Official Report 925KB pdf
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on a matter that goes to the heart of proper budget scrutiny and the Parliament’s ability to discharge that function effectively. The issue engages rule 9.16 of standing orders, which frames the Parliament’s formal role in scrutinising the budget.
It may well come under the heading of Shona Robison’s production errors but, yesterday, my office downloaded the level 4 budget worksheets that were published by the Scottish Government, which set out a detailed line-by-line breakdown of spending. When a member of my team downloaded the same worksheets again today, material discrepancies were identified. They are not minor or presentational differences, because they relate directly to funding commitments within the constitution, external affairs and culture portfolio. In the version that was downloaded yesterday, the worksheets included additional funding of £100,000 for the Scottish Library and Information Council; £500,000 for film houses in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen; £1.2 million for an expo fund; and £600,000 for a proposed new museum of empire, slavery, colonialism and migration. In the same version, Screen Scotland’s funding was described as an uplift to support specific projects, including a new television festival and the expansion of an existing film festival. However, in the version that was downloaded today, those entries no longer appear.
There is no explanation on the Scottish Government’s website; no change log; and no indication that revised figures have been published. I believe that that places the Parliament in a difficult position. Either a production error was made in the original publication, or the Scottish Government has materially altered elements of the budget after publication. Either way, that is a serious issue for parliamentary scrutiny. Rightly, the recipients of the funding will want clarity on whether those commitments still stand. People in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen will want to know whether funding for film houses remains in place. Many will also be asking whether the proposed funding for a new museum of empire, slavery, colonialism and migration is still intended to proceed.
I would be grateful for the Presiding Officer’s guidance on the following points. Will committees that are scrutinising the budget be given access to both versions of the worksheets? Is it appropriate for the Scottish Government to make material changes to published budget documents without any reference to the changes or explanation of them? What steps would you advise committee conveners to take to ensure that they are scrutinising the correct and authoritative versions of the spreadsheets that have been published by the Scottish Government?
Budget scrutiny is an on-going process and there will be further opportunities for members to undertake that. The Government will have heard the points that Mr Kerr has raised. It is essential that the Parliament always has the most accurate and helpful information to hand. As I say, Mr Kerr, your points are on the record and the Government will have heard them.