Good afternoon and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2008 of the Finance Committee in the third session of the Scottish Parliament. I ask members, witnesses and the public to turn off their mobile phones and pagers. We have apologies from Liam McArthur and Alex Neil. I welcome Roseanna Cunningham, who is here as the committee substitute for the Scottish National Party.
Thank you, convener. I will make a brief opening statement. The committee will be familiar with the Government's determination to pursue a programme of continuous improvement in the delivery of our public services, which involves a sustained approach to efficient government. By ensuring that the public sector is as efficient as possible, we will deliver savings that will be reinvested to make a real difference to people's lives in Scotland. We have therefore set a target for the Scottish public sector to deliver incremental, cash-releasing efficiencies of 2 per cent each year, applied to a baseline of the 2007-08 departmental expenditure limit budget, which will give rise to savings of £1.6 billion in 2010-11. That is a challenging but essential target, given the tight financial settlement from the United Kingdom Government.
Thank you.
I will address those three points. First, the Government is clear that its plans must be delivered. There is no element of the plans that cannot be delivered, as they are an integral part of the decisions that we have taken on the spending review and of our approach to improving the efficiency of public sector service delivery in Scotland. In all the guidance and direction that ministers provide to Government departments and relevant agencies, it is implicit that our plans must be implemented.
On a positive and linked note, how can incentives be built into the system to encourage greater efficiency?
Essentially, the process is about encouraging in the public sector the mindset of looking for more efficient and sustainable ways of delivering public services. We are motivating people who deliver our public services by encouraging them to look for more efficient ways of delivering those services. There have been excellent examples of how that has been done, which we want to encourage across the public sector.
I apologise if my question covers an issue that has already been dealt with by the committee. Efficiencies are sought across the public sector, with one big exception: Scottish Water. I am sure that there is a good reason why Scottish Water appears to be excluded from the efficiency process, but it would be interesting to hear what it is.
Far from being excluded from the process, Scottish Water's efficiency savings are captured by the approach to pricing that the Water Industry Commission for Scotland takes. As part of the financial arrangements for charging customers, the financial health of the organisation and its investment programme, the WIC specifies what efficiency savings it requires Scottish Water to make. As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, I cannot specify Scottish Water's efficiency programme. It is specified by the WIC and, essentially, it is captured in the envelope of Scottish Water's pricing and investment strategy.
Does the WIC specify along the same lines as you do for the rest of the public sector, or is it left entirely to the WIC?
If my memory serves me right, the WIC is pursuing a more aggressive stance than we are and has done so for a considerable time.
If my memory serves me correctly, you have increased the target beyond the one that you said you would set before you came into government. What drove you to the conclusion that a target of 2 per cent rather than 1.5 per cent is credible and achievable?
We were driven to undertake the move from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent by the nature of the financial settlement, which created an imperative to increase the pace of public sector efficiency by that factor. In my view, the target remains credible. The track record over the past few years suggests that, in the broadest sense, an annual efficiency saving of about 1.5 per cent was delivered by the previous Administration. Given that that has been achieved and that a climate and culture of the continuous pursuit of efficiency is beginning to develop, we take the view that gains beyond 1.5 per cent are credible and deliverable. We have therefore settled on the figure of 2 per cent.
Is there scope to go beyond 2 per cent?
The first reporting of identified efficiency savings suggests that some organisations have gone beyond that and have levels of achievement that exceed 2 per cent, so we are looking at reported plans that look much closer to the achievement of savings of £600 million than the £534 million that would be achieved by efficiency savings of 2 per cent. There is clearly scope for that process and you will understand that the Government will not complain about organisations delivering greater performance on efficiency than we envisage.
I understand that you would not complain about it, as it would be a nice problem to confront. However, from an institutional perspective—this ties in with the convener's point about incentives—if the perspective within an organisation is that a saving that equates to 2.5 per cent might be deliverable, is it not more likely that, knowing that the Government's 2 per cent target will be applied year after year, the organisation will manage savings so that it meets the target year after year, rather than being more ambitious in year 1 and running the risk that it might not meet the target in subsequent years? Is one issue not how you incentivise the people who have to deliver the targets to ensure that they can be more ambitious if the opportunity exists?
