Chamber and committees

Thanks very much. I want to move from local authorities to ask about the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its enforcement around preventing the destruction of unsold goods. The cost of enforcement for SEPA ranges from £30,000 to £200,000. What scope does SEPA have for cost recovery? Given the discussion around proportionality of enforcement, I imagine that that will be primarily aimed at very large businesses that produce or sell huge amounts of goods and that, potentially, destroy large amounts of the goods that they do not sell. Is there scope for SEPA to recover some of the costs from those businesses through financial penalties in that area?

I want to return to the issues that the convener brought up about the recycling improvement fund and what will be expected of local authorities under the code of practice. Some local authorities made the point that about two thirds of the improvement fund has already been distributed, but they obviously do not yet know what requirements will be placed on them by the code of practice. Can you say a little about what conditions the Government has attached to the improvement fund and how you expect the eventual code of practice to reflect the priorities that have already been set through the distribution of a not insignificant amount of money?

I want to look specifically at the estimates of the cost for local authorities of the household waste provision. There is a bit of a dispute about that. The financial memorandum estimates that they will need two full-time equivalent members of staff per 150,000 people for enforcement. Some local authorities that have fed back take issue with the financial cost associated with the two FTE positions and with the two positions per 150,000 ratio.

Usually, with the financial memorandums that we look at, the Government has an interest in seeking to minimise costs whereas, if we were to be cynical about it, we would say that local government often has an interest in overestimating costs because it wants to get its hands on as much money as possible, for perfectly legitimate reasons. It is the job of the committee to figure out who is right or where the point in the middle is. Could you explain in a little more detail the thinking behind the cash estimate for two FTEs—local authorities believe that it would require more than that—and the two per 150,000 ratio and how that balances out across local authorities that range from high-density urban areas to remote, rural and island communities?

Just to confirm, those costs are based on actual existing costs for other forms of enforcement that local authorities already carry out. It is an average—some local authorities will spend less; some will spend more—but that is based on existing costs in similar areas of enforcement.

Excellent. Thanks very much. That is all from me.

Thank you.

Thanks. I will go back to the convener’s line of questioning on the capital budget and the severe pressures that you laid out. What impact do the revised capital borrowing powers from the fiscal framework revision have on that? I will expand on that a little. How do you approach decisions on whether a capital project receives funding directly from the capital budget allocation versus where it will be funded from borrowing?

To press you on that a little bit, I am looking for clarity around whether, on a project-by-project basis, funding directly from the capital budget allocation or through borrowing ultimately makes any difference. If so, what approach does the Government take to deciding whether each project is funded by one or the other?

Thank you. On the budget timeline, Deputy First Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement that the time when the UK Government sets its budget has a significant impact on the Scottish budget, as well as a knock-on impact on every organisation, particularly local government, that is funded by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. I know that, in recent years, you have consistently made representations to the UK Government about that. I note, however, that Rachel Reeves has set out that an incoming Labour Government would also aim to set its budgets at the end of November. Given that, on a Government-to-Government basis, it is legitimate to speak to the UK Government, has the Scottish Government—not the Scottish National Party or the other political parties—made any representations to the Labour Party, as a potential incoming UK Government, on the impact that setting UK budgets at the end of November has on devolved finances?

To go back briefly to the Verity house agreement, I am still not completely clear about what we should expect the impact of that to be on the coming budget and how it will impact on our ability to scrutinise the budget. If you can say anything to expand on that, that would be useful.

My main line of questioning is about the deficit of £1 billion, rising to £2 billion, that we are looking at in the immediate future. We need to close that deficit just to meet existing commitments while growing demand. We have to factor in our statutory targets, such as reducing child poverty and tackling the climate emergency, both of which require significant levels of additional spending. Has the Government done any work—I recognise that this will be a broad range and that there is a significant margin of error here—to quantify how much spending will be required on top of the difficult decisions that we will need to make to close the gap and to meet existing commitments and rising demand? Has any work been done to quantify just how much more we will need to meet targets in law? I recognise that other targets are set in policy but not in legislation, but we have some significant targets in legislation, and I am concerned that there are no figures attached to how we meet them.