Chamber and committees

We will, of course, continue to consider such things. The difficulty is that, if I was sitting here with £350 million unallocated in a certain fund, I imagine that there would, understandably, be calls for that money to be deployed in order to avoid some difficult decisions. Given our constraints and lack of fiscal levers, we are in a tight fiscal position. Our preference would, of course, be for that position to change, so that we could build capacity in a reserve or fund for infrastructure investment or particular projects in future years. However, I cannot guarantee that that will be the case, given the outlook that you have described. Whether it is the current UK Government continuing with its fiscal priorities or an alternative Government sticking to similar spending plans, as looks likely, that does not bode well for the Scottish budget being anything other than fiscally tight for some time to come. However, in principle, I do not disagree with what you have said.

It is not us putting additional money into student support, albeit that that would not be a bad thing to do. It is because of that AME.

Given the current climate, it is challenging to disaggregate what the factors are.

Not so far.

No. I cannot account for journalists picking up on particular figures, and I cannot reconcile that with the budget figures. I am not clear where that figure has come from, to be honest.

I take your point. In an ideal world, where there would be no need to plug gaps in day-to-day spend, I can see the appeal of building a sovereign wealth fund with money from ScotWind. The Scottish Government raised £756 million through the ScotWind auction, which is not an unsubstantial amount of money. However, in order to sustain public services, we had no option but to use all the tools at our disposal, including the deployment of funding that has been made available from ScotWind revenues.

Had our budgets been in a different position, perhaps different decisions could have been made. However, the resource spending review allocates £310 million for use in 2023-24 and £350 million for use in 2024-25. There are requirements to bring forward some of that funding into 2023-24 because of the budgetary position. Without that, some of the difficult decisions that we would have had to make, beyond the ones that we already have made, would have been even more profound.

That we are having to utilise those resources in that way shows the limitations of our devolved fiscal powers. We absolutely recognise the importance of offshore wind, which is why the budget kick-starts the commitment of up to £500 million to anchor a new offshore wind supply chain in Scotland. We recognise that there is a potential longevity of benefit from those investments, but, because of the position of public finances, we have had very little option other than to utilise that money.

I do not foresee there being much change in how the delivery and business models that are used by housing associations and local authorities work. We are talking about how, in addition to that, we might be able to lever in private investment by using an attractive enough business model that involves a guaranteed revenue stream, which will de-risk to some extent, and that adds value to what our social housing partners deliver. That is what is being looked at.

I cannot give you a figure, because the metrics are being looked at at the moment. It is very difficult to do that work without knowing what the spring budget will bring, because that budget could have an impact on our spending assumptions. Given that pay accounts for a large part of our spending assumptions, the spring budget will be material to what can be delivered.

We also need to take inflation into account. It is predicted that inflation will go to 3 per cent or below, and we will take cognisance of such factors.

The fact that, with high inflation and the cost of living pressures, we have supported pay deals to a larger extent than has been the case anywhere else in these islands, by trying to settle and avoid costly industrial action, is, I hope, not disputed. However, that has come at a cost to the in-year budget compared with the published budgets for last year and the year before. We have gone £900 million beyond what was budgeted for. That is a huge cost. In a year of constrained finances, getting the pay metrics right will be critical to the affordability of our budget.

That is a fair question and we will certainly reflect on it. I guess that there could well have been a PPP cost associated with the NHS budget line, if it was disaggregated. Alison Cumming might have something to add about why the presentation is different.

Some of that will involve the Scottish Government making decisions about the requirements for its estate, and some aspects will be more rapid, as decisions need to be made on extensions to leases and so on. Without a doubt, there is now a sharp focus on the need for buildings in the light of people working in different ways and the need to meet net zero criteria. What buildings will be required over the next five to 10 years and beyond?

There is a further opportunity here. Where in particular are there opportunities for co-location or repurposing? Discussions are taking place in that regard, particularly in relation to our city environments. Local authorities have a key role in that, given their asset bases, their requirements to meet net zero targets and the changes to working patterns.

There is a prize here. There are measures that can save money, and a more appropriate and efficient set of buildings and assets can be provided that can deliver a better environment for the staff who work in them and a better service to the public.