John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 14.
“The amendments align education funding more closely with economic need, opportunity and growth. If this bill is to be about the workforce and the economy of the future, these amendments deserve Parliament’s support. I move amendment 39. Paul O’Kane: Scottish Labour welcomes the intent behind many of the amendments in the group because we have been clear that there are significant gaps in the existing apprenticeship and funding landscape. There is unmet need both for young people in the skills system and businesses that need apprenticeships.”
“There is a disconnect between parts of Government and, most importantly, what happen on the ground. The SPICe briefing and stage 1 scrutiny highlighted concerns about whether the expanded Scottish Funding Council will have sufficient up-to-date labour market intelligence to guide decisions. Amendment 86 directly responds to those concerns. 17:00 Putting those things together, these amendments are not radical; they are practical. They are grounded in evidence and they reflect how a modern labour market actually works. They promote parity of esteem between academic and technical and professional training routes. They strengthen apprenticeships at every level, especially—I have laboured this point—in relation to undergraduates and the undergraduate or degree apprenticeships.”
“We should celebrate the marvellous, flexible idea of apprenticeship and combine it with the principles of lifelong learning, changing careers and all the things that a labour market system such as ours should facilitate and that we should support. The fact is that apprenticeship numbers have fluctuated sharply over the years, sometimes without clear explanation. Amendment 44 ensures transparency and forces difficult decisions into the open, rather than burying them in budgets or in guidance. Amendment 86 addresses volatility. It requires an annual labour market assessment to inform funding decisions, which would involve properly consulting employers and industry bodies. Too often, funding is allocated in silos. The emergence of silo thinking and working is symptomatic of government.”
“I agree with Stephen Kerr about the importance of apprenticeships, but we have an ageing population and fewer young people, so how can legislation require that the number of apprentices is not reduced? Stephen Kerr: John Mason and I get along really well, but I am really disappointed that he has not listened to anything that I have said. I lodged an amendment based on the fact that apprentices are not an age-limited demographic. This is about people of all ages and at all stages of their careers. I break it gently to my friend John Mason: apprentices are not only teenagers and people in their early 20s; there are apprentices of all ages.”
“St Mirren also belongs to Paisley, and that reminds us that, when community comes together, there is nothing that we cannot achieve. We cheer for the goals and celebrate the wins, and we cry at the heartbreak. That is football and that is St Mirren and, above all, it belongs to us, to Paisley and to the generations yet to come. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 17:53”
“I am open to constructive discussion on how we achieve that, but the current reliance on short-term, temporary licensing offers no way for clubs to plan or invest. Licensing should sit, as always, with the local authority licensing board, which can provide proper oversight, and enforcement where it is needed. Done properly, that one change could help football clubs to grow their community impact, strengthen their finances and keep those clubs firmly embedded at the heart of the communities that they serve. There is much to celebrate in Scottish football, so let us celebrate it: not just the trophies or the European nights for St Mirren after 37 years, but the lives touched, the skills nurtured and the hopes that are woven through our whole nation. In Paisley, St Mirren belongs to its fans.”
“I take the member’s point that some fans are responsible, but would he accept that we have a few problems at football with pyrotechnics and people throwing things on to the pitch? George Adam: I agree, but that issue has been policed recently. Some clubs need to engage with it. At St Mirren, we had a situation where we sat down with the club’s young ultras, and the older fans actually policed the younger fans because they were embarrassed by what they were bringing the club into. It is the responsibility of the clubs to deal with that as well. Most fans behave themselves at football grounds, and alcohol at football could be regulated in exactly the same way as it is in other licensed premises.”
“On the separate subject of children’s services planning, the debate is about whether integration joint boards should be equal partners with local authorities and health boards. Once again, it strikes me as bizarre that we started with two different bodies being involved in children’s services, we then tried to streamline things by creating IJBs and now we have three bodies instead of two. I hope that Ivan McKee, as the minister for public service reform, will get his axe out and do some chopping of all those public bodies. Overall, although several issues remain to be resolved, I do not have any problems with the bill as a whole. Unlike on previous occasions, when I may have been the only member to vote against or abstain, I will be happy to support the bill at stage 1 when it comes to the vote. 17:00”
“That is why Unison’s suggestion that all providers should be registered charities is a little bit too simplistic, because it still leaves loopholes in place that can be exploited. The committee expects to see Government amendments to the bill at stage 2, and I note that the minister has said that she is “open to any proposals” and “will consider any amendments”. Given the uncertainty in this area, I tend to agree with her that we should be wary of being too specific in the bill on the details regarding profit limitation. Somewhat related to that is the issue of whether all fostering services should become charities. Various points were made in that regard, including that doing so might make little difference to the present position and that stability and the quality of placements are more important than charitable status.”
