Official Report 311KB pdf
I believe that Mr Ewing wants to raise one other point.
Yes. As you know, I gave you and the clerk notice of two points. Today, we are fortunate to have the minister giving evidence, but he will do so before the other witnesses from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Scotland).
I do not intend to put the issue to the minister at this point. Normally, we would bring the minister in at the end of the evidence taking but, in this instance, the minister has another commitment this afternoon. The choice was either to talk to the minister at the start of today's meeting or to talk to him next week. We have only a short time in which to complete our work on the budget process and, if we had scheduled our meeting with the minister for next week, we would have placed many constraints on the time available for consideration of our report. On balance, I believe that the best approach is for us to hear from the minister today and, if issues arise from our discussion with COSLA, to put them to the minister and ask him to respond to us in writing before we conclude our report.
I want to establish that it is correct that the minister should normally give evidence at the end of the process.
I think that I have indicated that that would be preferable. However, in the circumstances, I think that it is more useful if we hear from the minister now.
As you correctly noted, convener, this is my first appearance at the Local Government and Transport Committee since taking over the finance and public service reform brief. I thank you for introducing the members of staff that I have brought with me. You might have had contact with them in the past but it is important to put on record the names of those who support ministers on these occasions.
Thank you very much, minister. One of the recent innovations in local government finance has been the prudential borrowing regime. Many of the decisions about how much that will be used will be made in local government, so how does the Executive intend to show prudential borrowing in future in its budgetary documents? What assumed levels of prudential borrowing does the Executive have for future years, such as 2006-07 and 2007-08?
The budget document contains the latest projections of prudential borrowing on page 156, outwith the tables for the Executive's funding of local government. We maintain regular contact with local authorities and monitor their forecasts and levels of borrowing under the prudential regime, which, as you know, has just started this financial year. We will continue to report the revised forecasts as the budget documents evolve and the forecasts develop.
As the years go on, will the Executive report clearly so that the committee can see whether the prudential borrowing regime is having the intended effect of giving greater flexibility to local government by increasing capital expenditure?
That will undoubtedly be the case. We would be happy to do that. It is also important to mention that we will be launching our infrastructure investment plan over the next few weeks, which will be designed to indicate to the market some of the public sector investment opportunities that will be coming along over a 10-year period to ensure that it can gear up and take the maximum opportunities from them. Prudential borrowing in local government will have an impact on the market opportunities that are there, and we want to find ways to incorporate that to ensure that there is capacity in the market to cope with the projects that are initiated.
I welcome the minister to his new post. He mentioned that he is new to the post, which is right, but he is not new to local government finance, as he and I were council leaders together, between 1996 and 1999, as I recall.
We both bear the scars.
Yes, we both bear the scars.
There are a number of points there. You are right to mention that I have experience in local government. The more that I recount some of the figures that I have just recounted to you in the past few minutes, the more I find it impossible to stop my mind running back to a time when we in local government were under terrible pressure—people at the helm of local government the length and breadth of Scotland had to take horrible decisions, with a Government based in Westminster that was venting its anger and its resentment against local government here in Scotland.
I will come on to efficiency savings in a moment, but I want to get underneath some of what you have just told us. If we consider the real-terms increases and compare the 2002-03 budget with the 2007-08 budget and apply the Treasury gross domestic product deflator, the figures show a 6.67 per cent decrease. Do you accept that, in real terms, there is a decrease in the amount of spending available to local authorities?
I fundamentally reject that notion. What you have just related in no way lines up with service development and people's experience of local government. Children in Scotland have access to pre-five education at unprecedented and unique levels compared with previous experience. A whole range of services has been introduced in Scotland. Elderly people enjoy free personal and nursing care, for example. I could go on and on to give a list that demonstrates quite clearly the way in which services have expanded to meet the needs of people in Scotland. Therefore, I do not recognise what you say in any way whatever.
I suppose that we could bandy figures backward and forward all day about who is right and who is wrong, but the figures that I quoted were derived from your draft budget, so it beats me why you do not recognise them.
There are two points on that. First, on your point about the differences between us over interpretation of figures over time, I am fairly confident that our document shows clearly that there is an increase. I am happy to write to the committee to demonstrate where and how the document shows those increases. That will resolve that question.
Perhaps the minister cannot talk about specifics, but is it possible to talk about generalities in respect of efficiency savings? Are there areas that would be exempt from efficiency savings? For example, on education and young people, the draft budget says that
I confirm that the allocations for police, the fire service and teachers have been excluded from the efficiency assumptions. I also confirm that efficiencies will be applied pro rata across authorities.
Are you saying that Perth and Kinross Council, which predicated its budget on one of the Executive's target areas—the investment in learning project, which is about building new schools—must save over and above 1 per cent in one of your target areas? I want to be sure about what you are saying.
It is not "over and above", if I understand your question.
Are you saying that the 1 per cent savings that the council intends to make will form part of the efficiency savings that you will set as a general target for the council, so the council will not be expected to make those 1 per cent savings in addition to the efficiency savings that you expect?
The 2 per cent figure is already factored into the settlement; it is already included, so there is nothing on top.
I will phrase the question differently. Will the £600,000 per annum that the council intends to save form part of the 2 per cent saving that you expect the council to achieve?
In determining the settlement and in taking decisions on the spending review for local government, ministers have taken a view on the levels of grant-aided expenditure that they think are justified, as the minister said. They have not taken a view on individual councils. The settlement to which the minister referred will be announced in December and will give allocations to individual councils, so we cannot comment on individual councils. The overall funding settlement assumes 0.7 per cent savings per annum in broad terms in expenditure levels—gains, efficiency savings and expenditure. If an individual council budgets for 1 per cent savings, it will achieve efficiency gains over and above 0.7 per cent.
So the savings would be additional, rather than part of the overall figure.
We did not start from the presumption that councils would make X per cent savings and then add a figure on top of that.
Members of the committee understand why you have exempted targeted areas, such as teachers, from efficiency savings. However, we also understand that, from the perspective of a local authority that is trying to make savings in order to build schools, it is incongruous that a council must make additional efficiency savings while trying to make inroads into the Executive's target areas.
I do not think that that is incongruous. Given the size of the expenditure that takes place in local government, efficiencies can be generated. We will demonstrate how we intend to achieve those savings when we publish the efficient government document.
When was the best-value regime introduced? Why was it introduced? How have you evaluated its success or failure?
Best value has been on the go for a number of years. If my memory serves me, I think that it began around 1997—that might be a year or so out, but it was around then. I was personally involved and I am the first to acknowledge that local government has made considerable progress in respect of best value. However, we strongly believe that further efficiencies can be made, not only in local government but right across the public sector. We say that not because we seek a ruse by which to reduce the allocations that we make, but because we know that if those efficiency gains are realised, moneys will be available for reinvestment in front-line services to cope with the additional demands on local government and the public sector. There is a range of opportunities for such reinvestment.
