I reconvene the 24th meeting in 2005 of the Finance Committee.
Good afternoon, everyone. I thank the convener for introducing the officials from the finance expenditure policy division of the Finance and Central Services Department, who lead on the budget process.
We will discuss the independent budget review group later.
I am sure that my advisers will assist me, but I will make a general comment.
I am looking in my papers for an example from the education figures. John Nicholson might have more details.
It is current resources for this financial year rather than resources for 2006-07 that have been transferred into the CUP, so we do not have all the information with us today.
Perhaps we will put that question in writing and seek a written answer from you.
It would be premature for me to discuss potentially unaffordable projects that might be stripped out of the programme, because it is not our intention to do that at the moment. However, I share the committee's thinking on the overall financing of the transport programme.
Earlier, we had good workshop sessions with many local people and stakeholders. The central theme of the workshop that I attended was dramatic concern about trunk roads. In previous years, trunk roads were the responsibility of local authorities. However, since that responsibility transferred to the Executive, a project that would have been a major priority for the regional road structure and economy—the upgrading and maintenance of the A95 and A96—is now substantially down the pecking order and does not feature all that much in broad national commitments.
The key word is "priorities". Getting the right emphasis in public policy decisions is always difficult. The investment strategy that has been outlined for our transport infrastructure reflects the fact that there was massive underinvestment over a prolonged period, which needs correction. There is also a recognition that physical infrastructure can play a critical part in providing the platform for economic growth in Scotland. Therefore, the emphasis is on some of the projects that are mentioned in the draft budget document. It is important that we complete that work; it is important, too, to stress to people in other parts of Scotland that although there is no limit to our ambitions, there is a limit to the amount of resources that are available to us. We continue to do our best to use those resources to best effect to generate the economic growth that everyone in Scotland will benefit from.
That is probably a fair comment, and a number of the stakeholders believe that they are putting together those cases. What they were trying to say in today's debate is that a project that does not necessarily require a dramatic level of public investment in national terms—a small, cumulative project that has different stages over several years—could make a dramatic difference to an area such as Morayshire, for example by providing connections to the main rail terminals and reducing the travel times to central Scotland by train, bus or other modes of transport, which are critical for business development. This is perhaps not a question that you can respond to easily this afternoon, but does anything in the transport budget or within the thinking of the transport officials and ministerial team reflect that kind of approach as well as the important capital projects?
I absolutely appreciate that. It would be entirely wrong for all our investments to target central Scotland. Positive things that have emerged since devolution are the fact that there has been more focus on some of Scotland's rural areas and more recognition of their specific needs. It would be wrong for me to try to speak in great detail about the transport portfolio; the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications could do that better than I. Nevertheless, I can say that there is general acceptance within the Scottish Executive of the fact that areas outwith the central belt require attention. There have been some interesting developments that underline our determination to ensure that communities that are not immediately connected to the central belt get the connections that they need. There has been controversy over some of the proposed projects, too, as I am sure you will remember.
A point was put to us this morning that follows on from the point that Frank McAveety has made. As I understand it, two major trunk road improvements are currently under development in the Highlands and Islands. One is in the Mallaig area and the other is on the A9 at Helmsdale. Once those projects are completed, there will be no more trunk road improvement projects in the Highlands and Islands, according to the Government's programme.
I would be more than happy to relay your concerns to the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications and to indicate that the issues to which you refer were raised with some strength at the committee's public meeting today. We will do our best to respond to the committee on them as soon as possible.
The Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department is considering a new programme to take us to 2020, so it is a good time to take forward the issues that have been raised.
This morning we had a useful workshop session on economic generation. The issue of what is inhibiting economic development was richly proffered and well noted. However, it was clear that many of the issues that we face are the same issues as we faced 10 years ago. What steps are being taken to bolster the local economy? What will be different in the current budget round? Which economic inhibitors will it address tangibly? How will we measure outcomes? How will we know whether the budget has worked?
In a sense, the answer to the question is too wide and varied for me to get into specific detail. Investments are being made across every portfolio of the Scottish Executive. There are targets for the enterprise portfolio and the communities portfolio. We are making investments to bring more people into the labour force and to improve the educational stock of goods, so that people are more able to compete in an increasingly competitive world.
That is an interesting answer, but no other country on the planet has the public sector account for 27 per cent of its GDP. You mentioned labour force participation, but we exclude 630,000 economically inactive people, plus the unemployed, before making that calculation. That is 25 per cent of the working-age population. I do not want to explore that issue too much, but everything that you said had the mark of generality. You use words such as "improve" and "increase". Is there a tangible, worthy aim that will be under statistical control, so that the people of Moray and of Scotland as a whole can know what we are getting at the moment and what we will get incrementally as the Government moves forward on the budget and the efficient government programme? What additional outcomes will we get?
We have set a number of targets in each portfolio of the Scottish Executive—you are aware of some of them—and we look for progress to be made against them. I appreciate the point that you make about the size of the public sector workforce, although I do not know that I agree entirely with the figure of 27 per cent. Different figures have been produced.
I will clarify the point. Twenty-seven per cent of the weighting for calculating our GDP is based on the public sector, which is anomalous to say the least. It means that, if there is an increase in funding to Scotland from the Barnett formula of 3 per cent, 1 per cent of our GDP growth will come from the public sector. If we index Scotland to the UK as a whole at 100 in 2002, performance will be very different. I could index my 2002 salary at 100 and compare it with Tom Farmer's, and I might have outperformed him in percentage terms, but I would not have done so in real terms. Many of the data with which we are presented muddy the water. I hanker for data on matters such as the number of working-age people in Scotland who are in work, which would allow us to measure performance at every level—for Moray, for Highland region and nationally.
