Chamber and committees

I entirely accept that. In a more digital age where we immediately go into written correspondence, is there a risk that people will be more guarded about what they set down than they might be in a face-to-face meeting, where there is an opportunity to have a more interactive and personalised approach to eliciting and responding to concerns? Is there now less capacity for that face-to-face engagement? Is there too much written correspondence that is more formal in its approach and therefore, perhaps, less sympathetic or empathetic?

11:45

Earlier, we discussed some of the issues that have arisen around the strategies and plans that have been put forward to date, with some questions about whether or not they are realistic in the aspirations that they set out. One area that has been identified in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan for addressing the fiscal gap concerns the size of the public sector workforce. A commitment was made on reductions over a four-year period. We now have evidence suggesting that, in the first 12 months, the head count has actually gone up and is now more than 5,000 ahead of the planned trajectory.

Do you accept that such examples undermine confidence and suggest that the strategies that the Government has in place to deliver efficiencies are off course and unrealistic?

Do you have a reason for that? In a sense, nobody would necessarily expect there to be linear progress over the four years. However, to start off by going up rather than down simply does not make any sense. Presumably, when that target was set, there was an understanding of what the expectations were.

Can I take it from that that the suggestion that the efficiencies and savings that have been set out in the MTFS are, in essence, not credible and will have to be reviewed?

That involves using one-off funding to smooth budgets. The other risk is that that is freezing the funding for the investment in net zero, for which the fund is supposedly being accrued.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You make a fair point that some of these decisions are having to be taken in the context of shifting sands, but in recent weeks, the committee has heard a pretty consistent message from witnesses about a mismatch between policy ambition and implementation plans. I will give one example. Stephen Boyd of the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland said:

“the policy framework as a whole—the MTFS, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan in particular, the spending review and other documents published since—does not provide a credible and coherent plan for dealing with the fiscal challenge that the Scottish Government is going to face over the course of this parliamentary session”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 9 September; c 27.]

We have a range of plans and strategies, but at this point, we have no real evidence on how those are working in practice. I understand that the Government will have to respond to circumstances, but, fundamentally, there seems to be a view among many of the witnesses from whom we have heard that the efficiencies and savings outlined in the plans that have been published do not appear to be realistic or deliverable.

What reassurance can you give those witnesses, and the committee, that you are listening to their voices? Those are not new criticisms—Audit Scotland has, over a number of years, been making similar statements that the detailed plans to back up the commitments made by the Government are simply not there.

We will come on to public sector reform.

Given that climate change is seen as one of the real risks in relation to the fiscal position in which we find ourselves, that lack of investment in net zero projects is clearly compounding that risk. Would you concur with that assessment?

I, too, was going to mention the Apologies (Scotland) Act 2016, because the intent behind that was to offer an opportunity to apologise and, I think, to provide a more empathetic response rather than circling the wagons.

I have been struck by what you said about the culture of fault-finding and the more litigious and adversarial approach. You spoke about individuals being far more aware of their rights. That, combined with those other factors, makes it hard to see how there will not still be a temptation to circle the wagons in that environment.

How do you see the provisions of the legislation encouraging a move away from what, in some instances, may feel like a natural human response for some individuals? That is not to justify the behaviour at a corporate level that Mr Marra was quite rightly amplifying and condemning earlier, but rather to consider the position at an individual level, where there may be contested facts around a particular situation.

This has largely been covered in Liam Kerr’s questioning but, on the ScotWind point, concerns were raised about it effectively being a secondary reserve, as you have acknowledged, cabinet secretary.