Chamber and committees

There are different parts to it. If you go through the public service reform agenda, there are 18 workstreams in there. I will not go through them all, but some of that is about core efficiency, whether in estates, procurement, digitisation, automation, and so on. A lot of that is in the corporate space. However, when it comes to looking at the size of the prize, you will see that there is a significant amount about how we do integration more effectively, how we join up services and how we invest in prevention.

The whole-family support work is an example of integration. It is about getting a number of agencies in a local area to work together to understand how they interact with the individual and the family they are all supporting—it involves joining up those services. What do you need in order to do that? We also have a workstream on data sharing, so that the same story does not have to be told multiple times. Different agencies and parts of the public sector are then able to provide support because they have the full set of information on the people they are working with. It also means that budgets might need to move between silos at a local level to best corral the resources and deploy them in the most effective way.

There is a whole range of stuff in there on leadership, culture, empowerment and data sharing, as well as on the corporate cost savings.

As you will be aware, recruitment has been significantly focused on ensuring that we are only bringing in absolutely essential staff, or staff for which there is a cost saving by bringing them in, because we are replacing more expensive contractors or third-party services that are more expensive. There has been a reduction in each of the last two years in the total Scottish Government workforce. This year, the reduction has continued, and we are on target to deliver another significant reduction. I do not have the numbers to hand, but the Scottish Government has fewer staff now than we had at the start of the financial year and we have fewer than we had two or three years ago. That reduction is continuing.

I cannot remember the exact percentage, but there was a significant reduction in the first part of the year. I go through the information with officials every two weeks and look at updated numbers every month. We are on target to deliver another significant reduction this year, which will continue in the next five years. We have committed to that reduction.

I do not have to hand the figure on that underspend, but officials can pull up the specifics of that. Again, what is important is outcomes, and we continue to outperform the rest of the UK in terms of inward investment. We also have strong export growth. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of opening a premises for a Scottish biotech business in Glasgow—a spin-out from the University of Glasgow—with world-leading technology. It is one of many, many businesses in that space, and Scottish Enterprise is supporting its move to new and larger facilities.

That support is there, and it is impactful, but it is important that it is targeted, effective and cost effective, and that we get results from that.

First, as I said, we recognise the importance of economic growth—of course we do; it is central to the Government’s mission. Enterprise agencies are not the only players there, but they have a role to play. The funding that is allocated is to support their activities, which are delivering results across a range of areas.

The budget process is about ensuring that we allocate funds as appropriate across all portfolios, given competing pressures—and there is no shortage of pressures across the piece. We believe that the money that is allocated means that enterprise agencies can effectively deliver what they need to. Of course we would like there to be more funds, but they are getting significant results with the funds that they are being allocated.

It is important to reflect on the principle that, in most cases, the policy decision on how the funding is spent is in one portfolio but the delivery sits in another. That reflects the cross-cutting nature of the challenges that we face. Portfolios do not operate in silos. Indeed, as the committee recognises, a huge part of the work that we are taking forward through the public service reform agenda is to break down silos and allow funds to flow more easily so that we can deliver on outcomes and not just focus on inputs in the budget sense. If, therefore, you accept that policy decisions need to be made as part of overall policy on health, for example, but the delivery of that resource is through another portfolio, it makes sense to have those transfers.

I welcome input from the committee on how to address that issue. I would not say that having those transfers is ludicrous; it reflects the complexity of the work that we are doing. The reality is that policy decisions are taken in the round across the budget so that those resources have the greatest impact. The delivery of that does not—

I would not use the word “control”. I go back to the fact that we have a complex and interrelated system and that, in order to set a budget and have accountability, that has to be broken down into chunks or what you might call “silos”. There is huge recognition that one of our biggest challenges is about having the ability to co-ordinate, integrate and join up so that funds flow to where they will make the most impact, which may not be where they sit on the page. That requires flexibility but also co-operation, and money has to move between portfolios to facilitate that.

Of course.

You can call it “tinkering”, or you can call it “agility”, but—