���˿���

We have spoken about local government reserves ad infinitum over the years, but we have never really covered reserves that are held in other areas. It would be quite interesting to have a response on the level of reserves across the portfolios that the Scottish Government manages.

The “Guide to the ABR 2023-24—Finance Update for FPAC” says that

“Marine Scotland have been able to surrender”—

that is a disappointing word—

“£2 million of budget following savings exercises involving enhanced recruitment controls, maximising income and continuing focus on delivering operational efficiencies.”

I have to say, as someone with two islands in their constituency and large sea borders, that there are concerns that Marine Scotland does not have enough resources to ensure that fisheries are effectively and efficiently managed and that conservation is also taken into account. When there are breaches, Marine Scotland has to be called on. I could give an example from my constituency. Over the years, there have been concerns that there is not enough resource in Marine Scotland. Why is it felt that £2 million should be removed?

I touched on internal transfers and baselines. Paragraph 40 in the guide, under the heading “A.5 Internal Transfers”, says:

“The majority of internal transfers are moving budgets from the policy lead area, based on policy accountability at official level, to the appropriate delivery body.”

That was what I asked about earlier. How do we know which ones are being transferred because of policy accountability and which are not? The guide does not seem to say. It gives a list of significant budget internal transfers between portfolios, but it does not say which ones have been moved because of policy or delivery. It just says that they have been moved because of one or the other. Would it not be more helpful if that was clarified?

The transparency that you have delivered means that we are not going to spend huge amounts of time, as we would have done otherwise, asking why amounts went here or there. You have provided detailed explanations for many of them. There are, however, one or two areas that still cause concern, so I am going to ask you something that I have asked in the past.

An additional £44 million has been provided for police pensions to help to fund the gap between the budget that was provided at the start of the year and current forecasts of costs. Last year, I asked something very similar to what I am going to ask you now. The amount is demand-led but, surely, given that you know at the beginning of the year how many police officers are likely to retire, there should not be divergence of £44 million from the initial sum—although you could give or take £1 million here or there. How much is now paid in police pensions? That would give a better picture of what the percentage differential might actually be.

Yes.

With regard to using reserves, we have heard that Creative Scotland also did that. Is it now the Scottish Government’s position that, as we go forward, we will be looking across the public sector to see where reserves can be utilised to try to optimise spend in the next year?

I have just one more question, which goes back to the issue of reserves. As we know, Scottish Government reserves represent about 1.1 per cent of the budget. At local government level, it is recommended that about 3 per cent of annual expenditure be held in reserve, although many councils have less than that and some, such as Shetland Islands Council, have more, for historical reasons. I was intrigued when it was revealed in recent weeks that Creative Scotland appeared to have a reserve of £17 million against a £66 million Government award that had been reduced by £6.6 million. That means that about a quarter of its annual award is kept in reserve. I am not sure what the £6 million would represent for Forestry and Land Scotland, say, but does the Scottish Government have any guidelines on what the level of reserves should be?

What we are talking about is those reserves being dipped into, as appears to have happened with Creative Scotland and Forestry and Land Scotland. If that has been going on, surely there has to be a set of guidelines—I am sure that there is. It would be interesting to hear your view on what level of reserves should be held. If the Scottish Government reserves represent 1.1 per cent of the budget, why does Creative Scotland hold reserves of 25 per cent of its award? What are we looking at here? There has to be consistency across the public sector.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence. We will publish a short report to the Parliament, setting out our decision on the draft regulations, in due course.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. The next item on our agenda, which we will discuss in private, is consideration of our work programme. We now move into private session.

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2023 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have apologies from the deputy convener, Michael Marra. His substitute today is the former committee stalwart Daniel Johnson, whom I welcome back.

The first item on our agenda is to take evidence on the financial memorandum to the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. I intend to allow up to 75 minutes for this evidence session. The minister is joined by Scottish Government officials. Ginny Gardner is head of the circular economy unit; Janet McVea is head of the zero waste unit; Alexander Quayle is team leader, recycling; and Gareth Heavisides is circular economy team leader. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

They cannot take those decisions if they do not have the resources to implement them, regardless of what they may wish to do. They are saying to us, “Look, we actually want to do what the Government suggests, but you cannae squeeze a quart into a pint pot.” The bottom line is that the resources are not being made available. Will the Scottish Government fully fund the bill? That is the issue in a nutshell.

Yes. As I mentioned, if those transfers are to be regular occurrences, they should probably be baselined into those portfolios in the first place.

On the technical adjustments, I know that there will not be any issue with the actual amount that we are able to spend in each portfolio, but the guide states:

“it is likely that the IFRS16 figures will be baselined into the 2024-25 budget, meaning that a direct comparison to starting budgets is not possible.”

One of the issues that the committee is concerned about is that, when we have our Punch and Judy show at stage 1 and stage 3 of the budget, people talk about different figures. Obviously, we on the SNP benches will denounce the evil Conservative Government for slashing our budgets, and the Conservatives will stand up to talk about how incredibly generous that same Government is and say that it has been lavishing us with ever greater record sums. Would it not be easier if figures were put together for the outturns, as we have asked for, to enable us all to sing from the same hymn sheet, at least on the figures that we are arguing over?