Despite the seven-year operation of the best-value regime, which you said has made "considerable progress", you estimate that a further £58.5 million-worth of savings in local government in 2006-07 and £114.2 million-worth of savings in 2007-08 can be made.
In this day and age, we always deal in impressive figures, which, relative to other figures, sound impressive at different times. As I said, by 2007-08, local government will receive an overall allocation of £10.3 billion—a third of the Scottish block in that year. That is a considerable amount of money.
You have avoided the point that I made. A regime has been in place for seven years. Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission for Scotland have put local authorities on a diet and have tried to ensure that they are lean and fit machines, that there is no wastage and that there are plenty of efficiency savings. You say that there has been "considerable progress" over a seven-year period. If there has been such progress, the people in Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission have been doing their jobs—perhaps you will want to say that they have not been doing their jobs—and local authorities have already been operating on a strict diet, so where will you find another £58.5 million in 2006-07 and £114.2 million in 2007-08 in efficiency savings?
With respect, Mr Sheridan, I do not think that you listened to the answer that I just gave. I explained exactly how we think that can be done in a number of fields. I have not gone into all the details because I am not going to pre-empt the statement on efficient government that I will make within the next few weeks.
Tommy Sheridan can ask one more short question.
I am sure that other committee members will subject the minister's figures to the rigorous analysis that they deserve. We should be dealing with real-terms figures instead of cash figures, which is what the minister tends to deal with to try to inflate the figures. Given the imposition of the best-value regime over the past seven years and the best efforts of Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission, the proposition that savings of another £58.5 million in 2006-07 and £114.2 million in 2007-08 are just waiting to be taken off the shelf without real and serious reductions in front-line services and in jobs is ridiculous. Is it not the case that we are really talking about a budget that will lead to service and job reductions?
I have seldom heard such a ridiculous misinterpretation of a budget that is clearly generous and expansionist. We could be here until midnight explaining the new services that are coming on stream and the existing services that are being enhanced. Mr Sheridan advocates changes in the tax base at local level. He is just another one of those people who want to spend, spend, spend without regard to how we gather in money and pursue the efficiencies that maintain the public's confidence in the delivery of services.
I understand that the minister does not want to pre-empt the debate by giving details of what efficiency savings might be made. Anything that is done with local government expenditure is monitored. We have best-value arrangements and expenditure is recorded. What will you do to monitor the efficiency savings that are made in local government and how will you measure them to ensure that the targets that you set are met in the areas in which you wish to bring about improvements?
I certainly agree with the proposition that if robust audit measures are not included as part of the efficient government drive, the process becomes as good as meaningless. I assure the member that when we publish our efficiency plan, we will demonstrate that we are determined to track the changes that are made and the efficiency savings that are gained. We are also determined to ensure that any moneys that are generated through efficiency savings are reinvested in front-line services. I agree with the notion that Mr McMahon puts forward and we will do our best to demonstrate how we agree with it when we publish our document.
In most of the debates that we have in the Local Government and Transport Committee, there are questions about how many of the figures that are bandied about are calculated and what they relate to; you have probably experienced that in today's meeting, which is the first that you have attended as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform. Will there be a simple tabulation of the efficiencies so that people understand clearly from the outset what will be expected? That would make it much easier for us to monitor what is measured.
I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who struggles with the complexities of local government finance or, indeed, with the complexities of public sector finance per se. The subject is far from straightforward. I have served as a council leader on two occasions. I found local government finance difficult then and I still find that it can be difficult.
Given that the minister has only seven more minutes with us, we should put the council tax issue to him. You will have seen the five scenarios in Professor Bramley's paper. As that is a public document, it is only right that public concern is voiced about those scenarios. What are your comments on them?
It is important to say first that it appears that Professor Bramley's case is based on a theoretical worst-case scenario. We do not know how he managed to arrive at his figures, which have been produced only recently; we would be interested in seeing more of the background material.
So your view is still that which Mr McConnell advanced: that the council tax increase will be 2.5 per cent.
The First Minister's view was that he saw no reason why council tax increases should be more than an average of 2.5 per cent in the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The figures for 2005-06 were part of the 2002 spending review and were always set. We expect council tax increases in that year to be higher than 2.5 per cent—councils predict that. We ask councils to examine their budgets rigorously to see whether they can find ways to reduce increases by as much as they can; their electorates would expect them to do that, anyway. As a result of their conscientious approach to their work, people who are in local government would do that year on year in any case.
Does that mean that you still agree with Mr McConnell that there is no reason why councils should increase council tax by more than 2.5 per cent?
Our view is that for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, we have made allocations to local government that indicate to us that council tax increases should be held at about the level that you mentioned. Of course, I fully recognise that in the final analysis, individual councils have the right to determine their rates of increase. However, the figures that we have announced will assist councils considerably as they meet their ambitions for expanded services and do their best to minimise the financial burden on local tax payers.
Mr McConnell did not say that that figure was just a guideline. On 7 October, he said to Parliament:
We believe that the financial allocations that have been made should achieve a situation in which increases are no more than 2.5 per cent in those two years. We fully acknowledge that elected representatives at local level have the right to determine what they regard as being the most appropriate increase. However, where substantial amounts of public funds are allocated to local government, it must justify any related decisions to the local electorate.
I agree that we all want collection of local government revenue, council tax and other local government receipts to be more efficient. If our record is poorer than that in Wales, I hope that we all agree that that must be improved on. So far so good.
I accept absolutely that the Scottish Executive should lead by example. We need to review our processes constantly, and we will do that. We will try in every instance to be a beacon for others to follow. However, I do not think that the comparison that has been made is in any way relevant. There are people in Scotland who are well able to meet their bills, although very often they do not. We should be chasing them harder than we do.
I have a final brief question. The finance spokesman for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Mr Pentland, who will not be one of the COSLA witnesses today, was quoted in The Scotsman in relation to the 2.5 per cent promise. He said:
With the greatest respect, there is no way that Mr Pentland had all the available information to hand when he made that statement. I am sure that he is sincere in his concern for his local electorate, but he does not have all the details of the settlement. I have not confirmed local government settlement figures; I will do so in December. It will be then that people should make a more rounded consideration and not beforehand.
Does that include the First Minister?
The First Minister is aware of the figures. I have a good idea that he knows what we are talking about here.
I have another question. The Executive has indicated a target to increase investment in public services, using capital expenditure, by 5 per cent a year in real terms over the review period. However, the projections that our adviser has drawn out of the Executive's budget proposals for local government indicate a growth of only 3.6 per cent a year. Will you comment on that?
