Chamber and committees

Ms Stafford, where are you getting the 8.7 per cent figure from? What is it made up of? The briefing that we have from the Auditor General forecasts that it will be 7 per cent, and we have heard other individuals talk about 10 per cent. You have today mentioned 8.7 per cent, which is a new figure. What levels of future inflation are you basing that on, based on the latest revised inflationary rates?

In other words, it is a moving feast. If and when inflation reduces, that number reduces, and it has already reduced substantially in the past few days. Is there a possibility that the 8.7 per cent figure could become 5 or 4 or 3 per cent?

We do, and it is certainly moving in the right direction, which is positive. However, it perhaps raises a wider question. I presume that, when a lot of projects were budgeted for in the first place, we were in a different world, where inflation was extremely low and interest rates were almost non-existent, at towards 0 per cent. When the Scottish Government’s various directorates were forecasting the costs of large infrastructure projects, to what extent were they budgeting for a potential rise in interest rates? In other words, was the total cost of a project based on the interest rates that existed at the time? Might it have been more prudent to factor in any potential rise in interest rates, knowing that there was a possibility that they could increase? Where do we sit against that? How realistic were those forecasts?

The consequentials could be used in that way. Have you had a discussion with ministers about that?

Before you do that, other members might want to speak about specific projects, which would give you an opportunity to elicit some of the detail.

I presume that, when you were looking at overall budgets five to 10 years ago, at the conception stage, buffer zones would have been introduced to cover potential rises in costs or inflationary costs—those could be rises associated with pure inflation or other associated rises. However, it seems that all the headroom has gone completely, and that that is the reason why you are now making prioritisation choices as opposed to wondering how to pay for things that have already been committed to.

Let us face it: very few large-scale infrastructure projects come in under budget, and all governments suffer from things tending to overreach massively. It is a common problem.

However, I want to work out what on earth the Scottish Government will do next when choosing where to spend its money. It had a £5.9 billion capital budget last year. Although, arguably, that will reduce over the coming years, it is still a substantial amount of money, but it is clearly not enough to complete the projects that have hitherto been committed to.

The Auditor General was critical that it is unclear how the Government chooses to prioritise infrastructure spending. What process will the Government go through to decide whether to replace a prison or to build a national treatment centre, for example? There are clearly competing calls for both, depending on which objectives it is trying to meet.

So will nothing be built at all?

I am sure that we can delve into that further. That is a worrying response.

On the capital maintenance backlog, the one thing that struck me as really concerning is in paragraph 26 on page 18 of the Auditor General’s briefing paper:

“The Scottish Government cannot currently provide an overall figure for the level of capital maintenance backlog across the Scottish estate.”

Is that because the information is not available or because the number is available but is just too scary? We know, for example, that the national health service backlog is over £1 billion, and I have heard figures of around £500 million for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I am sure that there are figures for the prisons, the police estate and the courts. That is before we even take into account things such as uncovering reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—in buildings, which is still happening almost weekly.

Are we looking down the barrel of a complete disaster in maintenance backlogs with which we will never be able to catch up? That is perhaps a question for Ms Stafford.

Have you been able to—or have you had to—quantify the financial effect of the Bute house agreement commitments on previous capital commitments? In other words, have you been able to calculate the cost of meeting different objectives—inclusive growth, wellbeing or other net zero objectives—that did not exist when the projects were initially costed? Have you been able to calculate the cost of those changes in government?

Before I go on to maintenance, I want to give Mr Morrison the chance to say something. I am sure that he did not want to get out of bed early for nothing.

I have a specific question, Mr Morrison. I believe that you are in charge of health infrastructure investment. Will you give us some comfort that the remaining six of the promised 11 national treatment centres will go ahead? The briefing paper from Audit Scotland sheds some doubt on whether that is the case.