Seòmar agus comataidhean

The broader context is that there was a significant capital spending reduction for this year. Although it looks as though that will be largely reversed as we go into next year, that is the context that we are working in, which, as we know, has put pressure on capital spending.

We do not seem to have any more information on the timing of specific projects. If you have information on that timeline, that is obviously what is happening; I will come back to you if there are any more specifics on the timing of the update.

That is a good question. This week and next, we are publishing more data on the exercise that we conducted over the summer on what public bodies and, indeed, the Scottish Government have spent on corporate functions in the broadest sense, internally and in relation to acquired services. This is the first time that the exercise has been done. The data, by necessity, is a couple of years out of date, because it is culled from annual published reports from more than 100 public bodies, but it is allowing us to accelerate our work in looking for savings in specific aspects of public spending, be that on estates, digital, shared services, procurement frameworks and a range of other areas in which we believe that, by having visibility on a more granular level, we can drive more efficient ways of spending money.

As I said, that programme is under way. That data will provide us with more levers and tools to accelerate that work. You are right that there is then a question about how that work translates into how this budget process looks. At a macro level, reductions in those areas would be reflected in the budget lines. You would see the same budget line delivering more or you would be getting the same from a smaller budget line, because you would be working more efficiently. That, of course, is the intention.

However, you are right that we need to develop a mechanism to provide more visibility on the progress in that area. Part of the issue is that the data is historical—it is a couple of years old. We are conscious of and are spending a bit of time thinking about making the link between that and what we are delivering in real time in relation to what that looks like in the updates.

You have to recognise that a significant amount of money is being spent on the net zero transition. However, you are right that, as the cabinet secretary and I have made clear, those ScotWind moneys have had to be used in the short term. In the absence of clarity on the consequentials from the UK autumn budget, it was necessary to use that to deal with inflation pressures on the health service and the pay awards that public service workers rightly deserved. Without using that money, it would not have been possible to deal with that at that time. Now that there is more clarity on the UK funding position, we are able to work towards reversing that use of ScotWind.

What was the alternative?

It was £600 million on that list, was it not?

It relates to reduced workload and delivery costs for the winter fuel payment. Social Security Scotland had been planning to expand in order to be able to deliver that benefit, but that will not now be happening.

It should not puzzle the committee because, as I said, on a weekly basis, we assess the pressures on the budget and the expected income from consequentials. Within that process, we make an assessment of where we are, we look at the gaps, and we take a view. At that point, we rightly took the view that the pressures were such that, rather than waiting any longer, it was necessary to make adjustments to the budget and make hard decisions on some spending.

As I said, we would be operating within a range.

Exactly, that is absolutely right. That is the point; we want to be able to reverse that expenditure—our intentions remain in place. However, pressures had to be dealt with. Which spends should we not have followed through? Should we not have increased health spend or followed through on those pay deals? What should we not have done? Those are important questions.

As I have said, there was a lack of clarity on the scope and scale of the consequentials that were coming from the UK Government, and it was necessary to use that money over that short period of time to be able to manage through that process, given our lack of borrowing powers. The UK Government and other Governments do not have that problem, because their borrowing powers do not have those tight constraints on them. A normal, independent country—dare I say it—that had the fiscal freedom to deal with that situation would have used borrowing powers to get itself over that hump, if you want to call it that. The fact that we do not have those powers means that ScotWind money has been used as a short-term buffer.

The strategic intention as to how to use that money is absolutely clear, and we are working to get back to that position.

I think that we answered the points that Michelle Thomson made. The transfer from net zero was largely to do with the fact that Scottish Water sits within the transport budget and a technical adjustment was made to the way in which its loans are treated. It was absolutely not the case that we decided to make a big cut in net zero because it was no longer a priority.

With regard to your question about transparency, we are striving to become more transparent. We have made a commitment to do that, and I think that the fact that we are becoming more transparent is evidenced by the way in which we have treated this process.