I, too, hanker for data that would clarify matters for the general public in Scotland. I assure you that I am constantly involved in dialogue with statisticians who serve the Scottish Executive on the production of such data. I get as frustrated as anyone when labour force information from the Office for National Statistics has to be adjusted downwards because it is collected differently from the way in which information is collected in Scotland, as that allows people to distort the situation. My colleagues and I get incredibly frustrated about that. We need to modernise much of the information that we give out.
A couple of issues arose in the economic regeneration session this morning, the first of which follows on from the issue of labour market figures. In this part of Scotland, there appears to be considerable growth in employment of people from other parts of Europe, such as Spain, Portugal and the accession countries of eastern Europe, particularly in the manufacturing and food processing industries. That creates a tension in the local economy through the increased demand for housing and education. Although those people contribute substantially to local firms, the fact that they are here brings other costs. Given the fresh talent initiative and the other initiatives that the Executive has introduced to bring people to Scotland, what more can we do to support the people who have already been brought here for good economic reasons and who certainly serve the interests of the area?
We should be proud that Scotland is one of the few countries that openly encourage an inflow of people to assist with economic development and to fill labour market gaps. We do that with the recognition that we live in a multicultural society and a world that will increasingly be based on such an approach. It is to our credit that we embrace that approach rather than resist having a mix of people in our country. The people whom you mention are making an economic contribution and we should do as much as we can to ensure that their circumstances and conditions are as good as they can be.
You spoke about statistics, but one of the characteristics of statistics is that, to some extent, they tend to work retrospectively. Would it be advantageous to look at current and forward projections for the numbers of people who will come into particular localities in Scotland? We found striking what was said to us this morning about the language mix and the range of people who are coming into places such as Aberlour and Elgin. If central Government enumerated its projections, it and its agencies might be able to respond more proactively to the issue that is arising locally.
It is obvious that there is a case for doing that. I do not underestimate the difficulties of producing those forward projections, but the more that we are armed with accurate information—I stress that it should be as accurate as it can be—the more that will assist us with the planning that is required to ensure that the proper services and life conditions are available for the people who come into the country. We would be interested in examining the possibility of doing such work and if the Finance Committee wanted to get involved in that, we would be interested in collaborating with you.
Another issue that was raised was the fraught question of flooding, which is a problem in a number of urban communities in the area. Elgin, in particular, has faced an acute set of problems, which have affected businesses' ability to get insurance and caused them disruption. Other places in Scotland, such as Hawick, have suffered from flooding problems. Is there enough money in the pot to deal with those problems in a reasonable amount of time? I recognise that we are talking about big issues and that big capital sums will be required to address them. Is the system for producing plans to deal with flooding problems effective enough and are the agencies that are responsible for coping with such matters, such as SEPA, Scottish Water and local bodies such as the council, capable of addressing them effectively?
There are a number of strands to that line of inquiry. I will relay the concerns that you have expressed to my colleague the Minister for Environment and Rural Development and will try to elicit an answer that will give the detail that you seek. As I have visited different parts of Scotland for work on my portfolio, I have seen some of the extensive work that has been done on flooding. I remember well seeing the scheme that had been implemented in Perth, for example, on which a considerable amount of money had been spent.
As with the migrant labour issue, I could write to you on the matter and you could pass the correspondence to the relevant minister.
The minister mentioned a figure of £35 million. That figure relates to 2006-07; it increases to £44 million in 2007-08. Given that the budget for this year and the previous year has been £15 million, it is clear that the line is rising.
I do not know whether you can answer this question just now, but to what extent has the £35 million budget for 2006-07 been allocated? How far in advance of the start of the financial year is the budget allocated?
I do not have the answer to your first question to hand, but I can tell you that the budget is allocated on the basis of applications from councils for projects. I could certainly find out how much of the money has been committed.
A related question is whether organisations have the competence to deal with the scale and technical complexity of works. For example, to deal with its own capital investment, Scottish Water has had to create Scottish Water Solutions, which is an umbrella framework for drawing together different kinds of contractors to carry out work. If we are to make substantial investment in flood prevention or rectification, should the Executive consider the expertise that exists in Scotland and how resources can be used more effectively to achieve the maximum benefit? In that way, councils might not have to replicate the process by having to make bids and carry out work only when money becomes available. Is there a better way of addressing the situation?
I am sure that there is. At the moment, SEPA gives us considerable advice on the procurement for and completion of some projects. Much of that work might well be under way in the environment portfolio, so I will ask my colleague the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to provide the committee with details on the matter.
On a brief technical point, you are promoting employment and the wider economy through the cities growth fund. If we really believe in the city region concept, will you and your officials ensure that that money does not simply go to cities and that there is more partnership working in that respect? In one recent—and unfortunate—example in Dundee, the city took the money and simply forgot about the region.
I am sure that I heard the word "allegedly" when you referred to Dundee—if I did not, I am sure that you meant to say it.
We seem to be twin-tracking on those issues.
That is partly because you asked two questions.
