���˿���

As I said, I am happy to take that away. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we have a long-standing position on landfill tax, which is consistent with that of the other Administrations in the UK. Our policy objective is to ban biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill at the end of 2025. We are seeing the forecasted reductions in revenue; the direction of travel is consistent with meeting that ambition.

As Scott Mackay touched on—and if memory serves me correct, he has referenced this in the guide that we provided to the committee—in the scenario where, through the way in which the UK cycle of fiscal events operates, supplementary estimates are only being confirmed at the end of February, scenarios and situations can arise where we receive funding that has not been anticipated, so we have to manage that funding now. We still have to complete this financial year but any funding that is not allocated and spent within this year would be carried forward to support the position in 2024-25. Broadly speaking, we have consistently been able to ensure that any discretionary funding that we receive is spent in-year, and if it is not spent in-year it is carried forward. We have not lost any discretionary spend as a consequence of late consequentials. That speaks to the important role that the Scotland reserve plays in allowing that flexibility.

I think that the environment that we are operating in right now is reflective of the sustained inflation that we have seen, which we touched on earlier. Inflation would probably be regarded as quite high had it not been for the context that we have just emerged from. We set out earlier the reasoning and the rationale as well as the broader capacity challenges in the construction sector. It is reflective of a number of different factors.

We have set out the position for 2024-25 but, as we are reflecting on today, the final budget for 2024-25 will be determined by decisions that the UK Government takes. I made reference to the fiscal event tomorrow—I do not know what will be in that—then there will be the process of main estimates and supplementary estimates, and, of course, a general election is anticipated this year. Therefore, a number of factors can impact on the Scottish budget position during a year.

Our position is set out in the budget document. Any changes that materialise during the year as a result of UK Government fiscal events will, of course, be reflected in the normal way through the budget revision process.

We will endeavour to provide as much information as we can to reflect the committee’s asks.

Is that in terms of capital projects?

Thank you, convener. Good morning, committee. The draft regulations are extremely straightforward, in that they list the public authorities that have to adhere to the consumer duty. As such, this Scottish statutory instrument plays an essential part in confirming to public authorities whether they must adhere to the duty.

The consumer duty and Consumer Scotland go hand in hand. When Consumer Scotland was established, stakeholder feedback identified the need for comprehensive change in how consumers are considered and integrated into policy and decision making. It was that feedback that paved the way for the idea of the consumer duty. The duty will require “relevant public authorities”, as listed in the SSI, to

“have regard to the impact of strategic decisions on consumers in Scotland and the desirability of reducing harm to them.”

The 2020 act states that

“Consumer Scotland may ... issue guidance about the duty”.

Consumer Scotland has, helpfully, agreed to that, as it can see the opportunity that the duty provides. Consumer Scotland will be able not only to highlight good practice by local authorities in that area but to highlight to the Parliament any detriment to consumers.

My officials carried out stakeholder engagement before and during the consultation period as part of the consumer duty for public bodies consultation. Although there was broad support for the duty, concerns were raised that it would be an additional administrative burden, and about the need for clear guidance. In addition, some stakeholders disagreed that the duty should apply to their organisation or body.

In the light of those responses, my officials undertook further engagement, emphasising that the duty was to be applied in a proportionate and targeted way and only to strategic, rather than to daily or operational, decisions. Those further engagements and reassurances have been positively received by the organisations concerned, and they have fully addressed the concerns that were raised.

My officials looked again at the authorities that were named in the consultation, and they decided that the duty should not apply to them all. As a result, some authorities have been removed from the final list.

As minister for public finance, I am well aware of the pressures that the relevant authorities already face, and I am determined to ensure that the duty is not, either in perception or in practice, an unnecessary burden.

The guidance that is being prepared by Consumer Scotland will ensure that public authorities know how to apply the consumer duty to their strategic decisions. Ensuring that the guidance captures all the information that those authorities need will, therefore, be vital. That is why I have agreed to an implementation year to allow Consumer Scotland the necessary time in which to consult and engage with stakeholders on the draft guidance before it is finalised in advance of 1 April 2025.

Consumers are the lifeblood of our economy, and the establishment of Consumer Scotland recognised that simple truth. The legislation that is before the committee today is an essential part of a process that is designed to ensure that public authorities put consumers at the heart of their strategic decision making and thinking. I hope that members will support the draft instrument.

I will ask Neal Rafferty to come in, because officials have engaged extensively with public authorities and, as I touched on in my opening remarks, that has gone some way towards addressing the concerns that those authorities expressed.

I reiterate and make it clear that the duty applies to strategic decision making at executive and board level, not to day-to-day operational matters. In addition, Consumer Scotland will prepare guidance. Draft guidance will be published ahead of the commencement of the duty, and Consumer Scotland will undertake a public consultation that will capture the views of the various bodies to which the duty will apply. We are working collaboratively to ensure that the guidance is appropriate.

Neal Rafferty might want to comment on the engagement that has taken place with public authorities to provide reassurance and address concerns.

I cannot give a direct example. Public bodies might currently be doing things that have a positive impact, but they might not necessarily recognise or identify that. The duty will introduce the requirement

“to have regard to consumer interests”

in strategic decision making—again, I note that that refers to decisions at executive and board level. That will certainly be of assistance to Consumer Scotland, given its strategic leadership role, but it will also help public bodies in considering their future work, when issues of detriment might arise. As I referred to in my response to Mr Whittle, the way in which that manifests could vary, given the diverse range of public bodies across Scotland.

The duty will provide a significant opportunity for learning. It will support Consumer Scotland’s work, particularly its strategic role, and it will support the Parliament in its scrutiny of Consumer Scotland and the wider devolved consumer policy landscape.

I do not know whether Neal Rafferty wants to add to that or to reflect on the engagement with public authorities about how they might apply the duty.

I think that we covered that in our letter to the committee. Local authorities, which are part of regional transport partnerships, will be covered by the duty.