I cannot comment immediately because I am not entirely sure whether the projection includes, for example, the impact of the prudential borrowing regime. It might also be that some capital expenditure on higher and further education projects is not included—that might not be in the same line. I am not sure whether we are comparing like for like, but I would like to check that and come back to you.
Okay. If you could respond to us in writing on that, it would be—
Unless the officials want to make any comment at the moment.
I am not sure whether that projection takes into account, for example, table 10.03 in the "Draft Budget 2005-06", which shows additional capital expenditure from other portfolios rising from £237 million in 2004-05 to £406 million in 2007-08. However, as we say, we do not know the basis of the projections.
The best way forward is to confirm the projections through correspondence from the Executive, which would be useful.
I thank the minister for what he said about the quality-of-life initiative and the city growth fund. I know that the quality-of-life fund was popular, and I am glad that you are continuing with it.
On the capital allocation for roads, we have allocated an extra £60 million per year from April 2006 through GAE to help councils to address the backlog of road deficiencies. Clearly, there is a sensitive and vexed question around how we ensure that money is spent as intended. Councillors would not welcome my hypothecating that money. They feel that as elected members they have the right to exercise discretion in how they allocate resources.
It was on outcome agreements.
To be frank, not as much progress has been made on outcome agreements as I would have liked. I will not come here and pretend to the committee that in the past three weeks I have covered every dot and comma of my portfolio—I will not do that after three years, never mind three weeks—but outcome agreements are important. We in the Executive need to refine the indicators that we ask local government for. We need to be sure that we are not asking for a range of information in different ways, using imprecise definitions and placing a burden on local government with regard to the information that it is required to supply to us. We end up with a confused and muddled picture if imprecise definitions and requests for the same information come from different parts of the Executive. The area is very important and we have to look at it. We must refine the indicators that we think are important and agree them with local government as soon as we can.
That brings us to the end of our questions for now, although we have a few further questions that we will send to the Executive in writing. We would appreciate responses in time for us to prepare our budget report. Thank you very much for your evidence this afternoon, minister. We look forward to working with you in the period to come.
Thank you, convener. I appreciate what you have said. I also appreciate the way in which members have engaged with me this afternoon. I look forward to working with you in the years to come, finding ways to demystify the budget process and helping to explain it to people throughout Scotland. Thank you for your time.
As far as the other questions are concerned, I seek some clarification. Can members submit through the clerk additional questions that, through lack of time today, we have not had the opportunity to put? For example, I have questions on non-domestic rating income and the assumptions behind the figures that are contained in the budget. Those are quite technical questions, and I wonder whether I could submit them to the minister through the clerk. I could do that later today.
I am comfortable with that, as long as all members keep a degree of perspective and do not submit too many questions. I am happy to accept a few additional questions from members.
I never submit enough questions.
We move on to our second panel of witnesses. I welcome to the committee Councillor Drew Edward, who is here on behalf of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and is a member of its finance executive group. I also welcome Brenda Campbell, a COSLA corporate adviser, and James Thomson, a COSLA policy manager. I invite Councillor Edward to make some introductory remarks, after which we will go forward into questions and answers.
I thank the committee for inviting COSLA along to give evidence on the draft budget for 2005-06. As you are aware, the announcement of the individual authority allocations has not yet been made. We anticipate that announcement being made around 8 December, so we cannot make any comment about the implications for individual authorities at this stage; we need to wait until we get that further detail.
The minister reconfirmed the target of 2.5 per cent for council tax increases in the coming years. What is COSLA's view of that target, given some of the information we have seen in tabular form in The Herald and the information on the real rates of inflation in local government costs? I have been told that energy costs may increase by about 27 per cent because of the significant increase in oil and gas prices and that water prices will go up by up to 10.6 per cent. There are also problems with the funding of the McCrone settlement—although it has been hinted that extra money may be provided for that—and the issues of servicing pay awards and superannuation costs. That suggests that inflation in local government costs is running ahead of the normal rate of inflation. Is it COSLA's understanding that inflation in local government costs normally runs ahead of the underlying rate of inflation in the economy? Are the figures that I mentioned on energy and water costs reflected throughout your membership?
Yes. A number of pressures exist, some of which you mentioned. Pressures also arise from demographic changes, such as the rise in the number of elderly people in the population. Because there is significant growth in demands on local government, the effective inflation rate is significantly higher than the base inflation rate. There have been esoteric technical discussions about which inflation rate should be used, but the point is that there are significant pressures on local government budgets.
The Executive has built into the settlement calculations the assumption of a 2.5 per cent rise in council tax. That is an assumption that the Executive makes in calculating the AEF, but it must be distinguished from actual council tax rises throughout the country. A lot of media attention has been given to the matter since the First Minister made the comment about the rises, but two issues are involved. First, there is the assumption that has been built into the settlement calculation to meet the spending needs that relate to the GAE. Secondly, there is the amount that councils will need to raid—[Laughter.] Sorry, that was a Freudian slip. I meant the amount that councils will actually need to raise to meet those spending needs as well as the costs of discretionary services.
How does COSLA make the Executive aware, through lobbying, of some of the real pressures on the budget before the Executive announces a target of a 2.5 per cent increase? It would have been good if we had received your evidence before we took evidence from the minister, as we could then have put these issues to him. You are being left to deal with pressures on local authority budgets that exceed the 2.5 per cent increase. In some places, increases in energy costs are 10 times greater than that. How do you make the Executive aware of the situation, and what sort of response do you normally receive?
There is a constant and developing dialogue between COSLA and the Executive, both at officer level and at political level. We constantly make representations and pass information to the Executive. However, it is disappointing that often the Executive does not respond to that information. COSLA made significant bids in this spending round and identified a number of the pressures, but only about 30 per cent of those bids were funded. Information has been passed to the Executive and we have made clear the detail of the situation.
Can you go a bit further? Obviously, there are many new initiatives. When I was a councillor, we used the term new burdens, and I will stick with the old terminology, as it seems to suit the situation better. You are saying that only 30 per cent of the new burdens that you are taking on are funded. If that is the case, what will have to be picked up through additional council tax? That is the only way in which councils can obtain the extra funding.
A variety of areas are affected. One that has been discussed recently in the press is the capital cost of road repairs. The bid was for £110 million and we received £62 million in the settlement. James Thomson and Brenda Campbell have more details.
Our spending review submission consisted of a base budget and additional bids. The additional resources that we were seeking to fund those bids were in the region of more than £600 million by year 3. From what we know about the settlement so far, it appears that the Executive has provided more than £200 million of that sum. The Executive has recognised almost a third of our bids.
