FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA 24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) · FI/S3/08/24/A FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA 24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Tuesday 28 October 2008 The Committee will meet at

FI/S3/08/24/A

FINANCE COMMITTEE

AGENDA

24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3)

Tuesday 28 October 2008 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2. 1. Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee

will take evidence on the Financial Memorandum of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill from—

Dan House, Bill Team Leader, and Robert Kirkwood, Policy Officer, Scottish Government.

2. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether its consideration of its work programme at its next meeting should be taken in private and whether its consideration of its draft report on the Financial Memorandum of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill should be taken in private at a future meeting.

3. Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: The

Committee will consider its approach to the Financial Memorandum of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.

4. Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Bill (in private): The Committee will

consider a draft report on the Financial Memorandum of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Bill.

5. Inquiry into the methods of funding capital investment projects (in

private): The Committee will consider a draft report.

Susan Duffy Clerk to the Finance Committee

Room T3.60 The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5215

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

FI/S3/08/24/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda item 1

PRIVATE PAPER

FI/S3/08/24/1 (P)

Submissions

FI/S3/08/24/2

Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing

FI/S3/08/24/3

Members should bring with them the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill and accompanying documents. These were circulated for the Committee's meeting on 16 September 2008 and are available from the Scottish Parliament's website, at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/13-HealthBoards/index.htm

Agenda item 3

Note by the clerk

FI/S3/08/24/4

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill and accompanying documents. These have been circulated to Members only in hard copy, and are available from the Scottish Parliament's website, at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/16-EdAddSup/index.htm

Agenda item 4

PRIVATE PAPER

FI/S3/08/24/5 (P)

Agenda item 5

PRIVATE PAPER

FI/S3/08/24/6 (P)

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/13-HealthBoards/index.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/13-HealthBoards/index.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/16-EdAddSup/index.htm

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/16-EdAddSup/index.htm

FI/S3/08/24/2

1

Finance Committee

24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 28 October 2008

Scrutiny of Financial Memorandum

- the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill

Submissions

The Committee agreed to seek written evidence from all territorial health boards and (via local authority chief executives) from electoral registration officers.

Attached are submissions from the following organisations:

• NHS Ayrshire & Arran • NHS Fife • NHS Grampian • NHS Highland • NHS Lanarkshire • NHS Lothian • NHS Shetland • Electoral Registration Committee of the Scottish Assessors Association (on

behalf of all 15 Scottish electoral registration officers) • City of Edinburgh Council • Clackmannanshire Council • Fife Council • Highland Council • Midlothian Council • North Lanarkshire Council • Orkney Council

North Ayrshire Council also wrote to confirm that it had made no comments on the financial implications.

FI/S3/08/24/2

2

SUBMISSION FROM NHS AYRSHIRE AND ARRAN

Consultation

1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made? The Chairman of NHS Ayrshire and Arran submitted written comments on 25th August 2006 to the Health Committee and commented on the likely cost of elections. The Chairman also submitted comments in response to the call for evidence on the Bill in September 2008 and attached the earlier comments submitted to Roseanna Cunningham who at that time was Convenor of the Health Committee.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Yes.

3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

Yes

Costs

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the financial memorandum? If not, please provide details.

The Financial Memorandum sets out a reasonable estimate of the costs for the election process, however it misses out two aspects which are referred to in the Bill:

• Paragraph 4 of the Bill provides that the Health Board must appoint a returning Officer for the Health Board Election, however the Financial Memorandum makes no provision for the costs associated with this. There will be Returning Officer fees and expenses and other staff costs associated with the administration of an election, as well as the cost of counting machines.

• Paragraph 11 makes provision for election expenses for candidates. If any of these are to be met from the public purse, no provision is made for this in the Financial Memorandum.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated

with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

Based on the estimates within the Financial Memorandum, the cost for elections covering 20% of Scotland would be around £2.11 million, therefore on the basis that Ayrshire and Arran covers around 7.5% of the population of Scotland the costs to NHS Ayrshire and Arran would be around £800,000 every four years. This is a significant amount within the context of NHS Ayrshire and

FI/S3/08/24/2

3

Arran being required to achieve £11 million per annum of cash releasing efficiency savings which could otherwise be spent on Patient Services and to improve the health of our population.

6. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

There are a number of uncertainties around timescales (rollout following a pilot for an unspecified period) and it would be advisable for the estimated costs to form part of the evaluation of the pilots to see how accurate the Financial Memorandum is. If the rollout order can be made by the Scottish Government without further Parliamentary approval, the Committee should consider seriously the uncertainties around the estimate of £13 million for all territorial Health Boards.

Wider Issues

7. If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

The current bill only applies to territorial Health Boards, so no estimate has been made as to the additional costs of elections for non-territorial Health Boards, should this policy be extended to them.

8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs?

The Bill extends the powers to pay members of Committees and Sub-Committees of a Health Board as regulations may specify. While the Scottish Government has no plans at this time to use the powers, there may be additional costs which cannot be quantified until the extent of these payments are specified.

FI/S3/08/24/2

4

SUBMISSION FROM NHS FIFE

Consultation 1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did

you comment on the financial assumptions made?

NHS Fife responded but in the response made no comment on the financial assumptions.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately

reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Not applicable. 3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise?

Yes.

Costs 4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that

these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details. The Bill will have financial implications. The Financial Memorandum sets out assumptions and estimates but correctly points out the level of uncertainty underpinning these. Some further detail e.g. method of electorate is required, and some of the variations e.g. electoral turnout are impossible to predict.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with

the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met? More information is needed on the costs and the source of funding.

6. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty

associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise? Yes.

Wider Issues

7. If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated

costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Yes. 8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for example

through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs? It is too early to say.

