���˿���

Is there a reason why the rural portfolio does not get additional funding, rather than the funding being returned in future years? Why is it not just kept within the rural portfolio? Is it because there are pressing needs elsewhere?

I find it intriguing that so many areas appear to have reserves in the first place. Has there been any assessment of the quantity of those reserves across the portfolios that the Scottish Government manages?

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?

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?

At least it was in our favour. [Laughter.]

If you do not have them at your fingertips, you can get back to us.

Okay. I absolutely agree with that, and I am sure that colleagues will feel that that would be helpful. Thank you for the evidence that you have given.

We move to agenda item 3, which is formal consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S6M-10683.

Motion moved,

That the Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends that the Budget (Scotland) Act 2023 Amendment Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.—[Tom Arthur]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you very much for that very helpful opening statement. I have already scribbled down a huge number of notes from the comments that you made. It would, of course, help if I could read my writing; that might make life a little bit easier.

I will start by referring to some of the evidence that we received a couple of weeks ago—obviously, you will be familiar with that. We took evidence from the local authorities of Dundee, South Lanarkshire and West Lothian. It is fair to say that they are not so enamoured with the direction of travel, but they are definitely on board with the policy.

Obviously, the committee is concerned about finance and how things will be funded. Dundee City Council, which was the first to give evidence, said that there is “insufficient financial detail” and that

“the £70 million is not sufficient for all of Scotland.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 October 2023; c 1.]

It said that the finances that are being made available do not take into account the real cost of running the infrastructure facilities, that additional facilities and resources will be required to manage the facilities, and that that has not been taken into account. It went on to say that, in its view, the costs are underestimated to the tune of about 50 per cent—that is, the £70 million should be more like £140 million. How do you respond to those concerns?

It is to ensure that Scotland does not lose any money in its expenditure overall: is that correct?

Of course, local authorities want to be able to plan ahead. Just last week, we produced a report on the importance of forward planning. In their evidence to us, which you will be aware of, local authorities said that they do not feel that they can do that if they do not have a commitment that the resources that they require will be made available.

Kirsty McGuire of South Lanarkshire Council said:

“Co-design is where we want to be.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 October 2023; c 9.]

The resources to be able to deliver that have to be available, but she and the others who gave evidence said, “I’m sorry, but the money just isn’t going to be there to deliver this.”

Let us consider enforcement officers, for example. The costs in the financial memorandum for enforcement are only about half of what the witnesses suggested the real costs would be, and the suggestion in the financial memorandum that 100 per cent of the littering fines would be collected bears no resemblance to the 10 to 15 per cent that the witnesses thought would be collected, based on their experience. Indeed, local authorities get nothing back from fiscal fines.

How do you address the cogent points that our witnesses made two weeks ago about some of those issues?