The minister is not quite off the hook yet, as he will be staying to discuss agenda item 4—the snappily titled Budget (Scotland) Act 2000 (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/draft).
I have some brief remarks that I will rattle through. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on the autumn revisions that I laid before Parliament on 24 October.
That the Finance Committee recommends that the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2000 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2000 be approved.
I propose to proceed as we have done in the past; we will go through each of the 15 budget documents and invite comments or questions from members. We will deal with the documents in the order in which they appear. The reason for the order in which they appear is not clear—they are not alphabetical—but none the less we will continue. First is the rural affairs department, beginning on page 5.
There is a revision to increase the amount of money that is set aside for flood prevention. Does that take into account the latest announcements by Mr Prescott and the consequentials for Scotland?
No, it does not take into account the additional amount.
So the money will come through in due course in this year.
Yes, absolutely. It is an addition to the budgeted amount.
I would like to take the opportunity to say that while we always whinge about documents when they are not improving, from my humble perspective, this document is a radical step forward. The improvements that the minister mentioned are welcome. You and your officials are to be commended.
It is on the record—there is no escape from that.
I have a question on the UK reserve. I am aware of the discussion that we had earlier, but could we have a note on how the relationship is governed? What is the process of negotiation, how do you make the call, and what governs the outcome, because this is a grey area to me?
That is a fair question. I am happy to go away and bring back an answer to the committee.
A reply to my second question will help us as we go through the document. Can someone briefly explain the terms current expenditure, notional capital charge, less retained income and less notional capital charge, which are used in the table? Can you also explain why retained income is taken away? I am looking for a description of what we are looking at on each page.
Retained income quite simply means that if one's estimate of the income that one is allowed to spend changes, one has more, or less, to spend. We seek Parliament's authority to use any income that we get from charges or VAT. That estimate goes up or down.
I want to understand the figures on page 6. If retained income is money from VAT and so on, why does it equal notional capital charge? I am sure that there is a good explanation.
There is, and we are just about to get it.
We undertake to write to you on that one.
I want only to understand the table.
This time last year, when the minister's predecessor sat here doing exactly the same exercise, I asked about long-term funding for the activities of the Forestry Commission. He said that the wood that is produced does not get enough money and that the funding is really just a bail-out.
The Forestry Commission has its own section, but now that you have started, you may as well continue.
Why is there another large payment towards the activities of the Forestry Commission? I apologise for having the wrong heading.
It is a continuation of the same problem: forestry is suffering from low timber prices. Last year, you discussed what should be done to fix it. This is what is being done this year to help sort it out.
That is helpful and I look forward to further comment on the matter.
If there is nothing further on rural affairs, we will move to the document beginning on page 16, on the Scottish Executive development department.
I have a question about paragraph (j) on page 17, on local government. The transfer from the enterprise and lifelong learning department of £31.7 million does not appear in the department's table on page 47. I want clarification on that.
Not being inside Jack McConnell's head, I am unable to tell you what discussions took place. However, I invite officials to comment on your first point.
The second point was pure mischief—
I had spotted that.
That sum is being funded out of EYF and was therefore not in the enterprise and lifelong learning line to begin with. It was EYF that would otherwise have gone to the enterprise and lifelong learning department but which is being put there for the purpose described.
Paragraph (f), at the top of page 17, states that £1 million is a "Transfer for vulnerable projects." In fact, the answer is under paragraph (h), as it is a transfer within the department.
As there is nothing else under that heading, we will move to the education department on page 34.
I have spotted the £31.7 million that I asked about earlier.
Where are you looking?
In paragraph (a) on schools, on page 34, there is a transfer of £31.7 million into the development department. That will be it.
As there is nothing else under education, we will move to the enterprise and lifelong learning department on page 47, and I will take this opportunity to ask my rollover question.
I do not know the details of that project, but I would be happy to examine them and find out what impressed the committee.
Sixty thousand pounds is not a large amount. Why is such a small figure allocated for innovative projects across the country? I would have thought that the figure might have been larger.
That figure struck me as curious. If the project was excellent and that sum covers it, we will not get too many projects—
That was a hook to hang the question on. I was not saying that that project was covered under that heading.
The sum that is shown under that heading is relatively small; if it were intended to cover such projects, we would not get many of them for that amount of money. We will have to do some more digging to find the information that you require.
Are there any other questions on enterprise and lifelong learning?
The figure at the top of page 57 for the number who are employed in tourism-related jobs does not coincide with the Scottish Tourist Board's figures. There is quite a shortfall.
I am not sure of the answer to that question. We will have to wait and see what the minister and the tourist boards produce to find out what affect there will be on the budget. At this stage, I do not anticipate a supplementary estimate on that figure.