FI/S3/08/24/2

5

SUBMISSION FROM NHS GRAMPIAN 1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable,

and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

NHS Grampian provided a full response to the consultation exercise for the Bill reflecting the fact that Grampian welcomes the Government’s commitment to encourage greater patient and public involvement. However, NHS Grampian remains unconvinced that direct elections to NHS boards will deliver this. NHS Grampian commented on the financial resources required to deliver direct elections expressing the firmly held view that if direct elections are introduced then there is a need for additional funding to be provided to cover the costs of administering the process. The funding should not be allocated by way of the NRAC formula.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been

accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Given that the Financial Memorandum indicates that Health Boards would be required to meet the costs of Direct Elections, it would appear that NHS Grampian’s recommendation of additional funding has not been accepted.


Yes

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you

believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

The Bill will have financial implications for NHS Grampian. In order to deliver Direct Elections, it is likely that funding that would have gone to front line services will require to be diverted.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs

associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

NHS Grampian recommends that costs are met by additional funding specifically targeted at direct elections.


It is difficult to confirm any degree of certainty in terms of the costs that are likely to arise until the process is implemented in practice, whether that is in the form of a pilot or otherwise.


FI/S3/08/24/2

6

If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative it is hard to see how the costs can be accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum at the stage.


Yes. No.

FI/S3/08/24/2

7

SUBMISSION FROM NHS HIGHLAND

Consultation Comments 1. Did you take part in the consultation

exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

Yes, our response is enclosed. We commented in relation to question 33 – “Should NHS resources be used to support direct elections? What do you think would be a reasonable amount to spend on elections?” We said: • The costs of direct elections would

apparently be a cost to the NHS, and Government and patients have to recognise that if implemented it will impact on patient care.

• NHS resources must not be used to support campaigning activity.

2. Do you believe your comments on

the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

As the section on costs is headed “Costs on the Scottish Administration” in the Financial Memorandum, this appears to indicate that the Scottish Government will fully fund the costs of elections. Therefore our comments seem to have been reflected. However, clarity on this would be welcomed.


Yes.

Costs 4. If the Bill has any financial

implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

The Bill indicates an increase in the number of Board members (20 elected members in each of the Pilot areas). This will significantly increase the costs to Health boards, with remuneration alone costing £150,000 each year for the elected members. In addition, in rural and Island Health Boards such as NHS Highland, the travel and subsistence expenses of Board Members are significant. Many members will regularly have to travel over 200 miles to attend meetings with those from the Islands having no alternative to regular overnight stays. The cost of travel and subsistence of additional members is likely to be in the region of £85,000 pa.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If

The costs of Elections will be significant. If these costs are not to be met centrally, these can not be met from existing health board

FI/S3/08/24/2

8

not, how do you think these costs should be met?

resources without reducing services. The salaries and expenses of all the additional Board members will be a significant ongoing cost and again cannot be met from existing resources without reducing expenditure on services.


Yes

Wider Issues 7. If the Bill is part of a wider policy

initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

This is not yet clear.


This is not yet clear.

FI/S3/08/24/2

9

SUBMISSION FROM NHS LANARKSHIRE Consultation 1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable,

and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

Yes. 2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been


Yes. We expressed a view that the estimate by the Electoral Commission that the cost of initial elections across the 14 NHS Boards would be around £5, was low and that these costs would be likely to be exceeded. This view is confirmed in the estimate of £2.86m for the cost of running elections in 2 pilot areas.


Yes. Costs 4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you

believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

It is felt that the principal costs of election, remuneration, etc. are covered in the Financial Memorandum.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

Based on an estimate of £2.86m to hold elections in 2 pilot areas, this could mean a cost of approximately £1.4m to hold elections within the NHS Lanarkshire Board area. On the basis of our annual uplift and the demands upon it, and the Cash Releasing Efficiency Saving requirement, identifying this sum from revenue would present the Board with a significant challenge. Allowing for the fact that we currently budget for Non Executive Board Members’ remuneration, we believe that it would be appropriate for the costs associated purely with the election to be met centrally.


Broadly speaking, yes.

Wider Issues

FI/S3/08/24/2

10


Paragraph 67 of the Financial Memorandum acknowledges the potential for subordinate legislation specifying payments to any particular Committee or Sub Committee, and indicates that the Government will provide a full analysis of the costs arising. This is welcomed.


Please see the response to Question 7. Potentially there may be future costs for these issues but they are unclear and difficult to predict at this time.

As described in the response to the questions, the main costs to the Board is likely to be associated with the running of local elections. Based on the estimate for running 2 pilots, these are not insignificant, and if not funded centrally, will bring further pressure on the Board’s revenue allocation. Time will tell whether the estimate of the costs for operating the 2 pilots is realistic, and this will help with the quantification of the costs of elections within NHS Lanarkshire and throughout the wider NHS in Scotland.

FI/S3/08/24/2

11

SUBMISSION FROM NHS LOTHIAN Consultation

1. NHS Lothian did respond during the consultation exercise. 2. NHS Lothian made limited comments about costs. 3. NHS Lothian had sufficient time to contribute to the exercise.

Costs

4. NHS Lothian has no experience of the costs incurred in running an election. We are therefore guided by our Local Authority partners and central Government conclusions.

5. NHS Lothian does not have these costs within our financial planning

assumptions. We are also concerned that from the predictions in the Financial Memorandum para 59 that for a Board of our size that costs could be between £1.5m and £2.0m

Central Government will be expected to meet the costs of this pilot and potential implementation across NHS Lothian in full and in doing so understand the impact that may have through funding available for other investments. NHS Lothian supports the desire to involve the public in its decision making processes and is putting in a new ‘Involving People, Improving the Patient Experience’ strategy to deliver this policy objective.

6. In NHS Lothian’s earlier submission of evidence we stated that in our view the

potential costs of holding such elections were underestimated.