The minister questioned what I said. Perhaps I should have used the word "allegedly", but I think that I should just leave it at what I said originally. If the minister's officials examine the situation in Dundee, they will find that precious little consultation was done. That is a pity, because I agree with him that the cities growth fund should not only generate growth in the core but should benefit the wider community.
There is a danger that we may be talking at cross-purposes. The question is not about local government; it is about best-value reviews in the Scottish Executive and whether the cycle of best-value reviews in the Scottish Executive is likely to be completed by 2006, which was the original target.
I do not have any indication or feeling that we are dramatically behind schedule, but I am happy to look into the matter and come back to the committee. I do not want to give the impression that we are anything less than earnest about pursuing those reviews in the Scottish Executive, because they are very important.
Is there a quantification of the savings that have been agreed to date as a result of the departmental best-value reviews that have taken place?
I do not have a figure for savings that have been agreed to date, but I can try to pass on any information to you. We have not pulled the information together in that way.
It would be interesting for the committee to look at the scrutiny process that is attached to that.
Another issue that emerged from the workshops was the link between patterns of Executive spending, as laid out in the budget, and the themes and priorities that are introduced at the start of the budget. The introduction to the budget document lays out growing the economy, closing the opportunity gap, sustainable development and equality as cross-cutting themes. Although it is useful to have information about what is being done in different portfolio settings towards those cross-cutting themes, the different chapters take different approaches to the themes; some have spending commitments and some have statements of policy and practice. Can the minister advise the committee how much of the Executive's budget is targeted towards each of those cross-cutting themes?
No; I think that it would be impossible to do that. I am sorry.
Will the minister comment on the fact that different sections of the budget treat the cross-cutting themes differently? For example, the Education Department makes statements of policy and principle, whereas other departments make statements that give direct financial commitments. Would it be possible to have some standardisation to make it clear what spending commitments relate to the cross-cutting themes?
Every portfolio is different, so the information that is given depends on the nature of the activities in which the department is involved. As I said, we are interested in presenting the information in a way that offers as much clarity as possible, but I do not believe that it would be useful to have a completely standardised approach for each portfolio, because the portfolios vary considerably. As a general aim, the more that we can standardise where it is appropriate to do so, the more that we will be able to provide useful clarification on how we go about our work. However, I think that there is a limit to how far we can take that.
Mark Ballard has been a committee member for only a short space of time, but the need for a more detailed specification has been mentioned in previous committee recommendations. The Executive responded to those recommendations in ways that varied quite considerably. At one end of the spectrum, the social justice milestones and targets provide a reasonable amount of detail and the equal opportunities process has identified significant moneys that are spent on taking those issues forward. However, it is much more difficult to get costs for the cross-cutting objective on sustainable development.
Absolutely. We seek improvements in the same way that the committee does. Rather than focus on the areas in which we have made progress, perhaps the committee could develop examples of specific areas in which progress has still to be made. If the committee shares those examples with our officials, we will look at what we can do. I am more than happy to share the committee's thinking with my portfolio colleagues to see whether we can concentrate minds on how people might take a different tack on such issues. I am more than happy to do that.
I welcome the minister's answer. One area in which clear progress has been made is closing the opportunity gap, for which 10 detailed targets have been set that range across ministerial portfolios. Those targets are helpful for assessing what progress has been made on that cross-cutting theme. Are there plans for similar targets across portfolios for the other cross-cutting themes?
I hesitate to say this, but we have sometimes been criticised for having too many targets, so we need to be a bit careful. If targets are a useful vehicle for demonstrating the progress that has been made and how we have realigned spending to achieve our aims, I am sure that we have no inherent objection to trying to develop them. However, people must understand that, despite good intentions, we could end up being subject to other areas of comment.
The great advantage of the 10 targets is that they constitute a reduction from the previous total of 29 cross-cutting targets. Some of the targets are pulled from portfolios, so not all the targets—only about four—are additional new targets. However, the targets have been reduced to a much more manageable and focused grouping.
Obviously, I am worried that, if we extend the number of targets, someone might suggest that we are going back to our old habits.
I would not dream of it.
Perhaps there could be a dialogue on that.
The great advantage of those targets is their cross-cutting nature—they cross ministerial departments, just as the issue of closing the opportunity gap crosses portfolios.
I cannot say that that is specifically planned but, as I indicated, there is increasing awareness that events are having a major impact not only here in Scotland but around the world. It would be—I do not like using the word "prudent', so I am looking for an alternative—less than sensible if we did not take account of the potential for such events. Not only in Scotland, but among other Governments that are scanning the horizon, that thread will be woven more and more through our work in the future compared with the past.
I am interested in certain aspects of the communities budget. You will be aware of some of the pressures that have been caused by the changes in the legislation on housing and homelessness that has been passed by the Parliament. There are particular pressures on councils and registered social landlords, with people being referred as homeless under section 5 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003. Bearing that in mind, and turning to page 112 of the draft budget, we see from table 7.02 that expenditure on the housing programme is falling by 4.5 per cent in real terms from this year to 2006-07, whereas funding for other programmes is being increased. Will you comment on that?
My initial comment is that perhaps that does not tell the whole story. We discussed the question of the CUP earlier. Communities placed £100 million in the CUP for affordable housing issues.
So there are additional resources.
Yes. There are considerable resources in place, because that portfolio knew that it could not expend that sum within a certain period of time. You will be aware of how the CUP works. I do not think that the figures in the budget document to which you have just referred tell the whole story.
