Chamber and committees

Did it all happen in one phone call between ministers—that is, the methodology and the allocation of where in Scotland that money was to go?

The allocation was made on 22 June 2023, I think, and then it was announced that Glasgow and Aberdeenshire had qualified. However, it appears that the only correspondence between Glasgow City Council and Scottish Government ministers happened that morning—a letter was sent to Scottish Government colleagues on 22 June. The idea that you can write in the morning and get £80 million of funding by the afternoon is a bit of a joke, really, isn’t it? The convener began to set out some general concerns about certain regional issues—displacement issues, for example, and how these things might work—but surely there has to be full transparency with regard to how such decisions are made and whether there has been proper evaluation of the economic impact and potential.

It strikes me that, at the time—in June 2023—the principal metric was probably the fact that there were Conservative seats at risk in Aberdeenshire and Scottish National Party seats at risk in Glasgow. Those were probably, first and foremost, the issues that the two Governments, working together, looked at in cutting out other parts of the country, if I am being honest.

Such an approach leads to that sort of issue being raised. The minister might disagree with my interpretation—I am sure that he does—but, if you do not have full transparency and a proper process in which people can develop bids based on the full economic potential of their areas, is that not a problem? Indeed, are you able to realise the full economic potential of that kind of investment if you do not have proper external bidding transparency based on long-term economic planning?

I was struck by the evidence of the Biometrics Commissioner—he was sitting where you are, Mr Carlaw—who told us that there could very easily be an end to his work. The body had to complete certain pieces of work, but, at their conclusion, it could pretty much pull down the doors and say, “We’re done here.” Have any of the office-holders indicated to you that they feel that their work is done?

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?