Chamber and committees

On a different matter related to the running of the Parliament and the general budget, there is an allocation for

“enhanced Parliamentary business at the end of session 6”.

It feels as though calling it “enhanced” is slightly commendatory, rather than pejorative, language. Frankly, the running of the legislative programme is chaotic. Have representations been made to the Government that the way that it is running the legislative programme—we have spent years having debates without motions and pointless discussions and we are now cramming in an unbelievable amount of bills over multiple days with late sittings—is a problem of its own creation? Has the SPCB made representations to the Government that that costs the taxpayer money, let alone that there is bad legislation at the other end of that process?

As part of those longer-term plans, we have been told in the Scottish Government’s fiscal sustainability delivery plan that there will be a 0.5 per cent annual reduction in the public sector workforce. Is that figure credible?

The current Government cannot bind the next one in relation to spending priorities. However, at the start of this spending review cycle—which we are already a fair way into, because it has been pushed back to be published in January—would we not miss the opportunity to set an overall trajectory if the Government did not do that now?

You are talking about prioritisation within different areas, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission has set out the challenge around where we need to reach by 2029-30. Surely, therefore, it has to address that issue in terms of the longer-term trajectory. It cannot simply kick it a further year down the road and say, “We’ll wait and see what the next Government is and it’ll come up with some answers; that might be us or it might be somebody else.”

Can we go back to the Scottish spending review, please, David? What does the Scottish Government need to achieve when it publishes its spending review and how do you think it should go about achieving it?

So, if we are brought budget figures that say that the Scottish Government will achieve a £200 million reduction in the public sector workforce in the following year, is that a credible position?

I will reference figures that have been published today. The headcount in public corporations is up by 5.8 per cent—500 people. In “Other Public Bodies”, it is up by 0.7 per cent. The devolved civil service headcount is up by 1.5 per cent. That trajectory is going in completely the opposite direction, despite the minister telling us that the Government is getting things under control and that it is heading in the other direction. That is completely untrue.

My last point is about the application of AI. You mentioned how that could, potentially, lead to productivity gains. Two weeks ago, we had evidence from representatives of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, who talked about AI as a solution to some of their problems. However, they have a huge batch of records that are not digitised. Is a big leap in capital investment in public services not required to get us into a position in which AI could be applied, rather than its being seen as an off-the-shelf solution that could result in better outcomes and better productivity?

Convener, I thank you and the committee for your forbearance and allowing me time to ask questions, and I thank the Auditor General for what is, I hope, a very useful report. You have highlighted, rightly, that there have already been an awful lot of reports from various sources.

To start with, I want to follow on from Colin Beattie and ask about delayed discharge. You have said that things are taking too long and that there is no clear plan in place. Ryan Caswell, a constituent of mine, has been a delayed-discharge patient for five years and 10 months in completely inappropriate settings. I have raised his case again and again and again and again, but there seems to be no progress in getting him out of that inappropriate setting and into another situation.

My question, then, is this: is the structure limiting progress? You have touched a little bit on the interaction between the health board and the IJBs. In the research that you have done and the work you have looked at, is the relationship between the IJBs and the health board just too intractable to deliver an outcome and make the change?

On 2 May, I asked the board when it will next examine the business case and associated costings for the move, and it has still not provided any indication of when it will do so. Has Rachel Browne or Eva Thomas-Tudo seen in their work any evidence that the board has looked at a revised plan setting out the costings for, and the impact of, such a move?

I suppose that what I am asking—

You started the evidence session by talking about the issue of leadership, Auditor General, and the comment in the report about NHS Tayside having

“Limited skills and capacity for leading and participating in the”

whole-system change programme really jumps out. You have said that the board is trying to bring in a single member of staff to do that work, but can you say more about where that capacity and that capability are missing? Is it in the IJBs, or is it in the central leadership? What is the deficit that the board is trying to make up?