I refer to page 136 of the draft budget and to table 9.02. The budget line "CAP Support" seems to increase significantly in 2005-06, but reduces again next year. Is there any explanation for that spike in the common agricultural policy support figure in the present financial year and for its subsequent reduction?
I cannot give you a specific answer now, but I will get the information to you. I can assure you that it was not the Prime Minister cutting that on purpose.
Stealing a march on the French, perhaps.
If a project to which the Executive has committed itself is delayed, is the relevant department obliged to put a reserve of funding into the CUP? Could a department decide not to do so but return to the spending commitment at a later stage?
Departments are not obliged to do that, but as we look at any end-year flexibility that might be produced and how it might be treated, certain risks might be inherent in departments not doing it or not taking the appropriate action. The department would have to make its own value judgment on that. For instance, a department's end-year flexibility would not automatically be returned to it 100 per cent. We try to build in incentives to ensure that departments spend as much as they can of the resources that are available to them in any one year.
I am intrigued by the fact that there is no money in the CUP from transport. There is a much-delayed project in my constituency to which the Executive has committed itself and the money, but I do not see it in the draft budget. Perhaps Mr Stewart will put me right if I am missing something.
John Nicholson might be able to give you the specific figure that you asked for. I will respond on the general principle.
The table that appears in the draft budget document shows the additional transfers to the CUP at that stage.
I see.
So although the transport division is not adding anything, that does not necessarily mean that it does not have any balance to use in such a way.
Additional money has certainly been transferred into the CUP since the tables were made. I cannot give you a portfolio breakdown, but I think that I am right in saying that about £99 million has been transferred in.
At the top of page 162, under the heading for local government revenue, the draft budget states the increasing revenue grant for local authorities and what the Government expects that money to be spent on—in effect, the delivery of local authority services. Does the list on that page represent the Government's assessment of the additional burdens that local authorities will have to carry in the forthcoming financial year, or is the list just a summary?
I cannot confirm that the list is complete. At the very least, it is indicative. We believe that the resources that have been made available to the local authorities will cover any burdens that have been placed upon them.
That is a substantial list of additional items and the revenue grant will increase by £280.675 million in the forthcoming financial year. However, table 10.02 on page 154 shows that local government revenue in aggregate external finance is static over the period that is covered by the budget. How can all the additional services that appear in the list on page 162 be provided while the budget is flatlining? Actually, it is going down by £10 million during the spending period.
You need to look a bit further down the table at the totals. The total for 2002-03 is just over £9 billion and the total for 2007-08 is £9.836 billion. There are quite significant increases once everything has been taken into account.
Aye. It is kind of important to look at that, is it not?
So the figure is going up in cash terms.
But it is not going up in real terms. Once inflation has been removed from the equation, local authorities will be asked to do more, as suggested on page 162, with a budget that is, in effect, flatlining.
Local government made representations to us and I said that I would consider them. My mind is not closed, but I have not provided any guarantees; I would not do so. I said that I would consider those representations against the background of the progress that local government makes on the efficient government initiative.
I do not disagree with what you have just said. However, although that may be the direction in which you are travelling, the local authorities have neither bought into that, nor are they in a position to deliver that; yet, this is the spending settlement that they have to deal with. The problem is that, although substantial efficiency savings in the structure of government administration may be achievable in two to three or five years' time, the settlement assumes that local authorities will make those gains in this financial year and the next despite the fact that they cannot be delivered on the ground. That may jeopardise front-line services.
I have spoken to local authority chief executives, directors of finance and council leaders up and down Scotland, and I have not received any substantial representation with regard to the draft budget for 2006-07. I have, however, received substantial representations with regard to the draft budget for 2007-08.
One of the bullet points on page 162 of the draft budget document states that the Government expects resources to be spent on providing
It is not for me to determine the minutiae of every service that a local authority decides to deliver; local authorities will analyse their requirements and respond accordingly. We do not think that there is any requirement to cut services unnecessarily; however, it may be that the palette changes in the light of circumstances at the local level, and it would be entirely wrong for me to direct those changes. There is no absolute guarantee that we will have the status quo and nothing else—I do not think that the status quo is ever applied, and I do not think that it ever will be.
In the light of those comments, is not that bullet point a bit of an overstatement of the Government's commitment? It states that there will be
I take issue with your statement that local authorities have become accustomed to cutting services.
We might agree that that has not happened in the past eight years, but I am sure that you and I agree that the vicious Conservative Government that was in office in the dreadful 18 years before 1997 sliced local authority services.
I suppose that we could even agree that we both looked a bit younger eight years ago, Mr Swinney, but I do not know how far that would take us.
Who is looking better, though?
That is enough.
We do not intend to promote situations in which such blunt instruments will need to be used. We think that there has been a considerable rise in the level of public resources that have been made available. The graph that shows public resources since 2000 shows what I mean; in fact, the rather varied progress from 1990 onwards and the significant difference from 2000 onwards can be charted on it. I used the chart on a slide last week and remember the picture that it paints. The Executive does not intend to promote situations in which people experience cuts in public services. Our intention is to promote a culture of continuous improvement in which people are required to analyse what they do and how they do it to ensure that they apply resources in the best possible way in their environment.
I have two final brief questions. What will you do if there are service cuts?
If there are significant cuts in services, the local politicians who took the relevant decisions will first of all have to justify those decisions. If the Executive thinks that there have been significant detrimental effects on important services in any part of Scotland, ministers will obviously consider matters and what would need to be done to correct things.