“The Government consultation on that aspect only concluded in October, and I understand that the analysis was published on 10 December, which was slightly too late for it to be included in the committee’s report. I note that the public consultation only elicited 31 responses, whereas the engagement sessions had more than 100 participants, so I agree that we need to look at a combination of both exercises. There were clear concerns among participants about the administrative burden. An interesting point is that perhaps we are seeking to solve a problem that exists in England and Wales but not currently in Scotland. The point was correctly made that money can be extracted from an organisation in a range of ways other than through declared profits, such as directors’ fees and inter-company services.”
“Again, most folk would say that there is a difference between making a reasonable profit and making an excessive profit, as Willie Rennie said. If the private sector is better at keeping costs down, it might be that it can provide a better service than the public sector for the same price and still make a profit. Young people also made the point that they would not want current satisfactory placements to be disrupted by the new provision. Others suggested that some providers might leave the sector altogether. I wonder how easy ministers will find it to implement the provision. Anyway, to start with, it will just be a question of organisations providing more information, and I have no particular problem with that.”
“I think that we all instinctively feel that excessive profits should not be made on the backs of vulnerable children. However, we do not generally limit profits that are made by other suppliers to the public sector, such as hospital builders, food suppliers and so on—after all, it is all public money. Then there is the question of how easy it is to measure profit, to which I suggest that the answer is that it is not very easy at all. Companies, especially larger ones, can become adept at moving costs, and therefore moving profits, from one part of the business to another. One young person told us that a senior member of staff at his charitable residential home drove around in a very fancy car. Technically, that would be a cost, not part of the profit.”
“The reality is that none of us knows what the uptake of those will be, and we are looking for best estimates rather than exact figures. However, the Education, Children and Young People Committee is looking to the Government for updated costs, particularly on corporate parenting, lifelong advocacy and the extension of aftercare. To be fair to the Government, at least we have estimated costs, which has not always been the case with other bills. Under aftercare, I am pleased to see that the Government is looking at revising cost estimates in conjunction with Social Work Scotland and COSLA, and I look forward to receiving an update on that. One area that I focused on when questioning witnesses was profit limitation and the related issue of fostering services having to be charities.”
“There is widespread agreement to much in the bill, such as the expansion of the availability of independent advocacy services, the strengthening of the practical implementation of the Promise and similar points. I, for one, have no insurmountable issues that prevent me from supporting the bill today. However, as always, there are areas in which questions remain, and changes might be made as the bill progresses. As I am the only member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee who also sits on the Education, Children and Young People Committee following the sad departure of Mr Greer, it falls on me to focus a bit on some of the bill’s financial aspects. There will always be disagreement about the likely costs of expanding the provision of advocacy and aftercare services.”
“We have been challenged with making a radical but positive change for the most vulnerable in our society, and we have not done enough. We have been charged to support those who need us most, and we cannot fail them again. 16:04”
“Any progression of the foster carers register must be carried out in collaboration with them. Anything that makes it harder to become a foster carer will only reduce the number of people applying. Barnardo’s stated in its briefing: “It will also be important that any national register produced does not result in an unintentional increase in out of area placements.” That is a valid point. Scotland’s care-experienced community is watching. It has been very patient. It deserves more from us. It was told that, collectively, we would change the landscape of care experience in Scotland and that that would progress with the lived experience of children, young people and adults alike at its core. We are not there yet. We should not be complacent.”
