. In discussions between the committee and the Executive, there needs to be input from the subject committees, such as the Health and Community Care Committee and the Local Government Committee. The issue concerns how they can use the documentation and whether they need a separate set of documents that is based on the master set, if you like.
I appreciate that Audit Scotland will hold people accountable for producing a set of figures that can be properly scrutinised, but what comes out of those figures in a usable form is important. It is helpful of the Executive to provide figures in a usable form. Those of us who have been members of the committee for a long time have raised that and similar issues in the past. Anomalies emerge every year, although I accept that we are learning to deal with the process.
Yesterday, I was down at Westminster with the Audit Committee to look at the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Through the informal discussions, it became clear that the Scottish Parliament still has to link the audit process directly to the budget process. We have two committees. I have recommended to the Audit Committee that we need to have discussions. Perhaps it would be useful if we had those discussions when we are discussing with the Executive how to simplify the documentation and make it easier to use.
I accept the comments made about the treatment of national insurance. I have always understood that that is based on population share. Perhaps the Executive's response could give a view on how that could be examined in future, to take account of the differences in earnings around the country, the generation of wealth and some of the current problems in the Scottish economy.
I was pleased to hear the minister suggest that we might minimise the amount of time we spend in the chamber, without doing away with the scrutiny. Some of that time could be spent considering changes to the 2000 act. I suggest that we investigate that. I am not sure whether the minister can comment on the Executive's thoughts on that, but he has come to talk to us today. Minister, do you have any preliminary statement that you would like to make about that process from the Executive's point of view?
I shall try to pick up as many of those points as I can. I take the point about the burden that increasingly falls on subject committees to ensure that they are not only scrutinising our proposals but following through on performance reporting against targets that appear in our documentation in the lead-up to the budget. If I may, I shall link that to the point that was made about the audit process.
It is obviously for the Parliament to decide how it structures its committees; we do not have a specific view to offer on that at the moment. However, one of my responsibilities as a minister is to liaise with the Audit Committee—it is clear that that committee is increasingly getting into the performance reporting and management side of audit, and not just the numbers side. There is an obvious link between our developing work on producing sharper targets and the audit process. Alasdair Morgan has articulated his concerns, which I share, about the nature of some of our targets. However, we need to think through how the performance reporting aspect of audit will link back into the budget documents and the basis for performance monitoring that now flows from our target setting. As that develops and becomes more precise, and as we move further towards outcome budgeting, which will be the subject of discussion later, we must consider those issues.
I shall return for a moment to the point about subject committees. In our experience, subject committees are becoming more expert. Arthur Midwinter's work in helping to generate questions for them has been helpful, as has the work of their advisers. There is evidence that subject committees are beginning to make more recommendations than in the past, but I would caution against any further separate set of documents for them. As I said, we have a whole series of overlapping documents already and we should be cautious about creating a further set. All that needs to be picked up in the discussions with our respective officials.
On NI shares, we do not have a view on the specific distribution at present. It occurred to me when Alasdair Morgan was asking his question that I could see the angle that he was looking for—I am glad that he did not find it on this occasion. His point, and that of David Davidson, was that receipts to the south will depend on the country's earnings. It could therefore be argued that money coming back on a consistent population basis could benefit us considerably. We will consider the point that was raised.
The final point was about whether we had any initial thoughts on the nature of changes to the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. The answer is no. We need to get a clear consensus in Parliament and between the Executive and the committee about the nature of the documentation and the changes that we need to make. We can then look to where the act may require adjustment to allow the process to operate more effectively. I do not think that we can rush to a judgment on that. We now have four years' experience, but it would be a mistake to rush to legislative change and then discover that we had not really thought it through fully. We do not have any preliminary thoughts on that at the moment.
When I mentioned an extra set of documents, what I meant was a simplification of the documents that we currently have. We could have the legalistic document, which would be dealt with through the audit process, and one different document that would allow the subject committees to focus on the spending. I do not have a solution for that problem. However, I did not mean that there should be yet another set of books.
Good.
You referred to the £145 million that was transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to fund programmes here and which is now more appropriately part of the Scottish block allocation. You also suggested that other funds were moved in a similar way. Will you at some point—not necessarily today—identify those funds to the committee? Moreover, have any funds that were previously part of the Scottish block been moved in the opposite direction?
We will certainly clarify that matter. I am not aware of any other funds in that category.
I cannot see any others myself. The only one that I picked up was the £145 million of inward funds.
We will happily clarify the point.
If you will forgive me, I want to raise a few other technical points. According to the document, there has apparently been a £50 million drop in support to housing revenue accounts. You also referred—although not necessarily in such terms—to a £38 million drop in student loans new lending. Are there any technical reasons for such reductions, or are they real changes?
I am not aware of any real changes in expenditure plans on those matters, which leads me to suspect that they are technical points. Again, unless—
I am quite happy to receive the answers in writing later.
Unless Richard Dennis can respond to your questions now, we will provide answers in writing as quickly as we can.
The drop in student loans new lending is a technical change and is reflected in one of the amendments that we will discuss later.
In a similar vein, I find it rather odd that provision for pensions in the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department has been increased by £19 million when there is no parallel increase elsewhere. Is there some black hole in the pension provision in that respect?
I very much doubt that.
It reflects a difference in treatment. We still fund the pensions for the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department's agencies directly, whereas many other pensions have been endowed or are funded through the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.
Yes, but why is there such a massive additional provision this year?
Well, again we will—
Again, I am quite happy to receive the answer in writing later.