It is understood that Scottish Government has already made a submission to the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament requesting to revisit the costing in the Financial Memorandum (Official Report 16/9/08) and this appears to support the view in our earlier submitted evidence. Due acknowledgement is given in the memorandum as to the variability of costs arising from not only turnout but widening the franchise, promotional costs, pilot evaluation and elected officers’ future remuneration. Cost movements are inevitable if alternative methods of voting and counting are employed other than those envisaged in the financial memorandum and the potential variability appears to be broadly consistent with the assumptions. NHS Lothian would re-iterate the view that if such pilot and roll out costs are to extend to £13m for all boards, as set out in the Financial Memorandum, that it would be unlikely that these could be met from existing Health Board budgets. These already face the challenge of doubled recurring cost saving targets and substantially reduced percentage allocation uplifts in comparison to more recent years.

Wider Issues

7. No answer 8. No answer

FI/S3/08/24/2

12

SUBMISSION FROM NHS SHETLAND Consultation

1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

Yes and yes.



It is difficult to ascertain this. Our key comments in this regard were that the costs should not be met by local health boards, since this would require diverting resources from frontline areas. The Financial Memorandum states that the costs will be met ‘from existing budgets’ but it is not clear whether this means budgets held at government level or budgets held at local health board level.


Yes

Costs

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

See above – unclear if the costs will fall locally or centrally.



As stated in our response to the consultation (sent to Claire Ferguson on 31 March 2008) we feel strongly that these costs should be met centrally. The Board has no uncommitted resources so any costs falling locally would have to be met by making savings in the front-line service.


associated with the estimates and the timescales over which such costs would be expected to arise?

Yes - the methodology seems reasonable.

Wider Issues


There is some uncertainty surrounding the costs but the methodology seems reasonable.

FI/S3/08/24/2

13


No obvious direct future costs arising from the Bill. It is difficult to judge whether the election of members may generate future costs by influencing decisions made by local boards.

FI/S3/08/24/2

14

SUBMISSION FROM ELECTORAL REGISTRATION COMMITTEE OF THE SCOTTISH ASSESSORS’ ASSOCIATION

The response relates purely to the registration of electors and not to the elections management, and is made by the Electoral Registration Committee of the Scottish Assessors Association on behalf of all 15 Scottish EROs

Consultation


The SAA Electoral Registration Committee has taken part in consultation on the Bill including meetings with Scottish Government civil servants. We have also responded to requests for background information. The SAA has also taken part in a joint response with SOLACE, SOLAR, and AEA.


accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? Yes, but only if the register is used in the traditional format with no requirement for personal identifiers. The figures quoted at item 63 in the memorandum are estimates and would have to include consequential publication costs as well as software costs. At item 64, publicity should include advice on registration. The cost of collecting personal identifiers is not included in the costs and could, if introduced (see 8 below), on average cost £1 per registered elector for postage including reminders and return costs. The ingathering of such a high number of identifiers would almost certainly require additional IT equipment e.g. servers, scanners and PCs. Additional costs would also be required for employing additional staff required to check and process the data received. Costs would include training, salaries and desk space.

3. Did you have sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise? Yes

Costs 4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe

that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

See answer 2 5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated

with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met? Any specific work required should be recharged to the Scottish Government. As the costs of the Bill will affect EROs at the very early stages, and as EROs do not have access to additional funding mid-budget, it is essential that payments for

FI/S3/08/24/2

15

required tasks are delivered prior to the work commencing and not after the costs have been incurred. 6. Does the Financial Memorandum accurately reflect the margins of uncertainty


See answers 2 and 5

Wider Issues 7. If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these

associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? No comment 8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for

example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs?

The inference that an all postal ballot should be along the same lines as a National Park election ignores recent changes to postal voting for all other elections. Postal voting is recognised as inherently insecure and steps have been taken in all other elections to increase security. EROs have collected personal identifiers for all existing postal voters and these are used by returning officers to verify the identity of the postal voter. It is possible that this will eventually be considered to be necessary for Health Board elections but meanwhile the much greater costs of such a postal ballot have not been accounted for. There are concerns regarding collection of data from attainers (14 & 15 year olds). There will be collection costs incurred but more importantly there may be legal issues regarding retention and display of this material. Legislation to resolve these issues would be likely to involve software costs, for instance in creating a separate more secure register for young people or in flagging that a young person is in the register but no address is published.

FI/S3/08/24/2

16

SUBMISSION FROM CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Following consideration by the Council’s Departments of the proposals for the introduction of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill and the likely effect on existing arrangements for joined up working between the NHS and the Council, the Council provided an Evidence Paper for the lead Committee. This included financial considerations, and we have now reviewed these in relation to the revised Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill. Views have been set out as requested on the questionnaire attached to your letter. The completed questionnaire attached here forms an administrative submission from myself as Chief Executive of the Council.

1.

Consultation Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

The Council responded to the consultation and also submitted

evidence for the Committee. Financial issues were an important part of the responses made. It is the Council’s understanding that the Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Health Board (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill states clearly in paragraph 68 that ‘there are no costs falling to local authorities’. The Financial Memorandum also states that there are ‘no costs falling to other bodies, individuals and businesses’. However, the Council is of the opinion that both financial and non-financial resources are necessary to successfully conduct elections to any organisation. Whatever funding mechanism might be agreed upon, the Council would wish to see sufficient finance, staffing and resources made available to support a well-run election.

2. Do you believe your comments on the financial assumptions have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

It is the Council’s position that the full costs of the proposed Health Board Elections have not been fully investigated. If the proposed 100% postal election method is progressed, the cost of collecting Absent Voter Identifiers (AVIs) will need to be considered. At present approximately 15% of voters across Scotland have AVIs and for an all-postal ballot 100% would be required if the integrity of a postal ballot is to be ensured. This would incur both costs and time constraints on the health board elections.

FI/S3/08/24/2

17

At present, it remains the Council’s position that there are not enough safeguards in place to undertake a 100% postal election.


A greater time period would have allowed a fully considered position at both a political level and officer level. The response initially submitted was an officer response as the Council reporting cycle requires a longer time period for which the consultation period did not allow.

