Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is something that we should not discount. The starting point is usually the baseline. For the obvious reason, so much of the devolved spend is tied up in parcels that are the big chunks of spend—health, local government and social security. If we took a zero-based budgeting approach to health, for example, we would quickly reach the position of saying that, in order to keep the service functioning, it requires this level of funding.

Does that mean that we should not ask ourselves some fundamental questions about the outcomes for the chunk of funding that goes to local government, health, social security and everything else? We should ask ourselves those questions. Previously, we have attempted to have challenge in the system on why we are spending money on something and on what it delivers. It is, however, quite difficult to start with a blank sheet of paper when you have systems that you must operate. People expect to receive services. There cannot be a pause on all of that, so there is some essential spend.

One of the things that we were considering was the future of the advisory group and its future role. I can write with further detail on this but I recollect that, at the most recent meeting, I asked the group’s members about its future and its role, and about what might be appropriate, given the position that we had reached. That discussion is still on-going, but I will write to the committee with an update of where we have got to.

We have an annual debate about “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland”, because the GERS figures are based on the current constitutional arrangements rather than on the opportunities that would come from Scotland being able to make its own decisions on tax and use economic levers that we do not currently have. Goodness—if ever we needed an example of why that matters, we could look at what happened to the fishing industry this week. These are points of principle that we clearly disagree on. You are not in favour of the movement to Scotland of any further powers, and I take a very different view.

We would need to get into the detailed work on what we were talking about. For example, if the UK Government were willing to have a more general review of the fiscal framework, we would identify what powers and levers we were talking about and, at that point, do the detailed work of asking what that would mean for Scotland under the current arrangements. In the absence of any of that, full fiscal autonomy is a principle that we adhere to, but—

That is under the current constitutional arrangements, which says quite a lot about those arrangements—

I am trying to think through what such a statement would contain. It would have to be fairly general in nature, otherwise we would, in essence, be doing the same thing twice, and I am not sure that that would be the best use of time. If there are big changes—for example, if something happens that will have a major impact—it is important to bring that to the attention of the Parliament. I would always try to do that, as we have done previously, if something was going to have an in-year impact.

We can have a debate about how successful the process has been. One of the things that we were attempting to do through our pay policy was to really push multiyear pay settlements, and we have been quite successful in that respect, as we have significantly moved away from single-year pay deals. For example, ScotRail’s pay deal is 6.6 per cent over two years, and I am not sure that we would have got there if we had not set the expectation that, if you want more than 3 per cent, it will have to be a multiyear settlement. In that respect, we have managed to really push multiyear pay deals.

NHS pay under the agenda for change should, in my view, be seen as a ceiling, not a floor. In previous years, that has meant that nobody has had a bigger increase in pay than nurses. We have on-going dialogue with local government on expectations to ensure that we reach settlements that are fair but affordable. There are discussions with local government about a multiyear deal, which is helpful, because, if we can get to a position in which there is an outbreak of peace for a couple of years for everybody—including those on the union side—who is consumed with the enormous task of annual pay negotiations, we can buy a bit of time to be spent on other areas, such as reform and terms and conditions, which unions and particular workforces are keen to focus on. We could use those two years to make progress in those areas.

I will certainly look at that programme in more detail. I am always keen to look at new ideas and initiatives. If something is working elsewhere, I would be keen to look at it, so I will follow that up.

That decision sits with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and it will then have to go to the Parliamentary Bureau. I cannot give a specific date until that is agreed, but it will be important to set that out in detail, with a clear link to elements of the MTFS and to the sustainability plan, of which reform will be a key pillar.

—but I would expect line managers to enact the proper disciplinary procedures, as they are set out, if someone was viewing material that they should not be viewing during work time or on work devices. That would be the case in any workplace.

On productivity, I do not hold the assumption that you can be productive only if you are in the office. Staff can be productive wherever they work, as long as they are managed in an appropriate way and are meeting the goals that are set by their line managers. We have to be careful not to see some of the progress that has been made in relation to more flexible working patterns, particularly for those who have caring responsibilities, as a negative—I do not see it as a negative. However, elements such as being part of a team and getting to know colleagues are important, too. There needs to be a balance, with people being in the office at an appropriate level to be able to do those things while making sure that productivity levels are upheld. The permanent secretary is seeking to achieve that balance through the guidance that was sent out to staff a couple of weeks ago. He will expect staff to adhere to that position, which I think strikes the right balance.

No, I am not saying any of those things. I am just setting out the reasons why there is sometimes a delicate balance of policy and spend for the number of police officers or teachers. The delivery sits in a different place to the spend, and it is about making sure that there is still policy coherence if we make changes to the delivery. The point that the convener made earlier was that there are some areas of spend that are quite stable and remain the same. There may be a distinction to be made between those areas and some of the more fluctuating policy and delivery areas, where keeping the spend the same would be trickier. I am not against looking at that, and I do not want you to get the impression that I am. I am just setting out that there are sometimes good reasons why those in-year transfers happen in the way that they do. However, I am very happy to look at that.