³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Scott Mackay might have the specific detail on that. Ms Smith, would you be content if I were to write to you to provide more information? I want to reflect on the matter.

The additional funding to support rail services was required to cover a revenue shortfall that was suffered by the franchise. Services are demand led, which goes some way towards explaining the variation between budgets. Ultimately, the addition is in recognition of a fall in demand; we are seeking to provide support to fill that gap.

I do not want to forecast. The autumn budget revisions have come about as previous autumn budget revisions have, following realignment of the Cabinet and changes to ministerial portfolios. That is captured in table A in the supporting document, which reconciles the new portfolios with the previous ones, as outlined in the budget. What is in the spring budget revision will reflect the financial position as it develops in the coming months.

Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. First, I must apologise for my delay and put on record my gratitude to the committee for being so accommodating.

The autumn budget revision provides the first of two opportunities to formally amend the 2021-22 Scottish budget, and it details the continuation of the Scottish Government’s financial response to Covid-19 alongside regular annual budget changes. The supporting document to the autumn budget revision and the brief guide that my officials have prepared provide background on the changes.

The changes that are detailed in the document are based on the funding that the Treasury confirmed to us following the United Kingdom Government’s main estimates earlier in the year. Further spending for 2021-22 that was included alongside the UK spending review figures has not yet been formally added to our block grant, and the financial position remains at risk of funding being withdrawn or changed later in the year. The UK Government has refused to continue the Barnett guarantee into this financial year.

I will set out the changes in the budget revision in four groups. The first set of changes increases the budget by £1,173.8 million and comprises the majority of the Covid-19 funding, which has been allocated over a number of lines as detailed in the brief guide.

The second set of changes comprises technical adjustments to the national health service and teachers’ pensions budgets. They are non-cash adjustments, but they add £267.2 million to the overall aggregate position. Thirdly, Whitehall transfers and allocations from Treasury have a net positive impact on the budget of £29.4 million, and the final part of the budget revision concerns the transfer of funds within and between portfolios to better align the budgets with profiled spend.

The ABR allocates more than £1 billion of Covid-19 and other funding changes, and it is being funded through £1 billion of Barnett consequentials and Scotland reserve drawdowns. I would highlight that £834 million is being allocated to health and social care through the ABR, with all of it directed at our continuing response to Covid-19, while a further £104 million is being allocated towards maintaining our critical transport networks.

Of the just over £300 million that remains of the total funding that we have received, £250 million is for capital and financial transactions. Although that funding is not formally allocated in the budget revision, it is being held against a variety of commitments that are embedded in our budget position, and funding to meet those commitments and pressures will be formally recognised in the spring budget revision.

As we move towards the financial year end, we will continue in line with our normal practice to monitor forecast outturn against budget and, wherever possible, seek to utilise any emerging underspends to ensure that we make optimum use of the resources available.

With that, convener, I conclude my remarks. I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

Certainly. That money is collected centrally and goes to UK Government consolidated funds. It is then distributed to devolved health authorities using the Barnett formula.

Further consequentials were announced as part of the UK spending review, but we will not have confirmation of that until supplementary estimates are given. The current position, as is outlined in the autumn budget revision document that has been provided to the committee, is that we have to take a balanced view on the question of that additional funding, because ultimately we will not have confirmation of whether we will receive it until later in the financial year, and that is because we do not have the Barnett guarantee that we had in the previous financial year. Therefore, we need to take a balanced and prudent approach to how that funding will be deployed.

Yes, because of the role that local authorities play in the delivery of education. Education is the policy lead, but the money goes to local government for the delivery, so it goes to the local government line to be allocated to local government.

We monitor the situation continuously and we reassess and reappraise budgets as required. That is part of our on-going budget monitoring process.

More generally, my ministerial colleague Ivan McKee engages regularly with the construction sector and other sectors that have been especially impacted by the increasing costs of materials and by supply-chain challenges. He is working in a practical way to help to resolve matters.

As part of our on-going budget monitoring process, we take account of all such factors.

Absolutely. It helps to ensure that budgets align more clearly. I appreciate that there is an element of complexity in approaching the autumn budget revision for the first time, but the approach increases transparency, because we can see where the policy decision has been taken and where the money has been allocated for the delivery of that policy decision.

Am I correct in saying that that money will come via the spring budget revision, Scott?