“I accept that many of the decisions that are proposed to be taken by a single-member panel are procedural and that the proposal is based on defined preliminary decisions in a narrow circumstance. However, it is essential that there is no possibility of slippage in that process. Safeguarding in that area is essential. In its submission, Includem expressed concern that the move to a single-member panel was primarily driven by resource issues rather than the best interests of the child or young person, which, although I understand the desire to allow more time for the three-member panels to make key decisions rather than procedural ones, can never be allowed to happen. Foster carers play an essential part in providing children with the family support that they need, often in the most emotionally difficult of times.”
“It is a simple issue, and I agree whole-heartedly with the Education, Children and Young People Committee on its recommendation to bring as many provisions as possible within the scope of the act. Another point that needs to be strengthened is the use of IJBs. Although I accept that blending child services with adult services at a local authority level makes perfect sense on paper, the realities are an entirely different matter. Many IJBs are struggling to provide services currently, given the funding that is available to them. The financial strain on the service cannot be overlooked if we truly want to support care-experienced people through delivery. I am concerned that, without adequate funding support, that avenue of delivery will fail and that children and families will pay the price.”
“Some of the young people told us that they had a very good relationship with a social worker, so they might not need quite so much in the way of advocacy. Does Roz McCall agree that there needs to be a bit of flexibility in the system? Roz McCall: I thank Mr Mason for his intervention, but there needs to be an independent voice to support the child. I worry that, at times, when it comes to social work, where there is more responsibility, the child’s voice can get overlooked. The lack of a definition of the term “independence” could lead to a wide variance in provision across Scotland, so I would like the provisions on advocacy in the bill to be strengthened. We have already discussed incompatibility with the 2024 act.”
“Given that our capital funding will, unfortunately, be reduced after this year, due to the UK Government’s spending review, the marshalling of the capital resources that are available to us to prioritise affordable housing is quite a commitment.”
“Normally, when we face an emergency, we put aside good things to focus on that emergency. If we really have a housing emergency, should we not set aside some of the expenditure on, for example, roads and put more money into housing? Shona Robison: We are putting more money into housing. Over the spending review period, there will be investment of £4.9 billion, £4.1 billion of which will be public investment that will lever in at least a further £800 million of private sector investment in, for example, mid-market rent properties and build to rent schemes. That will all contribute to the delivery of affordable homes, so I hope that John Mason will welcome that. That is one of the biggest capital investments across our capital funding programme.”
“I remain somewhat unclear whether the Scottish Government intends to match the UK levy rate, as it does with landfill tax and aggregates tax, or whether there would be a higher rate in Scotland if the tax base here turned out to be lower and the £30 million target proved difficult to achieve. It is interesting to note how often the Government’s response to the committee refers to our system being just like England’s. That is not a normal response for an SNP Scottish Government to make, and it illustrates a key problem with the bill and the levy, which is that the room for manoeuvre that is allowed to us by Westminster is very limited. I do not particularly like the situation that we find ourselves in. However, the responsible thing to do is to support the bill at stage 1 and, perhaps, to improve it later. 16:35”
“There might be complications, but I think that they can be overcome. The Government reckons that the levy will not be added on to house prices. However, like others, I am sceptical about that. Whether Revenue Scotland can keep to its usual target of keeping administration costs under 1 per cent also has to be questioned. We know that the set-up costs will be greater, but the levy will be a very small tax in the scheme of things and is therefore potentially inefficient and costly. The recent Government response suggests a 2.7 per cent admin cost. That problem is exacerbated by the uncertainty as to how much tax will be collected, as figures appear to be based on the English model, where there is a very different mix of private and affordable housing.”
“However, the reality is that there is very little link between those paying the levy and those with the cladding problems, so I do not think that that argument holds water. I also question the use of floor space rather than value. Someone buying a very expensive detached house in a smart area will pay the same as someone paying for a bottom-of-the-range mid- terrace property or flat in a poorer area, because the properties are the same size. I accept that floor space is easier to measure, but I think that that approach is less fair and makes the tax somewhat regressive. Therefore, I am very much in agreement with the committee’s recommendation in paragraph 83 that the Government should consider using market value rather than floor space. I note the Government’s response on Tuesday 6 January, arguing against that.”
