���˿���

What do you consider to be realistic? The Government could say that the average public sector worker in Scotland is paid £2,300 more than public sector workers down south. The sector makes up 22 per cent of the Scottish workforce compared to 17 per cent down south, so it is already a larger sector, and, relatively speaking, it is better paid. What would be realistic? The Government suggested 9 per cent over three years. Of course, inflation could be 1 per cent a year or 5 per cent a year—that is one of the obvious difficulties with multiyear settlements. What do you consider to be realistic?

Dave Moxham, you are keen to come in, and I will bring you in in a second.

Parliament is waiting with bated breath for the medium-term financial strategy—the first one for a couple of years—that will come in the next few weeks. You say in your submission:

“In recent years the MTFS hasn’t supported a more strategic approach to financial planning. Much of the blame for this lies with the previous UK Government whose fiscal policy was characterised by short-term budget decisions, a lack of spending reviews, and general contempt for the Scottish Parliament.

However, it also reflects a lack of early Scottish Government engagement with trade unions on strategic decisions about public sector resourcing and public sector pay.

Unrealistic public sector pay policy, published without the agreement of unions, has led to a regular cycle of strike ballots”—

and so on.

You can, of course, say what you were wanting to say—that is up to you. However, can you talk us through whether such issues arise elsewhere in the UK and what you consider to be a realistic public sector pay policy?

We are in public session, so, for the record, are there any specific countries that you think have got the transparency spot on—or near enough—and that we should emulate?

Let us go back to the issue of productivity. Paragraph 4.34 talks about the increase in expenditure. It says:

“Despite increased funding and staffing levels and initiatives to improve productivity and outcomes for patients, these are not yet making progress.”

Is there progress in Scotland in any area? For example, health boards that are struggling could look to other health boards in Scotland or, indeed, those outwith Scotland to see what they are doing well and how they can exchange best practice and take things forward.

To well over 270 per cent, according to—

The Scottish Government has given a commitment to hold an annual fiscal sustainability debate, and I am sure that your report will make a significant contribution to our deliberations. Thank you for your evidence. You certainly came mob-handed.

I will wind up the session with a wee advert for tomorrow morning’s event on the report, which has been organised by the Scottish Parliament information centre. It will start at half past 8 in the Holyrood room. Everyone is welcome. Apparently, it will be chaired by a young, dynamic and outrageously handsome MSP, so it will be worth attending for that alone. Bacon rolls will also be provided, which I know is always a big draw. I realise that some members of the committee—Liz Smith is one—will not be able to come along, as they have other committee meetings tomorrow, but I hope that those of you who can, will do so. There will be an opportunity to ask further questions about what is a really important report.

We will have a two-minute break to allow broadcasting and official report staff to leave.

Thank you for that statement. I do not have any questions, so I will open up the discussion to members of the committee. At the moment, the only member who wants to ask a question is Ross Greer.

Ross Greer makes a good point. For example, 37 per cent of universal credit recipients are in work, which is perhaps not talked about as much as it should be.

Earlier, Professor Breedon and Professor Roy talked about the importance of debt and whether the 98 per cent of GDP level could go up to 150 per cent. We can think about the impact on debt interest, because the UK already pays six times more in debt interest than it spends on the NHS in Scotland in a year. Obviously, if debt goes up, interest payments go up, and it is likely that the level of interest will go up because our rating will decline. That is quite an important point.

I have a final question. Michelle Thomson touched on climate change, but your report states:

“This report does not integrate the effects of climate change or the Scottish Government’s climate change response into our projections because the data is currently unavailable.

Climate change has been deemed the most important health threat of the century.”

It goes on to talk about the impact on society and individuals of

“wetter winters, hotter, drier summers ... temperature extremes ... and frequent flooding”

and about the effects on health and wellbeing.

What discussions have you had with the Scottish Government and, perhaps through the OBR, with the UK Government to try to secure that data? In the presentation that you gave last year, you said that it would cost £186 billion, at last year’s prices, in combined funding from the public and private sectors, to deal with the climate crisis. That figure has stuck in my mind. Where are you with all of that?

When I was watching the news this morning, I found out that I have a mental illness. It was said that hoarding is apparently some kind of mental illness. I have a huge library because I have been collecting books since I was at school, so does that mean that I am a hoarder? One wonders how realistic these definitions are. The definitions might be impactful for individuals, but we have to consider the wider societal impact of how we define some of these things.

Thanks very much.