Seòmar agus comataidhean

As it stands, are we able to say how much of the £26 billion has been spent, or is it unclear?

Who is accountable for making sure that the budgets are followed and that they track everything? You commented that you couldnae see the connection between projects, that you cannot track them and that you struggle to follow projects through because, for example, they change their name. Who would be accountable for that?

Your briefing appears to suggest that the Scottish Government did not fully implement the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland’s recommendation to publish a framework for prioritising projects in its most recent infrastructure investment plan. Do you know why that was?

That is fine. I think that my colleagues will have more questions on that.

My final question is about the infrastructure investment board, which I note plays an important role in providing strategic direction, prioritisation and oversight of infrastructure activity. The executive team is also responsible for reviewing and providing challenge to high-profile or high-value investments. Can you tell us more about how those oversight arrangements work in practice, including how the executive team regularly reviews and challenges high-profile or high-value investments?

On the point about a lack of transparency, is it a political choice—the minister’s choice—not to share that information with us, or is it because the accountable officers havenae got a hold of their accounts?

Are we ever going to be able to track the £11.1 billion that is unaccounted for?

That is fine. In paragraph 11 and 12, you set out the Scottish Government’s oversight arrangements for infrastructure investment and estate management for the administrative buildings of the Scottish Government and its public bodies. However, no similar oversight arrangements are in place for operational buildings. Should that be reviewed by the Scottish Government?

What changes have followed in trauma-informed practice since NES published its guidance on it? What changes have you seen?

A lot of my points have already been covered. I am looking more at the financial side of things. If you do not get the finances to implement the bill, is there a risk that you will not be able to implement it properly? I put that to Laura Buchan first.

I will give a specific example, which is just for the Crown Office. The Crown Office’s victim information and advice service still does not always, in some instances, inform victims of the outcomes of their case, which leaves them feeling as though the justice system has let them down. As an example, it was found in an analysis of the victims’ right to review scheme that some victims who wished to review prosecution decisions were not told of the case outcome in time to ask for a review. Is that not just a case of changing your processes? It does not seem to me that it would cost any money to go and implement that. If you listen to the victims organisations, do you find that there are some things that we could implement straight away?