Secondly, what do you expect the level of council tax increases to be for the next financial year?
We have already said that significant resources have been made available. We do not expect people in Scotland to continue to experience council tax increases that are significantly above inflation, and we hope that there will be no such increases. The First Minister has said that our view is that enough resources have been made available to keep council tax rises to 2.5 per cent. We are in continuing dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities along those lines.
One benefit of the long drive up here yesterday was that I was able to listen to the radio, on which an example was given from down south, where savings are being sought that are often compared to those that are being sought here. There has been a 10 per cent efficiency saving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority's administration, but the implication was that that was simply delaying the processing of applications. We have received submissions from 10 of the 32 local authorities—we have not heard from COSLA or the other 22 authorities, which may be more positive—and what those submissions describe look like the usual cost-cutting exercises, not efficiency exercises. What can you do if councils or other agencies simply do not do what you want them to do or pile everything on to council tax bills?
There are powers for ministerial intervention, which should always be—and always will be—used as a last resort. However, I am interested in an agenda that looks less at individual funding streams to local government and is based more on outcomes. The way forward in Scotland is to avoid the 1960s-style negotiations that are repeated every year. We are having this conversation in November 2005, but in November of most years we start to get noise in the system, whether settlements are generous or a bit tighter. Even in years with the most generous settlements people at various levels of government, including local government, say that they are unhappy because their ambitions outstretch the resources that have been made available. To some degree, people have to be realistic about that.
That is an interesting comment, in view of the other evidence we have heard.
The approach that I propose involves trust and it will mean huge changes in the approach of both the Scottish Executive and our delivery agents, but in the final analysis our focus should be finding better ways to serve people, rather than public agencies checking up on one another.
Your predecessor, Andy Kerr, reported to us in 2003 that discussions were taking place with COSLA with a view to reaching agreement. Last year, we were advised that the process had been delayed. Two years on, where are we in the process of getting outcome agreements in place?
We have made progress with COSLA in a couple of areas and we have a couple of outcome agreements. I am speaking to COSLA and the dialogue continues. I think we have already alluded to the fact that I want to produce a discussion paper early next year about public services and how they are delivered. An important part of that will be the question of outcome agreements and how we progress them. Six years into a new Parliament, as we give more consideration to how we go about our business, outcome agreements should become a far greater part of that.
Last week, when Steven Purcell, the new leader of Glasgow City Council, was in front of the committee, we heard significantly different language being used in our discussions on outcome agreements, on the approach that is being taken and on the identification and following through of priorities. We are not yet at the stage of agreement. Perhaps you are saying that we are at the heads of agreement stage—that is, that we broadly agree what we want to do, but the contract is not yet set up. However, the timescale for getting things in place and dealing with the current financial issues is quite pressing.
We are talking the same language, then, because we undoubtedly have a wide variety of funding streams to channel resources to local government. For instance, we ask for between 80 and 100 plans and then attempt to monitor them. The amount of human capital that is absorbed in the compilation of those plans is wasteful. We must arrive at a mature relationship in which the headline priorities and their cost are identified, but how our delivery agents achieve them is, in essence, their business. However, there is a trade-off: if we have a clear indication that outcome agreements are not being adhered to and that achievements are not being made, there will have to be greater capacity for ministers to step in and correct the failings. Ultimately, we are not talking about a paper exercise, because if a failing is identified, that means that some of the general public in Scotland are not receiving a service to the level at which they are entitled. If measures do not work as they were intended to work, we cannot step back and ignore that.
Is there a credible threat to people who do not perform? People in the public service—by which I mean local government and other sectors—are not normally removed and do not have anything terrible happen to them for non-performance against objectives. Are you intent on delivering a regime of accountability with real sanctions for non-performance? If so, how do we change people's expectation that failure leads to nothing other than a nice early retirement package?
I cannot blame people for having that expectation, because that is exactly how the system works at present. People are counselled out, rather than ushered out the door, if I can put it that way. We must change that, but there is a danger of creating a blame culture in the public service, which would be a disaster. Of the people I have met in the public service, 99.9 per cent are there for exactly the right reasons: they are committed to it and they want to do a good job. Therefore, when they are given the freedom to do that, they will perform. However, there must be a greater realisation of the deal, which is that when people perform, they will be adequately rewarded and when they do not, there will be a consequence. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that deal. That is exactly how we would look at the situation in the case of a street sweeper. I do not understand why we should look at it differently if a director of social work or education is involved. We have not enforced that deal in the past, but if we are to have mature arrangements we must be prepared to do that.
When he appeared before the committee, Steven Purcell highlighted the fact that Glasgow City Council has, with Glasgow community planning partnership, identified two indicators: worklessness and addiction. The regeneration outcome process in which they are engaged will focus on trying to shift those two issues, as they see the number of people out of work and the number of people with serious addiction problems as the central problems that Glasgow faces. However, the requirements that the Executive is imposing for regeneration outcome agreements—the forms that people have to fill in and the range of things that they have to do—are hopelessly complex, when compared with the clear focus of the community planning partnership's activity.
We do that by the Executive learning to let go and showing clearly that, when it lets go, it has certain expectations. Our letting go places certain responsibilities on others. We must develop a system that clearly puts that approach in place. The idea that we can monitor all funding streams and plans is a nonsense. We waste an enormous amount of human capital in trying to do that. We need to trust the delivery partners. We need to agree headline initiatives, what it will take to deliver them and allow the delivery partners to get on with doing that. They need to accept that there must be a robust fall-back position to ensure that people live up to the bargain that they have struck. We do that by taking away all the monitoring requirements.
