 Welcome to the 38th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have apologies this morning from Michelle Thompson, who is unwell, and Daniel Johnson, who is submitting amendments at another committee meeting this morning. Before we move on to our first item of business today, I want to put on record my thanks to all those who organised, supported, attended and participated in the joint taxation conference hosted yesterday by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In what was a very interesting day I know, committee members will have heard lots of ideas about proposals to inform our consideration of potential areas of future work on taxation. We'll come back to consider these formally at a later date. Turning to the first item on today's agenda, we now take evidence from the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth on the Budget Scotland Act 2022 amendment regulations 2023 draft. Mr Arthur is joined today by Scottish Government officials now called well and Craig Maidment. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite Mr Arthur to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. The autumn budget revision provides the first of two opportunities to formally amend the Scottish budget for 2022-23 and contains the usual four categories of changes. The funding changes increased the budget by £691.5 million. Those changes include £290 million pounds of cost of living measures that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy outlined as part of stage 3 of the Scottish budget in March. The technical adjustments primarily relate to IFRS 16 adjustments. Those are essentially budget-neutral and do not impact the spending power of the Scottish Government. We have a net positive impact of £106.5 million on the overall aggregate position. It is necessary to reflect those adjustments to ensure that the budget is consistent with the accounting requirements and with the final outcome that will be reported in our annual accounts. Whitehall transfers total £7.9 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 supporting document to the autumn budget revision and a finance update prepared by my officials provides background on the net changes. £94 million of the total funding that we have received is not allocated in the budget revision. However, that funding is being held against a number of commitments embedded within our financial forecasts. The Deputy First Minister has been clear in the emergency budget review that we still face a number of budgetary challenges this year. That funding has been held as a necessary step to ensure that we can balance the inflation and pressures on our budget within the constraints that we face. The finance update provides further detail of the effect of the EBR on our budget process and the wider fiscal context in which we have to operate. On that, I will conclude and be happy to answer any questions at the committee. That is great. Thank you very much for the opening question. Just one thing that came up when we had a re-discussion before that came, which was just about the autumn budget revisions and the guide. They are not published at the same time, which causes a wee bit of difficulty. I am just wondering if, in future, the guide can be published at the same time as the papers that allow members to reflect a lot more easily and early on in the process. I am happy to take that away, convener, and see what we can do in that area. Indeed, if there is anything more broadly that the committee would like to discuss with regard to the content of the paper, I am happy to do so. I want to ensure that we can provide as much information and as timely a manner as possible. We realise that, because of the kind of political flux that has actually been at Westminster, it is not going as easy perhaps to produce those figures. Perhaps there is a bit more complexity in them than one would normally expect. Just on the technical adjustments, we have an explanation of that, of course, on the papers. I wonder if you can tell us a wee bit more about it for the record. Certainly, as I outlined in my statement, I say that we have complied, I think, of the £106 million overwhelming majority of it is to comply with IFRS 16. Given that this is a technical matter, we are going to count on chances when we ask Neil if he wants to offer any further comment. It is mainly about leases being capitalised on to the balance sheet. All of the transfers that we require to process for that, we receive budget cover for through the estimate process. It is essentially budget neutrals, the minister said, in the remarks. It will still be classified that we capital and there will be depreciation or non-cash ring-fenced budget for it, but in the overall context, it is budget neutral. Thank you very much for that. You talked in your opening statement, for example, about social justice housing and local government and the additional funds that have been allocated in there. One of the second largest allocations of £180 million relates to police and fire pensions, which has been added to the justice and veterans portfolio. It says that this is a volatile demand-led budget, with additional budget pressures beyond the core allocation that is managed in-year. It is fair enough, but it is 6 per cent of the budget. It seems to have a lot of money, not to have been anticipated. One would have thought that something such as police and fire pensions was indeed something that one could anticipate fairly early on. Very much is a volatile and demand-led area. It is subject to significant change through the financial year. Final costs are heavily dependent upon the number of retirees in one financial year, so that means that there is significant uncertainty until the end of the financial year. If I may just give a bit more information for context, following the 2021-22 spring budget revision, where additional budget was provided, a £30 million underspend was subsequently reported after the provisional outturn. That illustrates the uncertainty that we have in accurately forecasting those costs. We expect to see further volatility, with a higher than anticipated number of retirees in the current year. Further budget may be required as part of the spring budget revision to fully fund the position. The picture from previous years and as we are seeing in the year is demand-led. It is volatile, and that is why we manage it through the budget revision process. Surely, if you know how old a firefighter or a police officer are, you will have a rough idea when they are going to retire—a pretty precise idea when they are going to retire, generally speaking. It can depend upon a number of factors about the decisions that individuals take in particular context, but, as I say, the actual amount that is required to meet that need is demand-led, and the point that I made with regards to last year, where additional funding was allocated, but it came through as a 30 million underspend, which illustrates that point. What found interesting was the fact that Transport Scotland were allocated an additional £22 million of funding for free travel for under-22s, but that was in paragraph 17. In paragraph 23, £20.7 million was released from the concession affairs to reflect lower than expected demand. The net effect is £1.3 million, of course, but it seems awful clumsy to say that we gave this department £22 million, and then we took £20.7 million off it. Would it not be easier to explain that the £1.3 million change? As you identify within the document that the net change of £1.3 million is what is down, the original £22 million was a targeted carry-forward from the reserve at the start of the year, and clearly with updated information and seeing that demand is not what was originally predicted, that is why there is times taking place. Every year, for many years we have asked the question about the transfer from health and social care to education skills to pay teaching grants for nursing and midwifery students, and that is £64 million. The question is why do we have this transfer every year, and why is it not just put into the education and skills budget in the first place? I think that it is a question of what policy area does the fund support, and then what policy area delivers it. You give the example of £64 million for nursery and midwifery. Clearly that is something that is contributing towards outcomes within the health portfolio, but it is delivered through the education portfolio. The other examples that you will identify are around, for example, free-skill meals, summer activities provision, which sit within the education portfolio, education skills, but they are delivered through local government, hence that transfer. If every year it is going to be transferred, it seems daft to have it. It is clearly in the wrong portfolio to start off with. It does not make any sense to have money allocated to a specific budget when next year I will probably be asking the same question why it is not in the education skills budget. I suspect the real reason, but I am just wondering if you can give me a financial reason why that is. It provides clarity because I can imagine that if we were discussing the autumn budget revision but we were discussing the actual budget is introduced, we would want maximum clarity. Were these funds, for example, to be within the education and skills portfolio, when it is clearly achieving a health outcome, the question might be why is that not in the health portfolio because we want to provide as much clarity as possible. It is part of the health spend, but in terms of how it is actually delivered, that is why the transfer takes place. We will have to agree to differ on that one. I do not really think that that is the real reason, but anyway, we should leave it at that. I am sure that others will want to explore what the Canada is so wish. There remain a number of significant potential budget pressures that are not yet fully quantified, including key public sector staff groups where pay agreements have yet to be settled. What are those other potential budget pressures other than pay increases? There is clearly a huge degree of volatility and uncertainty. I would probably just highlight, for example, the Ukraine resettlement. Again, there is uncertainty about where we will land. There it could be in the region of £200 million. Given the overall set of inflationary pressures that we face, and given the uncertainty that we face as well with regard to where we will finally land in total cost around public sector pay, it is already more than £700 