I am extremely interested by the change in resource accounting and budgeting and the drop in the rate of return from 6 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Will you elaborate on that? Again, it would be helpful if you could put the answer in writing to us. Does that decrease also have implications for some of the other rather arbitrary figures that the Treasury has chosen as markers? For example, are there any signs that changes will be made to the figures that are used for the public sector comparator in relation to the private finance initiative? Furthermore, does this particular drop in the rate of return have any implications for judgments on PFI in relation to figures that it would be reasonable to calculate as far as the maintenance of new capital provision is concerned? Do we have any detail on that matter?
Quite a lot of detail exists. Of course, there was a Treasury consultation on these matters. Again, I am more than happy to write to you with the fine detail, because the subject contains some complex issues. The essential point is that the Treasury is simply updating the guidance that it applies and that we use—partly for the purposes that you have indicated such as making appraisals and so on—to reflect changing circumstances over the past number of years. Indeed, I mentioned some of those circumstances in my opening remarks.
In its recent consideration of decisions about public-private partnerships—for example, in relation to schools—the Executive has been internally applying the 3.5 per cent test rather than the 6 per cent test because we knew that the change was coming. As a result, we have made judgments with that very much in mind. The other factor is that other changes in the appraisal techniques that we employ run in the opposite direction to the changes that apply to the discount rate. For example, there have been changes in certain ways in which taxation has to be treated. As the whole matter is very complicated technically, the best thing would be to set everything out in some detail. We can by all means pursue the issue when I am back before the committee for other purposes.
Forgive me for pressing the issue, but are there direct implications for the public sector comparators, or are they peripheral because this is based on maintenance rather than capital funding?
It is my understanding that the discount rates will now be used formally in all of the work that is done in relation to the point that you have made. However, because of other factors that are also at work within the changed appraisals, there does not appear to be any net difference in the outcome. The assumptions and the factors that are being used are simply changing to reflect changes in market conditions and opportunity costs for resources being used elsewhere. It might be best if we set it out for you, and when you have seen the detail we can pursue it further.
Okay. Thank you.
I agree that although, increasingly, we have large documents with lots of numbers in them, sometimes the information they contain is not particularly accessible, especially to the wider public. Originally, we tried to produce a short, snappy view of the Scottish budget. I know that that has been discontinued, but there might be an opportunity to try again to produce information that is more accessible, in a more intelligible format. One recurring theme is the difficulties people have with budgets, particularly for health and local government. Those budgets are handed over as block sums, and it is hard for people to trace whether the allocation to their child's school, for example, has increased or decreased. We need to revisit that problem.
Also, instead of producing more paper documents, we should look harder at options for electronic publications and use of the web. I have not mentioned this for at least two years so, as this is the last Finance Committee meeting for a while, I shall raise it again. All we are doing at the moment is publishing flat documents on the web; they do not do anything. There are all sorts of opportunities to present information at different levels of complexity or detail, and in different ways. The web lends itself to such presentation of information—whether one wants to see the information in the form of a pie chart or graph, or to compare trends from one year to the next. It is possible to build living, permanent documents. I suggest that if we are to reform some of these areas, that should be part of the thinking.
I concede that many documents are as incomprehensible—or as comprehensible—electronically as they are on paper. I suspect that from our point of view, it is simply a question of resources and priorities. It takes considerable effort to do what we are doing on paper. As you see, everything is now published on the web, and we just have not given attention to the point you are making about having a more dynamic electronic presentation. I have no objection in principle to our exploring that. However, we need first to sort out the use of basic information and a common understanding of what we require, and perhaps that will lend itself to such development. I do not have any ideological block about what you are suggesting.
A shorter, snappier version of a budget document was attempted, but it failed principally because it did not meet the requirements of any market. It did not hit the target. It was too simple, to the extent that it did not give enough information to allow a judgment to be made, or enough detail for other uses. Again, I do not have a problem with reviewing that, and as we come—as I hope we can—to a conclusion about how better to manage all the documentation, that might be one of the products to flow out of that process. I repeat that our priority has been to sort out the big documentation—the numbers, annual revisions and so on. That is a sizeable task, but I do not rule out that we could do what you suggest in future.
You made a point about the big blocks of expenditure that go to the health department and the local government budget. It is not quite fair to bracket those things together as if they are exactly the same. We provide detailed disaggregated information about local authority budgets—indeed, the passage of the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2003 last week provides for the overall block expenditure to be disaggregated down to individual council level.
We know the precise calculations from the grant-aided expenditure totals and share the information with the finance directors of the local authorities. We have achieved a high degree of detail in the local government sector and we have agreed to give the Finance Committee and the Local Government Committee the assumptions that underlie the additions that we feed into those budgets. We are making quite a lot of progress on the subject and I am sure that we will continue to do so.
The way in which the health department develops information does not have the same origins as for local government, which means that the degree of detail is not quite so easily available. I understand that Professor Midwinter and one of my officials met the head of finance of the health department last week and that progress is being made. I think that we will begin to illuminate the figures a good deal more, which will allow people to see the way in which the money flows, what the priorities are and how ministers can impact on those priorities at the local level in individual hospitals or health board areas.
You also made a point about whether individual schools were able to see the difference. In a sense, that example is untypical: devolved school management budgets mean that it is possible to see the detail at school level, although I am not entirely clear how well publicised that is at the local level. In other parts of local government or in the health service, it would be difficult to see that degree of detail. We are willing to work with the committee to continue to make progress. That said, I gather that there are signs that progress is beginning to be made on some of that work.
It is worth emphasising the work that is under way between Professor Midwinter, the clerks and finance and central services department officials. Progress is being made.
That concludes our consideration of the budget documents, and I thank the minister and his team for their input.