Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the convener’s point about productivity, I note that a report that the Institute for Fiscal Studies produced recently says that the productivity changes in Scotland have been much worse than those in the rest of the UK. There has been a productivity rebound in the NHS in other parts of the UK but not in Scotland. Can you give us any reflections on why that would be the case given the reform process? Is the pace of change not strong enough? Why has the position in the rest of the UK not been reflected in Scotland?

You have been clear that that is partly due to the Government not having clarity of its own intent around post-school skills reform. Until the Government does that, how on earth are colleges meant to know? The idea is that we will have a public sector reform board and a change fund of £30 million, which accounts for 0.05 per cent of the overall budget. Will those things not simply be paying lip service unless work is actually done to say “This is where we want to go”?

Is transparency not also a key issue in that regard? I have similar concerns to the convener. In NHS Tayside, no vasectomies have been carried out for two years. None were carried out for a whole year and then, using the kind of arrangements that you have described, we managed to secure 400 procedures—these were family planning decisions—to be carried out elsewhere. Those services have, in effect, been withdrawn locally but nobody has been told that. People are sitting on waiting lists and they need to be told about that situation. Is engagement with the public in the processes that you are talking about key to what you do?

It might be useful to have some indication of the guidance that was issued, convener, given the committee’s interest in interoperability, particularly when new systems are being built.

What I am hearing so far from the various contributions is that you are all doing your jobs: you are delivering against the mandates that are set out for you in legislation and as directed by Government. We are interested in the opportunity for reform and change more broadly.

I suppose that what you are describing, Alison, is the changes that you are making in Transport Scotland to increase demand for public transport, and that is you meeting the mandate that is set out for you. I am interested in whether organisations feel that they have the agency to respond to the broader vectors with regard to the need for reform, not just the financial limitations of budgets—Garry McEwan mentioned the downward pressure on budgets—but the external pressures of demographic change, climate change and technological change, and to adapt what they are doing.

I was struck by NHS National Services Scotland’s submission. It refers to—this is the top of its list—a

“compelling case for change”

being a

“Burning platform”.

That seems to me to be about an emergency response rather than an organisation having the agency to say what it thinks that it, as part of a set of public organisations, will have to do to respond to the context that Scots find themselves in and how they live their lives. I want to know about the leadership opportunities that you as organisations have to respond to that. Maybe the witnesses could give me a flavour of that.

The idea is that, rather than asking whether we can re-engineer legacy systems, if a new system is being built, it should be built to a standard that enables data to be shared between, for example, Food Standards Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council.

Lynne Raeside talked about building a new data system. You said that that was done independently. Did you consider, and did the Scottish Government provide any form of guidance on, the need to ensure that your data system could be used interoperably with the other agencies that are represented around the table today?

Thank you for the Scottish Funding Council’s submission, which is very useful.

In common with much of the information that we have received, there is a lot to say about the internal operations of your organisations. We explored some of those issues with the Auditor General in the previous evidence session—you might have caught some of it. There is your internal operation as public bodies, but there is also the broader programme of reform and what the Government intends to do about the sectors for which you have some responsibility.

With regard to the SFC in particular, it is interesting to understand your internal processes, but the broader reform of the post-school system must surely be the meat of reform in your area. Do you feel that there has been sufficient guidance or direction from the Government regarding where you are headed and what you should be helping to govern?

Okay.

It is good to see you in front of the committee, Mr Boyle. We have not seen you for a while. Today, we are looking at your report on fiscal sustainability, which was published in November, but a lot of the things that you say remind me of comments that you have made previously. In that regard, I have picked out five Audit Scotland reports from the previous 15 months.

In your report “NHS in Scotland 2024: Finance and performance”, you said:

“fundamental change in how NHS services are provided is now urgently needed.”

In “The 2023/24 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts”, which was published in October 2024, you said:

“The Scottish Government’s projections suggest that it cannot afford to pay for public services in their current form.”

Back in November 2023, in “The 2022/23 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts”, you said:

“Fiscal sustainability is one of the highest-ranking risks in the corporate risk register.”

In October 2023, in “The Scottish Government’s workforce challenges”, you said:

“The Scottish Government’s projections suggest that it cannot afford to pay for public services in their current form.”

Having read those reports, and your most recent one, it feels to me as if you are banging your head against a brick wall. You started today by saying that the concerns that you have raised remain valid post-budget. Is there a sense of real frustration that you are not being heard?

I wonder whether the warnings that you repeatedly give us—and that you give the Government directly—in terms of detailed analysis are not sufficient to animate the Government into recognising the medium-term financial position. I am trying to understand that. Collectively, we have echoed and highlighted some of your concerns and, we hope, have put our own on to the Government’s radar. In your view, what would be sufficient to animate the Government to act?