³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I very much welcome that. This is a shared endeavour to ensure that we have as much transparency as possible, consistency of messaging and understanding of what the numbers actually say, so that a substantive debate can take place on whether the allocations are aligned with people’s priorities.

Transparency is a priority for us. The IFRS 16 issue throws up a particular example of the challenges that can be posed in that context. I am conscious that, with transparency, there is a need to ensure that we get the balance right. An overprovision of information, although well intentioned, can add to the complexity and make it more challenging for the budget to be understood and comprehended more widely. Similarly, insufficient information being provided presents a challenge on transparency. We are trying to ensure that we present the figures in a way that they can be intuitively and innately grasped and in a way that is fair and representative. I recognise that there is complexity.

Niall, I do not know whether you want to say something about some of the challenges posed by the IFRS 16 technical adjustments and the issues around presentation and transparency.

That was a very well-crafted question, because you probably anticipated many of my answers in your preamble.

Certainly, we wish to be able to provide as much information as possible. We have to recognise that there is a need for proportionality. I appreciate your recognising the points on the potential unintended consequences of overprovision. We are looking at other provisions around transparency such as COFOG, the classification of the functions of Government. I am keen to ensure that we provide information that is as useful as possible for Parliament and the wider public.

Niall, can you touch on where we are on the level of detail that we can go into on our current provision on outturn?

That is an important point. First, as I have said previously, the nature of such budgets is that they are demand-led, as you have highlighted, and volatile, given the flexibilities that exist around retirement options. That is why, historically, that has been something that we have sought to manage in-year. In this particular instance, it is just in police pensions that a transfer has taken place. The total allocated to date for police pensions is £335 million.

Is that question specifically on the agriculture reform line—the £4 million?

What you are seeing is a reflection of the very challenging fiscal environment that we are in. You referred to Creative Scotland. We have committed to reinstate that funding in future years, and the First Minister has made a broader commitment to increase spending in culture and the creative sector by £100 million over the next five years. Of course, we do not want to find ourselves again in a situation that is as challenging as this one is. We have to ensure that we are able to fully fund our priorities, to meet demands that emerge in-year, such as public sector pay settlements and, of course, to ensure that we are in a position to balance the budget.

Owing to its being demand-led, we have seen the significant popularity of the supersponsor scheme in Scotland. As of early October, some 25,000 people displaced from Ukraine have arrived in the UK with sponsorship from an individual in Scotland or from the Scottish Government, with 20,000 of those arriving under the supersponsor scheme. The additional funding takes the total funding for this year up to in excess of £100 million. Combined with the funding provided last year, it totals over £300 million to date.

However, as a recent position paper published in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Refugee Council sets out, we are now in the new position of pivoting from that emergency response to taking a longer-term holistic approach.

There is a recognition of the need for dedicated provision of support for people who are rebuilding their lives—for example, that could be support for people to gain employment, access public services, including benefits, and, indeed, access long-term housing. Working in partnership with local government and the third sector, we have a continued commitment to provide that support.

Yes. It goes back to the spending review in 2021-22, and it meant that we had been receiving less than we were due. That error has now been rectified.

Is there anything that you want to add, Craig?

We have sought to support public sector pay in a way that is commensurate with the scale of the challenge that we face with the inflationary pressures. Thankfully, we have seen some signs of inflation beginning to fall, which clearly will create a different economic and fiscal context for future rounds of negotiations. However, I entirely agree with the implicit point in your question, Ms Smith: this has created exceptional in-year pressures, and those pressures will have to be carried forward. We are giving very careful consideration to that in our spending plans for the next financial year.