Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we spending less on front-line health provision? That is the fundamental question. Is it all explained by that transfer? What are the implications in particular for the regional health boards and other front-line provision in the health budget? That is the fundamental question that I am asking. Are those figures in line with the budget, or are they up or down?

Is that the projected cost to complete them, or is that the spend to date?

That would be helpful.

As I look at all these areas, I am thinking about the biggest concern that people have about their domestic budgets, which is heating bills. There are reductions to the net zero budget lines, which, ultimately, provide funding for things such as insulation and retrofitting. People might be surprised that there is a lack of demand for those things. I do not dispute that that is the case, but, if we look at the programmes that those budget lines fund, we see that expenditure on them and demand for them have been on the decline year on year since they were launched. If there is a lack of demand for those programmes, does that not raise the question whether the programmes have been designed correctly? There should surely be increasing demand. Judging by my mailbag, my constituents are hugely concerned about how they can insulate their homes and control their heating bills in future years. Is there an issue around delivery or the design of the funds if there is a lack of demand for the programmes?

I wish to clarify one point. Is it that the level of applications for the funds has declined, or is it that the level of approvals has fallen?

Thank you very much.

Again, we are talking about a financial year that, in your own estimation, will be incredibly tight. Therefore, understanding how the Government is controlling costs is important. We might be talking about a relatively small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but such things add up. However, if you are not willing to go into it any further, I will be happy to move on.

I am interested in understanding the risks and the parameters of this budget. There is a great deal of unpredictability. Again, wearing one of my previous hats, I always look at a budget in terms of fixed and variable costs—those that are under our control and those that are beyond it. I have questions on payroll and also on energy and material costs. Very approximately, of the £45 billion of resource spending in the budget, around half—£21 billion, I believe—is going on payroll costs. Do you anticipate that that figure will go up or down in the coming year?

In addition, no public sector pay policy accompanies what we are looking at. I would like to understand whether the £10.50 pay floor that was introduced with the most recent pay policy will continue—or, indeed, increase—in the coming financial year.

I apologise for being very technical, but those are significant organisational and budgetary exposures. Those aspects could be overlooked, so that is of interest the committee, given its remit.

I have one final question; I am happy for you to get back to the committee on it, as I do not expect you to have this information to hand. One of the key points in your introductory remarks was the number of demand-led budget lines being a source of uncertainty. Do you have a global figure for the proportion of the Scottish Government budget that is demand led?

The committee having an understanding of the risk profile and uncertainty would be helpful—thank you very much.

I understand that any financial memorandum is stated broadly. Members are used to such memorandums not necessarily turning out to be 100 per cent accurate, if I might put it that way. However, it strikes me that the memorandum to the bill was published only six months ago or thereabouts. It implied that there would be costs not just in the coming financial year but in the current one of not insignificant amounts. However, you are now saying that the amount that will be spent is almost 50 per cent of the upper end of the range; it will certainly be lower than the lower end of that range. It just strikes me that—