Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have been working on this for many months. Particularly over the summer, we have been working more intensively in meetings and discussions, some of which have been at official level—Richard McCallum might want to say a bit more on that—but I have had direct bilateral meetings with colleagues on shaping priorities in relation to resource and capital. Therefore, yes, that level of detail has been discussed.

We are not a pacifist Government at all. We believe that we should have spending on defence in the right areas, securing Scottish jobs. There are concerns about any defence companies that might have interests in weapons that find their way into areas that we would, I presume, not be too happy about and are concerned about—I am thinking about the position in Gaza at the moment.

There are areas to be differentiated, but the example that you used of Norwegian vessels is the sort of area where we would want growth in defence.

I think that we have already said that. At the time when that measure was announced, we recognised that there would need to be an increase in defence spending on the right things. Our contention is that some of it is not on the right things. You could swap out the huge, eye-watering projected spend on nuclear weapons and spend that on defence forces.

The point that I was making is that the average increase for UK departments is across all departments. The increase for Scotland was much less, at 0.8 per cent. That is also lower compared to Wales, for example. It depends on the configuration of where spend in departments has gone up or down.

We have never said that we will not countenance strike action.

We have seen industrial action in local government previously, and it was costly and disruptive. We need to see where inflation lands first. We have to do this in a context where inflation is predicted. However, it is not a science, and we can see the impact of inflation not going down as quickly as was predicted. That has an impact on negotiations straight away. When we set our pay policy, as the UK Government has done, we set it with the best information that we have at the time. We cannot predict where inflation is actually going to go; we can only rely on OBR forecasts and so on. Therefore, there has to be some flexibility.

In reality, I think that where we have got to with pay deals is better than where we have been previously. That is because of some three-year and, in the main, two-year deals. They give us some space and some certainty for the next two years, during which we can spend the time talking about other things.

I think that we should have fair pay, and I think that in Scotland, through reaching deals with our workforces, we have avoided some of the costly industrial action that there has been in the health service down south, for example, where the costs to the system and the impact on patients have been very disruptive indeed. We wanted to avoid that.

Where possible, though, we want to link pay to reform. A lot of our discussions have been about getting to a place of willingness to look at roles and responsibilities. The agenda for change negotiations have been very complex, but they have given us the option to look at reform. Some of that has been linked to contracts, the working week and so on.

I am not setting out with an ambition to have higher rates of pay in Scotland for the next decade on a point of principle. However, I think that the investment that we have made in public sector pay has managed to avoid a lot of costly industrial action. That investment has to be affordable, though, and there is a trade-off between pay and head count, without a doubt. There is a need for us to manage the size of the public sector to a place where it is affordable in the long run, and the need for us to make changes there is why we have set out the plans that we have set out.

We have set out in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan a five-year horizon for closing the £2.6 billion gap. As I alluded to earlier, that figure predated the welfare changes—the very welcome U-turns by the UK Government on welfare—which will bring the gap down by a significant amount, but we cannot confirm that amount until autumn. I will probably update the committee in due course about what we are looking at in that respect.

The five-year fiscal sustainability delivery plan sets out how that will be. The spending review will have to have synergy with that in order to be able to set out the spending envelopes that will be in tandem with that plan. Of course, within the spending envelopes, there will be changes—for example, changes to the prioritisation of front-line services and reductions in administration costs—but all of that will take place within the spending envelopes. The spending envelopes will not reduce, but what is done within that spend will change to put them on a sustainable footing, if that makes sense.

Essentially, you will see where the priorities are in terms of the envelopes and growth of funding. We will clearly set out our priorities within that. We will do that for resource, and we will also set out our capital plans in the infrastructure investment pipeline. All of that will be set out.

We are keen to give as much certainty to stakeholders as we can by using that multiyear horizon. As I have said in the committee before, certainty of funding is sometimes as important as the quantum, so we will set out as much detail as we can. We are considering the level of detail that will be provided; we want to provide an appropriate level.

The only other thing that I would add is that we also need to say what might emerge in the autumn budget. We can set out what we are able to at that point, but external events can have a very disruptive impact. I do not think that there has ever been a set of UK spending review spending plans that was delivered, so I give the caveat that what we set out will be based on the information that we have at the time.

A lot of the defence expenditure was in capital spending, not resource spending. I am talking about day-to-day resource spending, which is where the figure of 0.8 per cent compared with 1.5 per cent for UK departments comes from. I am talking about resource spending, not capital spending. It is the day-to-day spending that matters here. We have come off very poorly because of where the reserved and devolved areas are.