4. Costs If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

The Council acknowledges the statement in paragraph 68 of the Health Board (Membership and Elections) Bill Financial Memorandum that ’there are no costs falling to local authorities’. However, it is important to recognise that resources to support direct elections to NHS Boards are a fundamental issue in the effectiveness of a reform of this kind. The Council stresses that additional new resources must be found to cover these costs by Government and be seen to be in addition to the funding provided for NHS services. The revised financial memorandum (paragraph 66) gives increased estimates for election costs, indicating that the pilots will cost £2.1m with full roll out costs estimated at £16.65m, including £7.55m met at each election, and £9.1m recurring costs to Boards.

5. Are you content that your organisation can meet the financial costs associated with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met?

The City of Edinburgh Council does not consider that there are any financial costs which will fall to the City of Edinburgh Council as a result of this Bill. Returning Officers’ Costs However, the Council would also like to reiterate that if NHS elections are to be organised by current Returning Officers, then councils must be fully reimbursed for all costs involved. This would include the expenses that can be reimbursed through Returning Officers’ Fees and Charges and also the recognised ‘hidden’ subsidies such as accommodation costs, IT equipment and core staff time.

FI/S3/08/24/2

18

Electoral Registration Costs The extension of the franchise to include 16 and 17 years olds is an issue for the compilation an appropriate electoral register. Additional planning time will be required to ensure to an effective and useable register is created. The Council notes that a simpler administrative process is now being proposed within the revised memorandum for incorporation of 16 and 17 year olds into an appropriate electoral register, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s revised position which was made as a result of advice from the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). The Council is aware of the amendment made to the Financial Memorandum by the Cabinet Secretary on 12 September 2008 and considers that this now clarifies some of the electoral registration issues. The new estimated level of costs to roll out Health Board elections, increased from £13.05 million to £16.65 million, is likely to be a better reflection of the resources needed.


Points from consultation & submission

The Council seeks clarification on the method of financing both the pilot elections and the possible roll out of direct elections to all health boards. The Health Board (Membership and Elections) Bill Financial Memorandum states: ‘The intention is that the costs will be met from existing budgets’ (paragraph 66). Could the Scottish Government indicate from which organisation’s budget the cost of direct health board elections will be met, the Scottish Government or health boards? The Council welcomes the increase in the marketing/public information budget from £0 .2 million to £0.3 million as detailed in the most recent amendment to the Financial Memorandum. It remains the Council’s position that adequate marketing and public information is essential for the successful introduction of a new electoral process.

7.

Wider Issues If the Bill is part of a wider policy initiative, do you believe that these associated costs are accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum?

Not applicable.

8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the

FI/S3/08/24/2

19

Bill, for example through subordinate legislation or more developed guidance? If so, is it possible to quantify these costs?

It is not possible to quantify at this stage.

FI/S3/08/24/2

20

SUBMISSION FROM CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL Your letter of 18th September invited comments from Chief Executives in respect of the responsibilities of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and the financial implications they would need to take into account to ensure compliance with the requirements. While I am sure that the ERO for this area will provide his own comments, I am happy to offer you a response from Clackmannanshire Council. I do consider that it is unfortunate that there has been such a focus on all postal ballots in respect of the elections covered by this Bill. It occurs to me that the Health Board elections present an incredibly valuable opportunity for Parliament to be innovative, creative, and to support the modernisation of the electoral process more generally. A more open approach to ballot methodologies with adequate controls would have allowed, the opportunity to test and manage fresh approaches to ballot processes. I have made reference to this in the attached.

----------- The Financial Memorandum (FM) clearly states in paragraph 68 that there are no costs falling to local authorities. Without clarity in respect of the designation of Returning Officers for these elections, it is not possible to comment on whether or not there is the potential for additional costs to be incurred in supporting administrative arrangements. For immediate purposes, the assumption is made therefore that the Returning Officer will not be an employee of the Council and no direct election support of any kind is anticipated as necessary. The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) will undoubtedly have a critical involvement in these elections. The ERO is funded principally through the budget of the authorities he serves and there is an unavoidable impact on Council finances where his costs increase beyond any additional 'income' received. It is apparent through past experience that, in every major election event, there will be some costs incurred by the ERO which cannot be recovered through the Returning Officers Charges Order. This accounts for part of the "hidden subsidy" that Councils contribute to centrally funded elections. To avoid this situation arising with Health Board elections, it is essential that, through whatever mechanism that is appropriate, all identified costs are actually recoverable. The alternative will be a direct impact on Council finances. It is suggested that the intention to focus on all postal ballots for these elections is short sighted and unnecessarily restrictive. Postal ballots, properly administered, are expensive to deliver and the outcomes remain open to challenge. Given the Government's history of concern over the potential for postal voting fraud, it is anticipated that voter identity confirmation procedures (in line with those required under the ROP Act ) will be required for these elections. That would require the ERO to collect personal identifiers for a further 85% of those on the Electoral Register, to store and manage these, and to provide them in a suitable form to the Returning Officer at the time of an election. The RO in turn will require procedures and systems designed to manage postal vote returns.

FI/S3/08/24/2

21

The resource impact on EROs in accomplishing this are indeed considerable and could be avoided if a more flexible approach to ballot method was allowable in the legislation. The government and the Electoral Commission have, over the last year, taken a step back from promoting pilot exercises in ballot procedures. Pilot exercises are the ideal way of gaining confidence in the testing of changed or innovative voting processes. Health Board elections could be an ideal focus for future pilots on, for example, electronic voting, text voting, internet voting and varying methods of electronic counting. There is/was perhaps an opportunity here to gain maximum benefit through innovation and testing while at the same time avoiding the costs and procedural difficulties of administering secure postal ballots. The Bill proposes that citizens aged 16 and over should be able to take part in these elections. As correctly identified, this proposal has cost and resource implications for the ERO. The degree of impact will have a direct relationship with the model procedure required by the ERO. For example - if the ERO is required to be proactive and to annually publish the names of any citizen who will turn 16 during the following 12 months then the costs of software adaption, canvass and recording procedures will be high. However, if the requirement was to be more reactive and to include those reaching 16 in the monthly update lists for the register, the costs would be much lower. The FM provides information on cost calculations. It is suggested that the figures presented are misleading:

• The average cost per vote cast in all postal ballots (not using STV) is quoted as being around £2.60. This figure does not include the costs of collecting and applying postal voter identity checks. In a postal ballot which is designed to ensure confidence, the application of security check mechanisms will push this unit cost to a much higher level.

