Plenary, 01 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 1, 2001

Official Report 576KB pdf

---

Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

I advise members that, for the stage 2 debate, they should have with them the bill, the marshalled list and the list of groupings, which have been agreed. The electronic voting system will be used for all divisions. Two minutes will be allowed for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments. Members who have a question about the procedures should ask it now. Otherwise, I will begin.

Section 1—Carry-forward of unspent police funds

Amendment 1 is grouped with amendments 2, 3 and 4.

During the stage 1 debate on the Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill, ministers gave a commitment to lodge amendments that would remove the need for constituent authorities to consent to the carry-forward of their share of any requisition money that remains unspent at the year end. Amendment 1 meets that aim by deleting the reference to "constituent authorities". It also removes the blanket requirement for ministerial consent to the carry-forward of unspent balances. I will return to that point in a moment. Amendment 2 is a consequential drafting change.

At stage 1, there was some debate about the extent to which joint boards should need to seek the consent of ministers before they can carry forward any balances that are unspent at the end of the year. The Scottish Executive proposes a compromise that means that there will be ministerial involvement only when certain preconditions occur. Those preconditions will arise when the amount of unspent requisition money and police grant to be carried forward as a working balance, when added to existing accumulated reserves of unspent requisition money and police grant, exceeds 5 per cent of the requisition and grant received in that year. The 5 per cent threshold, if applied across the eight Scottish forces, would represent about £40 million. It would be unusual for the police to need reserves of that size.

Amendment 3, which relates only to joint police boards, looks a bit long and complicated, but it simply puts into effect the points that I have mentioned: it defines the conditions under which ministerial consent will need to be sought. In addition, it allows Scottish ministers, by order, to vary the 5 per cent trigger.

Will the minister clarify that the limit will be 3 per cent for the first year and 5 per cent for the second year, and that, following that, we will be starting at a new base again?

The 5 per cent trigger is cumulative, so the carry-forward limit is 3 per cent in the first year and 5 per cent in the second year, but unspent reserves that were carried forward again would count towards the 5 per cent trigger. That is slightly different from what Sylvia Jackson posited.

Amendment 4 is a consequential amendment. Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 put into effect a sensible way of balancing the interests of joint police boards and constituent authorities.

I move amendment 1.

Last month, I indicated the Scottish National Party group's support for the general principles of the Police and Fire Services (Finance) (Scotland) Bill. We outlined a few matters of concern and called for amendments to be made. I am pleased, therefore, that the Executive has taken those matters on board and has returned today with a list of amendments that more or less address our concerns.

The Executive's amendments are welcome and the SNP will support all of them. I am glad that the minister has listened to the points that the Local Government Committee and members of all parties raised.

We are glad that the provision requiring ministerial consent for the carry-forward of small balances has been removed from the bill. However, we know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities remains unhappy that the Executive is retaining a power of veto over police and fire boards accumulating surpluses of more than 5 per cent.

Although I appreciate COSLA's concern about the matter, my concern is not the 5 per cent figure, but proposed new subsection (3AC), which gives the Executive the power through secondary legislation to vary the percentage at which consent must be sought. As such a provision is made in each of the groups of amendments, I intend to speak only on this group. I would be grateful if the minister assured us that it is not his intention to use secondary legislation except to increase the percentage at which consent might be sought in the future. It would be a matter of regret if secondary legislation were used for any other purpose.

I thank the ministers for lodging the amendments, which are very much in line with the committee's suggestions. This is a good example of the committee, the people who gave evidence to the committee and the Executive working together to make a sensible provision better. There was general concern at stage 1 about the need for ministers' consent and the constituent authorities' consent. I am pleased that the compromise that has been suggested is sensible. Most people accept that 3 per cent per annum is reasonable. Police authorities and fire authorities are unlikely to have balances much in excess of 3 per cent in any one year. An overall 5 per cent limit on reserves is reasonable. In circumstances where the authorities have a special need, they can request to carry over more money and there is provision for that in the bill. That, too, is sensible.

I do not intend to speak on every group of amendments. As Tricia Marwick suggested, this is a case of one set of amendments fits all. The principles behind the bill are welcome, as are the amendments. I support the amendments and the bill.

I endorse what colleagues have said. We welcome the fact that the minister has taken on board the suggestions that were made unanimously by the Local Government Committee.

We fully understand the reasoning behind the 5 per cent limit. Moneys are allocated to be spent and should not be built up unnecessarily. The Conservatives, too, will support all the amendments.

The only point to which I want to respond is one raised by Tricia Marwick. I can give assurances on behalf of the present Executive only, but it is certainly not our intention to use the order that is provided for in the amendments to reduce the trigger percentage. Indeed, we have no intention of changing that level at all. Our idea in including that provision is to provide an additional protection.

The committee expressed some concerns about the danger of a hold-up because of the bureaucratic process of seeking consent. If that proved to be the case, it would be possible to vary the trigger percentage under the order that is provided for in the amendments. The inclusion of that provision was seen as a further attempt to assuage come of the concerns that had been expressed. As secondary legislation would be required for an order, there would be the potential for parliamentary scrutiny of any such change, which would come about only with the agreement of the Parliament.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Iain Gray]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 is grouped with amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9.

The amendments in the second group are much the same in purpose and effect as those debated in the first group, with the difference that they relate solely to police grant. Amendment 6 is the substantive amendment in the group; the others are consequential.

I move amendment 5.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendments 6 to 9 moved—[Iain Gray]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Carry-forward of unspent combined fire brigade funds

Amendment 10 is grouped with amendments 11, 12 and 13.

This group of amendments replicates for the fire service the carry-forward provisions that we discussed in relation to the police service.

I move amendment 10.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 13 moved—[Iain Gray]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Meeting closed at 15:45.