Chamber and committees

Absolutely—fair dos.

I want to explore that a bit more. I absolutely agree with you about the constraints on pay and the difficulty of the budget, but how specifically will you be able to support agencies in squaring that circle—to use a horrible analogy? They will be required to deliver to budget—exactly as the Scottish Government is required to do—and to make those changes at the same time and manage the very real issues that they have with the cost base. My question is really about how you see your role in supporting agencies with those conflicting demands.

Last week in the chamber, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Michael Matheson, gave a speech with which I strongly agreed. He emphasised the need for culture change and talked about some of the work that is being done on that. I intervened to comment that, because of my previous life experience, I know that changing culture as part of general change programmes is the hardest thing to do. Do you think that the culture within the civil service, national agencies and local authorities needs to change? Do you back up what Professor Humes from the University of Stirling described in a previous evidence session as “a cosy conformity” in the culture? If so, in what ways does it need to change?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I thank the rest of the panel for attending as well.

Before other members come in on the budget, I want to discuss briefly public sector reform, which was trailed extensively, although the budget does not contain any specific plans for how that will happen. I appreciate that the issue is complex and challenging, and that real costs are associated. I understand that the approach thus far is for some 129 agencies to look at where they could make improvements. Arguably, that is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I therefore want to explore with you, from the perspective of your portfolio, your understanding of the approach that is being taken. Is it top down or will it work in alignment with your education reform programme—in which case, how will you dovetail that programme, which is extensive enough, with the wider public sector reform?

I have a couple of follow-on questions. Purely in terms of delivery, if the deadline was 10 years hence and there were no electoral cycles, the approach that one would choose to adopt—and public pressure—might be different to what they will be given intervening events such as elections. How will you square the nuanced approach and the pressure that there will be for demonstrable delivery, cabinet secretary? People will be crying out for real, evident change but with a nuanced approach against a 10-year delivery plan. Perhaps you can reflect on some of the complexities that you see in that.

Thank you for that. You are right that we will come on to talk about the reform agenda.

I will follow on from that. In terms of a “lean” to the budget, a specific public sector pay policy has not been published. How will you support agencies that are struggling to set budgets and, as I commented earlier, where there is a real cost to the savings that they need to make? What is your role in supporting them—without the framing of a public sector pay policy?

Yes, we did.

Of course, that is the case not just in schools but in other key stakeholder groupings.

I will move on. One of the other things that has been talked about is empowerment in the system and a kind of licence to operate, if you like, and how the Scottish Government can create an environment in which teachers are empowered, given that there is a part in the middle where COSLA and local authorities sit. My question is almost from a leadership perspective. What leadership can you put in place to ensure that teachers are empowered? Of course, that translates all the way through the system.

You have stated that you require all Scottish Government portfolios to set out savings and reform plans. If I were cynical, which, of course, I am, I would suggest that turkeys do not tend to vote for Christmas, so asking those bodies—I think that there are 129 rather than 131, convener—to consider tightening up reform themselves, or even suggesting that they do not need to exist, seems optimistic.

The problem is that, when you create a body, it takes on a life of its own and develops a vested interest. This is a question that I asked the former Deputy First Minister. It is my experience that turkeys do not vote for Christmas so, although public bodies might suggest some tinkering reforms, they will be unwilling—for very obvious reasons—to make the scope and scale of reforms that are really needed for you to achieve some savings. I would appreciate your thoughts on that. That is my final question, convener.

The outlook for public sector finances is not going to get any better. The Conservatives have guaranteed that, and there are certainly no further offerings from the Labour Party should the UK Government change. Will the cabinet secretary consider, in future years, setting fiscal rules to protect the money from ScotWind?

I am pretty confident that, had various UK Governments been challenged over not building any fund with the oil money, they would have cited public sector pressures in exactly the same way. Will the cabinet secretary consider developing and then sticking to fiscal rules? Otherwise, we will embed ourselves in a financially dependent situation, rather than the opposite. We can look at what Norway has managed to do.