We can now move seamlessly to agenda item 2, which is the provisional expenditure plan for the coming financial year. The Finance Committee has not taken evidence before on the SPCB's provisional plans so this is a first step for us. Would Robert Brown like to add anything to the paper that we have received?
It is perhaps slightly odd to jump from financial year 2001-02 to financial year 2003-04; it is perhaps not quite seamless to have a missing year in between.
We will deal with the issues that relate to the building project in the next item, so we will deal with capital in that context and with revenue in the context of this paper.
In the material that the committee has received, it is pointed out that the information relates to level 1 funding, so the paper does not tell us an awful lot other than the global sum required. However, there seems to be a very large difference between the provisional expenditure plans for 2003-04 and the actual outturn in 2001-02. It is a 25 per cent increase. It will include an element of inflation, but that is running at a fairly low level and I am not sure that there are exceptional inflationary pressures on the resource side.
I can give you a breakdown of the increase. The first item is staff pay. The build-up that we talked about earlier, and the effects of the pay and grading deal—which we have negotiated with the unions but which has yet to be ratified by the SPCB, although we have to budget for it—explains £1.3 million of the year-on-year increase. We have also to budget for an increase in MSPs' salaries, because of the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board. The Parliament has yet to vote on that, but we have to make estimates.
The committee has received fairly cryptic reports, of which there was not a lot of notice. The papers arrived only at the weekend. It would be helpful to have a briefing such as the one that Mr Gilfillan gave us. His run-through of areas of assumption was extremely helpful. In the Finance Committee, we have to look forward, as opposed to the Audit Committee, which looks backward. If we are to look forward, we have to know what the assumptions are and how figures have been arrived at. If we could extract a promise from the panel of witnesses to consider that, or even to give us those explanations now, it would be very helpful.
From the Finance Committee's perspective, these level 1 figures are for relatively small amounts in total, if one compares them with the Scottish Executive's departmental estimates for health and so on. There is no difficulty in providing further information, but more detail is usually provided slightly further on in the committee's process.
The information that Mr Gilfillan has provided would probably cover only two thirds of a page of A4, but I did find it helpful. Having said that, we will examine the revenue details that have been provided and leave the capital side for agenda item 3. I note that some costs are being moved into another area, but what concerns me is whether the costs of delays at this stage are being funded from revenue expenditure. Have you managed to move all those costs into the capital expenditure part of the plan?
The costs of delays are certainly not included in the revenue figures. As I indicated on a previous occasion, the revenue figures allow for the fact that we are budgeting for some parallel running. For example, we are budgeting for the costs of running the interim accommodation for six months after the date in May that Robert Brown mentioned.
Thank you for that answer, which points in exactly the direction that I was heading.
It has always been the case that parallel running would be required, because the move will take some time.
Have you varied the allowance for those costs at all? I know that I am repeating a previous question, but have you considered the costs of any projected overrun? Have you conducted any negotiations about renting the current premises in parallel with the new project?
No. However, we have prudently budgeted for retaining the premises for some time. We will not be able to divest ourselves of the parliamentary headquarters building and get rid of it overnight. It will take some time for us to empty the building, so we are budgeting for six months to do that. That has not changed.
The increase over those years is significant. It is important that more detailed information is provided for increases of that magnitude. Those figures could be easily—or purposely—misinterpreted. Frankly, I think that you should cover your back a bit better by explaining the reason for the increases, instead of leaving it for interpretation and for questioning by the committee. It would be far better if we had much more detailed information in future.
Yes.
I was intrigued by the implication that the level 2 and level 3 budgets are constructed after the level 1 budget has been arrived at. I always thought that budgets were built from level 3 figures and up through level 2 to get to the level 1 figures. Will you clarify how the level 1 figures are arrived at? Do you decide how much money you want and then decide how you want to spend it? I assumed that the process worked the other way round.
In fairness, I think that that is a slight misunderstanding of what I said.
I give you an opportunity to clarify what you said.
At previous meetings of the Finance Committee, we have discussed what the role of the committee should be at this stage and how that compares to the role that it will have later on. The level 1 figures do not just come out of the blue. With the help of year-on-year experience, the finance officials build up the figures in some detail. The table shows a summary of the position at a particular point.
The level 2 and level 3 figures must be available to you, as you have constructed the level 1 figures from them.
Yes.
Have you chosen not to publish those figures now because we are not at the appropriate stage?
It is not that we have chosen not to publish those figures, but that we have done what we were asked to do. We are more than happy to take on board the point that we need to provide more detailed information about significant changes. There is no particular secret about the figures. There is no problem of that sort.
The key point is that we know the figures. Brian Adam is right that the figures are built from the bottom up. However, the corporate body also takes a view from the top on what it thinks is reasonable. Tom McCabe made a fair point about the need for more detail—which, of course, we will provide—but there is also a question of certainty. This far out, there is greater uncertainty but, as we get closer to 2003-04, there will be more certainty, so we will be able to report more detail with greater confidence. For example, even in Stewart Gilfillan's explanation, there were several things that have not been decided by the corporate body or by the Parliament.
The core assumption is that the additional costs will be met from this year's underspend and, presumably, from next year's projected underspend. That is why no additional revenue funding is being sought for next year. Is that assumption solid?
Yes.
What mechanisms are involved in dealing with the underspend? Will 75 per cent of the underspend be retained, as with Executive departments, or will you bid for 100 per cent of the underspend?
Under a previous agreement with the Executive that was endorsed by the Finance Committee, we have been assured that we will be entitled to 100 per cent of our underspend. We are budgeting on that basis.
Thank you. If there are no further questions on that item, is the committee content to note the provisional plans at this stage?
We will return in the autumn to the detail of the expenditure plans.