million indicated through the EBR. There is a great degree of uncertainty. Again, I touched on earlier with regard to pensions. We need to potentially revisit that again at the SBR, so there remains a significant amount of uncertainty in our position. I sympathise with your position. I do not know how frustrating it is to have this level of uncertainty to deal with. One of the things that the presentation has been given does not provide a full breakdown of the Scottish Government funding envelope by source, nor reflect the full forecast position for the remainder of the year. I am just wondering why that is the case. I would defer the committee to Annex A of the supporting document that sets out the funding envelope and source of funding. Can you expand on that just now? It is Annex A in the guide and Annex B for capital. We have provided an indication there. We have set out what the 2020-23 budget position was, the confirmed changes at ABR and the devise position. That includes the foot of the table and the funds that remain unallocated for resource, capital and FTA. It should be the final two pages in the guide of the committee. It is a line-by-line analysis. Okay, thanks for that. I should say as well, convener, that we are proceeding with tables. One more thing for me, and it is about capital, which is just a wee bit of concern. I think that other committee members have this concern, which is about capital. Normaly, capital cannot be used for day-to-day resource spending, but it certainly appears from the figures that we have been provided with that the savings of around £150.1 million have been made in the capital budget. Is it the intention to spend that on resource, because normally money from capital is not spent that way on, for example, salaries, etc? I have seen it go the other way. I have seen resource going at capital, but it is not really something that we see very often. Given the circumstances that we face, we are seeking that flexibility from the UK Government. I know that you are seeking that flexibility, because it is not normally permitted. Have you any indications as to whether it will be? Well, we are still awaiting confirmation from the UK Government, but it is a flexibility that we are seeking. In terms of that, where that £150.1 million is drawn from, there is, you know, £60.9 million from net zero energy and transport, for example, rural affairs and islands, social justice housing and local government. In terms of the latter, £10 million would be reduced from housing capital projects. Given the accelerating level of inflation that we have seen, which is higher than the general inflation in the retail price index that we have seen in construction, £10 million from that. What impact would that have on the affordable housing programme? Ultimately, the budgets and changes that we make reflect demand. You made reference to the energy budget where there has been reductions in the energy line. That is ultimately just a reflection of where demand is at presently. That is impacted by a number of factors in general economic conditions and the legacy of the pandemic supply chain issues, for example. So there are a number of factors that impact on demand. In this particular case, the energy line, for example, that money has been released back to the centre. I do not know if there is anything more to come in on specific. I suppose that, just in terms of timing, the benefit of putting processing some of those returns of capital early were to ensure that the £120 million for local government capital could be included. Generally, there is a level of timing and certainty about what you include in the budget revision at this stage in the year and what you do not. That was the main reason for those being included at this time of year. In terms of the education skills reduction, there is £40 million from what it calls education capital projects. What education capital projects will be impacted by that? I would be happy to come back to the committee in more detail on that. That is one of the savings that we include as part of the EBR exercise, so that it is not in the budget revision as it stands. Just last on this, capital assuming energy capital projects, for example, are £15 million. You hope to be able to transfer from that. You talk about demand. When you say demand, does that mean that there is not demand from industry, from the public, or is there a shortage of, for example, skilled workers to deliver some of those capital projects? Why is there a loss of demand? My understanding is that demand is high right across the economy. It can be for a number of reasons, but clearly inflationary pressure of supply change challenges has resulted in project delivery slipping. I should probably add with regards to the NZ portfolio and the £91.92 million in capital reduction there. We have provided project development support to undertake feasibility studies and business cases to secure investment in future years, as we are beginning to support a number of multi-year projects. In addition to that, we have recently established a heat network support unit to work directly with pre-capital projects to support development ahead of capital investment. That will provide greater certainty for spending in future years. Is the economic context in which we are operating in that we are taking action in order to help to address that going forward? I should say that roads and taxis, capital projects, £7.2 million, I can believe for a second that there is no demand for that money. I can tell you one project of mine. Constituency has been delayed two years because of governance procedures, which I still try to find out after two years what they are doing from Transport Scotland. I cannot understand why they have a £7.2 million lack of demand in roads and capital and taxis projects. There are areas where there is demand, but there are also areas where we have had to make purposeful savings to ensure that we balance the budget position in the year. There are savings identified within the ABR, which will give us pressure reductions, some of which may come through as savings in the spring budget revision, but we do not have the degree of certainty at the moment to include that in the ABR. Thank you very much for those responses. I am going to open out the session to colleagues around the table, and the first person to ask questions will be Ross to be followed by Liz. I have been interested in clarity on which of the budget revisions are presumed to be one-off for issues of underspend, unforeseen circumstances and so on, and which are areas where, for example, in the ENSA portfolio it notes that some of those are because of lower than expected demand. Which of those are lower than expected of as a demand that are now expected to reoccur, i.e. where the new figure after the budget revision will be baselineed into next year's budget versus where we would expect to simply go back to a baseline of what was in the budget at the start of this year? We will set out our position for the next financial year at the budget. That will be determined by a number of factors, as you would appreciate. On net zero, our commitment is absolute in that area. That should be clear. What we are having to do with this ABR is to make sure that, one, we arrive at a balanced budget position by the end of the financial year, as we are required to do, and two, seek to free up resources to provide support in the year. That has been part of the EBR exercise. From the September statement that the Deputy First Minister made, some of those savings are captured within ABR. There are £191 million of pressures identified, which may fall through with SBR. With the EBR, it was a statement in publication from earlier this month. Where appropriate, where required, that will come through SBR in terms of the savings identified. However, in relation to the future to the next financial year and beyond, we are seeking to be consistent with the priority set out in the RSR. We will, of course, take the specific decisions at the budget. On the end set reductions in particular, I recognise that this is not your portfolio, as you might not be able to go into some of the specifics at the moment. Given that some of those are some of the more substantial reductions, what expectation does the Government have on the effect of that on hitting our end set targets around whether it is emission reduction, nature restoration, etc., or even separate to that, those affect the chill poverty targets when it relates to home energy efficiency? Those are important points. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but the two points that I made are one, in this area, that ultimately reflects demand. Two, we are taking action in the year to help support with project delivery, multi-year projects to help address that. Delivering on these particular ambitions and what these lines seek to deliver is vital for end set. What we have to be doing, what we are doing, is ensuring that we are supporting the demand so that those funds are drawn down in future years to enable the outcomes that we seek to effect. Finally, on the question of whether or not the savings reoccur, i.e. the baseline, is the figure that we have now got, rather than what was started in the financial year with, where those savings were to deliver what was required for public sector pay, we can presume that that is obviously a recurring cost. Public sector pay increases were not one off to this year, so we will need to find that money from somewhere in future years. It does not necessarily need to come from the specific areas that came from this year, but what instructions have been issued to ministers, to civil service directors, around evaluating the impact of those savings and whether or not it would, in fact, be a sensible decision to baseline the new figure in from next year, because the potential negative consequences were manageable in some way? I think that what we will do as part of the budget process and setting the budget for next year is, of course, to consider what demand has been for demand-led schemes in the previous years. The demand-led scheme is always one of the challenges that we have in the budget, particularly as we get towards year end. It can be a challenge if there is less demand and forecast, because that gets to the torture end of your position, how much money and what potential underspends are emerging. It can be, obviously, a challenge if demands are exceeding forecast. We reflect on that as part of the budget setting process, to take into consideration