• The costs associated with the extension of the franchise will depend very

much on the real need for software and procedure amendments. This in turn is dependent on the degree to which the ERO will be expected to be proactive.

FI/S3/08/24/2

22

SUBMISSION FROM FIFE COUNCIL

Consultation


Response – Yes. No comment was made on the financial assumptions.


accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? Response – N/A


Response - Yes

Costs

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe


Response – There are no direct costs attributable to local authorities

under the Bill and it is to be assumed that additional costs, for example, allowances and/or remuneration paid to Councillors appointed to a Health Board would be met by the Health Board.


with the Bill? If not, how do you think these costs should be met? Response – See Answer 4.



Response – From experience in electoral administration, I believe that

the financial memorandum accurately reflects the costs of conducting elections. However, this very much depends on the detail of subordinate legislation. In other elections, there have been increasing numbers of postal votes and, coupled with the introduction of legislation, the cost has been increasing dramatically. With the increasing outsourcing of matters relating to elections, e.g. issue of postal votes and electronic counting, it is impossible to accurately predict costs.

FI/S3/08/24/2

23

Wider Issues


Response – Yes – See Answer 6. 8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for


Response – There may be future costs associated with the Bill as

subordinate legislation is promoted and guidance around the elections is developed and this should be borne in mind as progress is made.

FI/S3/08/24/2

24

SUBMISSION FROM THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL

Consultation 1. Did you take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill, if applicable, and if

so did you comment on the financial assumptions made?

The Highland Council did take part in the consultation exercise for the Bill and did comment on the financial assumptions made.



The Financial Memorandum does reflect the Council’s comments on the direct cost of elections. However, it does not take account of the indirect costs.


Yes, the Council had sufficient time to contribute to the consultation exercise.

Costs

4. If the Bill has any financial implications for your organisation, do you believe that these have been accurately reflected in the Financial Memorandum? If not, please provide details.

It is the view of the Highland Council’s view that the revised projected £13m cost of direct elections underestimates the overall costs. No provision has been made for indirect costs. If costs come from the NHS budget, it will have associated implications for that budget and front line service provision. The extension of the electoral franchise to 16 / 17 year olds will result in increased costs being incurred by Electoral Registration Officers. If the postal vote system were to require the collection of postal vote personal identifiers (PVPIs), the PIs would need to be collected from the 85% of electors who do not already have a postal vote. If the PVPIs were not collected, the election system could be not be considered as being secure and imply an acceptance of a degree of trust that is currently found in National Park and Community Council elections. The system of STV would need to be carefully considered. If the system was the same as that used in local government elections (Weighted Inclusive Gregory method) then electronic counting would be required. However, if the Gregory method were to be used (as in Northern Ireland Local Government elections), manual counting MAY be possible. There

FI/S3/08/24/2

25

would be a difference in costs, dependant on the type of election system used. The suggestion that each Health Board area would be treated as a single ward would create electoral administration problems. Using NHS Highland as an example, the Ward electorate would be approximately 220,000, covering two local authority areas. On the basis of an estimated 60% turnout, 132,000 postal ballot papers would be returned. Dealing with that volume of STV postal ballot papers, in a single ward, is beyond the current experience of local government staff. If a private sector contract were to be let to manage the process, costs would need to be re-evaluated, as count costs would almost certainly increase. The costs outlined in the Financial Memorandum in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill only refer to the direct costs of an election. The indirect costs (such as core election management and electoral registration costs) have neither been referred to nor quantified.



No. The Financial Memorandum, at paragraph 68, asserts that there are no costs falling to local authorities. It is assumed that the Returning Officer at the Health Board Elections will be the Local Authority Returning Officer and that the election will be administered by his staff. There is no mention of this anywhere in the Financial Memorandum. The Highland Council would expect re-imbursement of all expenditure incurred at any election, including management and administrative costs. If the Local Authority Returning Officer is not to be responsible for administration of the election, the selected individual must have” the necessary skills, training and knowledge to carry out an election”1



No, it does not. Further information on the detail of the whole election process is required – from the initial publication of the Notice of Election to the Declaration of the Results. Indeed, if the Result is challengeable in the Courts (perhaps through an Election Petition process?) additional unexpected costs may be incurred. Careful project management will be required to ensure the election process runs smoothly.

Wider Issues


1 Draft performance standards for Returning Officers in Great Britain – published by the Electoral Commission, September 2008

FI/S3/08/24/2

26

No comments

8. Do you believe that there may be future costs associated with the Bill, for


The Highland Council cannot anticipate future costs without the detail outlined in paragraph 6 above.

FI/S3/08/24/2

27

SUBMISSION FROM MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL

I refer to your email in which you request, by letter of 18 September 2008, the views of all Local Authority Chief Executives in respect of the responsibilities of Electoral Registration Officers in regard to the above Bill. I apologise for the delay in replying but can now inform you that the Council’s Chief Executive, Trevor Muir, wishes to comment from the electoral registration perspective that he endorses the views contained in the submission by the Scottish Assessors Association in response to the questionnaire. In particular he agrees that any specific electoral registration work arising from the Bill must be recharged to the Scottish Government. I can also inform you that Midlothian Council has considered the details of the Bill and has agreed to note its contents on the basis of paragraph 69 of the Financial Memorandum which states: – “There are no costs falling to local authorities.”

