Chamber and committees

First, on the point about the level of detail, we have provided level 4 detail for health and local government. Have we provided it at that level for social security?

SPICe is also an expert organisation that provides support to parliamentarians, and, every year, it compares the local government settlement from budget to budget, because of in-year transfers. I am not disputing anything that anybody has said; all that I am saying is that there are good reasons why we do not compare local government funding to the ABR, which I have tried to set out as clearly as I can.

I will bring in colleagues, but at no point in our discussions with the Scottish Fiscal Commission has concern been raised with us that the information is hazy or not transparent. Any information that the Fiscal Commission provides is helpful. If it is able to provide additional clarity, that is not a bad thing.

We have a process with the Scottish Fiscal Commission.

I am keen to hear what the SFC has to say about pay. I have seen its comments and reflections.

There will be a number of factors, including what the potential transformation and reform will mean for the delivery of workforce reductions. There is a clear relationship between head count and pay, and what organisations can deliver via efficiency savings will be important and will play into future pay rounds.

Inflation will also be important. If it comes down to 2 per cent, as desired, that will be a factor in pay negotiations for 2027-28. Given the pressures on the budget for that year, we will need pay constraint. It will be a very tight year indeed, and we must set reasonable expectations. I believe that pay increases have been fairly generous so far, but they have also allowed us to avoid costly strike action. We must look at these things in the round.

I would say that the two-year deals mean that we are in a good place on pay. The alternative would be industrial disruption in many sectors, which we have managed to avoid by having two-year deals. Those are affordable and would not have been agreed if they were not so.

The robust work that has been led by Ivan McKee will have to deliver workforce reductions. We have set out what those reductions will be in every area. Cabinet secretaries and organisations, including health boards and other front-line services, will be required to deliver those reductions and will be tracked as they do so. We are not working on a wing and a prayer: there will be tracking, requirements, accountability and transparency in the delivery of all of that.

The final piece of the pay policy will be to revisit it in 2027-28 to see what is possible in the light of budgetary constraints, where inflation is and what the efficiencies have delivered by then. Head count and pay are absolutely interlinked.

That is not perfect, but you know as much as I do about the cost of industrial action—not just the cost in pounds and pence but the cost through the disruption to and impact on public services—and we have managed to avoid that.

I do not accept that characterisation. Work has been done at a very detailed level to deliver reasonable workforce reductions, which now have to be delivered. Essentially, they are baked into the assumptions that are being made about funding. Workforce reduction has to be delivered; it is not a nice-to-do.

In all the documentation that Ivan McKee has set out as part of his work on public service reform, he has gone into a huge amount of detail for each portfolio area. Each portfolio area has had to complete returns on the level of workforce reductions for each public body. Each public body has a target for head-count reduction, which can be tracked. All the material on that can be provided, and I am happy to provide it if doing so would be helpful.

I will provide the questions and the framework of the discussions. I will not necessarily provide material on the detailed discussions held about that information, because they were part of my meetings with colleagues about what the options were.

I had a very good meeting with the college principal last week, when we talked about the work that is happening on what is a very ambitious project and how the Scottish Funding Council is gearing up and working with the college as one of the first out of the box, if you like, to use a new revenue finance-based funding mechanism. The Scottish Funding Council is working on the detail of that with the college; the college principal is now sitting on the funding group; and the group has been given to autumn to come up with the actual mechanism and vehicle for delivering the revenue finance infrastructure plan, starting with the two colleges that have been prioritised—Dundee and Angus College and Forth Valley College. That vehicle can be used for further investment in the college estate; the key will be private sector investment through revenue finance, and that detailed work is on-going.

I guess that my reflection back to you, Mr Marra, is whether casting doubt on a project and describing it as being kicked into the long grass is in any way helpful in building confidence in the private sector, which will be required to come to the table to provide the finance. I do not think that that has been received very well by the college—