what the effective level should be for the following year. With regard to what has identified the document that these capital savings have allowed the £120 million capital to local government to support pay deals, that, of course, is for this year and for next year, then it will be wound in as revenue going forward from then. I bring you back to a comment that the convener was asking about regarding the transfer from capital to resource budgets, because, as far as I am concerned, most of the time I have been in this Parliament, that has not really been possible, namely that there are rules or fiscal rules that are directed at ensuring that that is not the transfer that takes place. Can I just ask the minister to confirm that, because of the extenuating circumstances that you set out, that that rule has now been eased or changed? Is that specifically with the Scottish Government's spend? Yes, it is. The fiscal discipline has always been that capital budgets could be transferred to capital budgets, but not to resource budgets. It can go the other way, but generally speaking, it has not been a case that the capital budget could be used for resource spending, and that seems to be what is happening just now. I would like you to confirm whether that easing of that fiscal discipline is for the extenuating circumstances that you outlined, or whether you are looking to ease the rules on that. Seeking to be able to reclassify capital to resources is something that we have sought to engage with the UK Government on because of those circumstances, but that is not something that we have yet had agreement from the UK Government on. Is that then part of the negotiations for the new fiscal framework that you are looking at? That is specific to our in-year situation. As you will appreciate at the Chancellor's autumn statement, there was no new in-year funding announced at that point, so we still face a significant challenge in managing the various pressures that we have already discussed. We still have a third of the financial year to run, so we are seeking that flexibility where we would be able to reclassify capital's resources to support the in-year position. I do not know if there is anything that you want to add, Neil. What was just in case the question was about the local government? It is very much about—effectively, it affects both because, obviously, Scottish Government goes to local government funds as well. The issue that I am asking about is that if there is to be an easing of the fiscal discipline about the transfer of money between capital to resource budgets, is that something that reflects the current extenuating circumstances where you say that you have been engaging with the UK Government because of the difficulties that you face? Or do you presume that there could be a long-term change to that fiscal discipline where it would be possible on a longer-term basis to transfer capital budgets into resources? The ask reflects the current set of circumstances that we face. We have to operate in the process that is set out by the UK Government, by HMT. As for longer-term considerations through the fiscal framework, we would obviously want a situation where we had maximum flexibility across all aspects of our budget, but that would be something that would be subject to negotiation through the fiscal framework. My specific references to seeking the ability to reclassify capital's resources is specific to this financial year and the circumstances that we find ourselves in. Can I just ask from the perspective of the fiscal framework negotiations, do you have any updates on the timescales of when the independent report is due and what stage the Government's negotiations are with the UK Government thereafter? I do not have an update at this stage, as you will appreciate, but there has been a lot of flux with regard to the UK Government arm, but when we are in a position to give an update, I will be happy to share it. Do we have any update on the timing of the independent report, though? I do not have that, but if there is an update to give, I will be happy to write to the committee. I think that that would be very helpful if we could have that. Minister, just on a slightly different theme, the Scottish Government in its programme for government sets out very distinctive three principles around which Government policy is devised. One of those is the move to net zero and justice within the green economy. Can I just ask you if that is one of the defining principles? It seems a bit odd that there has been such a big downturn in the net zero budget, very substantial downturn, and just how that fits around the principles of the Scottish Government's programme for government when that was very much one of the three identified principles as to why that has happened. Secondly, if there are to be changes to the principles around Government policy, if we could just perhaps know a little bit more about them, on what basis are you—I know that you cannot go through every single change, but that would be unrealistic to ask that. Are there specific criteria around which you are examining Government spending just now in relation to your budget spend? I want to be absolutely clear that net zero is a key priority of this Government. It is a moral imperative in regards to the broader programme for government. There is a range of actions that we are taking forward. Clearly, in that specific case, with the NZ, we have been able to decarbonise, which is probably how we heat our buildings, which is going to be a key aspect of that. As I set out earlier, we have initiated work to help to support the pipeline of projects, to help to address the under-demand that there has been for those funds. However, it is important to recognise that within the broader context of work that is under way. For example, wearing another hat a few weeks ago, we published our revised national planning framework, which has been warmly welcomed by the Scottish renewable sector, seen as a remarkable step forward. It is important to recognise at particular fiscal circumstances and economic circumstances within it at the moment, but that does not detract from the imperative and priority of meeting our net zero obligations. Except the figures here that suggest otherwise, because it is such a big downturn. It is quite difficult, I would have thought, to convince people that the Scottish Government's priorities, which include that very strong move to net zero, is being adhered to within the specific budget. I think that the allocation of that budget at the Scottish Budget earlier this year demonstrates that commitment, but the issue here has been demand. It has not been one of the willingness of the Government to supply the resource, but it has been the demand that has led to us being in a position where we have been able to reallocate that funding to support the in-year position. However, I recognise the point that you are making, and that is why we are taking the action that we are to help address issues whereby there has been a shortfall and demand, and that is why the work that I outlined earlier to support project development has taken place. Just one final point. Obviously, we have talked a lot, as a committee, about the national performance framework. How much of the decisions that you are taking in terms of the budget adhere to the principles of that national performance framework? If we consider the measures that we are taking to support public sector pay, that has a number of outcomes, which are consistent with the NPF and the SDGs, which the NPF reflects. Our support for measures to ensure that we meet our obligations on reducing child poverty is reflected in there. Whether that be on the expansion of provisions for free-scale meals, for the holiday meal and title mint and the £47 million for the whole family fund, there is a range of activity that takes place that is consistent with that. We find ourselves in exceptionally challenging economic and fiscal circumstances, but in taking the decisions that we have taken, we have sought to be consistent with our values and principles, as articulated within the national performance framework. I think that the ABR demonstrates the consistency with that approach. Just initially, to go back to the technical adjustments and the IFRS-16 adjustments, I think that I understand that operating leases did not use to be on the balance sheet, and now they will be on as an asset in liability, so the net effect is nil. Does that have an impact on our borrowing limits, the £3 billion, because it does not? Would it in future? No, so there is just no effect. That is effectively that issue that is looked after by Westminster, by the Treasury, and it does not impact on us at all. As it stands. That is nice and clear. I am happy to get a simple answer. That is quite commendable. In paragraph 45 of the guide, it talks about the emergency budget review, and it says, while the amounts outlined in the letter are savings-based on the in-year budget monitoring position do not necessarily correspond to a budget being formally surrendered as part of the gross funding movement. I was just struggling a bit with this phrase, budget being formally surrendered, and what that would mean. Then it goes on to say that this is because these savings may be against forecast pressures that are being transferred internally. I am not sure that I understand what that means, forecast pressures that are being transferred internally. Sorry, I was not sure if you had finished your question. I think that one thing that I would recognise is that it is not entirely possible to look at the savings that is presented in the September and November EBR documentation and read across directly to the EBR. The savings highlighted the include movements and pressures that are present within the in-year monitoring position. For example, demand-led budget expectations, but which have not had budget formally allocated to them. The attention of analysis that was provided in the guide was to highlight where the EBR documents can be read across and where they are differences, but the point that I would come to as I want it to be earlier on is that some of those pressure reductions will manifest the savings and be identified through SBR, but there is just not the degree of certainty currently to present them in the EBR. Some of them would have been savings that were made anyway, so the EBR effectively is not having an impact on that area if they were going to make the savings anyway. Well, there are unfunded pressures that have emerged that were