FI/S3/08/24/2

28

SUBMISSION FROM NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL North Lanarkshire Council did, indeed, participate in the consultation exercise for the Bill: at that stage, however, no comment was offered on the financial assumptions made. Subsequently, however, in response to an invitation from the Health and Sport Committee of the Scottish Parliament, the Council’s Policy and Resources Committee approved a submission which, with regard to Finance, included the following:

“With regard to the proposed arrangements for elections it is noted that there will be difficulties in extending the francise: currently electoral registers do not include 16 and 17 year olds and, in addition to the software costs as identified in the financial memorandum, it is to be anticipated that there will be additional costs linked to the canvass.

With regard to principal implications and costs, it is noted that the financial memorandum proceeds on the basis of elections covering 20% of the Scottish electorate and being conducted by an all postal ballot: it is noted that the memorandum goes on to advise of the application of an ‘average cost’ of £2.60 per vote cast in an all postal ballot. This would appear to be an average cost based on a number of valuation studies conducted by the Electoral Commission over a period of time none of which used the STV system. It is not clear that account has been taken in estimating costs of experience in the recent local government and Scottish parliamentary elections, and it is considered that the costs are likely to exceed the projected figure.”

It would appear that these comments are apposite, also, to the questions now posed – and on that basis it is not considered that the costs are accurately reflected in the financial memorandum.

FI/S3/08/24/2

29

SUBMISSION FROM ORKNEY COUNCIL



The Council did take part in the consultation exercise but did not comment on the financial assumptions made.



N/A


Additional time would have been welcomed.






Wider Issues




FI/S3/08/24/2

SUBMISSION FROM WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL



The Council did not itself take part in the consultation exercise, but senior officers of the Council were involved in the response submitted jointly by SOLACE, SOLAR, AEA and SAA, which represent Chief Executives, electoral administrators and Electoral Registration Officers.



No. The extract from the Associations’ response is below: “The cost of these elections we feel has not been fully investigated. There would need to be an assurance that the cost of any pilots, including the processing of AVI’s, would be fully reimbursed by the Scottish Government to the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer. We would also reiterate that if Health Board elections are to be organised by current Returning Officers, then Councils must be fully reimbursed for all costs involved. This would include not only the prescribed expenses that can be reimbursed through a Returning Officers’ fees and charges order, but also recognise the other election cost subsidies that occur.”


Yes. Sufficient time was given to respond.



The costs would appear to be seriously understated. There is no evidence that the financial memorandum has taken ancillary costs involved in elections into consideration. There seems to be no real understanding of the additional workload which Health Board elections would place on local authorities and the resulting staffing and financial implications. Costs to the organisation of processing the elections and the count have not been considered in full. It is likely that the cost of a Health Board election would be equivalent to the sum of the costs of local government elections for the areas covered by the Health Board. Electoral Registration Officers will incur additional costs by the proposed expansion of the electoral roll to include 16 and 17 year olds. Following consultation, further decisions may have to be taken on the way the poll will be organised and a further costing exercise should be taken at that

FI/S3/08/24/2

time, in full consultation with the professional Electoral Associations, to achieve more realistic estimates in view of the procedures to be implemented.



The Council would not be able to meet the financial costs associated with the Bill. Costs would have to be assessed on a realistic basis and refunded in full through Health Boards themselves.



No. It is not appropriate for election mailings to be issued by household rather than to individual electors, so if the integrity of the poll is to be maintained, there is no possibility of achieving significant reductions in the estimated costs. The likelihood is that the costs of the poll will be much higher than the estimates. Wider Issues


It is not clear what is meant by a wider policy initiative. If the costs outlined in the Memorandum are insufficient for the Health Board election, it stands to reason that they would be equally unsatisfactory if rolled out more extensively.



It is more than likely that future costs may arise, but it is not possible to quantify these at this time.

Christine Grahame MSP Convener Health and Sport Committee Room T3.60 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP

___ 12 September 2008 Dear Christine I am writing in respect of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill which the Health and Sport Committee is due to begin scrutinising this autumn. Some new information has very recently come to my attention that affects the Bill’s Financial Memorandum. I therefore wanted to write to both the Health & Sport and Finance Committees at the earliest opportunity to provide an update with the amended information ahead of Stage 1 consideration. Firstly, updated advice received from Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) has suggested significant practical difficulties in amending the software systems used to maintain the electoral register for the purpose of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year olds for any pilots taking place in spring 2010. We had previously planned to use the annual canvass of voters (which usually runs from summer to autumn each year) to capture data about 16 and 17 year olds in time for the pilot elections in the spring of 2010. It may no longer be sensible to rely upon this option. Taking into account the likely parliament timetable and given the practical concerns raised about software modification this may not give EROs sufficient time to prepare for altering the canvass, bearing in mind that they would not have the legal powers to carry out this work before legislation comes into force. The Government therefore proposes taking a simpler administrative approach for the pilots that would minimise changes to electoral systems and processes. This would involve utilising the existing local authority franchise plus 16 and 17-year olds who are registered at the time of election. The system already contains data on 16 and 17-year old attainers. In effect, we would be using the rolling register which any eligible voter can subscribe to throughout the year, ahead of the cut-off point for any election. This would help to minimise the potential cost and additional work for EROs and others, and would avoid the need to consider potentially expensive and unworkable upgrades to existing IT systems which would cover only the pilot areas. Paragraph 63 of the Financial Memorandum currently budgets for £50,000 per pilot Board area to cover the cost of extending the franchise. This cost was envisaged to be used in modifying software systems which would no longer be necessary under the revised approach. However, we propose to use this resource to bolster the existing budget for public information, advice and marketing. This would be used to maximise registration by encouraging eligible voters to register, including potentially targeted marketing for 16 and 17-year olds for example through talks in schools or publicity material distributed at youth clubs.