“However, there are other provisions that I have reservations about, including home owners not having to pay anything. That seems at odds with other products or services that we all buy, whereby the purchaser takes on at least some of the risk under the principle of caveat emptor. I also question the exclusion of hotels. After all, people who stay in hotels tend to be better off, and a few more pounds on their bill would not hurt them. I accept that there may be relatively few large new hotels being built, but every little helps. Therefore, I am not convinced by the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendation in paragraph 112. It says that commercial entities such as hotels are not intended to be covered by the cladding remediation programme.”
“However, in relation to housing funded by local authorities, if we push up the costs of building affordable housing, it ends up being the public purse that has to pay out more grant. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s response to the committee’s report, in which it stated that it wants to “avoid any circularity in public funding”. I very much support the fact that the Scottish Government is using primary legislation rather than the secondary legislation approach that has been taken in England. Other features that are probably acceptable include that the scope of the expenditure covers building safety risks more generally, rather than purely the current cladding issue. The uncertainty over the costs—estimated at £1.7 billion to £3.1 billion—is probably acceptable as well.”
“I also welcome the fact that Revenue Scotland will collect and administer the tax, and that the liability will arise at a later stage compared with England, which will help developers with their cash flow. I agree that not automatically exempting smaller sites is correct, as they could involve high-end properties. Meghan Gallacher: John Mason is talking about exemptions. We have been here before with rent controls. As soon as we start adding exemptions, would it not be more sensible and practical to realise that what we are bringing forward is just not right and that we need to go back to the drawing board? John Mason: I do not understand that point. Every tax has exemptions. Every measure that we take has exemptions. There will always be special cases and exemptions.”
“I personally felt that spreading the costs more widely, for example by an increase in corporation tax, might have been fairer. However, clearly, that is outwith the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That there is opposition to the levy from affected developers is clear. However, we have to remember that almost all businesses oppose almost all taxes, and so we should take some of those objections with a pinch of salt. I welcome a number of features in the bill, including that there can be different rates for different types of land. I would very much agree with any support that we can give to brownfield developments, rather than losing even more ground space, for example around Glasgow. I therefore welcome the assurance that the minister gave the committee that there will be relief for brownfield sites.”
“As the minister said in evidence—[Interruption.] As the minister said in evidence, the order in council that devolved the relevant powers to Scotland is narrowly focused on the building standards process. The Finance and Public Administration Committee heard strong arguments from witnesses that it was unfair to single out developers for the levy when many other businesses had been involved in the cladding problem, including manufacturers of the cladding materials— Willie Rennie: Will the member take an intervention? John Mason: No. I am sorry, but Willie Rennie did not give way to me when I was trying to make a fair point. Stephen Kerr: That is not like you. John Mason: No, it is not like me. Others involved in the cladding problem included architects and local authorities that signed off building warrants.”
“The Government states that the cost of the cladding remediation programme is expected to be somewhere between £1.7 billion and £3.1 billion, which is quite a range of possibilities. If £450 million is to be raised over 15 years, which is optimistic, that is only between 15 and 26 per cent of the costs. It would be better to take the whole of that from general taxation. I accept the point that the process has taken far too long, but it would have been irresponsible to spend the £97 million too quickly. It should be spread over all the buildings that need help and it would have been wrong of the Government to spend it on the first two or three that came along. With the bill, Westminster has painted the Scottish Government and Parliament into something of a corner.”
“As a fiscally responsible Government, we must take those difficult decisions, and we are taking those decisions at a time when the Government is grappling with some of the most challenging financial circumstances since the Parliament was established.”
“I thank the minister for being generous with his time. How would he respond to those who say that not all developers are guilty in the use of cladding and that local authorities, manufacturers and others were involved? Should they not be paying part of the costs? Ivan McKee: I have already indicated that the amount that we are asking developers to pay is a small percentage of the total bill for cladding—I will come on to talk about specific numbers. The public purse will be picking up most of the rest of the cost. I recognise that new tax measures are not popular, particularly with those who will be directly affected by them, but the work of the programme does not come free. No competent alternative funding models have been identified or put forward and no UK-wide solution is forthcoming.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to prevent starvation and suffering among the sheep on St Kilda. (S6O-05339)”
“In our discussion of what the sanction should be, we considered a number of factors with regard to the appropriate period for the exclusion, taking into account the fact that the member was sponsoring a bill. The discussion included consideration of whether there were any mitigations that could be taken into account, and we found none. Therefore, unanimously, we proposed the sanction that appears in the motion today. I urge members to reject the amendment and support the committee’s motion. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s ninth report in 2025. Decision Time 18:02”
“The reason for the reference to the intention to make a complaint is that, as I read out from the session 5 committee’s report, if a member is protected in saying that there is an intention to make a complaint about another member, damage can be done to that member, and they have no ability to answer that without that being in the public domain. Members may have concerns about the actions of other members of this Parliament, and procedures are available and open to them if they wish to pursue those. We received from the complainer a specific complaint about the breach of publicising an intention to make a complaint. The committee concluded that “any objective reading of the letter, covering emails and social media post would be that there was, at the very least, an intention to make a complaint about the conduct of Maggie Chapman”.”