not present when the budget was passed, so part of the exercise is identifying and reducing. As I said earlier, there are two aims through the EBR process. Yes, we want to identify resources to provide additional support in the context of the cost of living crisis, but the other is to ensure that we achieve a balanced budget position at the close of financial year. I appreciate that this is a complex picture, but there will be elements of those savings that are identified that are not captured in the EBR, which will be captured in the SBR. I do not know if there is anything that you want to add. There is one table in the guide just a bit further down, which breaks down the entire list of the 560 million items into three categories. There are funding changes, items that were included as a saving in the autumn budget revision, and then there are the pressure reductions. The best example is when we talk about the surrender of budget. The concessory travel there is a 20.7 million that is included in the autumn budget revision, but there was a further pressure that was identified earlier that was not in the budget, but we now expect, obviously, that demand has fallen for that to not crystallise either. The total saving from our forecast position is the two added together, 37.6 million, but the budget that is surrendered is only 20.7 million. Right, we are still toiling a wee bit, but anyway, we will keep going. That 20.7 million, if I am looking at the same table, is part of a total of 223.9 million at the bottom of that table, is that not correct? After that, it talks in paragraph 51 about the balance of £191.5 million. What is the difference between the two columns, the 223.9 and the 191.5? It is with regard to what is identified within the ABR and what is identified as an unfund pressure. Okay, so that is the difference. Some of it is in the ABR. The total is part of the emergency budget review, but some of it, the 223.9 is in this autumn budget review, is that right? Yes. And the 191.5, we are basically so unsure about, we cannot put it in at the moment. It is, as I say, it is pressure reductions, some of that may materialise the savings through the SBR. Okay, well, I mean, it may be our colleagues want to come in as well, but I'll... I suppose the best way of saying it is if it wasn't in the budget in the first place, you don't need to change it. To do anything right, okay. But it was in our forecast position in an earlier stage in the year. But the point that we're trying to make in the guide was that there may, there are some components within that column of 191 which might have an impact to the spring budget revision, but if all of those pressures were in our forecast position, so from our budget management, it is a saving. Right. Okay, so there's a degree of uncertainty around that column, and it could be perhaps a department which looks like it's overspending, actually manages to catch up over the next few months, so that would be good news, I guess. Right. Because it then goes on in paragraph 53 to say that the EBR process identified approximately £615 million of additional options for spending reductions, so those are not definite. That suggests that there's a degree of uncertainty around that figure. Well, it's a paragraph 53, this is the £615 million. Yes. Is it set out below those clear lines there, there was £400 million which stays within health and social care, and that was to support the fair pay offer. There is the £33 million of resource saving, and there is the £180 million of capital and FT reductions to support the wider financial position. So, again, some of that may be ultimately reflected in SBR where required. Okay. But there's not the only very small amount that's reflected in SBR. Right. And I think that the final area I just wanted to ask about was the whole question of the spill-over, and I know that's been a debate that's been going on for quite some time, the spill-over dispute with the UK Government. I think that we've got a figure of £375 million now. Is that what the Scottish Government was expecting, or is that more or less? There'd been anticipation of £400 million, £375 million, but this year, no one has been decided and engaged through the fiscal framework review, is there? Yeah. So, there was a rough assumption in the budget. I think that you might remember that there was a £620 million total other income, and within that we had a rough estimate internally of £400 million, but that was on the basis that the dispute would conclude for up to and including the end of 2020-23. I think that the basis of the calculation was that it would go to the end of 2021-22 with the current year and future years as part of the fiscal framework review, so that's why the figure was £375 million. Okay, so that was a good estimate, so that's good. So, looking then at the current year 2022-23 and this £25 million or whatever it might be, I mean, given what I think Liz Smith has already asked about, we're a bit uncertain about the timing of the framework review, I'm a bit concerned that that is involving the current year's budget, because that causes you, presumably Minister, quite a lot of uncertainty as to what you can do this year when that figure is uncertain. I don't know if there's other figures elsewhere that are going to be kind of backdated to 1 April, depending on when the spending review and we might not even know that till next year. There's much in terms of engagement with the UK Government that causes uncertainty around our public finances, Mr Mason. I'm sure you'll appreciate what we draw your attention to is paragraph 71. To recognise it, which was as paragraph states, it's a complex picture, but the other income funding assumptions have been met and have been surpassed by £324 million when the borrowing cost adjustment is reflected in full. I hope that that provides some more clarity. I'm not sure it does, actually. I wasn't going to ask you about that paragraph, but now you've raised it. Is the £25 million small enough in the scale of things that we just kind of cope with that, because we're looking at other figures, I don't know if the £25 million is in the £324 million or if the £324 million is different? It was just with regards to what our position is from what we had anticipated with regards to other income as identified in the budget document that was published last December and what our position is as now. You made an estimate, our member, of the different things, including that, and it's turning out better. This year, we don't need to worry too much about whether the fiscal framework review concludes, because we're basically okay for this year. Would that be fair? I know we've got problems this year, but we're not depending on the fiscal review to fix this year's budget. We're not depending on the fiscal framework review to fix this year's budget, but I'm not going to suggest in any way that this is not an issue that needs to be addressed and addressed through the fiscal framework. That's a good answer, a clear answer, right? Thank you, John. Liz, I wanted to come in with a supplementary point of clarification. Just in answer to Mr Mason's first point, when you were talking about the difference between the two columns, when you said that I heard you correctly, that when it came to that second figure, that was money that you thought might have to be used for the 195, I think it was? 195, 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. 191. On what criteria was that based, what did you use to make that particular estimate? Well, there's a number of things that sort of lead to, you know, previously unfunded pressures that were discussed already, but I might be just asking you to come and try the problem. Yeah, I mean, it's just how you came about 191 rather than anything else. Well, that was just looking across all lines. Essentially, the 191 wasn't a target figure in of itself. The 560 was a figure that was included in the letter that the committee received from Deputy First Minister in the seventh. This is just itemising it into how we look at it from budget monitoring. So you've got the items that are included in the autumn budget revision and there's 191 items which are not in the autumn budget revision. But they were in our budget monitoring forecasts and because we've steps taken or demand has reduced, they are effectively a savings. Sorry, demand for the money has reduced? Well, in the case of the concessory travel, demand has reduced. Therefore, the pressure on that budget has also reduced. I think, convener, it would be quite helpful if we had a little bit more detail about some of these. What specific detail would you like, Liz? I'd just like to know, for example, you've just given a good example of how from the transport budget there's been specific changes that you had potentially thought were going to be included and didn't have to be. It would be helpful to know what the other ones were. They're okay, I would say. My name, Mr Colwell, can provide those just now. Well, they're all listed here. So, where are they exactly? It's a table just after paragraph 50, which details them all out. Right, and that comes out as a total of 191 that you thought might have to be used but hasn't been. I mean, I see the mathematical or arithmetical calculation as interested as to the nature of why some of these figures are what they are. We'll leave that just there. Okay, thanks, Douglas. I mean, I'm confused by these figures as well, and I'm going to ask one more question around it. So, if we look at employability, for example, it's 53 million of a pressure reduction. So, did that 53 million, where did it appear at the start of the year? Where was that money? Where was it budgeted? So, what line are you referring to? I'm looking at employability. It's about halfway down under finance and economy. 