I am certainly willing to consider further how we might incentivise organisations to exceed the minimum level of efficiency savings that the Government envisages. I would be happy to consider that and report back to the committee on how we might achieve that. This is not only an exercise in numbers; it is about a mindset that focuses on improving the efficiency of public services. When I look at much of the available information on the reconfiguration of public services, I am struck by the examples that are emerging of how local authorities and other public sector organisations, through being encouraged to work together on single outcome agreements, are identifying ways in which they can deliver services more effectively at a local level. Essentially, they are putting on the table the service design that is deployed by a range of organisations and we are finding duplication and overlap. We want to encourage public servants to make the process meaningful by leveraging out resources that can be deployed on other priorities.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary remembers the discussions that we had in the past about local authorities not being treated in the same way as departments of the Executive. Will all portfolios be allowed to keep their efficiencies? Will they make decisions about how those efficiencies will be redeployed?
As I have made clear on a number of occasions, within the arrangements that we have arrived at, local government is being allowed to retain all its efficiency savings. In terms of the overall financial calculations that I have made about the budgets that are relevant and required for individual areas, certain elements of efficiency savings will be deducted at source. Efficiency savings beyond 2 per cent should be retained by the organisations concerned. Obviously, that has an element of the incentivisation that the convener and Mr Brownlee were looking for.
But the other portfolios will not be retaining their efficiencies. Or will they be retaining part of their savings?
Some parts of the efficiency savings have been deducted at source as part of the overall calculations of budgets, but we have taken the view that local authorities should retain their efficiency savings. Any performance in excess of 2 per cent should certainly be retained by the organisations concerned.
In the reporting of efficiencies, will it be reported how much other portfolios kept and how much went back to the centre?
The reporting of efficiencies is based on the baseline of the 2007-08 DEL budget. I am pretty sure that the committee will have the numbers for the breakdown of the financial targets for individual portfolios totalling up to £534.4 million. Clearly, we will report whatever we have got to report on efficiency savings—portfolios will identify that for us. We will report against the target of £534 million. If there is anything in excess of that, it will form part of the reporting into the bargain.
One of the prime objectives of the Government is economic growth; indeed, it is for economic growth in Scotland to match the United Kingdom level. Obviously, you see efficiency savings as contributing to that policy objective. As the local government budgets have unravelled, it has been suggested in some quarters that what is happening in some cases is cuts as opposed to efficiency savings. If there were cuts, that might undermine the Government's policy objective of efficiency savings contributing to economic growth. If you felt that a local council was making a cut rather than an efficiency, would you act? In addition, what role do you take in monitoring local government?
There are a number of points in there. First, there is the status of local authorities, which are self-governing institutions that conduct their own affairs. There are certain circumstances in which I, as a minister, can intervene, but it is more in extremis than Mr Kelly's question implies. My ability to interfere in the affairs of a local authority is, quite appropriately, very limited.
My question follows on from Derek Brownlee's. I notice that non-recurring savings are now to be included in efficiency savings. Will such savings be a realisation of assets through, for example, sales of land and buildings? I do not have a particular concern about it, but it might be seen in some places as quite an easy way to reach the 2 per cent target. It is a finite point because one can realise assets only so far and not everybody will be able to. Will you keep an eye on that, to ensure that you do not get too many efficiency savings through that method rather than efficiencies in administration?
A change of criteria is implicit in the programme that we discussed with Audit Scotland, whose view is that we are taking a sustainable and robust approach to include an asset sale, for example, as an efficiency saving. However, such sales can be included only once. If, for example, an authority plans a £10 million efficiency saving in year 1, £20 million in year 2 and £30 million in year 3, it might manage year 1, but it would have one heck of a distance to travel in year 2 to go from zero to £20 million. Realising assets might sort a short-term issue, but the day of reckoning would come very quickly because in year 2 the authority would have to deliver double what it—
It depends on how many spare assets it has lying around.