Is there a breakdown that indicates which additional bids relate to unavoidable expenditure and which relate to aspirational or desirable expenditure? Does COSLA recognise that there was a period—mainly in the 1990s—when investment in much of the country's capital infrastructure was neglected? The Executive must balance investment in a range of areas: hospitals, the water industry, roads and local government infrastructure. Does COSLA accept that the Executive needs to spend the resources that are available to it on the whole range of public services, not just local government?
Yes, we accept that. We live in the whole of society and do not focus solely on one aspect. We recognise that there are competing pressures. We merely want to make the case for the services that we provide. My voters want me to provide good services.
Will one of the witnesses address the question whether all the bids are for expenditure that is unavoidable? Some expenditure is extremely important and desirable, particularly in relation to roads, but are there some areas of unfunded expenditure on which there is no option but to spend money and other areas on which local government would like to spend but will not be able to if the resources are not there?
We can break that down quite easily and provide the information to the committee. When we prepared our current spending review submission, we had a different focus. In previous spending reviews, we always submitted bids for huge amounts of money that, quite frankly, it would not have been realistic for the Executive to provide. This time, when we went out to professional associations and elected members, our starting point was more than £1 billion. We were quite realistic; we said, "We are not going to get £1 billion, so let's be realistic and look at the bids that have come in." We went through a strict political process of streamlining the bids and identifying the key priorities for local government, and that brought us down to a starting point of about £400 million. There has been a change in focus and we have prioritised the bids, but we could examine them again and provide a further breakdown. Indeed, we will do that; our next step will be to examine the areas in which we were not successful and consider what our priorities are, how we will bid for any resources that remain and how we will lobby the Executive for those resources.
It would be useful if you could provide us with that information in writing, stating the sums of money and the areas that you believe are underfunded.
Sure.
We talked about local roads, and I take it from the comments that have been made that that cost is not included in the local government baseline budget but is an additional cost that has not been funded to the level that local government wanted. We read in the Audit Scotland report about the amount of money that is needed. I take it that that is one of the continuing issues on which COSLA will have dialogue with the Scottish Executive.
Yes.
As recently as this morning I met transport officials from the Executive and that is one of the issues that we discussed. Our bid was for about £60 million and the Executive has put £60 million into the GAE, so in that respect the bid was successful. The level of spend that Audit Scotland talks about in its report is significantly more than that, but we must be realistic about what can be delivered and about the timescale. There are a lot of policy discussions to be had, because we have to ask what it would be possible to deliver if a huge amount of investment was suddenly put in. There is a debate to be had with the Executive about what is realistic. We believe that £60 million is realistic and that that money could be spent properly.
You are quite correct. I have spoken to council officials about the amount of money that should be put in, but manpower resources are limited, as far as doing the job is concerned. I take it that you are looking at a longer-term strategy, which I gather is what happens south of the border.
Yes. The discussions will be about putting in place a long-term plan for a number of years and finding the most effective way to address the issues that we face.
That comes back to COSLA's submission to the most recent review of local government funding. We talked about capital needs in relation to neglected infrastructure, such as roads, schools or office buildings, and working environments for staff. There is a huge gap in capital funding, but it is a matter of setting priorities. We could spend all the capital on the roads, but decisions have to be made on the various competing budget heads.
Following up on that issue, I have a question that I have asked in previous years. Is the expenditure on roads at a level that is maintaining the roads at the same level, so that the backlog is not getting bigger? Is the backlog getting bigger or smaller, and what difference will that £60 million make? Will it make things break even?
It is a very difficult subjective judgment to say whether the backlog is getting bigger or not.
Audit Scotland has said that there is a £1.7 billion backlog, with £1.5 billion of that involving local roads. We do not know whether the existing level of funding is actually making any impact on that backlog. I have been trying to get to the bottom of that question for some time. Does putting an additional £60 million into the road maintenance programme actually make any impact on that backlog or is more needed? I am trying to get some flavour of where we are.
Anything that is put in would have an effect on the backlog and on trying to keep things up to date. The difficulty is that we end up spending money on patching and repairing rather than on renewing and rebuilding. When I was a local campaigner, before I became a councillor, there was a road in my ward that was resurfaced because it hit the headlines in the local paper as one of the bumpiest roads in the world. It was resurfaced, much against the better judgment of the technical road engineers, but local people said, "This is wonderful. This road is now smooth." Less than 10 years on, it is now breaking up again, just as the engineers predicted, because of the substrata. That is our problem.
Later on, we shall consider whether to take further evidence from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and from Audit Scotland. If the committee wishes, we can pursue those issues further.
I have a question about the idea that assumptions are being made. I do not know whether the witnesses heard our dialogue with the minister earlier, but points were made about statements from COSLA through Councillor Pentland about the problems that were foreseen in connection with the level to which council tax would have to be raised. The minister replied that there was an awful lot of assumption behind what Councillor Pentland was saying and that ministers had the advantage of having seen the figures. Is not there too much of that type of discussion in relation to the figures for local government finance? Can you see a way through that debate, so that we can talk about hard-and-fast figures rather than assumptions?
Progress has been made in getting an agreed local government base budget and developing a more open and transparent process, so there are not lots of little kitties of money salted away in various spending departments in the Executive that can be produced at various times to provide another £30 million, £40 million or £50 million to spend on certain initiatives. If we start at the beginning of a year with what we know is the local government budget and have a clear and transparent process that identifies all the resources for local government spending, that allows us to conduct those discussions on a much clearer basis because we know where we are working from. COSLA has worked hard with the Executive to achieve that, and I think that that is the way forward.
My concern is that a lot of the projections for efficiency savings would therefore be based on assumptions about how much can be saved and how much money there is to be saved. Unless we monitor what is being saved in local government, it will be difficult for the Executive and COSLA to agree in the future that the efficiency savings that the Executive wants have actually been arrived at, or whether the aim was achievable in the first place. Can we get some sort of baseline on which to base these figures, instead of continually working on assumptions?
As Councillor Edward said, we have made significant progress to get where we are. The year 2005-06 is the first one for which we will have a baseline, as such, or an agreed local government budget. We have to look forward and see that as our starting point from which to progress.
Since 1999, local government has been under the best-value regime, whereby we have had to achieve efficiency savings. Since 1999, we have made efficiency savings in the region of £650 million, or £108.7 million a year. When you compare that with the base budget in COSLA's submission, you will see that it amounts to 1 per cent of the figures there. We have made those efficiency savings so that the money can be reinvested in local priorities.
It is difficult to talk about efficiency savings in percentage terms. One of the issues that my authority is looking at is transaction costs. We are asking what each activity costs so that we can identify an absolute value and an absolute improvement trend. Rather than simply saying that we want to make some sort of global efficiency saving, we can find out what it costs, say, to process a council tax account every year. If we can move trends in the right direction, we can see where we are making a saving by capturing the cost per transaction. We have to have a number of such mechanisms in each local authority to find those costs and measure them, so that we can identify savings more accurately.