53 million, because that's one of the big ones. That's the biggest one. I can't speak to each individual line. I don't know if any more people do that. Just as an example, if you're the minister, that's why I was picking that one. So, was it in the employability budget at the start of the year? No. Or was it? No, it wasn't. As I say, these are pressures that emerge through our monitoring, internal monitoring, and that is what we have sought to reduce these forecast pressures. So, where was that 53 million at the start of the year? Was there a biscuit tin of 191 million that's now been raided? I'm struggling to understand, because it seems to be a saving from an amount that wasn't actually allocated in the first place. Well, the savings that are specifically identified, which have been reallocated during the areas included in the ABR, there may be savings that emerge but what we're currently identified as pressure reductions may translate into savings, which would emerge at SBR. But where was that pressure going to be funded from in the first place? So, I think maybe, if you think that the Scottish budget is laid in December, then when we're doing the forecasts of what the financial position and all the pressures and potential savings and changes in demand might be, the forecast picture can look quite different from the budget, so we have to manage that position in year. These pressure reductions are where forecasts have changed from when the budget was laid in December, and that's one of the bigger ones that you identify now. So, was there a contingency of 191 that we're eating into then? There's no specific contingency pot of 191 million. We set the budget at the start of the year, but circumstances can change and pressures can emerge, so that's on the hour spend side, and equally, I suppose that the flip of that is the uncertainty that we always face and how much money we're going to have available because we don't get into a settled position on what we receive from the UK Government until very close towards the end of the financial year through the supplementary estimates process. So, there's always uncertainty, so I appreciate that it can look like when we pass a budget in Parliament at that certain, but there's always pressures that can emerge due to changes of circumstances, particularly with demand-led schemes, and there is also as well, we don't have certainty on our funding position that we see in the UK Government until much closer towards the end of the year. Minister, was that assumed there was going to be extra funding coming through that would fund this 191 million, but then that hasn't maybe come through, and so that 191 has got to be back down again? This is the emergence of pressures that have developed in the year, and as such, the work has been taken to reduce those pressures. Yeah, but I'm struggling to work out where that 191 was at the start of the year. There wasn't 191 million at the start of the year to fund those pressures, so steps had to be taken or where that was demand reduced, and these could be brought down. There's no direct line that that 53 or the 191 is coming from. Okay, I'll move on. I'm good back to the capital again, for obviously you're looking to have more flexibility from the UK Government around the capital and converting it into revenue I think that was how I understood it. And I think you were about to mention local government when you were answering a previous question. Will you give local government the same flexibility if you get that flexibility from the UK Government? Well, with regards to the flexibility towards local government, that does actually form part of the process of supporting public pay, so, as you'll be aware, there was a £120 million of capital funding provided to local government to fund capital expenditure, and it is ultimately to be deployed at Council's discretion. The capital grant accounting flexibilities reflected in the statutory guidance permit local authorities to replace existing revenue reserves, which they have allocated to capital investment with the capital grant. This is in the context of supporting public sector pay, so the new capital grant will fund the planned capital expenditure that would have been met from earmarked revenue reserves, enabling the release of those revenue reserves to meet the pay award. Statutory guidance is required to address a restriction that requires a transfer of capital grant to a specific statutory reserve within local authority accounts. The relaxation of this restriction will widen the permitted use of the grant to meet the principle of loan repayments, which are capital in nature. That was with regards to the £120 million of capital that was confirmed for local government. I think that that was in the letter to the committee of the 7th of September, and that is how that capital there is being used to support local government pay offers. The local authorities would have to use the reserves, and then the capital grant could then be converted to top up the reserves again, in a strange little way. The point was made about revenue can be used to pay for capital, revenue reserves meeting capital expenditure. If capital can then be used to meet that capital, freeing up the revenue reserve, which can then be used. Would that flexibility just be for pay, or would it be that flexibility to convert capital into revenue to support those areas? That is specific to the support that is provided for local government pay. Is there anything that you want to say? I think that it is my understanding that it is agreed for this year, but we can double check. Move on to the next question that I had. Paragraph 19 had additional funding for £7 million for the funicular railway on the Kerm Gorms and an extra £6.7 million to Ferguson Marine for the 801 and 802. Are those sums already being announced? Or is this in addition to anything that was put aside for those two projects previously? This is ABR's retrospective in nature, so it's just confirming. It's just confirming. It's announced figures already, so it hasn't increased those projects by those amounts. It's consistent with three-race announcements. Thank you for that clarification. Next question that I had was on the R100. Obviously, there have been some funding changes around that £16 million, I think it was, in terms of capital. What impact is that going to have on the R100 project going forward? Is that going to delay that project further? The time scales were re-phased following issues emerging through the pandemic, which impacted upon timing. The capital that you referred to just reflects that longer-time scale. How far is it going to push that out then? I don't have the exact time scale in front of me, but in terms of that, that's the reason why the capital has become available. Next question that I had was on Paragraph 26 Rural. It's 9.5 million of savings from the agriculture and rural economy. Do you have any idea what impact that's going to have on our rural population? What's that for, specifically? It's a Paragraph 26 Minister. It states in the guidance that it's just a combination of revised forecasts and modifications within the Scottish Rural Development Programme. So we don't know what specifically that would have been used for and the impact that it's going to have? What's the advice forecast specifically within that line? So there's nothing specific that it's going to affect or that you're aware of? In terms of what the specific implications will be and how that decision has been arrived that I can't provide you with that information directly, if it's something you would like me to follow up on, if you're happy to do so? That would be good, yeah. And last question that I had was around 28 Whitehall Transfer, a £6.5 million from the Money Advice Service. Can you give me a bit more detail on that, please? It's the debt advice level that goes to the social justice line, so it's money advocated for... So will it actually be used for Money Advice Services? Yeah, that's identified with this form of document. Great, thank you. I guess I'm just going to go back on one last point, and that was on the energy grants again. Obviously you've said it was a key priority and a commitment. So how can we ensure that the take-up is better in future years? Because it's great having announced a big pot of cash, but we're often critical of the UK government for trying to get the benefits uptake greater. So what are you doing to get that uptake greater so we're not having an underspend of almost £92 million? It's a fair question. I've just touched on the points I made earlier, which is that we have provided project development support to undertake feasibility studies and business cases to secure investment in future years. And as I said, we've begun to support a number of multi-year projects. In addition to that, we've recently established a hate network support unit to work directly with pre-capital projects to support development ahead of capital investment. So the intention is that this will provide greater certainty for future years. But do you think that private sector and the local authority partners are well aware of what's available? Well, certainly we would, but that's what we've endeavoured to achieve. But clearly I've already outlined the action that we're taking, but we would obviously want to see these budgets deployed fully and fully utilised. We have an important role to play in delivering on and net zero obligations. So there's always a process of learning to ensure that we maximise awareness and maximise uptake. But it's also important to recognise it. Beyond making money available in government efforts to increase awareness and uptake, prevailing economic conditions can and do have an impact, whether that be inflationary pressures at pressures, supply chains, skill shortages, which all Governments are wrestling with. But I would just want to assure the committee that we are absolutely determined and focused to ensure that we meet our net zero obligations. And I'm happy to reflect upon the points that the members raised. So what's this going to do to your targets then? Is this going to delay your targets? Or are you looking to increase investment in future years? What's it going to do? We have absolutely committed to a target net zero by 2045. And as I touched on earlier, notwithstanding the work that we will do to ensure greater uptake of funding that's available in future years, which I've already outlined, it's important to recognise where this sits within the broader work that government undertakes across a range of areas to support this reaching these targets. I just am struggling to understand how we can reach these targets. There were such a huge underspend unless we increase the spending going forward. But as you said, if there's budgetary pressures in future years, then will that be pushed back again? Clear priority and focus of this Government, a clear priority and focus of this Government, is net zero and the funding. And that commitment will be met in action through funding and through other areas as well across Government. We find ourselves in a situation this year where there has been lower than forecast demand. I've set out the action that the Government is undertaking to support greater uptake of these funds in future years. And