“To put it another way, we need to get things into perspective. Overall, I suggest that we accept that Ash Regan did breach the code. I do not know whether she did so consciously or not, but I suggest that we admonish or reprove her, and do not suspend her. The Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to wind up the debate. 18:00 Martin Whitfield: I thank those who have contributed to this debate. Section 9.1 of the code of conduct, on the enforcement of the rules, states: “Members must not disclose, communicate or discuss any complaint or intention to make a complaint to or with members of the press or other media prior to the lodging of the complaint or during Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the procedure for dealing with complaints”.”
“I will be very brief, Presiding Officer. I have to say that I find this an extremely strange scenario. We have one MSP over there who is seeking to undermine the judicial system of this country, and we have another MSP over here who has made a minor technical breach of the code of conduct. The convener made a couple of interesting comments that jumped out at me. First, he said that “damage could be done”. I suggest to him that such damage could be done by the MSP over there, not by the MSP over here. He also talked about natural justice. Natural justice would do something with the MSP over there, not the MSP over here. So what do we do? We ignore the substantive issue and we jump on a minor breach. That seems to me very much a case of forgetting the spirit of the law and focusing far too much on the letter of the law.”
“I will also not make a general comment in relation to time limits, because we do not yet have that evidence base. However, when we do have the evidence base, the strategic group will provide advice and guidance to ministers on those matters.”
“We have had public inquiries that have gone on for years and years, and I question whether that serves the victims very well. Could the cabinet secretary make a commitment that, if there was to be a public inquiry further down the line, it would be time limited? That is happening with the United Kingdom inquiry, which I believe is for three years. Jenny Gilruth: I think that John Mason pursued that same line of questioning at the Education, Children and Young People Committee this morning, and the costs associated with public inquiries have also been debated by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. As I stated in my response to Katy Clark, the evidence base on the need for further public inquiries has not yet been gathered, so it would not be appropriate for me to rule them out today.”
“It is worth reflecting briefly on the process of the bill and the frustration felt cross party at stage 1 about how the Government interacted with it, but we have moved on significantly from that, and I thank the Government for its engagement at stages 2 and 3. If we had much more of that in the final weeks of the Parliament, there would be far less pressure on our extremely strained legislative timetable. That kind of collegiate working should make it possible for us to get through the remaining bills of the session. However, this will be a huge moment for Scotland’s young people, and I again congratulate Liz Smith, because, when we pass it today, their bill will unlock life-changing opportunities for so many children. It will be a proud moment for our Parliament, and we in the Green group will be proud to vote for it at decision time.”
“It would be too much to hope that the last budget before the election will be the one that achieves a consensus, but, particularly in relation to this bill, there is still a huge amount of work to do in bringing the existing outdoor residential education estate up to the standards that we and those who work in it expect. The capital implications of that will still be really significant, and that is something that members in the next session of the Parliament will have to bear in mind. Today, we are making a commitment that will have on-going costs associated with it, and it will be incumbent on all parties who vote for the bill to engage constructively when it comes to the budget, to ensure that on-going capital allocations are made where required.”
“We have achieved a balance between making reasonable requests of parents who can afford to make a contribution and the importance of avoiding a situation where families whose children have particularly complex additional support needs or families on lower incomes are forced to pay more than would be fair or than they would be capable of. I cannot claim credit in any way, shape or form for having come to the solutions, so I congratulate colleagues, particularly Liz Smith, the minister and John Mason, for having made the relevant amendments to the bill. There is still a need for us to have a wider conversation about local government funding. If we want our young people to have the best start in life, we need to fund it like we mean it.”
