Seòmar agus comataidhean

As part of the progress that we are making towards the fiscal framework, there are things to do with baselining, for example, that reflect the opportunity that we have through that direct relationship between the Scottish Government and local government.

Of course, as has been touched on, the broader context in which we operate is determined by the UK Government. I know that issues such as multiyear funding settlements are routinely raised by committees and members across Parliament, but, again, the challenges that we face will ultimately come down to decisions taken by the UK Government. We have been through what has been, economically and fiscally, a quite volatile period, but in the context of a politically quite volatile period for the UK Parliament and Government, with changes of personnel at the most senior levels. Again, that creates challenges, and there will always have to be a degree of realism about what can actually be achieved.

It is important to remember that, notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s aspirations around Scotland’s constitutional future, ours is ultimately a devolved Government within the United Kingdom, and the decisions taken by the UK Government will be predominant in the context within which we operate. Any of the work that we seek to carry out as part of our relationship with local government, and indeed with other partners, must always be cognisant of that context within which we operate. The level of discretion and autonomy that is available to an independent state is not available to the Scottish Government as a devolved Administration. That is not a political point—I am just stating the facts of the matter.

I come back to the earlier point that improving the way in which decisions are taken within the United Kingdom, the amount of information that is provided and the timelines would be in the interests of the Scottish Government and, indeed, our counterpart devolved Administrations.

Let me take that away and speak to pensions officials about it, because I do not want to give you an off-the-cuff answer. I would rather consider it in more detail. If you are happy for me to do it, I will speak to pensions officials, write back to you directly and copy the committee into that correspondence.

Indeed.

That is interesting, because one of the things that has emerged in previous years is a question about provisional outturn and why money was not spent in the previous year. It will be spent; it will have been carried forward. If we were to spend money in March rather than in April, just for the sake of it, that would be quite inefficient. That would be allocation of capital and resource spending simply for presentational purposes when the accounts are published. That is, obviously, something that we avoid.

Particularly during the pandemic, we sometimes had significant funding through consequentials coming late, which posed challenges. For example, we saw higher amounts in the reserve being carried forward. All of that was discretionary spend; all of it was applied and no discretionary spend was lost.

You made a point about not having certainty; of course, that leads to challenges. I recognise the committee’s particular interest in public service reform and I know that you are very engaged on that. Is what happens the optimal, efficient and effective way to manage the wider UK finances between the UK Government and devolved Administrations? I do not think so. I am not here to criticise; I think that the matter is worthy of further consideration.

If the committee has views on that, I will, as I said, be very keen to engage, because I feel that there must be a better way to do things. I recognise there could be trade-offs and that there can be benefits from other approaches—which might also come with particular challenges. I note the particular points about having to manage our in-year position with the tight constraints on what we can carry forward and late provision of information. That is obviously not the case only for the Scottish Government—it will be the case for all the devolved Administrations, and in the relationships between the Treasury and other Whitehall departments. It is a broader issue that ultimately reflects the fact that we are still in the position of the process being driven by the UK Government’s approach.

It is certainly an important observation. However, of course, the policy of landfill tax sits as part of a broader suite of objectives aimed at achieving a circular economy, which I know that the committee has been taking a keen interest in. I am conscious that, more broadly, the committee will be beginning its scrutiny of the Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill, which I am looking forward to engaging with you on.

I appreciate that position, convener. It is something that we will take away to consider.

I do not have that information available, convener.

As the committee will be aware, we continue to face challenging economic circumstances. Continued inflationary pressures, particularly around public sector pay, have put real pressure on the Scottish budget over the course of the financial year. Despite some improvement in the overall funding position since the autumn budget revision, managing the impact of pay deals within the overall position has been challenging. Reprioritisation of budgets has been necessary due to continued inflationary pressures, including on public sector pay, and to support priority areas, including the on-going funding for Ukrainian displaced people.

In her letter to the committee from November, ahead of the United Kingdom autumn fiscal event, the Deputy First Minister set out the tough choices that the Scottish Government has been required to make to ensure that we can achieve a balanced budget. The spring budget revision shows the outcome of those tough choices being actioned.

The spring budget revision provides the final opportunity to formally amend the Scottish budget for 2023-24 and contains the usual four categories of changes. The net funding changes increase the budget by £546.8 million. These changes include: providing £750.8 million to health to support services, fund pay rises and provide support as it continues to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic; £134 million to police and fire pensions; £51.8 million net to social security benefit expenditure; and £41.2 million to the Ukrainian resettlement scheme. To help fund these priority areas, it has been necessary to reprioritise budgets in the way in which the Deputy First Minister outlined. The technical, Whitehall and internal transfers are presented in the document in the usual way.

There are some extremely large technical adjustments included within the spring budget revision. These include a £3.1 billion decrease in the annually managed expenditure budget requirement for national health service and teachers’ pensions, and a £735 million increase in the non-cash budget cover required for student loans. From our previous discussions, I know that the committee is aware that those changes do not impact the Scottish Government’s discretionary spending power. The adjustments reflect latest estimates and are used to set the final budgets that outturn is reported against in the annual accounts. They are required to limit material differences being reported against the budget totals and accounts and try to avoid the confusion around underspends that emerged in previous discussions in Parliament.

The supporting document to the spring budget revision and the finance update prepared by my officials provide further background on the net changes, as well as updates on information requested by the committee.

We are all familiar with the rules that govern these inquiries and their autonomy and independence.

When inquiries are established and in train, we of course comply with the legislative requirements .