clearly there will be a process of continued learning around how we ensure that those funds are utilised to the fullest extent. But I would just also note that we are facing an exceptionally challenging set of economic circumstances, which of course impact upon public finances, but that will impact upon decisions of individual households and businesses as well. But would you accept the criticism if this was your key priority, number one commitment, that you would do everything you could to make sure that that money was spent to make sure you'd meet your targets going forward? I think what we want to recognise is that we would want that resource to be deployed in the most effective and impactful way, but it is ultimately a demand-led scheme. So the kind of key issue that has been addressed is the shortfall on demand, which I accept and recognise there has been. And that's why I've set out the action that the Government's taken to address that shortfall on demand. And of course, I'm sure that there's something Parliament and indeed the lead committee on NZ will take a keen interest in, because it's clearly in all our interests to ensure that when resource is made available to support the transition to net zero, that it is fully utilised. And so that is something we can learn from the experience of this year, which we are doing for the action that we're taking to support greater uptake. Okay, thanks, minister. Thanks, community. Okay, thank you very much. Your final question did take about 10 more questions, but never mind. Just one more area for me, and that can, of course, be any number, if we follow Douglas's example. You've said, minister, about the importance of raising awareness and uptake in some of these demand-led schemes. Now, employability and understanding was that the budget initially was £82 million for the year and has been reduced by £53 million to £29 million. That's an almost two-thirds reduction. So one has to ask if the forecasting in terms of the demand seems to me to be wildly inaccurate. You can correct me if these figures are wrong, but since the pandemic, the number of people who are economically inactive in the United Kingdom has grown by £600,000, and obviously a fair share of those are in Scotland. So it does seem an odd time to reduce employability, and I would have thought that programmes at the time of the budget were decided would be planned long in advance, because these would be important programmes to take forward. If we are going to ensure that the number of people who are economically inactive reduces and become more productive members of society, because obviously productivity and economic output and growth is stagnating as we all know. I think that you highlighted there was a figure for the United Kingdom as a whole. It speaks to the scale of the issue that you raise and also the fact that it's not a Scottish specific phenomena and that it is perhaps not something that is directly related to the availability of support. Clearly that people will have potentially, in the consequence of the pandemic, reflected on that experience and made different decisions around different life choices, for example. The issue around inactivity is something that, of course, all Governments are engaged on, but it is touched on in terms of what we have focused on throughout the emergency budget review process and through the ABR process, which reflects some of that, is ensuring that we are providing support directly in the hear now to those who most need it within the context of a challenging fiscal set of circumstances and also the limitations of the fiscal framework in which we operate. The other point that I would broadly mention when you recognise yourself is that notwithstanding the level of economic inactivity, we have still been experiencing an incredibly tight labour mark. I recognise some early evidence that suggests that that's changing, but one of the challenges that we have had is obviously the labour shortages across a whole range of sectors. That is again part of the broader circumstances in which we find ourselves. We still have 100,000 or so people unemployed, even if we don't account for the people who are economically inactive, which in some areas is over 30 per cent of the population such as my own. It seems a bit odd that employability, which is designed to try to get more people back into work, seems to have been reduced, but the point that I was making in terms of this autumn budget revision is that it looks like you have wildly overestimated if what you say is true in terms of demand. The demand for this by 200 per cent. If £29 million is going to be sufficient to address those issues, why was 82 million forecast? It does seem a huge difference. If it was 30 million, 33 million, 35 million, 40 million, I can understand it. It does seem such a huge difference. In previous years, what was the amount that was being spent on employability? One would think that there would be a fairly level amount spent on that. It seems quite odd that the budget seems wildly out of kilter with what it was estimated to be initially. I recognise the interest that was taken in that particular line. It could have been back on 7 September when the EBR statement was made. There are a number of factors that play one in terms of what demand it has been, but there are also two key principles that underpin the whole EBR exercise, much of which is reflected in the EBR, which is to ensure that we are balancing our budget in the year and where possible, redirecting support to respond to the immediate cost crisis that individuals and households face. That has, of course, necessitated taking decisions about how we should re-prioritise certain budget lines, and that is something that has been reflected through the EBR and, indeed, through the EBR itself. I won't press it any further. All I'll do now is thank you for the responses to the questions that the officials have given to us today. We now turn to agenda item 2, which involves formal consideration of the motion on the instrument before us. I invite the minister to speak to and move S6M-06548. The Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends that the Budget Scotland Act 2020-22 regulations 2023 draft be approved. Do members have any further comments? No, I now put the question on the motion. The question is that S6M-06548 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Okay, so thank you very much to Mr Arthur and his officials for their evidence today. We'll publish a short report to Parliament setting out a decision on the regulations in due course. Thank you very much. We'll now go into private session. As the Deputy First Minister has unable to arrive before 11.30, I'm going to go into private session in order that we can go through item 4, so that we're not done. It's a more efficient use of committee time. I'll now turn to the third item on our agenda, which is to take evidence on the Scottish Government's continuous improvement programme and its updated complaints policy. Members have also received a letter containing additional information from the Deputy First Minister on Friday to inform today's discussion. Letter and our meeting papers are also available on the committee's website. Today we will take evidence from John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery. Mr Swinney is supported today by Scottish Government officials Ian Mitchell and Ashley Gray. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite Mr Swinney to make a short opening statement. Good morning, Mr Swinney. Good morning, convener. I'm grateful for the opportunity to give evidence to the committee again on the progress of the procedure for handling complaints by civil servants about the current or former minister's behaviour and the continuous improvement programme to promote the culture and behaviours that we want to see in the Scottish Government. When I last appeared before the committee on the subject in April, the procedure had been operational from 24 February following a period of wide engagement with Scottish Government staff, trade unions and this committee. The procedure is founded on a grievance process that has to balance employment law and public law and that is consistent with ACAS codes and guidance. Since it is a grievance procedure for staff, the procedure rightly emphasises the need for privacy and confidentiality with outcomes restricted to only those closely involved. As the First Minister set out in Parliament and as I have said in correspondence to the committee, given the legitimate public interest issues at play, it is appropriate for us to balance the expectations of confidentiality with the public role of a minister if a complaint is made about them. We've been working to make proposals to change the procedure and the Scottish Ministerial Code to allow for greater transparency in relation to the reporting of the subject of a complaint. I see that as a natural development of the procedure. Having trust and confidence in the process is fundamental for those who feel they have a legitimate complaint to come forward. It is important for me to set out that the public disclosure of the outcome would not affect the confidentiality of the process with respect to the complainer or others involved in the case such as witnesses. I cannot stress that point strongly enough. In relation to the conference of ministers, they should be assured that the process will be fair and that the expectations are set out and clearly communicated. After careful consideration, we propose to update the procedure and the Scottish Ministerial Code to reflect that, after the conclusion of the investigation, including any appeal, the name of the minister who is the subject of the complaint is to be publicly disclosed, as well as the outcome of the complaint. In addition, a redacted decision report for upheld or partially upheld cases will be published. For complaints that are not upheld, that is a different scenario, and it is proposed that more limited reporting is fair. As such, the minister's name and the outcome will be published for a period of six months. Changes will not be made retrospectively to investigations that have already been completed. Under the changes that I am discussing with the committee today, publication of the outcomes of future complaints about former ministers will be reported in the same way as complaints about current ministers. We will also proactively report the number of cases currently under investigation and any concluded in the previous period on a six-monthly basis. That