On the theme of efficiency savings, it is a pity that you did not hear what the minister said—there were some reasonable things in it for COSLA as well as some things that you might find a bit more difficult. You will be aware that we are talking about in the order of £58.5 million of efficiency savings for the financial year 2006-07 and £114.2 million for 2007-08. I hope that I am not taking what the minister said in vain, but he confirmed that no efficiency assumptions will be made in relation to fire staff, police, teachers and support staff. He confirmed that he expected the efficiency savings to be reinvested into front-line services, but we did not get the chance to ask whether that meant front-line services across the Scottish Executive's budget or just across local government's budget. We need to tease that out a bit further.
It is always difficult to measure. Are we talking about the journalistic term "cuts" or about euphemistic efficiency savings? If we are talking about genuine efficiency savings, we need to find a rational way of measuring them instead of simply looking at expenditure reductions. We need to find a way of determining what it costs us to do something and how to measure the saving. To do that arbitrarily through a simple formula allocation is unsatisfactory; we would rather that a more rational process was gone through to allow councils to identify whether they are making genuine efficiency improvements as opposed to simple expenditure reductions.
Can I tease out the issue about roads a bit further? You said that most of local authorities' expenditure is on staff. Is there a danger that some of the £60 million of additional resources that will come from making efficiency savings in cash terms will be lost back out of the system because the people will not be there to deliver those savings?
I am not sure that people will not be there to deliver them.
If you are to make efficiency savings and the only way of doing that is through staff, you will be taking staff out of the process and there will be nobody to do the work.
That is true. It is unavoidable if we work on that basis. One of the challenges that we face is to make efficiency savings that do not compromise future service delivery.
Every major organisation, whether in the public sector or the private sector, will continually examine its productivity to try to improve it. One area in which there has been some development but in which there is still considerable room for improvement is the use of modern information technology systems to allow people to access local authority services more easily. Do you agree that that is an area in which further progress can be made in ensuring that local government is more efficient in delivering services?
Modern IT systems and joint working are areas on which councils are actively working, but there are further improvements to be made and there is certainly scope for further investment. Those areas often require up-front investment, which is one of the difficulties with a challenging budget settlement. We need to have a spend-to-save fund to allow such investment to take place.
As Councillor Edward said, we are in discussions with the Executive about moving funding from back-room to front-line services. Potentially, we could share services across authorities and with the rest of the public sector. As members know, local government is one of the leaders in community care partnerships and a number of similar initiatives. We are in discussions about how we can apply savings across the public sector. There is also the efficient government fund, on which an announcement has yet to be made. The budget document refers to pump priming of spend-to-save initiatives, which would allow us to bid for funding to deliver longer-term efficiency savings.
I have one more small question. The Executive has set levels for efficiency savings. If the money is to go back into front-line services, what mechanism would you like to be applied to the redistribution process? What organisations exist in COSLA to ensure that that works properly?
I am not sure that the money to which Bruce Crawford refers will be redistributed. The figures that were mentioned earlier add up to £168 million, which has been removed as part of the settlement. That sum has been subtracted from the settlement figures in the budgets that have been allocated to councils. It has been entered as an efficiency saving by councils, as would be the case in any normal spending review. When the efficient government fund is announced—I know that the announcement has been delayed, but we understand that it will be made later this month—the £168 million will contribute to the target that is set for local government. I am not sure what the target for local government will be. If it is £250 million, £168 million of that will already have been achieved.
I do not know whether Councillor Edward's colleagues have seen the paper that Professor Bramley provided to the committee or some of the media coverage that flowed from it. Do you have any comment on the paper and the various scenarios for council tax that it sets out?
I have not seen the detail of the paper; I have seen only the press reporting of it. Brenda Campbell and James Thomson have seen the paper. The scenarios for council tax are evidently foreseeable, depending on the action that one takes. The results are predicated on the action. Councils are all locally elected and the political imperative will constrain council tax rises. That is a significant constraint. Councils will want to be seen to be looking after the public pound and will not get away publicly with big rises in council tax. From discussions that I have had, it appears that councils are examining how to manage the system, the resources that are available and changes to service delivery to achieve sensible council tax rises.
That is a slightly different view of the paper and it is useful for members of the committee to hear it. Mr McCabe seemed to indicate that he did not know where any of the figures in the paper could have come from. However, you say quite clearly that the scenarios that were set out are foreseeable, provided that decision making in the council is consistent with the scenario.
That is clear, in particular because of the gearing effect of council tax. If a council does not constrain its budget and it has a fixed settlement from the Executive, it must fund each 1 per cent increase with a 5 per cent council tax rise—that is the approximate multiplier. However, political realities will constrain council tax rises.
Today's newspapers contained alarmist stories about the highest figure in Professor Bramley's paper. However, that figure was based on local authority spend growing over the forthcoming spending review period at the same rate as Scottish Executive spending grew during the 2002-04 spending review period. Are there drivers that will force local government to increase expenditure at such a rate during the forthcoming spending review period? It seems pretty unlikely that public sector expenditure will continue to rise at record rates. Increases in public expenditure must level off unless there is a dramatic increase in taxation to levels that the United Kingdom has not traditionally experienced.
A number of drivers are pushing up public expenditure—Bruce Crawford mentioned a few. I mentioned demographic change. Falling pupil numbers and increasing numbers of older people indicate a need for a resource transfer from youth to age, to look after the older people. However, if the Executive wants to maintain investment in education and such a resource transfer is not to be effected, the budget must be raised. The Executive must work in partnership with local government to discuss such matters and to make its objectives clear. We must ascertain what the public spending ceiling is and what we will get for the money.
I want to be clear about the matter. Are there any drivers that you regard as sufficient to require a local authority in Scotland to propose a double-digit council tax increase?
I cannot speak for all local authorities. Brenda Campbell might comment.
I will not comment on individual councils, but I can safely say that I do not expect such increases.
To go back a step to the dialogue between the Scottish Executive and COSLA, did Mr McConnell discuss his 2.5 per cent council tax rise with you before he mentioned it in the Parliament?
He did not discuss it with me.
Did he discuss it with anyone in COSLA or with any local authority?
The First Minister made his comments in answer to a question in the Parliament, so there was no prior discussion. However, we already knew that a 2.5 per cent assumption had been made in the calculations, so we were aware of the context of the First Minister's answer. We certainly would not have anticipated a 2.5 per cent increase across councils.
I do not know whether you heard Mr McCabe's evidence, but such an increase is clearly still the expectation.