St Andrew ’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG w w w .scotland.gov.uk abcde abc a

For clarity, we have reflected these changes in revised paragraphs 63-65 of the Financial Memorandum, attached as an Annex. Secondly, we have reviewed the methodologies we used in the Finance Memorandum, and have therefore revised the calculation of some of the estimated costs of rolling out elections to Health Boards, as set out in paragraph 66 of the Memorandum. In summary, the total estimated cost of £13.05m as set out in paragraph 66 should correctly be stated as £16.65m. I wanted to act quickly in writing to both Committees to set out the correct position ahead of the scrutiny of the Bill in Parliament. I have attached as an Annex replacement paragraphs for the relevant sections of the Financial Memorandum which take full account of the contents of this letter. I am copying this letter to the Finance Committee and look forward to working with the Committee during the consideration of the Bill. NICOLA STURGEON


ANNEX Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill: Amended Financial Memorandum Replacement Paragraphs 63-66 63. With regard to the costs of extending the franchise for the purpose of pilot elections we propose taking a simple administrative approach that would minimise changes to current electoral systems and processes. This would involve utilising the existing local authority franchise plus 16 and 17-year olds who are registered at the time of election. 64. Given that the pilot elections will be based on the existing electoral local authority register together with the desire to involve as many eligible voters as possible (including 16 and 17-year olds), we think it would be prudent to allow for some investment in public information/advice in the pilot areas. This would help to maximise registration of eligible voters and help to promote public understanding and support. This approach may also ultimately boost turnout and we would envisage targeting some of the resources to encourage 16 and 17-year olds to register and vote, e.g. through talks at 6th forms, targeted leafleting of sports or social clubs etc. This may amount to £0.15 million for each pilot area i.e. £0.30 million for 2 pilot areas. It is anticipated that this level of funding would allow for an advertising campaign in the local press and for the production and distribution of written information. 65. The total costs of the pilots is likely to be met in 2010/11 and takes into account the factors set out above and is made up as follows: Cost Area of Investment£1.21 million “baseline” cost £0.90 million Counting machines £0.20 million Additional remuneration £0.25 million Evaluation study £0.30 million Marketing/Public info & advice £2.86 million 66. If, following the evaluation of the pilots, Ministers bring forward to Parliament plans to roll out elections to all Health Boards then it is estimated that this will cost around £16.65m. This consists of, in part, the relatively fixed costs of holding elections: the baseline cost (£1.21m) and marketing costs (£0.30m) for the 20% electoral coverage in the 2 pilot areas multiplied up to 100% coverage i.e. £1.51 million x 5 = £7.55m (excluding the one-off pilot evaluation study). This cost will be met at each election to Health Boards. The remainder of the total estimated cost of £16.65m consists of the recurring costs to Boards: the additional remuneration costs (£50,000 per Board multiplied by the full 4-year term of an elected Board = £200,000 multiplied by all 14 Health Boards in Scotland = £2.8m) and the costs of counting machines incurred by all Boards (£450,000 multiplied by 14 = £6.3m). The estimated roll out costs are set out in the table copied below. The intention is that the costs will be met from existing budgets.


Area of Investment Pilot Cost Factor* Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total“baseline” cost £1.21m 5 £6.05m 0 0 0 £6.05m Count machines £0.45m 14 £6.30m 0 0 0 £6.30m Add remuneration £0.05m 14 £0.70m £0.70m £0.70m £0.70m £2.80m Marketing £0.30m 5 £1.50m 0 0 0 £1.50m £16.65m *either multiplied by 5 (to calculate 100% electorate coverage from 20% pilot coverage) or by 14 (costs incurred by every Health Board)


FI/S3/08/24/4

Finance Committee

24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 28 October 2008

Scrutiny of Financial Memorandum – Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill

Background

1. The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill (“the Bill”) was introduced in the Parliament on 6 October 2008. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee is expected to be designated as the lead committee on the Bill at Stage 1.

2. This paper invites the Committee to determine its approach to considering the Financial Memorandum for the Bill.

The Bill

3. The Bill amends the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). The 2004 Act was originally intended to allow young people with additional support needs (including those with co-ordinated support plans (“CSPs”)) and their parents to make out of area placing requests. However, this was called into doubt by an Inner House, Court of Session ruling by Lord Macphail on 11 October 2007. The Financial Memorandum states that the ruling—

“…held that the 2004 Act did not make, and should not be construed as making, any provision in respect of a child with additional support needs, who required a CSP, for the making of a placing request to any education authority who were not responsible for the child’s/young person’s education. The ruling also inferred that young people with additional support needs and parents of children with additional support needs could not make out of area placing requests.”1

4. The Bill is therefore designed to strengthen and clarify the 2004 Act’s original policy intention to “provide for any need that requires additional support for the child or young person to learn.”2 Further information on the detail of the Bill’s policy can be found in paragraph three of the Policy Memorandum.

Number of future out of area placing requests

5. The FM explains that, as prior to Lord Macphail’s ruling local authorities were considering out of area placing requests, the numbers outlined in the FM are likely to be fairly accurate. A survey of COSLA and six representative local authorities3 indicated that local authorities are involved in a very small 1 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 36 2 Policy Memorandum, paragraph 2 3 Dumfries and Galloway Council, Dundee City Council, East Ayrshire Council, Highland City Council, City of Edinburgh Council and West Lothian Council.

1

FI/S3/08/24/4

number of cases each year and that cases can vary widely in their length and complexity. Therefore, the FM states that the estimates “should be treated as an indicative average only.”4 COSLA have provided the Scottish Government with the following statement—

“COSLA and 6 of our councils have been involved in the preparation of the draft Financial Memorandum and we believe that the cost estimates reflect the outcomes from these discussions…”5

Costs and savings on local authorities

Extending the jurisdiction of the Tribunal 6. The Bill extends the jurisdiction of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (“the Tribunal”) to—

“…include consideration of any placing request appeal where a CSP has been prepared or is being considered, at any time before final determination by an Education Appeal Committee (EAC) or sheriff.”6

7. The FM estimates that this will result in an increase of no more than two or three cases per year to the Tribunal, which will mean a decrease of the same number of cases to the EAC or sheriff. On the basis of the information received, the FM states that, at an average of £5,000 per case, the cost for additional tribunal cases to all authorities will be £15,000 per year. However, a reduction in cases to the EAC and Sheriff Court suggests an indicative saving of £13,000 per year. Full detail on the assumptions behind these estimates can be found at paragraphs 43-47 of the FM.