will be reported on the Scottish Government website. Those proposals mean that ministers past and present will work to a more transparent set of reporting principles for upholding standards of behaviour in public life. We will publish those figures for the first time in December, after a short period of reflection on those changes with the committee, with staff, ministers and with trade unions. We have worked in tandem with our trade unions and staff and have taken soundings and advice from others with experience in complaints handling. Should there be complaints in the future, I believe that in publicly reporting the information that I am setting out today, we are striking the right balance between the public interest and maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of the complainant. I look forward to discussing those updates with the committee. In addition to the updates to the procedure, I am pleased to say that the continuous improvement programme has successfully completed the activities scheduled for the end of each quarter. A programme update was submitted to the committee at the end of July, and another will be completed to reflect the activities scheduled for the end of December. The programme has made good progress, the measures of success have been identified from the Scottish Government people's survey and will be supplemented by engagement that the property and ethics directorate has started throughout the organisation. The measures attempt to assess the degree to which the continuous improvement programme has contributed to an improved culture of openness and inclusion in the workplace. This is a workplace where bullying and harassment is not tolerated, and where early intervention and mediation continue to have a key role in addressing the majority of issues that arise before they become problematic. However, it is also a workplace where, if needed, our staff feel able and willing to speak out against unacceptable behaviours and understand and have confidence in the processes that are in place. I look forward to discussing the programme with the committee today. Okay, thank you very much. I will touch initially on the comments that you made in this opening statement. You said in that opening statement that there is a need for privacy and confidentiality and that the process has to be fair to both ministers and complainants, and it is important to strike the right balance. To a large extent, that certainly seems to be the case with regard to ministers where a minister is found against. However, I have to say that I am really quite astonished that, if complaints are not upheld, the minister will still be named. The information will be published for a fixed period of six months, which is nonsense, because it has been social media forever. How is that fair to someone? If you make a complaint about someone who is not upheld, why should the person be named? The complainant is not going to be named. How is that fair to both sides if the minister is named for what is effectively something that they have not done? How is that natural justice? There is a very difficult judgment here, convener. In coming to that judgment, I assure the committee that it is an issue that I have wrestled with very significantly, because I understand exactly the points that you are raising. However, as I have set out in my opening statement, there is a careful balance to be struck here between the nature of a due process to be undertaken and the need for there to be transparency. You will note, convener, in the information that I have shared with the committee that there is a difference between the approach that will be taken should a complaint be upheld or partially upheld and a complaint not being upheld, in the sense that there will be no details shared about the substance of the complaint if the complaint was not upheld. I recognise that there is a careful balance. As I indicated, we are setting out the proposals to the committee, the subject of dialogue with our trade unions and with our staff. If the committee is minded to give me feedback on that question or on other questions, I will consider that feedback before we come to final decisions about the application of this in terms of changes to the procedure and the ministerial code. I understood that perhaps 20 years ago, but now we live in a fetid environment on social media whereby the fact that a minister has just been named means that he or she will still be vilified. There will still be no smoke without fire or that kind of stuff. Is it fair to the minister and his or her family for that? The complaint is not going to be named anyway, so they are able to still continue on with their work, etc. Even though they have made a complaint that is not being upheld, the minister will still be that murk around the minister. Will it not? I cannot possibly, in my view, be fair. That is not a balance, I think. It seems to me that the privacy is respected throughout the process, which I would be shocked if it was, because it leaks to happen in such instances. I think that the key thing, convener, is wrestling with the question of transparency, because I regularly hear the pressure for the Government to be transparent about absolutely everything. Obviously, we have statutory and legislative provisions in place that require us to act in such a fashion. The judgment that I have come to in relation to this matter is that, given that we will be reporting about the fact that we will have had a certain number of complaints to ensure that we provide an entirely transparent picture, that is the right balance to strike. However, as I indicated in my earlier answer, if the committee considers—this is a matter of dialogue and scrutiny—that the Government is trying to respond to the legitimate calls for transparency, if the committee and its judgment believe that that is a step too far, then, of course, I will listen to that feedback. Okay, that is fine. That is a very fair comment. Who will publish the report every six months? The Government will do so. Okay, who will be specifically within the Government? It will be handled by the propriety and ethics directorate within the Scottish Government, which has been established in recent years. It was established in the autumn of 2021 to ensure that we had in place all the proper procedures and processes that members of the public would have a reasonable expectation that the Government would make for the handling of such matters. Obviously, if such matters are going to be published, it is important that the public know what the parameter is. How does the Scottish Government currently define bullying? Is it subjective, or is it objective, as it should be? I think that it would have to be an objective assessment. We are obviously putting in place, in these circumstances, a set of arrangements to try to address any such experiences. The whole approach goes back to what I said in my introductory remarks, that we aim to create a working environment in which there is no place for bullying. We will set out in that advice and guidance what would be considered to be examples of bullying, because we cannot be precise about absolutely everything. All organisations are able to set out their reasonable expectations of what bullying might look like. There are proactive efforts to create a climate and a culture that means that such behaviour is not, in any way, present in the working experience of members of staff. Should there be concerns raised, there is, again, in what I said earlier on, a keenness to ensure that those issues are resolved as early as possible and proactively as possible. Ultimately, if members of staff feel that they have the basis on which they wish to make a complaint, if they feel that the issues have not been satisfied or resolved, they can do so, and we have a procedure that enables that to be addressed. It is important to have objective criteria. You are absolutely right that you cannot encompass everything, but it is important to have that. The public's view of bullying may not be the same as the Scottish Government's. Depending on how old you are, my younger days bullying was only about violence and intimidation. Of course, it has changed considerably in terms of how its perception has got much more broader meaning. There is a much greater understanding of how psychological bullying can be, of course, someone who is into violence and intimidation. It is obviously psychological as well, but there are other forms of bullying psychological. For example, passive aggression, which is an issue that may or may not be covered by this. I would be interested in finding out what that is. If you could give us some examples of some of the objective criteria, I would appreciate that. The public has a greater understanding of what you mean by bullying. If it is upheld, you can say that bullying was upheld because of the minister's actions in terms of XYZ. The best way to answer that, convener, is by reference to the standards of behaviour that we set out in the guidance to members of staff and ministers. That guidance will be set out in the ministerial code. It will be set out in the standards of behaviour that are expected for the undertaking of the Scottish Government business. I am very happy to make those available to the committee to cast their eye over. I think that those approaches give a very clear distillation of our expectations of what the workforce will be like, what the experiences of members of staff should be like and, if they are not of that order, then the conduct can be resolved through the various means that I have set out. No-one on this committee has been a minister, but I can imagine that it can be quite stressful and wearying job at times. Will ministers be allowed to occasionally display the normal human traits of annoyance, frustration and impatience without potentially being denounced? I think that there is a careful balance to be struck between legitimate expectations of performance and support and inappropriate conduct. It is a point that I am mindful of a great deal. There will be times when I am frustrated by things that I put in front of me, but I will always express my frustration in an appropriate and courteous fashion. I need to be supplied with accurate information. If I do not use accurate information, people will complain about that. If I do not think that I am getting accurate information, I will press to get that accurate information, but I will do so in an appropriate fashion. There is a careful balance between setting out legitimate expectations of