How far away are the first steps on that journey? I accept what you say about it being a big job. When can we expect it to start?
I hope that, early in the new year, a think piece will be produced that will throw up a number of questions and scenarios for people right across the public service—I have to work quite hard sometimes. It is easy to give examples from local government, but it must go wider than local government and encompass public services throughout Scotland. I hope that that think piece will be available as early as possible in the new year. It will start a dialogue that I will encourage. We will travel around Scotland, speaking to a variety of groups about that think piece and drawing out their opinions and views on it. I hope that we will start to get suggestions from the bottom up about how we should organise ourselves and deliver services. I will contradict myself and give an example from local government. In the past, we have always reorganised local government from the top down. Perhaps that was not always the best way in which to do that.
The draft budget was published on 1 September. Shortly afterwards, you announced the planned reduction in business rates. How will the draft budget and its budget process relate to that cut in business rates? In particular, can you explain more clearly where the finance and funding for that cut in business rates will come from? Your parliamentary statement referred only to generalised efficiency savings as the source of the funding.
First, I want to break the link that was unfortunately made between the efficient government initiative and funding of the cut in business rates. The efficient government initiative is not producing the money that will necessarily fund the cut in business rates. We have explicitly said that the money that is generated through efficient government will be available to the organisations that produce it to reinvest in front-line services.
Where exactly is the money coming from? If the figures in the draft budget document all add up, £100 million will have to be found. Where will that money come from?
The draft budget document details the money that is to be voted through in Parliament. As the announcement on business rates was made after that document was published, the money will need to be voted through in an autumn or spring budget revision. It will come from a range of moneys that are available and are held on account—as Professor Midwinter mentions in his paper and as Mr Kerr said at the time of the spending review announcement—for use throughout the spending review period, as required. It is an example of how money can be drawn down at a budget revision for that purpose.
Where can I find details of that—I do not wish to be so, but allow me to be pejorative—slush fund?
You say that you do not wish to be pejorative, but you mention a "slush fund".
Where is the money in table 0.01 coming from?
If we could just put some flesh on the bones—
Money that is held in an account does not appear in the draft budget.
Wait a minute—we have a set of published figures that show the total managed expenditure by portfolio. Are you telling me that the money for the business rates cut does not come from those figures?
If ministers have not allocated a sum of money from the total amount that is available from the Treasury to a particular portfolio when a draft budget is produced, it will not appear in the document. At the moment, the money is held at the Treasury and can be drawn down and added to the budget at the revision stage.
So, for each of the financial years, how much of the money that is held by the Treasury is not currently allocated?
The money that we hold at the Treasury comprises money in the CUP from the various portfolios, any end-year flexibility money and any money that is not yet allocated. It does not relate to a particular year, but can be used in any year in which the minister sees fit to do so.
That is, any year during the spending review period.
So how much money is there?
In the Treasury?
Aye.
I think that we will come back to you on that.
I look forward enormously to receiving that correspondence.
During the previous spending review, Mr Kerr said that the Executive was paring the contingency back from £130 million to under £50 million. As a result, you were allocating resources and leaving yourself with very little contingency. Depending on how the business rates cut is timed and phased in, we are talking about a significant amount of money. If such decisions are going to be made part way through a financial year, should not the contingency total be greater?
We think that we have enough flexibility in that respect. You are right that the contingency fund was reduced to a very low level; however, I do not think that that money would be the correct vehicle for funding the business rates cut. The constant transactions between us and the Treasury contain flexibility, and the kind of money that we have been talking about can fund the cut.
I want to pursue the matter a little further. You have told us that the Treasury holds a pot of money outwith the plans in the draft budget. How can you be sure that the type of financial commitment that you have made can be fulfilled outwith the budget on what will have to be a recurring basis? From Mr Stewart's explanation, it appears that the facility in the Treasury is less a recurring account than it is a holding account for a given sum of money. However, you will have to fund a growing commitment year after financial year.
As you know, Mr Swinney, the situation is always fluid. In an ideal world, we would never produce any more EYF; however, the truth is that we produce EYF year on year. We will simply need to take account of and build in those expenditure commitments in the next spending review in 2007.
The published document contains new financial commitments on antisocial behaviour, the sexual health strategy, reducing reoffending and reducing smoking activity, and a substantial sum of money will be allocated to the concessionary travel and fares scheme. All that new funding in the budget has to be secured on a recurring basis. I also point out that the business rates cut will cost £100 million or—more likely—£200 million. It seems to me that, with all those new financial commitments, you will have to find half a billion pounds in a budget that in real terms is increasing at a much slower rate than it did previously, and which is likely to increase at an even slower rate in the years to come. I am surprised to hear your answers about business rates cuts because what you said seems to run contrary to any prudent financial management.
You may say that, Mr Swinney, but we obviously disagree. I cannot remember the whole list of items—
Again, the items—
I do not need the list again. At least some of the items that you mentioned are accounted for in the 2004 spending review because we expected that expenditure and provision was made for it. If there is any new expenditure, we will review it in another spending review at the proper time.