Mr McCabe attended the COSLA council leaders meeting a week past Friday and we challenged him on that. He said that the 2.5 per cent figure relates to years 2 and 3, but his answer did not go far enough. Our quarterly meeting with him will take place on Thursday and the spending review will be the main agenda item. I reassure you that there will be further discussion with the minister on the issue.
I want to clarify the situation for council tax payers. Do you agree that it would be unrealistic for council tax payers throughout Scotland to expect a 2.5 per cent council tax rise next year?
Yes.
It would be unrealistic unless the Executive comes forward with significant additional funding.
So the most significant efficiency saving councils could make is to reduce the number of accountants.
Agreed. My head of finance would not like that statement.
Happily, I am not an accountant.
You are worse; you are a lawyer.
I have become a politician, so I am descending ever lower.
You are correctly stating what happened. There was a lot of media attention about the 2.5 per cent that Jack McConnell announced initially. We responded to that. However, indicative figures were already in from councils for 2005-06; indeed, some councils had already put in indicative figures for 2006-07 as well. That point was clearly made to the Executive and it was raised with Mr McCabe at the leaders meeting. Mr McCabe clarified the position by saying that, for 2005-06, it was accepted that indicative figures were in and that the First Minister had referred to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
My recollection is that Mr McCabe indicated in his evidence earlier that he was referring to the two later years of the spending review. Obviously, that will be on the public record.
That is not what Mr McCabe said in his response to me. However, as you say, convener, we can read what he said later. I expressed the view earlier that it would have been helpful if we had received a written submission from COSLA. What does COSLA think the increases should be?
The increases are for each authority to determine for itself. Councils have to consider local circumstances and local finances. They are all locally elected and they have to stand on their decisions. It is not for me to specify the tax rises for every other local authority; I find it challenging enough to debate the council tax rises for Fife, never mind the other 31 local authorities.
You have said that indicative figures are in for 2005-06. Do you have an average for those?
It is about 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent. We will confirm that for you.
That would be useful.
I thought that COSLA had a lobbying role and that part of its function was to get the best possible deal for local authorities. Was I wrong in making that assumption?
No, not at all.
Are you not therefore involved in at least some sort of negotiation to try to get the best deal for your councils? Unless you state an average increase that you believe is fair, the negotiation is one-sided—Jack has put his figures on the table, but you are not putting any figures on the table because you cannot. That does not seem to me to be raising the standard for local authorities, but perhaps I am just misunderstanding the role of COSLA in fighting for local authorities' interests.
You may be overemphasising the significance of the council tax. The overall local government budget is the concern. Council tax increases are a consequence of that. Councils can effectively manage their budget in a number of ways: they can raise the council tax, raise charges, do less or do what they do better. There is little additional scope, in terms of getting money and managing it. Council tax is only one part of the budget and, in some respects, it is a relatively small part. We should not get hung up on council tax, which distorts the agenda. We have to look at the local government budget in total.
I understand all that, but that was not my question. Earlier, Brenda Campbell gave specific examples of what COSLA argued for, so I was just asking whether COSLA has asked for an overall deal.
COSLA is making a request for the Executive to fund local government.
I have one final question, which arose from the minister's evidence. He was quite critical of the record of local government in Scotland in collecting its revenues, presumably principally the council tax. He said—I hope that I am not misquoting him, because I would not wish to do that—that the record in Scotland was 4 per cent worse than the record in Wales. I think that that was the figure that he quoted. Is he right and, if so, why?
I cannot speak for Scotland as a whole—perhaps Brenda Campbell could do that—but in my authority we work hard to collect revenues. The figure depends on whether one examines the annual in-year collection or the five-year long-term collection rate. We are approaching 98 per cent collection on a five-year basis. We do not give up pursuing council tax, even when in accounting terms it has been written off. We are still collecting community charge, which can cause a lot of problems in my surgeries. I am not sure which comparison that figure of 4 per cent is based on. Brenda Campbell may have further details.
I am afraid that I do not, but I will be looking into the matter. I cannot say whether the figure is right or what the comparative figures were. However, I reassure the committee that council tax collection is a priority for all local authorities and is debated throughout COSLA, particularly when Accounts Commission annual reports are published—you will appreciate the media attention that we get then. We looked at the figures for the past five years and we are pleased to say that they have improved and that they will continue to improve. However, I will examine the system in Wales and make a direct comparison. If I have further comments, I will bring them back to the committee.
Further to that, I received correspondence from the Welsh Local Government Association this morning. We have entered into discussions on the method for calculating comparisons and collection rates to ensure that we work on the same basis and level of understanding. We will deal with the Executive at officer level to ensure that we are comparing like with like and to work out any differences and discrepancies that may arise.
The issue arose during the minister's evidence today, so you will be able to see exactly what he said in the Official Report, although I do not think that he made the comparison absolutely clear. I stuck up for local authorities and suggested that, if the Executive paid its bills to businesses on time, people would perhaps be able to pay their council tax. Do you have any difficulty in obtaining payment on time from the Executive? Do you have any other problems arising from Executive delays in the provision of services or information to you?
In relation to information from the Executive, one of the difficulties that we have is getting the detail of initiatives that are announced. We look forward to having this year's local government settlement announcement on 8 December as scheduled. An important factor for all in local government is the flow of information promptly and when we require it, as that gives us time to make adjustments and to deliver the required services. Difficulty is created if press announcements are made but we do not receive from Victoria Quay the circular that gives council officers the authority to spend money and tells them what they will receive. We cannot deliver services by press release; we must deal with formal documentation. The Executive document flow is often a critical factor.
I realise that you do not have to hand the answer on the differential between Wales and Scotland that the minister highlighted. Off the top of my head, I think that one factor might be the introduction of the poll tax or community charge in Scotland a year earlier than in Wales. Perhaps the damage that that did to the integrity of local government taxation and the culture of non-payment—not only among people who could not afford to pay but among people who could afford to pay but opted not to—might still have a hangover in the Scottish system. One more year's experience of that might be a factor. It might be interesting to examine the council tax collection rates on introduction in Scotland and Wales.
I cannot say whether the figure is correct because we have not undertaken that analysis. All that links to the prudential regime, of which we are in the early stages. That will have to run its course for a year or two before we can comment further on capital investment, because that comes down to local decision making.
I thank Drew Edward, James Thomson and Brenda Campbell for their evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our third panel of witnesses: Neil Johnstone, director of Halcrow Group Ltd in Scotland, who is representing the Institution of Civil Engineers; and Alan Watt, chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Scotland). I thank the witnesses for submitting an advance copy of their evidence and give them the opportunity to make further remarks on the budget process.
