³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

As you will be aware, the chief executive officer of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Ltd provided an update on costings in his letter to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in September 2022. He advised that a further £80.6 million net of warranties would be required to complete both vessels, compared with the budget of £122 million net of warranties that was set out to the Parliament by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy on 23 March last year. That will take the total cost to build the ferries since Ferguson Marine came into public ownership to £202.6 million, inclusive of £6.2 million of contingency costs. The figure of £202.6 million includes the £57.6 million of capital funding that is included in the 2023-24 budget.

Yes, I am happy to provide that. Speaking generally, the committee is aware of the reprofiling and transfers that take place across the entire budget in response to changing circumstances and demand-led schemes, which are reflected in the budget revision process. I recognise that the autumn budget revision process is some time away yet and that there is a desire for information to be provided just now. I will endeavour to provide as much clarity as I can in response to the points that you have made.

There is a recognition—from both the ABR and the SBR, and following the lower-than-anticipated demand—that the points that you highlight are pertinent. That is why work has been undertaken on project management, to help to ensure that there is a pipeline of projects, going forward, and to ensure that the schemes can be more effective at delivering the outcomes that they are intended to achieve. We recognise, of course, that many factors will impact on demand, including those with which we are familiar, such as supply chains, workforce and materials. We are alive to those issues, however, and work is under way in the relevant division to address them.

I ask Niall Caldwell to respond to that question, if that is okay.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give you that information, but I will endeavour to write to the committee on that.

I have not had any direct discussions with ministerial colleagues or officials on any potential release of funding due to a rephasing of the timing of the stages of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. However, I am happy to explore whether colleagues have had such discussions and, if they have, to ensure that the committee is kept informed of the details.

We have to operate within accounting standards, which means operating within and being consistent with the UK fiscal framework. Perhaps Niall Caldwell can explain some of the detail.

I think that the most recent review is taking place right now. This is an on-going learning process. The cabinet secretary, Kate Forbes, and I, in my role as public finance minister, have both been strongly committed to seeking to provide as much information as possible to the finance committee and to Parliament to assist in scrutiny and understanding.

However, this is an iterative process. I recognise that having these twice-yearly budget revision events might be insufficient to progress the type of change that we want to see in presentation as quickly as we would like. It might be useful for dialogue to take place with the finance committee, perhaps along with one of the budget review sessions, to consider that more formally.

I appreciate that it is for the committee to determine its own work programme, but if the committee has any more general reflections on having something beyond a specific presentation of a specific spring or autumn budget revision, I would be keen to hear them. Transparency and engagement are at the heart of not just our framework for tax but how we want to go about the business of ensuring that Parliament can come to decisions based upon the most accurate information possible, which is as easy to grasp as possible. A priority for me is trying to ensure that members of the public have the fullest understanding without having to wade through dozens and dozens of pages of dense, technical language and a lot of numbers.

It is an open invitation—I am keen to have that engagement, because it is very important. There are a lot of things that we have drawn out in this session. I recognise that members take a keen interest in specific budget lines and it can be difficult to give the authoritative answers that I would like to be able to give, given the breadth of possible questions that may arise.

I recognise the points that the convener, Mr Gibson, has made with regard to different aspects of the budget—discretionary and non-discretionary—and the points that Mr Johnson has raised with regard to presentation relative to the last budget revision, compared with the budget as passed by Parliament.

We can draw a number of things from this meeting. I would be keen to have an on-going dialogue about how we can improve the presentation.

This may sound as if I am shifting that position, which I do not mean it to, but the Government has to decide how much information to provide. We do not want to overload you, because we appreciate that you have many other things to consider. We could give you 50, 100 or 150 pages, but that would become more challenging and would probably raise suspicion about what is in there that might be missed.

I am keen to have that dialogue to understand what would be best for the committee and what would assist you as custodians of the Parliament’s responsibility for financial scrutiny, and I am keen to work collaboratively to deliver a better product for you, Parliament and the public to utilise.

I have two points. First, the forecasts that we operate within are a matter for the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which is directly accountable to Parliament. I understand, Ms Thomson, that you are asking about the processes and methodology that inform our in-year budget monitoring and how we go about that. This is axiomatic: if there are new and novel spending lines, or if new taxes are devolved, it will take some time to get a sense of how any estimates and forecasts are borne out by reality. That is something for the SFC to consider when new taxes are devolved.

Internal processes for in-year budget monitoring are led by officials. Niall Caldwell can give an overview of how continuous learning takes place.

Good morning. My sincere apologies for my delay in arriving, and my sincere thanks to the committee for being so accommodating.

The spring budget revision provides the final opportunity to formally amend the Scottish budget for 2022-23. It contains the usual four categories of changes. The funding changes increase the budget by £502.3 million. They include the provision of £427 million to health and £200 million to Ukrainian resettlement.

As usual, there are a number of technical adjustments, Whitehall transfers and transfer of funds between portfolios. The supporting document to the spring budget revision, and the finance update that was prepared by my officials, provide background on the net changes. It is necessary to reflect those adjustments to ensure that the budget is consistent with the accounting requirements and with the final outturn that will be reported in our annual accounts.

However, there are a number of differences between how expenditure is classified for the Scottish budget and how it is classified by HM Treasury—which, ultimately, governs how we deploy our discretionary resources. The finance update provides some more detail on those differences, on the movements in funding since the spring budget revision was laid in the Parliament, and on the wider fiscal context in which we have to operate. It includes an annex that details how our resource borrowing limits are calculated.

I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.