Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, and, as I said in reference to Creative Scotland, we have committed to the reinstatement of funding in future budgets that we have not been able to provide in the autumn budget revision.

I want to highlight how that £2 million has been generated. There has been delivery of greater income streams through higher marine licensing fees. There are also more shared service arrangements and collaborative working, as part of a range of efficiency measures. That saving has been generated in a number of ways.

More generally, the decisions that we have to take as part of the budget revision process reflect changes that are taking place in-year. Indeed, the context in which all budget decisions will have to be taken is incredibly challenging—not just for the Scottish Government, but for the other devolved Administrations, too. It is among the most challenging since the reconvening of this Parliament nearly a quarter of a century ago. That means that we have to take difficult decisions to ensure that we can deliver our key priorities and meet the demands that emerge in-year, as I touched on, and to ensure that we can again deliver a balanced budget, as we have done consistently, previously.

That is why I referred to our consideration of the presentation of the budget and why we have to take cognisance of the Verity house agreement as well.

Our approach is not to set exact numbers or particular targets; the clear focus is on recognising the need to deliver services more efficiently, which means more shared services, more collaboration, and working across administrative and organisational boundaries. It also means looking at the disposition of our estate. All of those factors are in play, but key to this is a real focus on delivery and on ensuring that our public services do not just deliver services to meet the needs of people but are very much focused on a preventative agenda.

I recognise the committee’s interest in medium to longer-term fiscal sustainability, and opportunities to increase revenue—whether through tax or, in the medium term, economic growth—are going to be key. However, we know that we cannot meet that demand simply from increased revenue alone; we have to look at how we prevent that demand and avoid the risk of further demand emerging. It is about looking at how we reform our public services not just to meet the fiscal challenges that we face in the here and now but to deliver a more efficient and effective service that is focused on the preventative agenda. Embracing that approach is not about setting ourselves definite numbers for headcounts; instead, it is focused on those particular priorities and ensuring that we have a workforce that can meet that particular requirement.

As ever, convener, those are fair and reasonable points. I previously set out in committee the rationale for the approach that you touched on in your question. In the context of the discussions that officials have been having with the committee, we are considering those points in detail in order to meet the ambition for improved transparency as part of our deliberations ahead of the budget for the forthcoming financial year. That is under active consideration and it is being done in the context of the Verity house agreement, given that a number of transfers to local government take place. It is very much a live issue, to which we are giving active consideration.

Clearly, we would not want to do anything to unintentionally harm transparency, but the points that you make are fair and we are considering how we can address those matters and how that will inform the presentation of the forthcoming 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.

With regard to returns to the centre, there is no unallocated funding, as Niall Caldwell has said. That overall position supports everything that is set out in allocations. Clearly, though, the majority of funding allocated in the ABR is to support local government pay, including the teachers’ pay settlement.