Chamber and committees

Nico McKenzie-Juetten mentioned a moment ago, and you have just repeated it, cabinet secretary, that this is a routine process and the alternative would be a truncated process. You do not have cross-Government responsibility for board appointments, but are you aware of any situations in which the truncated process has been followed? If this is the norm and we are just following the regular process, are you aware of any examples where that has not been done and the truncated process has had to be followed?

I am interested in why the stretch aims use a different measurement compared with the national improvement framework. The local aims use all SCQF qualifications whereas the NIF uses just the NQs. I understand the logic of both approaches and it is more appropriate that the stretch aims take that broader approach. However, is there not a bit of a problem in our using two different measurements?

Finally, I will ask about another area of spend. You and I had discussions some time ago about the funding of campus police officers through PEF. That is an example of a wider challenge that you have touched on a few times during the meeting, which is that schools are providing all sorts of other services because public services have been stripped away. When it comes to annual budget setting or on-going intragovernmental discussions throughout the year, how do you manage the funding of services that a school might wish to provide?

I have a different view on the value of campus police officers but, at the moment, that service is being funded by the education budget. Would it be better funded by Police Scotland, the NHS or Social Security Scotland? Are there discussions between cabinet secretaries about the most effective way of funding it, which budget should allocate the money and how the spend can be tracked so that we can identify what the money is being spent on? Historically, that has been a challenge in our scrutiny of attainment challenge funding.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I would love to pursue that, but I am conscious of time and the fact that I should have been at a meeting with the Presiding Officer five minutes ago. I will slip away in a minute, if that is okay, convener.

I cannot recall a situation in which unregulated appointments have been made, but maybe I am just not aware of it. Is anyone aware of unregulated appointments being made because an order has been laid at a later point rather than at this stage in the process?

We have had the landfill tax for a while now, as have Wales and England. Why has the Scottish Government not looked into the potential for a differential rate before this point?

I would certainly welcome that. I entirely understand the risk of waste tourism—none of us wants to see that. My concern is that, as is so often the case, we are not hitting the targets that have been set in legislation by the Parliament in relation to emissions reduction, waste reduction, recycling and so on. It seems that one of our key levers is not based on the targets that have been set by the Parliament; it is based on a very risk-averse response to what the UK Government’s policy making is for England. I would certainly welcome that work being done ahead of the next budget.

Good morning. I should say from the outset that I entirely accept that it is impossible to completely estimate the cost of the bill, given the stigma around addiction.

That said, I will pick up on one specific area in which concerns have been raised, which is social work costs. Am I right in my understanding that the financial memorandum does not take account of increased social work costs related to the bill?

I would certainly welcome that additional work happening. It seems that the single deciding factor in setting the rate in Scotland is the rate in England. However, we have our own climate targets and waste reduction targets. What regard has been given to the impact that setting the landfill tax rate at an equivalent level to the English rate would have on the targets that we have set in Scotland?

On all those targets—climate emissions, waste reduction, circular economy and so on—our targets are either more ambitious than England’s or we have targets in areas that they simply do not have. It seems that there is a dichotomy, because the tax is one of the key drivers for meeting those targets. The rate that we have set it at does not seem to be based on what we would need to do to hit those targets; it seems to be based entirely on the rate that the UK Government has set in England.

I understand the delivery mechanism, but if we are trying to get an accurate understanding of how much it costs at present per individual, for example, surely it would be crucial to take into account the associated social work costs. I understand that there is a bit of a data-availability issue, because a lot of that data does not go through the drug and alcohol information system—DAISy—but I presume that councils would, to some extent, be able to provide information via freedom of information requests. Social work is quite a substantial additional area of cost that is not reflected in the financial memorandum, which would make it quite hard to get an understanding of the likely cost per individual.