Chamber and committees

My question is for COSLA, but it is also relevant to the other witnesses.

Often, the phrase “public service reform” is received by the workforce as code for cuts—nothing more sophisticated than that. I wonder about the extent to which any part of the public sector is managing to have a different kind of conversation with the workforce and their representatives, not just to avoid provoking industrial action but to achieve some buy-in. Very few people working in public services think that nothing should change about the way in which their work is done and the way in which their jobs are organised. However, if we do not recast the idea of public service reform in a way that works with the workforce, it will inevitably fail and probably cost more money in the long run by causing disruption and industrial action. Is any part of the public sector managing to have that conversation in a different way that does not just raise people’s hackles from the start?

I think that Craig Hoy was inviting me to ask a question on bus subsidy earlier. The only thing that I would say is to reassure him that public transport subsidy will work much better once we have taken the system back from the notoriously inefficient private sector. I hope that he is looking forward to that.

I want to pick up on the comments that the convener made about the reduction in the climate and energy portfolio. It is a significant reduction, minister, and I understand the arguments that you have made about activity in offshore wind being a major element that is not necessarily within the Government’s control. However, how, and why, was the decision made to take that funding out of the climate and energy portfolio instead of redeploying it in another part of the portfolio?

I am thinking, for example, of the heat in buildings programme. The Government has scrapped the bill on that, but the programme is still there and, as far as I am aware, the commitment made by the Government at the start of the session to spend £1.8 billion on the programme over the parliamentary session is still there, too. At the end of 2025, £1.67 billion had been allocated, which is pretty close, but less than half of the £1.8 billion had actually been spent by the end of last year. Did the climate and energy portfolio at least make a bid within Government for the money that is not going to be spent as a result of changes in the offshore wind sector to be redeployed in other parts of the climate portfolio that are underperforming so badly?

I am slightly surprised that you are not able to tell us why the decision was made to take that funding out of the portfolio instead of redeploying it within the portfolio, given that it is one of the changes that you are making. If you can come back to us with an explanation and say what alternative uses within the portfolio were at least considered, that will be helpful.

Good morning. I only recently rejoined the committee, so I have not spent a huge amount of time on it in the current session, when its remit has included public administration. I was previously on the Finance and Constitution Committee, and I agree that the current remit is an improvement. However, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, is there a danger of the public administration framing of the committee’s remit feeling a bit like the Department of Administrative Affairs that the writers of “Yes Minister” created so that their principal character could have a role in pretty much any issue that was happening? Is there a danger of there being almost a blurring of the distinction between this committee’s remit and the subject committees’ remits, particularly if we are talking about potentially challenging public service reform proposals and looking through a principally finance lens at stakeholders and organisations that are experts in their particular remits and subject areas? Is there a danger of conflicts between portfolio remits and the overarching concept of public administration, or of stepping on toes?

I was wondering whether we need to consider what we are specifically saying to the next session of Parliament—not just because it follows this one, but because of the characteristics that we expect it to have. Dr Elliott talked about the forces that are undermining democratic institutions elsewhere, and I would like to share the hope that that will not happen here, but, if the polls are right, there will be a cohort from that part of the political spectrum.

Given the number of MSPs who are not seeking re-election, the expectation is that about half of those who will be elected to Parliament will be new. That means that we will have a Parliament that is the least experienced since 1999. Political parties could put more experienced members on a committee dealing with public administration, but, if we are trying to improve scrutiny more generally across the Parliament, how should we advise the next committee to inculcate that culture when the Parliament as a whole is relatively inexperienced? I am thinking about some of the councils down south, where Reform has won control. They said that they had expected to find lots of waste and frivolous spending, but there was none of that. Those are the kind of false expectations that could arise.

I acknowledge that we are very far from a perfect world. The underperformance of climate policy over the past few years, particularly on the heat in buildings programme, but also on other aspects, has been pretty stark.

Would anyone like to comment on the implicit meanings that can be drawn from the phrase “public service reform”? There are a great many people working in public services who know that the way that their jobs are delivered needs to change—that things are not ideal and not everything that they could be. However, there are times when the phrase “public service reform” is received as code for cuts or for a retreat of the state from people’s lives, which would be the opposite of what the Government says is its intention, which is to better deliver for people.

Do the witnesses feel that those who are most expert in delivering public services—the workforce that is doing it right now—have the opportunity to properly shape the concept of public service reform, in order to ensure that it enables them to do their jobs better and provide better public services, rather than its becoming a proxy for the retreat of the state from people’s lives?

Sometimes it is the other way around.

I thank Liam McArthur for his broadly constructive and positive comments. I am aware that Ross Greer is keen to press amendment 242, so I will do that. I note that, if the committee is not minded to support amendment 242, there is an intention to work constructively before stage 3. For the time being, I will press amendment 242.

Amendment 242 agreed to.

Amendment 243 moved—[Patrick Harvie]—and agreed to.

Section 15—Provision of assistance

I am grateful to the member for allowing an intervention. I take his point, and I hear his discomfort with some of the discussion, but would he acknowledge that the member in charge of the bill has indicated openness to addressing some of the issues around how, in those rare circumstances that Brian Whittle has described, the correct information can be recorded? Liam McArthur has said that he is not convinced that any particular variant of that, as has been proposed at stage 2, is quite right, but he has indicated a willingness to work towards a consensual way of capturing that information at stage 3. Would it not be reasonable for all the members who want to see change in this area to collaborate in that spirit?