Seòmar agus comataidhean

The cost of industrial action cannot be overestimated. Imagine how many appointments would be cancelled in the NHS if there was widespread industrial action—that would well outstrip the value of the pay deals.

Another thing to bear in mind is that it is difficult to walk away from the verdicts that have been given by UK public sector pay bodies, which we do not control. The UK Government set a policy of a 2.8 per cent pay increase, but pay review bodies’ verdicts went way beyond that. They took into account a more up-to-date inflation figure, because they had it to hand. To be fair to the UK Government, it was left in the same position as we are in. What is the point of having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings? The UK Government did not ignore the findings, and it would have been difficult for us to ignore them.

Through having mainly two-year deals, we can now focus all the effort on reform, efficiency and doing things differently, rather than on the annual round of pay negotiations. That has a big value, and it is what my colleagues and I are focused on. We have been pragmatic. We have tried to land somewhere reasonable that gives some certainty, buys us some peace and gets us moving into reform territory.

A lot of work has been done to try to put a ring around things that can be agreed on. I am working with local government on codifying elements of how we do business in relation to budgets, so that that becomes the framework. That is about having no surprises, early engagement, an open book approach and so on.

We have made good progress, but there is a bit of frustration that one or two things have prevented us from agreeing to and publishing the framework. I am optimistic that we can get there, because it is 95-plus per cent of the stuff that councils say made a huge difference to budget setting for 2025-26.

I am sympathetic to that point. There were some good examples in the 2025-26 budget in that regard, including the support to Shetland and Orkney for infrastructure and investment in their connectivity space.

I simply want to say that we will come back to the committee on the areas on which we said that we would provide more information, which we have taken a note of. We will do that as quickly as we can, and we will keep in contact about the date of the budget. I will reflect on what has been said about that.

We needed to start somewhere. We wanted to see what the interest and level of ambition and ideas would be for an invest to save fund of that magnitude.

We are very thoughtful about, first, the need to keep the fund going beyond one year, and secondly, the level of the fund. For example, we will give some thought to what ideas were not able to be funded through the pot and whether we could crank up some of the momentum, as I am personally very keen to keep it going.

I very much appreciate the points that you have made. I will of course reflect on everything that is said today about the timing of the budget and other matters.

I go back to the point that the timing is intrinsically linked to the SFC’s final deadline for receiving detailed information on borrowing, funding, expenditure and public sector pay proposals. The protocol with the SFC requires that we confirm that information four working days before the budget. For a 15 January date, that would be 9 January. However, if the date for the budget were 7 January, which you suggested, that deadline would be 29 December. The issue would be all the public holidays during that period and the requirement for us to get all that information. It would be better to have that first working week in January in which to work with the SFC to finalise the information.

There are also the unknowns at the moment. For example, we do not know what new tax propositions might emerge on 26 November or whether they will impact on the Scottish budget and devolved taxes. The SFC will need time to work through that complicating factor.

I am willing to reflect on committee members’ views on the date, but I am trying to set out some of the challenges that would come with that.

I do not know whether Alasdair Black wants to say anything.

The reduction will happen over a five-year period and it is being delivered through a number of mechanisms that Ivan McKee has set out in the framework.

We expect all parts of the public sector to produce plans on how they will reduce their corporate costs. Some of that will be in the shared services space, so it is about sharing some of the corporate functions, such as human resources or payroll. Our Oracle system is on offer to the public sector, and a number of public sector organisations have approached the Scottish Government about coming on to the Oracle system. Organisations will have to look at how those functions are shared, rather than, for example, every single health board having all of the functions, which cannot be the way forward.

All areas, public bodies and parts of the public sector—even some of our small public bodies—are expected to set out detailed plans on how they will get there and make efficiencies. Ivan McKee is regularly monitoring that as it comes in. The invest to save funding was also important to oil the wheels of some of that work. Some of the efficiencies might be in the voluntary redundancy space, but others will come from automation and being able to do things differently. A lot of interesting bids for that money have been agreed to.

Richard, do you want to say a little more about that?

Yes. However, I will come back to you with the actual numbers. The target is significant, but it is more than achievable on the bigger scale, as you have said. However, it must be done in the right way: it is not about randomly taking an axe to services but, in the main, about natural attrition and voluntary severance. We have talked previously about the need to be clear about the no compulsory redundancy policy: in extremis, if all other routes have been explored, that will remain a possibility.

We have a Cabinet sub-committee that is specifically aimed at tackling and eradicating child poverty. At its most recent meeting—again, without giving away any trade secrets—we got into that space. For example, we talked about whether the mental health offer through the health service is reaching those children and families who need it most.

The same applies to our childcare offer. Is it flexible enough to meet the needs of families who are either not in work or are in low-paid or part-time work? It is about employability. More flexible childcare could assist those families out of poverty.

I assure you that, whether it is colleges, childcare or health, we are looking at what more we can do with the tens of billions that we spend on our public services to point them more in the direction of lifting families out of poverty.

As you would expect, we are bringing that degree of examination and challenge to all of our programmes—