���˿���

As I say, it is a function of the environment that we operate in. The alternative would be that we had come to committee in the autumn, earlier in the financial year, before those numbers were published, and said, “We expect to get £1.43 billion from the UK Government and we’re going to operate based on the consequences of that. We won’t make any changes in the budget—we won’t cut anything or impose any controls—as we assume that all that money will come flowing down the track.” If that had not happened, it would have been too late in the financial year to take steps on it.

As I say, the reason why these things move is not because there is a lack of policy coherence but because we need to operate in an environment in which there are many substantial unknowns. You asked what the central planning assumption was. We expected to get a number, but there is a huge variation around that. It always operates within a range. We said that the £1.4 billion was at the top end of what we expected that range to be and the range that we planned within. However, there is a huge variation and it could have been a much smaller number. If it had been, we would have had to put measures in place to react to that. If we were in a position where we did not have the borrowing constraints that we have because we are a devolved Administration, we would have been able to take a more stable view throughout the year and deal with the matter in a very different way.

Okay. I will see what we have and send it on to you.

We can endeavour to find the answer to that question if you are interested, convener—absolutely. However, the inquiries are independent and the cost base is driven by the activities that are undertaken by each inquiry.

The issue of how inquiries are budgeted for has been raised previously, but the Government’s position is that we respond to the costs that are incurred by the inquiry.

This is about ensuring value for money, too. The physics of projects does not respect year ends; projects move forward and continue. People do not stop work at year end and then restart—the project continues right through. When it comes to matching up the finances, we need to move the money from one year to the next through the process of bringing it back in and then allocating it back out again.

Work is done on that, but, as I have said, these projects need to go through a process. If there is slippage on a big project, which is where the bulk of the money goes, you will need another big project that might or might not be moving faster. All of that gets balanced at that level, and then we make the calculation based on what the capital borrowing will be and what the capital budget is for the following year to ensure that those projects continue. However, you need to look at that sort of thing in, if you like, slower time and ensure that you have a rigorous process for getting the capital projects lined up, prioritised, funded and budgeted for, and then launched. Grabbing at projects at short notice is not the optimal or most cost-efficient way of doing that.

There is a specific issue with health. Health had been able to release that money from the budget this year, and we want to move it through into next year. We have identified that funding specifically, as part of the overall number. It can be moved into the next financial year to support what will, as always, be a challenging year for health budgets as we move into 2025-26.

Absolutely. I would expect the private sector cost to be higher, but we will come back to you with the numbers. As you said, that spending is a consequence of the broader issue around prison numbers.

On the dynamics of pay negotiations, I am sure that you are very well aware of how those operate and that understanding how they are going to play out involves setting expectations. It is an environment in which information that is in the public domain can impact where the negotiations land. It is important that that is taken into account when we are going through that process.

The point that is coming through from your questions is that there are a huge number of variables and it all comes back to the fact that the Scottish Government has to balance its budget at the year end. We have to manage all the variables in a way that allows us to do that.

I thought that that would pique your interest, convener.

As I said, a number of inquiries are running, including others that we have not mentioned. I looked at the annual and total costs with officials this morning. We can provide the committee with information on their total cost to date, the annual costs, their projected costs and the budget for them going forward.

As has been indicated, the inquiries are given independence to operate, and we are less focused on them than on other areas in which we may be able to drive more immediate results. To be honest, there is probably a broader issue around proceeding with inquiries in a way that recognises their budgetary implications, which clearly arise at the point at which the Parliament makes a decision on them.