“The Finance and Public Administration Committee has raised the issue more widely repeatedly in this parliamentary session. Much of the debate around the specifics of the bill has come back to ensuring that the residential outdoor education experience would be available for young people with additional support needs. They are one particular group of people in our society who are not having their rights consistently fulfilled and respected by our education system, so there is a challenge for us in that regard, which relates very much to the points that John Mason made about cost. Helpful amendments were made at stage 2 and earlier today, to ensure that the cost of the bill is shared equally.”
“I encourage the Government to say that the bill must be the start of that process and that one of the next steps is about reforming the qualifications system to ensure that the full range of subjects is available—I encourage the creation of a natural history qualification—and that we find a way, whether through Professor Hayward’s recommendations or some other means, to formally recognise the kind of meta skills that the residential outdoor education experience can develop; it can have a transformational impact on a young person’s skills in areas such as teamwork and communication. The Parliament has an extensive history—for the entirety of its existence, really—of legislating for rights and entitlements that we then struggle to fulfil.”
“Today, the Parliament will make a clear statement about the value that we place on outdoor education—not just on residential outdoor education but on all outdoor education—and I do not think that our qualifications system has yet caught up with that. There is much more that it can and should do. For example, on specific qualifications, England has recently established GCSE and A-level qualifications in natural history, but we do not yet have an equivalent in Scotland. We have discussed the meta skills that are developed through outdoor education, such as team working and communications skills, but our qualifications system does not yet fully recognise those.”
“I regret that I feel that that is my only option, for the reasons that I have given, and I hope that I am proved wrong. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I call Ross Greer. 17:35 Ross Greer: In my opening speech, I mentioned the value of learning about our natural environment in our natural environment and the knowledge and skills that are accumulated through that. I want to build on that and return to a point that I made to the minister, when she made a statement on the bill in September, I believe. My point was about the need for our qualifications system to catch up.”
“As members will have seen, I asked both the member in charge of the bill and the minister for an estimate of costs, but neither was able to give one. I am somewhat surprised that the Government has agreed to that. It very much goes against the whole principle of financial memorandums, which require the best estimates of all costs. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has not discussed the issue recently, but I feel that this sets a difficult precedent. Although I fully support the intentions of Liz Smith and her bill, I have reservations about voting for such an open-ended blank cheque when it comes to the finances. We are asking for trouble after the election, when a new Government will be faced with demands that it might or might not be able to meet. Therefore, it is my intention to abstain at the final vote.”
“We need to spend £1 today, but where is that £1 going to come from? However, Brian Whittle’s general point is absolutely correct. Paragraph 24 of the supplementary financial memorandum, which deals with costs for parents and carers, says: “the precise cost of the Bill’s provisions on parents and carers is impossible to estimate”. That means that neither is the cost to the Government estimated. No one is asking that the FM or supplementary FM give precise costs, but they should give best estimates. It causes me considerable concern that the bill is not associated with even estimated costs for the Government. We are faced with passing a bill today with no idea of what the costs are likely to be.”
“No additional cost estimate is included for capital improvements to outdoor centres; nor is there any provision for the changing of teachers’ terms and conditions, extra staff cover in schools and similar costs, which the Educational Institute of Scotland and others have raised with us. All that is really dealt with in the supplementary financial memorandum is the effect of amendments at stage 2—which, effectively, is a question of how costs will be shared out, not what they will actually be. Brian Whittle: Does John Mason agree that, in addition, that financial memorandum does not include spend to save over a long period of time and that, if we had started 10 years ago, we would be in a much better position? John Mason: I agree that there is money to save, but it raises the whole question about preventative spend.”
“I was therefore glad that, at stage 2, Liz Smith and the Government agreed on amendments to allow parents to be charged if they could afford to pay all or part of the costs. That has been further refined at stage 3 by the requirement that the Government give guidance on that point. So far, so good. I am considerably less happy about the supplementary financial memorandum, which, I think, we received on Friday 4 April. It does not include any estimate of additional capital expenditure or other costs, which were considered to be too low in the original financial memorandum.”