performance and behaving in a fashion in which your conduct is not acceptable. I think that ministers have to be very careful to calibrate that to balance in the right fashion. I thank you for that, as a number of colleagues I want to come in, so first we will be Douglas to be followed by Liz. I was just going to ask about complaints that are maybe in progress already. How will they be dealt with? Will they follow this new process or will they continue to work the old process? I am just trying to think what will be shown in the report in December. Will there be anything at all? There will be nothing shown in the report in December as things currently stand today, so there is no complaints with the Government, so we have none to report on in December. Is that because there is none in progress or none in progress that would match? There is none that we have. Essentially, we have got a complaints handling process that has been in place since February, and that is the process as it stands today. The changes that I am explaining to the committee are just for absolute total completeness. The procedure that was put in place in February, we have no complaints submitted under that basis. The changes that I am raising here today will give rise potentially to a moment of further change to the procedure in due course. At that moment, the points that I am raising today will be included in the procedure, so any complaints that are received after that moment of application, notwithstanding my response to the convener's points that the committee thinks that we are not getting this right, I will be interested to hear that from the committee. We will reflect those changes in the procedures at that time. I think that I slightly disagree with the convener. Even if somebody is cleared, I think that it should be published just like we have in the standards commission on councillors just now. The findings are always published. In terms of previous complaints, there was a suggestion that you could not publish the findings or even to say whether the complaint was upheld or not without getting into the details of things. Was that correct? What was the legality around that that stopped the Government publishing the outcome of that? Essentially, we have to have procedural arrangements in place that would enable that to be the case. Those arrangements did not exist until the points that I am putting to the committee this morning. That is because it did not explicitly say that you would report on the outcome of a case, is that correct? That is correct. You cannot even report on the number of cases that you have had and how many were upheld, how many were rejected, just to try to understand whether there is an issue here or not. In relation to the detail of previous issues, we responded to two FOI requests in June 2022 confirming that two investigations had been carried out in respect of three complaints since 2007. Our judgment was that that was the information that was appropriate for us to disclose given the fact that we have given the points that I have said to Mr Lomstone already. You do not think that it is appropriate to share the information about whether a complaint was upheld or not? It is not that. It is that I judge it not to be appropriate. It is that we do not have a basis for so-doing. Mr Swinney, I think that the Scottish Government and the Ethics Committee have gone a long way to improving the transparency. I very much welcome the progress that you have made since you first came to the committee, particularly in relation to complaints that are upheld or are partially upheld. I think that that is very good news. I have slight concerns partly from what the convener said about those circumstances where the case has not been upheld in ensuring that all that information comes out to the public unless there is categorical assurance to the person who potentially could have been vilified through social media, as the convener mentioned, or otherwise, unless it is very clear what exactly the reasons are for not upholding the complaint. We all know, especially if there is a bit of a time delay between the complaint being made and the investigation process, that there is scope for some individuals in any political party to be vilified by members of the public unfairly. I am slightly concerned that that potentially could have a bit of an implication for those who are attracted into politics and feel that the system is going to name and shame them even when they have actually not done anything wrong. I am a bit concerned about that process. If I could just have your reflections on that. Can I just ask when you mentioned that, obviously, former ministers could be including this? I take it that that is all former ministers. There is no time bar of ministers who have not been in office for 10 years or whatever. This is all ministers, is it? On that last point, yes, so all former ministers. In relation to the point about cases where a complaint is not upheld, I think that the first point, just for me to be absolutely clear about this, we would not be publishing any details about the case other than the fact that the name of the minister and the fact that a complaint had not been upheld. I am not going to say to the committee that I think that this is an absolutely certain judgment. I hope that I have left enough scope for the committee to be able to consider this point. Indeed, Mr Lumsden has presented a different argument in his question to me to the one that the convener and the Smith potentially presents to me. I understand the arguments that are made. I have wrestled with those very questions. I came down on the side of the preference for transparency, of absolute transparency, but I do accept that there is another and an alternative argument that could be applied in those circumstances. I will consider it should the committee make that point to me. It is just that if somebody genuinely has not engaged in the activities of which they have been accused, it is quite good for the public to know why it was a wrong accusation. It helps that person to move on rather than just to be named. There was a complaint made against him, but it was not upheld. I think that that leaves just a little bit of doubt in the minds of that person. If, for example, I accept—I do not think that there is any issue with this—indeed, this has been part of the demand that has been made for us in terms of transparency, has been received for any complaints to be acknowledged that there have been complaints. Indeed, that point lies at the heart of Mr Lumsden's question to me. If we take a scenario where we receive a complaint and it is not upheld, we would disclose that a complaint has been received. If we were to say that it has not been upheld, but it is not clear who the complaint was against, then there is a question mark across all current and serving ministers in that process. There is a very careful balance to be calibrated here about what information should be available in such circumstances. I do that there is no dispute about the fact that, if there is a complaint that has been made and it has been upheld, a certain amount of detail should be disclosed, but with the protection of the names of complainants and witnesses. I think that the committee is alighting on an issue in which there is not an absolutely certain question. To go back to one of the points that Liz Smith raised, which I did not respond to in my earlier answer, is in relation to what it is all to say to people who might think about becoming involved in politics. We are all very familiar with the degree of public commentary that can go with the work that all of us are involved in, so it adds to that mix. I completely understand what you are saying in relation to making available information that a complaint has been raised and the name of the person. If I were that person, I would just like the public to know that that was turned down on the specific reasons, so that I cleared my name. I would not want it to be a scenario in which there is an on-going doubt and confusion. I completely understand why you say that, if you did not name the person, all ministers potentially are involved in the speculation. However, if you are cleared of any wrongdoing, it is important to make it clear why. First Minister, do you not feel that the phrase not upheld sounds more like not proven than not guilty? Well, I do not think that it sounds like not proven. No, I do not. I am going to think about the public perception and the media perception. We are in different language here, convener. Has the complaint been upheld? Yes or no? Has the complaint been upheld? Yes or no? It is. If it has not been upheld, it has not got validity. It is not upheld. About what stage would a minister be—I do not mean report in a bad way—the initial contact and assessment stage or the investigation stage? I would imagine that it would be a bit unfair on a minister if the initial contact and assessment stage was ruled by ethics. That is not a complaint. I do not feel that it would be right that that was reported. That would not be correct if I am wrong here, but that would not register as a complaint, because it would not pass the threshold for consideration. If there is an initial consideration undertaken to judge whether or not what has been presented is a substantive complaint that passes the threshold for consideration, if the material did not pass that threshold, it would not be considered a complaint and it would not be reported. On that same point, am I right that the procedure that would be followed is very similar to one of the standards and ethics commissioners just now? If a complaint is made about somebody, he is duty bound to find out if that complaint should proceed by contacting the person and asking for evidence from the complainant and then it is his judgment as to whether it should become a formal complaint. Is that pretty much the same procedure that you are asking for? It is about an initial consideration of the substance of the issue as to whether it should be considered as a complaint. There were voices that will say that that provision should not exist and that it should all be considered, but my judgment is that it is appropriate that we have that consideration given also the context that Liz Smith puts around about other scenarios. Any other colleagues wish to comment or ask questions? No. Without further ado, I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their evidence today, and that concludes today's meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.