Out of area placing requests 8. Among the local authorities involved in the survey detailed above, the cost of an out of area placing request ranged from £450 to £12,500, giving an average cost of £3,600. However, the FM states that there was unlikely to be an increase in cost to local authorities in processing these requests (excluding those with CSPs) as no evidence could be found of authorities refusing to accept placing requests from children outside of their area.7 In terms of those with CSPs, the FM estimates that the total cost to all authorities will be £32,400 per year (9 cases multiplied by an average cost of £3,600). However, the FM goes on to state that since costs can be recovered from the child’s “home” authority, “successful placing requests are cost neutral overall.”8 Information regarding the detail of the assumptions behind these estimates can be found at paragraphs 48-51 of the FM.

9. In terms of those cases that are appealed to the EAC or the Tribunal, the FM estimates that there will be around one appeal to the Tribunal and eight appeals to the EAC per year. This will result in an estimated total increase to

4 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 39 5 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 42 6 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 43 7 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 50 8 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 51

2

FI/S3/08/24/4

all authorities of around £21,000 per year. Again, the FM contains detailed information underpinning this estimate, at paragraph 52.

Mediation and dispute resolution 10. Under the Bill, following a submission of an out of area placing request, parents or young people will be able to access mediation from the potential host authority, and following a successful request, responsibility for providing mediation and dispute resolution will lie with the new host authority as well. These costs are not recoverable in the way outlined above.

11. As there have currently been no examples of mediation being provided in this context, the FM estimates the costs to be minimal. Based on an estimate of mediation being requested in 1%-5% of out of area placing requests, the FM states that the total cost to all authorities across Scotland will range from £1,600 to £22,770. The FM again contains detailed assumptions and figures for this estimate, at paragraphs 53-55.

Reviewing a CSP following a successful out of area placing request 12. The FM indicates that there will be around 6 successful requests with CSPs that need to be reviewed each year, across local authorities. The cost per review is around £800, giving an estimated total cost per year of £4,800. These costs can be recovered from the home authority. Further details are available at paragraphs 56-58 of the FM.

New Tribunal reference categories and paper-based decision making process 13. Under the Bill, parents will be able to submit references to the Tribunal in relation to two new procedural failures by local authorities. First, where the authority fails to acknowledge a request as to whether a CSP is required, and second, when the authority has said it will make such a decision but has not done so. Both grounds are subject to time limits to be set under secondary legislation. The FM estimates that this will result in a 5%-10% increase in the number of cases referred to the Tribunal (4-8 cases).

14. The Bill introduces a new paper-based decision making process for those referrals where local authorities have exceeded any specified timescales. This includes the two references above and similar cases under the 2004 Act. The cost of these referrals is estimated to be around £2,800 per case. Using the number of cases estimated above, the FM gives an indicative range of costs of £11,200 (4 cases) - £22,400 (8 cases). Using the mid-range of 6 cases would result in an estimate of £16,800 per year. Paragraphs 59-60 of the FM detail further the assumptions behind these estimates.

Enabling the Tribunal to review its decisions 15. The Bill enables the Tribunal to review, vary or revoke its decisions in certain circumstances, which will be specified in regulations. Currently the Tribunal’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Session on a point of law. The FM indicates that if the Tribunal was able to review its own decisions on a point of law, this would result in possible savings to authorities. Based on a saving of £9,000 per case, and the figure of 5 cases per year, this

3

FI/S3/08/24/4

gives a saving to all authorities when the Tribunal reviews its decision on a point of law of £45,000.

16. The following table summarises the costs and savings on local authorities as a result of the Bill. Paragraph numbers refer to the FM.

Increase in cost

Saving

Coordinated support plan appeals - Tribunal cases with representation at an oral hearing (paragraph 46)

£15,000

Cases transferred from the EAC or Sheriff to the Tribunal (paragraph 47)

£13,000

Processing out of area placing requests (paragraph 50)

£32,400

Increase in placing request appeals (paragraph 52)

£21,000

Providing mediation and/or dispute resolution (paragraph 55)

£22,700

Reviewing a co-ordinated support plan (paragraph 57)

£ 4,800

Expedited Tribunal paper based process (paragraph 60)

£16,800

Tribunal reviews its decision on a point of law (paragraph 61)

£45,000

Total £112,700 £58,000

Costs and savings on the Scottish Administration

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland 17. The main cost on the Scottish Government will be associated with the Tribunal, which it funds directly. The FM states that the changes in the Bill will generate an additional 12-18 references to the Tribunal per year. Using the midpoint of 15 references and an average cost of £4,725 per hearing, this will mean an increased cost of £70,875. However, the FM indicates that this will be dealt with as part of the Tribunal’s day to day work. The new paper-based process outlined above should result in a saving of £7,400. Again, the FM contains full details behind these figures, at paragraphs 62-70.

Scottish Court Service 18. The number of cases to the Sheriff Court and Court of Session are likely to be reduced as a result of the Bill. The FM states that—

“Due to the small number of cases involved, the considerable variability of the individual cases in terms of length of case and resources required, it has not been possible for the Scottish Court Service to estimate the likely savings to the courts as a result of fewer cases.”9

9 Financial Memorandum, paragraph 71

4

FI/S3/08/24/4

19. The FM goes on to explain that given the very low number of cases, the savings will be low and will not impact on the operation of the Courts.

Conclusion

20. It would appear from the FM that the overall financial impact of the Bill will be relatively insignificant. Based on this, and the level of detail provided on the assumptions underpinning the cost estimates, it is suggested that it may be appropriate to adopt level one scrutiny in relation to the FM. This would involve seeking written evidence from COSLA, local authorities (possibly those identified in the FM, or from all local authorities), the Tribunal, and the Scottish Court Service.

Allan Campbell Assistant Clerk to the Committee

5

Documents

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA 24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) · FI/S3/08/24/A FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA 24th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3) Tuesday 28 October 2008 The Committee will meet at