We have suggested that scrutiny of the financial implications of legislation should become the responsibility of the subject committees. I understand that the Procedures Committee is reviewing how such business is undertaken, but in the meantime we must continue with the system that has been established, so the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill is before us today.
The financial memorandum is reasonably helpful, given the difficulties of estimation that it highlights. It would be helpful if the Executive could, as a matter of process, give further information on where the resources are coming from. Where does the half a million pounds of operating costs fit into the overall Scottish Executive budget equation?
I will turn to Ken Macintosh, who is a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I wonder if this year's figures—which I have not seen in detail for that particular aspect of the relevant departmental report—include the projected start-up costs of £70,000 and a proportion of the £400,000 to £450,000 mentioned in the financial memorandum.
We have not discussed that in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. To be honest, I was not aware that that money was coming out of the education budget.
That illustrates my point. The statement comes from the Minister for Communities, so I presume that the money is coming out of one of her pots—it would be nice to know.
That is an important point. Do you think that an additional paragraph in the memorandum would be most appropriate?
An extra paragraph—it would be paragraph 73A—saying that the costs will be met from whatever level 3 heading is appropriate would allow us to keep a tab on such things. We would know where the resources were being committed, and subject committees would know exactly where they stood.
I do not disagree with John Swinney. It is helpful to know where the money comes from. It may simply come from some contingency or other. It is a tiny amount compared to the entire block.
But I am not—
Hang on a second.
I was making a point about the process.
I do not disagree. It would not be terribly difficult to find the money, frankly—it is such a tiny amount compared to the block as a whole—but as a matter of principle, I think that John Swinney is right.
It is indeed a matter of principle. We encounter this time and again; we ought to know not only where the money comes from—so that it can be traced back into the budget process—but for how long the figure will stand, when there will be a review date and whether the funding can be rolled.
We could not have a situation in which costs or the money available were in some way capped; that would restrict the number of complaints that could be raised.
That is a matter for the Audit Committee, ultimately; it will monitor the budget.
But we are being asked to point those things out now.
Yes, but it is for the Audit Committee to monitor how things go year by year.
But if the factors I have mentioned were included in the original memorandum—regardless of the subject—there would be something for people to get their teeth into, especially if bills go back to the subject committees.
This is a general point; we are not talking specifically about this bill.
My only comment was for year-on-year factors to be included in the budget for a bill; if they are not included, we need to know what heading they come out of. A paragraph to say that such details were included in the budget would be fine, but if they are not included in the memorandum, we would not know where the figures come from and their implications for other services.
On paragraphs 76 and 77 of the explanatory notes, I am slightly concerned about the statement that the effects of the repeal of section 2A will be "cost neutral." If measures are to be put in place to ensure that people's fears and anxieties are taken care of, and that people are aware of what is going on, that will incur considerable expense.
We cannot expect to get a definition of "significant".
But without that definition, we are talking in woolly terms. One person's significance is another person's irrelevance. Unless we define such terms, we will find that local authorities are spending quite substantial sums. There is another woolly word—what is "substantial"? How much money is likely to be spent on implementing the legislation?
Paragraph 76 says:
I am not sure that that is acceptable. If local authorities are to have regard to the new section, given the extended areas involved, they will be involved in considerable expenditure and will have to explain to parents exactly what is intended and how things will be operated locally.
It may be worth raising two points with the Executive. First, if a referendum on section 2A is organised by Brian Souter, will any money be spent on putting forward the Executive's point of view? Secondly, once the new section is implemented—presuming that it will be—will the Executive publicise its position in any way, by means of a leaflet or whatever? What will be the likely cost of those two things?
It is not a matter for this bill, or this committee, whether a referendum goes ahead. We are simply required to say whether there is a need for a financial resolution. I do not have much doubt that we would conclude that there is such a need. It is not our role to ask the questions that Richard Simpson suggested, but they could be covered as we proceed with scrutiny of the bill. Richard's point is reasonable, but it is not our role to proceed with it at this stage.
We are trying to deal with principles, and I object to the use of words such as significant, substantial, insubstantial or insignificant without at least a measure of quantification. I am not saying that precise amounts should be specified, but if the word "significant" is used, an asterisk should be put against it with reference to some paper that says that that means, say, less than 0.001 per cent of a budget. It means nothing just to use words such as "significant". Such assertions have no value.
Unless they are defined.
Yes.
That is as far as we can go at this stage. We have to note the memorandum and agree that a financial resolution is required for the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. Is that agreed?
Previous
Budget Process