Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question for David Livey concerns the financial pressures that many voluntary organisations are feeling. When I used to be a councillor I often had to look closely at funding applications. I would notice how difficult such organisations found it to pay their staff and keep the lights on in their premises, as Ms Smith mentioned earlier. Are such pressures making those issues worse? When I used to look at those applications, I would notice a pay gap, in that people working for voluntary sector organisations—which, in many senses, fulfil what should be the role of public services—seemed to be paid significantly less than they would be had they been working for local authorities, for example. Are those pay gaps extending and widening?

To go back to the point about preventative spending, if the voluntary sector cannot fulfil the vital services that they provide, the responsibility for doing so will roll back on the state, at, I assume, considerably higher cost. Are you noticing any deterioration in pay and conditions in the sector? How aware are central and local government bodies that if we lose those voluntary organisations the upstream costs down the line will be much more significant?

I think that both of those lead to stagnation, poor decision making and ultimately a downfall. I suspect that interfacing with politicians in the next 12 months might be quite interesting in that respect. Particularly in relation to public finances and long-term projections, what impact will hubris and complacency have? How can the Fiscal Commission work with us to make sure that the Government displays neither?

One of the other areas that you identify, and the Scottish Government identified, as potentially helping to save its bacon, is the pivot towards preventative spend. When I have listened to ministers discussing that, I have struggled with the definition of what is preventative spend and what is spending on problems that have a significant acuity. To take the example of the prescription of Mounjaro on the NHS, you could say that that is dealing with a problem of obesity that could have been dealt with earlier, but equally you could argue that it is preventative spending because it stops the acuity in the health issues that could arise out of somebody remaining clinically obese for a significant period. Do you get the sense that the Government has a clear-cut definition of what is preventative spend? If it does not have that, how will it be able to proceed towards the stated objective?

It goes further than the health service. For example, if you cut an employability scheme, you are dealing with unemployment or skills gaps later. Does the Scottish Government need to do more work to classify it right across the board? Otherwise, it strikes me that it is problem solving all the time rather than preventing problems from developing. Is that just the nature of the short-term stop-go budget gap?

You mentioned earlier the misalignment between different strategies and workstreams that the Government is undertaking, but you note in your submission that the medium-term financial strategy does not refer to the national performance framework at all—there is no misalignment; there is just no attempt to align the two. The convener, Mr Marra and I spoke with the Scottish Government last week about its review of the national performance framework. I took from that meeting that, at best, there will be some tinkering with it but not a fundamental remodelling or reworking of what it does or what it is intended to do. You go on to mention that no performance data has been reported against 11 of the 81 current national performance indicators.

If we are to press ahead with something like the national performance framework and if it is to be useful, what would you like to see coming out of that? If it is to be a benchmarking exercise, presumably it is just an internal monitoring thing and it should rest with the national statistician. If it is to be a toolkit, arguably an organisation such as Audit Scotland could have some interface with or ownership of it to a certain extent. What impression do you have of where the Government is going on this? If it is to be useful and valuable, and therefore we should commit further taxpayers’ money to it, what would you like to see emerging at the end of this process?

Can you think of an example of where you personally drew a minister’s or a Government’s attention to risks in clear and vivid terms? How responsive do they tend to be to that? Generally, they are smart people who are advised by smart people and sometimes they might be prepared to take those risks.

Thank you, convener—life expectancy is something that I am now worried about.

Good morning, gentlemen. In order to balance its budget, the Scottish Government is setting significant store in looking at the Government and public sector workforce. In your submission, you note that

“more detail on size and costs of the workforce ... is useful”

and

“will aid scrutiny”

but

“an approach focused purely on controlling workforce numbers and pay costs will not address capacity issues and is unlikely to be sufficient to put public finances on an even keel”.

Could you elaborate on that and say what more should therefore be done both in relation to the workforce and elsewhere to get the public finances on an even keel?

Good morning, Mr Moxham. I want to discuss how Scottish trade unions enter into discussions with the Scottish Government on pay negotiations. You will be aware that the Government has set a public sector pay target of 9 per cent over the coming—

Mr Kellet, I liked your appeal at the beginning, when you said that you were not necessarily looking for any additional money. That is probably quite reassuring for the Government at this point in time.

I tried to find the evidence session in which this evidence was given to the committee. I cannot remember who gave this evidence, but we had somebody before us who said that one of the tensions in the NHS is the striving for more people—more surgeons, more doctors and more nurses. The analogy that they used was that putting more chefs in a kitchen that has no better equipment or that is not bigger will not necessarily lead to more throughput. Is there a tension because the Government—it is the fault of all of us, to a certain extent—is pressing for more clinicians et cetera when, in order to move towards real preventative spend, we need to change the narrative with the public and say that, actually, the old ways of doing things will not necessarily deliver? We know that we need to bring down orthopaedic waiting lists, for example, so we do need to focus on that, but is there a trade-off and is preventative spend losing the argument at the moment?