We are very conscious that the committee comes across a plethora of professional and trade bodies from all sectors, particularly the construction sector. As a result, I should simply point out that the Institution of Civil Engineers represents the profession across the public and private sectors, whereas CECA (Scotland) represents the sharp end of the industry—the civil engineering contractors in your constituencies. Several other trade bodies are involved in civil engineering, but I will not go through the alphabet soup that one gets with such organisations. However, we have consulted them on our submission and as they are happy with it, we can say sincerely that we represent Scotland's civil engineers.
I reaffirm how much we welcome the opportunity to come along in partnership this afternoon.
Target 4 in the draft transport budget states that the Scottish Executive should
I will start and Neil Johnstone will act as wicket keeper.
The milestones to which Alan Watt referred, such as achieving consents, are the fairly classic ones that most people associate with the development process. Major projects are subject to ministerial approval—we recognise that the minister wants to be satisfied with the business case—which provides helpful budget clarity and means that finance is perhaps not the major hurdle. However, we cannot in a democracy proceed with projects that do not meet legal requirements. Alan Watt mentioned the fundamental issue of land. The motto of some engineers whom I know is, "No land, no jobs." All parts of the industry in Scotland have become very adept with roads projects—no one can deliver roads faster. The M74 design, build, finance and operate proved that. I think that that was the fastest a motorway has been built in Britain.
The point that you make about the parliamentary process is one that you should be aware was discussed last week with the Minister for Transport. A number of us would like to see progress being made on streamlining the process.
The Procedures Committee is currently conducting an inquiry on the private bills procedure. I hope that we will be able to shed some light on the matter in the next few months.
Thank you very much. That is very useful information.
Absolutely. That is one of the uncertainties that can pop out of the process. The early declaration of intent to spend that is part of the process is extremely helpful, but there exists recognition of how costs can increase in major infrastructure projects. I do not want to bring in too many technicalities, but the phrase "optimism bias" may be known by some committee members.
Do not start Fergus Ewing off on that.
It might be helpful if I explain the phrase; it refers to the introduction by the Treasury of a percentage allowance. The track record of the delivery of some major civil engineering projects has led to the Treasury's advising that in the early stages of appraisal an inflated value should be given to redress the tendency to be overly optimistic. Our profession sees that as being a reasonable thing to do in the early stages but, as more detailed studies are done, it is possible to bring the adjustment down as knowledge of ground conditions and other factors permit and costs can be refined.
I will ask a final question before I bring in colleagues. You were right to identify that there is much expertise and experience in delivering roads projects. That is partly a reflection of the fact that railways have not been expanded or invested in for many decades to the degree that is now starting to happen. Is there sufficient expertise in the Scottish civil engineering industry to take on the projects or is there a need for us to try to encourage people, perhaps from within the UK civil engineering or railway industries or from other sectors, into Scotland to enable us to deliver the projects?
The quick answer is that there is sufficient capacity. Usually, if something new is brought along, the expertise grows or is imported. In some cases we would probably have to import specialist skills, but the sector as a whole has been very depressed for the past 10 years and we believe that it is still working well under capacity. Although the water industry—we do not want to go too deep into that today—is now beginning to deliver at the rate at which it promised to deliver, that has not stretched out all the wrinkles in the civil engineering industry. Spare capacity is still available.
I am not sure about optimistic bias, or whatever the term is, but I would like some realistic bias about what can and cannot be achieved. Milestones are all very good and well, but unless we know where the journey is going in the first place, milestones ain't going to be much good to us. What are your views on a requirement on the Executive to set delivery dates for transport projects, with a narrative that explains things, so that there is an end point that can be seen and there can be proper planning? In some ways, that requirement might be more valuable to you than milestones.
Alan Watt might want to elaborate a little on the Northern Ireland model, but I agree that a blank statement of a milestone might not mean much to the wider population, and it is important that the wider population should understand such things. There could be a narrative that explains what the real risks are as they become known.
There must surely be a process that would help your industry. The minister could say, "By this date, we will undertake this project, and here is what we expect the overall costs to be. Here are the challenges and the opportunities for delivery by that date." Something as simple as that being clearly laid down at the beginning must help you guys to manage, deliver, bid and ensure that projects happen.
Absolutely. We would welcome that approach. Cost is obviously a sensitivity in a commercial environment, but I think that it has been suggested in the past that it would be sensible to have a rough order of costs or cost banding, so that there is some idea of the magnitude of the job and so that the busy reader can quickly identify what the big, medium and small projects are. That would be a great step forward for the industry, which tends to operate very much in the dark until the sudden kerfuffle at the tendering stage. If all aspects of the industry—not just the contracting side, but the consulting and design sides—were involved much earlier, we would iron out many problems before the tendering stage was reached.
I want to raise another matter that is mentioned in your submission. Many projects—not least the building in which we are sitting—fall prey to delays. According to the answer to parliamentary question S2W-11169 that I received, work on completion of the M74 is due to start early in 2006, which is barely a year away. The Official Journal of the European Union notice went out only this year, and I gather that the Executive has estimated a capital cost of £393 million and that the project will be the biggest motorway project of the decade. The submission mentions factors that can cause delays, including
Absolutely—I have used that word twice and I do so sincerely. One of the biggest problems is that if a project such as the M74 project is delayed and other projects are coming to an end in preparation for that, the bucket will leak and the skills will dissipate. Scotland will lose those skills; although we can always get them back again, that will be achieved at a cost.
That seems to be very serious indeed. You mentioned partnership working. We are all conscious that that is desirable and that it is beginning to happen. Would you welcome a commitment from the Executive to publish its programme of works, its timetable for when they are to be carried out and the next tier that is to be considered? Would you welcome the Executive introducing other construction projects, even if only as a fallback? I mention from my own patch the A82, the A96 and, dare I say it, the dualling of the A9. If the M74 is not ready to go ahead because there are people up trees and all the rest of it bringing everything to a halt, perhaps one of those other priority projects could provide work for your members. If the M74 project does not happen, will there be a void and a genuine risk that some of your members will be in financial difficulties? The real victims will be the employees who will be laid off because there is no work for them to do as the Executive has not taken the approach that I suggest.
You are correct that there would be a void—it is known in the industry as the M74 black hole. There is a big worry that if anything causes that project to slip, the resource that is coming off other jobs to gear up for the M74 will not be employed. That is not to say that the companies that are doing the current jobs will win the M74 job, and we are used to migration in our industry, but the resource for that job exists. Just to scope that, we made a fag-packet estimate of how many souls could be involved and think that, at the zenith, it would be about 2,000 to 3,000 of Scotland's major road builders. That would include designers and suppliers as well as the constructors—the whole supply chain.
That is around a fifth of the whole work force.
It is probably about a tenth.
So a tenth to a fifth of the work force would be out of work in that black-hole period. Most of those people with identifiable skills and experience would go elsewhere to find work.