I want to pursue that matter. A previous finance minister said that
You should not get unduly excited about an announcement that was made after the draft budget was published. The budget bill that will follow as a result of the draft budget document will introduce clarity. We cannot include everything in the draft budget because it was published on a particular date and transactions go on all the time. We continue to produce end-year flexibility, although we are doing our best to reduce the levels—
We are talking about new money, not end-year flexibility or central unallocated provision.
What I am saying is that even though we try our best, we will not spend every penny of a budget of £30 billion in the same year by the time we reach 2007-08. There is always a fluid nature to some of the expenditure in the commitments that we make.
It still seems that you cannot identify the source of finance, as your predecessor committed to doing, because you have spoken about things that might happen, such as potential underspends, rather than identifying the source of finance for new spending commitments when you make them.
I made the point a moment ago that we published the draft budget document on 1 September and there will be a budget bill as a result of the document. You will find the clarity that you seek in that budget bill.
On the uniform business rate, will you explain the logic behind business rates payers having their rates frozen or cut in recent years while council tax payers have had above-inflation increases? Will you explain how the decision to cut the uniform business rate relates to the cross-cutting themes and priorities?
I can answer your second question clearly. We firmly believe that we should give business in Scotland a competitive advantage. We do not think that we have levelled the playing field. When the poundage and—I am sorry, but I will have to ask David Stewart what word I am looking for. [Interruption.] When the poundage and the yield are taken into account, we feel that we have provided a competitive platform for business in Scotland, which is what we wanted to do. Businesses have been telling us for some considerable time that a cut in business rates would be of great advantage to them.
What is your answer to my first question?
The Scottish Executive is democratically elected, as are councils the length and breadth of Scotland. If there are councils in Scotland that have levels of taxation that are felt to be inappropriate by their public, I am sure that the public will respond appropriately when those councils ask for re-endorsement.
I want to pick up on the point about business rates. The ministerial statement in which the decision to cut business rates was announced said that funding for the cut would come from general efficiencies. If I have interpreted you correctly, you seem to be saying that although some elements of the funding might come from good housekeeping in management of budgets, it might be possible for the balance of that money to be drawn from the unallocated resources that are available. Will the budget revision make it clear how much of the funding is attributable to general efficiencies within existing budgets and how much will be drawn from money that is currently with the Treasury?
We will obviously pursue general efficiencies within the Executive's budget—it would be strange if we did not do that, given that we have appointed eight external reviewers. It is clear that we expect something to come from that, as we know that there is more than enough scope for generating efficiency savings. At the start, I was trying to separate the initiative on business rates from the efficient government initiative because there was confusion about the position, especially in some of the media comment. It is important to clarify the situation. We know that we can fund the change in business rates without there being a shortfall in the Scottish budget. We think that significantly more resources will be available for reallocation than are required to equalise the business rates poundage; our budget documents will show that.
Yes, but I want to be clear that, in the context of the next spending review period, the business rates reduction will represent a significant new commitment because you will have to find efficiencies elsewhere in the budget to pay for it. In the longer term, all the money will have to come from general efficiencies.
Not necessarily. It is not for me to predict what level of expenditure will arise from the 2007 spending review or to suggest that that review will be as generous as the 2004 review; some people might say that it will be less generous than the 2004 review. You seem to be predicating some of your questions on the notion that the spending review in 2007 will be entirely flat. At the moment, that is perhaps a speculation too far.
I was not doing that; I was simply making the point that the business rates reduction will need to be factored in when you look ahead and frame the parameters for the next spending review period, as it will necessarily have effects elsewhere.
Absolutely.
Are there sufficient resources in the holding account at the Treasury for you to be able to afford in 2006 the full business rates reduction that you have promised for 2007?
Yes.
So it is possible that enough resources will be available in 2006 to reduce business rates by the full amount and that it will not be necessary to stagger the decrease over two years.
If business rates represented the whole sum of the Executive's activity—they do not, even though we regard them as being very important—we could focus all our attention on them, but there is a range of priorities.
I was interested to hear the minister say that the business community applauded the move on business rates. Will it still do so after what I have heard this afternoon? The business community has a strong suspicion that Scottish Water charges have fuelled EYF. Scottish Water has not taken up £374 million. In the past three years, the pattern has been that water charges have funded on average 84p in the pound of capital expenditure. How does the minister answer that concern of the business community? Can we expect more end-year flexibility from Scottish Water as the funding source for business rates reduction in the years to come?
You make that connection, but I do not. We do not badge every pound for a purpose, as you know. I have met a good few business organisations in the past few weeks and I have not necessarily heard that concern from the business community, but I will take your word for it. I suppose that you attend different gatherings from me. That concern has not come across my desk.
I return to the independent budget review group. I am a newcomer to the process. Did you decide to create the group because of a failing or something that could be improved in the budget process?
That is a kind of Daily Mail take on the group. I do not necessarily say that you intend that—
I do not read the Daily Mail.
We should be big enough to examine what we do and to use as much advice as possible from outside our organisation to examine what we do. That is professional—some people think that it is quite brave. We have done that for the right reasons.
I was not coming from the perspective that failings necessarily exist.
I know that.
I have not really been reading the press in the past week.
I highly commend that—
Or even appearing in it.
I have to be honest and say that I have not thought of it as a permanent feature, but my mind is not closed to the idea. Obviously, we have non-executive directors on the management board in the Scottish Executive. We should always be alive to the advice and assistance that people from outside the organisation can give us, and alive to their take on things. That is entirely healthy. In principle, I am not opposed to having much more external assistance.