We will move to the health department on page 61.
The figures on page 61 show the transfer of funding from the Northern Ireland Office to the Department of Health in England for the cost of treating Irish residents in Scottish hospitals. There does not appear to be a subsequent transfer in the opposite direction, from the Department of Health. Why is that? Is that just a net figure?
Those two figures cover the net cost of Irish and Scottish residents. Whether that nets off anything going in the other direction is another matter. I am not entirely sure. Does it?
In some cases, the payments would be made directly to the trusts that were giving the treatment. The figures show only what flows from our accounts; they do not represent the total picture for the transactions that take place, some of which go through the accounts of local health bodies.
We can trawl for more information, if that would help.
It is a net point, which is why no subsequent flow is shown. That answers my question.
On page 65, the figures for "General Pharmaceutical Services" show income from prescription charges and so on, including
We could have confirmation of those in writing, I should think.
That is fair enough.
Probably, yes. I cannot give the figures right now.
If you could provide them in writing, that would be fine.
Page 63 details performance targets. One or two dates are given by which targets will be met, but the time scale for many targets is vague and would not allow us to hold anyone to account subsequently for what happens. I appreciate that it would be difficult to set a deadline for some of those targets, but it would be helpful if they were banded into short-term targets, which are intended to be met in this budget, or—as appears more likely for some of them—medium-term targets, which will take three or four years to achieve. Having no dates next to the targets is not helpful and almost implies that there is no point in setting deadlines.
That is a fair point. We will happily consider that and decide whether we can set such deadlines. Susan Deacon will make a statement in the near future about the structure of the Scottish health service and other issues, which may partially address that issue. We will certainly consider it.
Thank you.
The next section of the report concerns a department with which the minister will be familiar—the justice department.
Page 70 gives a figure of £300,000 that is to be transferred to the Crown Office for the European convention on human rights. Is that a finger-in-the-wind prediction? What is it based on?
I see the figure, but I am not sure about the detail of it. I shall have to go away and examine what the £300,000 is based on. I shall try to dig that out.
Everybody is working in the dark a bit, regarding ECHR costs anyway. I just wondered what the figure was based on.
We will write to you about that. I suspect that the figure is based on a mixture of planned work on the ECHR, which was included in the programme anyway, and other matters that have arisen as a result of challenges under the ECHR. We will map out the details for you in writing.
Thank you.
You will probably have to write to us about my point too. I notice, on page 70, that £818,000 is to be transferred from the development department as
I will have to write to you. I am not aware of the details.
I would not mind knowing a bit more about what the money will go towards.
We will dig out the detail on that and write to you.
Given the sensitivity that surrounds public spending on elections, will you explain what is meant on page 70 by
Do you mean the figure of £700,000?
Yes.
I am not sure which sensitivity you are referring to—I obviously need to read the newspaper more often. I understand that we are the cause. The figure is for outstanding expenditure on the Scottish parliamentary elections.
Why is the figure for refurbishment of General Register House being transferred from the Scottish Executive admin budget?
I will need to give you an answer in writing. That is a minor point, but it is a bit technical.
Page 87 deals with Scottish Executive administration. The last item on that page indicates that £450,000 was transferred to the Food Standards Agency Scotland. However, the entries for the FSA on page 110 give a figure of only £1.5 million, which was transferred from the health department. If the £450,000 is shown leaving the Scottish Executive administration budget, why does it not appear under the Food Standards Agency Scotland budget?
That is a good question. I am waiting for my officials to come up with an answer. I am not sure whether one will emerge or not.
The £450,000 figure appears on page 61 under paragraph (a).
I see that. Does that mean that the money was transferred from the health department and is included in the £1.5 million figure?
Yes.
Our thanks to the eagle-eyed Mr Macintosh. You need to get out more, Kenneth.
Will the additional spending allow the agency to come up to full complement?
Do you mean spending on the Food Standards Agency?
Yes.
Are you talking about the £1.5 million figure?
Yes.
That figure is an EYF transfer from the health budget to be used for a variety of things, including spending on monitoring and surveillance, public awareness and research in relation to public health. I do not know whether the money will allow the agency to come up to full complement, but if you want me to write to you on that, I will.
Page 114 outlines expenditure on the Scottish Parliament. Are there any comments?
Would not it be good for somebody to issue a press release saying that the Scottish Parliament has underspent its budget by nearly £19.5 million?
It is not really for the minister to comment, but that seems to be the only section that has no performance targets.
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister for coming to Aberdeen, participating in our discussions and answering our questions fully.
Meeting closed at 16:01.
Previous
Budget Process