���˿���

I realise that I have been asking questions for quite a while now—I apologise to colleagues for that. I will ask one more and then I will let everyone else in. There is another really interesting but depressing statistic in paragraph 4.48 in the report:

“Disability prevalence has risen from 19 per cent of the UK population in 2002-03 to 27 per cent of the population by 2022-23.”

Do your projections expect that trend to continue, to stay the same or to reverse?

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, which was published on 8 April 2025, and which has a particular focus on health.

I welcome to the meeting, from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Professor Graeme Roy, chair; Professor Francis Breedon, commissioner; Dr Caroline Carney, senior analyst; and Claire Murdoch, head of fiscal sustainability and public funding.

Before we move to questions, I invite Professor Roy to make a brief opening statement.

The SFC witnesses are sitting right behind you, so I am glad that you are saying that.

In your evidence earlier, you raised the issue of technology. You talked about reform and how technology can help to reduce costs for the Scottish Government. On page 55 of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s sustainability document, on health, the SFC assumes that healthcare costs will increase by 1 per cent every year for the next half century, and it talks about the Baumol effect, due to healthcare being labour intensive, and long-term conditions. It also says that 0.13 percentage points of that cumulative increase in annual spend over 50 years—which is clearly a lot—

“captures the effect of technological advancements on healthcare costs.”

The SFC also says:

“Developments in medical devices, techniques, and procedures tend to push up costs, or where costs are reduced, can result in the expansion of treatments.”

Therefore, is it the case that technology does not always deliver the savings that one might look for?

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2025 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Michael Marra, who will not be attending the committee this morning. Ross Greer will participate, but he will not arrive before 10:15, so unfortunately he might not participate in this item.

The first item on our agenda is an evidence session on the Scottish budget process in practice. We are joined this morning by Stephen Boyle, Auditor General for Scotland, and Fiona Diggle, audit manager at Audit Scotland. I welcome you both to the meeting and I invite the Auditor General to make a brief opening statement.

I think that everybody wants the populace to be more engaged. We would like, on occasion, the people who gather in the public gallery at meetings of this committee to be more than just the people who will be giving evidence next or a couple of students who wander in and, five minutes later, decide to wander out again. We would all like more engagement, but it is about being realistic, practical and pragmatic.

The first group of people who need to be au fait with all the documents are probably elected representatives in this Parliament, in the UK Parliament and in local authorities, as well as the people in the third sector who deal with these issues. Sometimes, it can be quite unrealistic to talk about public buy-in, because people have priorities other than to look through a 140-page draft budget document and a 90-page sustainability document. Life really is too short for most people to do that.

In what way? How can you make the budget document more accessible?

It is just an empty statement, is it not? It means nothing unless the recommendations say what the languages are, how many there should be and what the cost implications would be. I find it frustrating when I read things like that, to be honest. It is almost a throwaway line rather than a serious policy intent.

Are they relatively small steps? It may be that only half a dozen people would read the document in those languages, and it would cost a huge amount—probably thousands of pounds—to translate it into one other language, never mind more. Do we know many languages are being proposed?

Is that because of the Government’s approach to public sector pay? For example, this morning, the UK Government made it crystal clear that it will not increase its pay offer of an increase of 2.8 per cent to public sector workers. The UK Government has also taken a very strong line in response to the Birmingham strike that has been in the headlines for a number of weeks.

The Scottish Government set out an increase of 3 per cent a year for three years, but, because of what has happened in previous years, it seems like the trade unions are looking at that as a floor from which to negotiate. If that proves to be the case and we end up with rises above that—Scotland already pays on average £2,300 more per year for public sector workers than the UK does for their equivalents down south—is there a possibility that we could end up with yet another emergency statement in the autumn?