You said in your opening remarks that the timescale was not set in stone. However, I got the impression that you did not expect any major deviation from the February timescale that you have referred to. What factors could influence whether there is slippage, or are you committed to quarter 1 of next year?
You would expect me to ensure that we do not have an open-ended process. There are natural time limits. For example, a spending review is coming up in 2007 and before that we will have to have scanned the horizon, considered all the different advice and started to prepare the direction of travel for certain policies, which all takes time. However, the biggest determinant for me would be if the group said, "Ideally, minister, we would be reporting in month X, but we think we need a bit more time." I would take the group's advice on that. Just as you and I do, the group does not live in an ideal world. If it felt that it needed more time to carry out its task more comprehensively, I would instinctively be sympathetic to that.
How much time have you asked individual group members to give to the task?
The average is about two days a week.
In his briefing note, Arthur Midwinter spoke about resources. What additional resources have been given to the group to enable it to carry out its task?
There is support from within the management group in the Scottish Executive. So far, no request for support has been refused. I have said that I will keep in close contact with the group, and I expect that we will have frank exchanges. If the group expressed any concerns to me about a lack of support, I am determined that I would address them.
Is there any budget to support those individuals if they choose to go outside the Executive for anything that they might require?
If they came forward with such a suggestion, we would obviously listen to it.
The timescale is ambitious. Consideration of the entire budget of the Scottish Executive is no small undertaking, as I am sure you realise. Eight people will be working for two days a week for perhaps not even three months. It will be very tight for them to reach meaningful conclusions after doing a review that is detailed as opposed to just being a headline-type thing that anyone could do.
I do not want it to be a "headline-type thing"; we have not entered into this in any other way than completely seriously. Different comments will appear in the press—that is part and parcel of public life—but the exercise is very important for the Scottish Executive. It will be important in helping to develop and fund future policy initiatives.
Do the group's terms of reference set out the level of detail that you expect? That seems to be pretty fundamental, because whether you achieve results in the given timescale will depend largely on the level of output that you expect.
At the risk of telling tales out of school, when I first met the group, the members asked me about targets, but I said that I did not want to set targets, because that was not fair. I have left that matter up to the group.
That was about monetary targets. How detailed will the targets be? Will the group go down to the lowest budgeting line and include every spending item, or are you leaving that matter entirely to the group's discretion?
The group is in the process of gathering information and setting up meetings with portfolio ministers. After that, it will consider the best way in which to tackle the task. I am reluctant to condition the group's task too much, because it is important that it be allowed to analyse the situation and to come to its own assessment. I cannot say often enough that the group's work is serious. I have no problem with people saying that we could give the group more time, because I have not ruled that out. However, people should understand that I cannot give the group all the time it might want, because we must adhere to certain long-stop dates. We are trying to carry out the process as comprehensively as possible. We will provide as much assistance as we can to the people who, to their credit, have offered their time and professional knowledge.
I will make two points on the committee's behalf. We have considered what input we can have into the group's work and we are producing a preliminary submission, which, I hope, we will send off in the next week or 10 days. Our view is that the timescale makes it difficult to carry out the full-scale budget review exercise for which we have called. It was partly through our advocacy that it was accepted that such an exercise would be useful. The timescale for the group and for the committee in feeding into its work is certainly an issue. I hope that the expectation of what can be achieved within that timescale will be addressed quickly. We do not want a situation in which the exercise is too time constrained and the timescale is shifted, but is shifted too far down the road to allow a change in the way in which the exercise is carried out.
I do not disagree with that. A similar process is going on south of the border where, in a sense, the timescale is tighter than ours because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make a spending review announcement, whereas we will have an election first, after which whoever is responsible can decide how to deal with the matter. I see some anticipation in Mr Swinney—I hope that he will not be disappointed.
You took the word out of my mouth—I was looking forward with anticipation.
There are natural long-stop dates that we cannot avoid. We are trying to get into the best position in the time that is available to us. Some people were surprised that we were prepared to carry out the review and to bring people in from outside the Executive to examine the budget. Others will always criticise the review because they do not like the Executive and it is part of their remit to criticise the Executive. I say genuinely that I am not necessarily talking about people in this room; it is just part and parcel of the to-ing and fro-ing of public life. The review is a serious attempt to analyse objectively the resources that are available to us, how they are targeted and whether they address properly the priorities that we have set and the possibilities that are open for the future.
I asked earlier about the allocation for local government. One issue about which I am specifically concerned is the allocation of resources to accommodate the cost of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, particularly the cost to local authorities of educating children who have special educational needs. I cannot see in the budget document a pattern of changed expenditure that substantiates the comments that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People made in Parliament only last Thursday about substantial changes to expenditure to deliver the expectations in the act. What provision has been made to cover the implementation of the act, which is an issue that is causing concern to many parents of children with special needs?
I do not have details with me on that, but I am more than happy to get back to you with them.
The transport constraints of Elgin and our need to get back to the central belt impose a limit on our available time, but we have conducted a thorough exploration of the issues. I thank the minister and his officials for coming and responding to our questions. I also thank all the people from the area who have come to listen to the process—I hope that you have found it instructive and useful. We have certainly done what we can to take on board your issues and concerns. I also thank Parliament staff, who have done a lot to make the meeting possible, and Moray College, for its hospitality and for allowing us to meet here.
Meeting closed at 15:41.
Previous
Efficient Government