That is distinctly possible. I echo what Alan Watt said about the significance of a large project such as the M74 not coming to pass as planned. However, let us welcome the proposal of a preparation pool. It would be difficult if the replacement for a single large project were to be of equivalent size, because that would crowd out for three or four years the likelihood of overcoming the hurdle for that project. The preparation pool must be carefully and judiciously managed to have a blend of different-sized projects that could slip in without causing further delays.
My question follows on from what Fergus Ewing asked, but I want to push the matter a little further. You mentioned resources, and I am sure that there must be training implications. I know that training is happening locally because people are frightened about whether we have the necessary skills. You also mentioned project management. How closely have you been able to liaise with the Scottish Executive and what are the plans for the future? I do not often agree with Fergus Ewing but he was right to mention partnership working, not only with the Executive but with various branches of the construction industry. What partnership working is happening and what would you like to see in future?
The relationship is historic—it goes back to the Scottish Office, because many of the individuals in the Scottish Executive, particularly in the roads and transport areas, carried on from there. Most of the four main bodies that are involved in civil engineering—the bodies to which I referred—have a biannual meeting with the Scottish Executive, which is ostensibly a two-way communication on what the programme will be. That allows feedback from both sides. A mechanism is in place, but I would not go as far as saying that it is a partnership. It is nothing like a partnership. It is very much a client and—
Servant.
Well, not "servant". The relationship is that of client and consultant or contractor. There is no question about where the whip hand is, but we believe that with an assured programme, or what looks like an assured programme, we can probably move on from that relationship. Also, during the past 10 or 15 years the industry has adopted much more of a partnership ethos.
You sat through much of the evidence that we have taken this afternoon, so you will know that my theme of the afternoon is the basis on which the discussion moves forward and the assumptions that are built into certain areas. I am a bit concerned that the two sides seem to be coming from different positions. Alan Watt and I have discussed his and CECA's concerns about the basis on which consultations have gone forward and the false or wrongly collated information on which they have been based. Do you have any confidence that the figures that you work with from the Executive are accurate enough for your industry to make the decisions and plans that you need to move forward in a timetabled way?
We would not question the accuracy or honesty of the figures. They are probably the best estimate. The problem is that there is not enough information. To return to the point that was made earlier, we would like to see more information—narrative milestones, or milestones with a story, as somebody said—so that the industry can use its experience to identify potential impediments. We certainly do not question the authenticity of the information that we get, but we want more of it. I mentioned price banding, and information on that would be useful, not only to us but to MSPs, who would be able to identify with a quick look at one document what needs to be done in Scotland. Also, obviously, MSPs have an area or constituency interest and they would be able to see what needs to be done locally.
The follow-on question is whether you are in discussion with the Executive about obtaining such information and whether the Executive is resisting providing it.
I cannot speak for the other trade or professional bodies, but we have requested the information over a period of time. There are difficulties with the commercial aspects of it, because we are in a commercial environment. There are also difficulties because of local sensitivities on planning. Placing something in a programme that has not yet gone out to local consultation could be seen as pre-emptive. That said, I do not think that the level of information that we are looking for is very prescriptive.
It is the collection of that information that is important. On an individual project such as the Glasgow airport rail link, Strathclyde Passenger Transport, which is project managing, will have information that one could obtain, and the same will be true of Transport Initiatives Edinburgh in relation to the proposed tramlines and of the north-east Scotland transport partnership and the Executive in relation to the Aberdeen western peripheral route, but nobody is pulling that information together in a programme narrative with milestones. Doing so would be helpful not just to the industry but to a whole range of people from all walks of life who are interested in such projects, so it would have wider benefits for the general public. Given the sums that are being expended, the presentation of intentions and progress is a wonderful democratic thing to advance.
You will have heard the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform asking us for suggestions, and it may well be that we can suggest that ministers provide you with that information.
I want to return to something that was touched on before—maintaining or managing cost through delay. The specific example that I have in mind relates to the parliamentary process for the proposed Borders rail link. Even if we had a firm Executive commitment to funding that rail link today, the timescale for the parliamentary process is unpredictable. The land issues that you referred to are also not as clear as they might be. We are assured that the budget for that project can be held over an 18-month period. Is that sort of assurance realistic?
I think that it is, but you can specify an earliest achievement date and a latest achievement date, and then judgments can be made by those looking at that timetable. That is how most projects work in practice. I think that there is merit in that. I think that having a target date selected by the manager of the whole programme is also a worthwhile objective. Individual projects will be worked on by quite large and quite diverse teams, with many organisations, sub-consultants and contractors in different parts of authorities, so an overall vision or target can be motivational and can steer everybody towards that target. The narrative milestone could specify the earliest possible start date and the latest possible start date. Those are not strange concepts to people who deliver projects.
It is within the process that the budget can remain capped, however.
That is where the juggling or programme management is really quite a skill. I am not underestimating that skill, but I think that it is an exercise that ought to be attempted. The membership that I am representing would say, "If we see that programme being made, we can plan correctly for the future, and if any special skills are needed in year 5, we can set about the training for that in advance."
How does that fit in with the proposals for getting rid of the road maintenance backlog, which we discussed earlier? We have heard local authority representatives indicating that they are facing huge internal cost increases. How can those projects be delivered within the previously predicted costs?
When there is a larger programme, there is a better chance of stimulating the industry on all sides to provide cost-effective responses. Earlier witnesses referred to a challenge. The profession and local authorities are very resilient indeed when it comes to making the most of what they can do and have tended to use cheaper surfacings. The same budget has been used to cover more square metres, but members will have noticed the difference between a 50mm blacktop resurfacing job and something that we call slurry seal, which is a bitumastic slurry that is cheaper and can be spread around much faster. One reason why the backlog is challenging is that the money that has been spent in recent times has been used to address emergencies and to provide temporary patches. Let us not deny that that is a difficult challenge to overcome. However, the civil engineering industry is quite resilient.
There is another factor—the issue of annuality. Many of you have worked in or been elected to local authorities, so you will be aware that the maintenance and structures budget is the poor child that tends to be left until councils know what other liabilities they have for the year. Winter maintenance is probably the biggest risk and variable. Councils do not know at the end of March whether there will be winter maintenance costs, but they can make a good guess in January or February, when very little of the financial year is left. That exacerbates the situation. I know that Treasury guidelines are encouraging a move towards three-year budgets, but that does not affect the structures budget in local authorities. I will bow to Neil Johnstone on bitumastic slurry, as he knows more about it than I do, but there is still a mad March rush to lay down material at a time that is not the best season for doing so. It would be better for councils to wait for a couple of months, until it is warmer. The result would probably be a much longer lasting surface.
That brings us to the end of questions this afternoon. I thank Alan Watt and Neil Johnstone for their evidence, which has been very useful.
Previous
Item in Private