³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

Let me address that directly. The analyses from the SFC and the Scottish Government forecast a significant reduction in our available capital funding over the medium term. The figures cover different time periods and include different assumptions. The SFC analysis forecasts up to 2028-29 and the Scottish Government analysis forecasts up to 2027-28, and the SFC analysis includes assumptions about our capital borrowing policy and financial transactions that are not included in the Scottish Government analysis. The difference between the figures comes from what is included. I would be happy to provide more information if that would be helpful.

Using the same assumptions as the Scottish Government, the SFC analysis shows an 11 per cent real-terms reduction in our capital block grant over six years, as opposed to a reduction of almost 10 per cent over five years. If you take into account the capital borrowing policy and the FTs, that is the difference. It will depend on future decisions about capital borrowing that have not yet been made. The SFC has made assumptions that may well change when we get to that position.

It is partly due to the fall in financial transactions. If you look at CDEL—capital departmental expenditure limit—alone, you will see that there is a 13 per cent reduction, which is not great, but given the reduction in the capital budget of 10 per cent, the fall in financial transactions, which have traditionally bolstered the housing budget, is one of the major challenges and has been an additional difficulty. Of course, there are very few areas in which we can deploy financial transactions. Housing has traditionally been one of them, but we cannot use FTs in other areas of capital investment in the same way. Because they have gone off a cliff, in many ways, the housing budget has been disproportionately impacted.

We had to make a decision on the Scottish National Investment Bank, which is the other recipient of financial transactions. To keep SNIB sustained, we made the difficult decision to deploy the £176 million in FTs to SNIB. As I said, should we find ourselves in a better position on capital budgets going forward, or if we get a better position through the spring budget, the housing budget would of course be the number 1 priority.

Some of the other investments that you have referred to have been particular to projects that have been required in policing and in the area of digital connectivity. We all understand the importance to a number of areas of government and public life of investing in digital capability. Given that the budgets that are available to us are reduced on the resource and the capital side, the easy part is to find areas of budget impact; the more difficult part is to put forward a different set of propositions and choices. We have tried to prioritise on the basis of the budgets that are available, and we have had to make difficult choices to do that. However, part of the budget scrutiny process is to hear alternative propositions.

The council tax freeze was designed as a lever to try to help relieve the pressure that household budgets continue to be under. I said at the outset that it is important to try to deliver a balanced budget that recognises the needs of households, public services and business. We have the lowest poundage in the UK for the sixth year running. I contend that, in difficult circumstances, we have delivered a budget that is balanced and that is very different from that of the UK Government budget, which is almost exclusively in favour of tax cuts at the expense of public services.

The council tax freeze is one lever through which we can help to support household budgets. The figure is based on an increase of circa 5 per cent. By looking at what the projected increases were and taking an average, we landed in that space. It is not far off the analysis by the Fraser of Allander Institute, once we take out the multiplier effect—which we are not pursuing in the light of the lack of support for it among local government—which accounts for about £188 million in its analysis. Once that is taken out of the Fraser of Allander Institute figure, what we are left with is not far off the £144 million—I think it is £148 million.

Over the next few weeks, I will continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities what the process will be for local government to access that £144 million.