Yes. Such words of caution are well placed because if the programme is to be delivered as we intend as a sustainable programme to improve the efficiency of public service delivery, measures must have a longer life cycle than just making an impact in one year with no impact in year 2. Obviously, we are looking for a transformational programme that runs through that process.
I can only agree with you, cabinet secretary, that the use of one-off generations of finance to fund on-going services will ultimately mean a day of reckoning, but that is perhaps further down the line.
I agree with Mr McCabe about one-off savings, which are convenient as a one-off, but if a programme is predicated on such savings, it will not be sustainable. Those are wise words of caution that the Government will bear in mind in the monitoring of the programme.
It slips my mind too.
I am glad that we are all becoming forgetful as we mature, Mr McCabe. Time-releasing gains can be made. There is a hard element to the Government programme, which is predicated on cash-releasing efficiencies. However, into the bargain, we want to retain the ability to encourage and motivate public servants to make time-releasing savings.
In your answer to Roseanna Cunningham, you spoke about the importance of managing assets efficiently. The committee has been interested in asset management in another area of its activity. Of course, asset management is important in making efficiency savings. The guidance note says that asset management plans were due to be submitted for all relevant parts by 30 April 2008. What progress has been made on that?
This is an area in which I think there are significant gains to be made. I am thinking not just of one-off disposals of assets. Various elements of the Scottish Government are occupying buildings on a rental basis. We have limited occupancy in one bit, another bit around the corner with limited occupancy and yet another bit further round the corner with limited occupancy. What has horrified me is that there has been a certain reluctance in the past to see that as an issue about which it is fair to take a corporate view. Each organisation might be taking forward its own accommodation strategy regardless of the corporate concern. That is unacceptable.
My follow-up question is a technical question, so it might be one for the officials. You have a large asset base of £5 billion. I am interested in the accounting methodology that you use. Do you use historical cost accounting or current cost accounting?
In the absence of a volunteer rushing to my aid, I offer to write to the convener and members of the committee on that point.
That is much appreciated.
I will continue on the theme of asset management, without mentioning accountancy. Clearly, the management of assets will be very important to your programme. Are you satisfied that in the organisations involved, especially local government, sufficient distinction is made between the compilation of an asset register, which is the number-crunching element, and proper use of assets? Asset registers have not always been professionally compiled. There is more emphasis on that today, but it is important for us to go a step further and to ensure that there is professionalism in the use of assets.
Mr McCabe is absolutely right. There are two elements in the process. First, we must have an up-to-date, tabulated register of the assets that are in the ownership or under the control—I stress the difference between ownership and control—of an authority. It is not fair to single out local government. Local government will be part of the debate, but so will non-departmental public bodies, executive agencies and the Scottish Government. Since coming into office, we have applied pressure to ensure that there is clearer tabulation of the assets that are held by the Government and by agencies. As I indicated in my response to Mr Kelly's question, I do not have that locus in local authorities, but we can argue for such tabulation through the best-value process, of which it is an elementary part.
I have a further question on the issue of asset management, which seems to be exercising all members. The guidance that you have made available to us states:
In essence, that will be done by separate processes. Portfolios will have revenue and capital budgets, and they will be able to secure the authorisation of expenditure only if they have the revenue budget cover for the revenue item or the capital budget cover for the capital item. That is the control of capital and revenue in that one box.
So it will not be possible to flog off the family silver to pay for services.
The finance portfolio will watch that very carefully.
As we touched on earlier, monitoring is very important in seeing whether targets have been met. A strategic board will review and report quarterly on performance against targets. Will any other body review and report on a more regular, perhaps monthly, basis?
On a daily basis, Craig Russell and his team look at the performance of different portfolios and deal with inquiries from them about the initiatives that they suggest or consider as possible efficiencies. That daily interaction is encouraging. Organisations are thinking along the process of efficiency and are in dialogue with the Government about what is being considered and what qualifies as part of an efficiency programme. That dialogue continues daily.
As part of the programme, there is a traffic light assessment tool, with green, amber and red lights. Those projects that are red and have fallen more than £5 million outwith the target are flagged up for investigation. What about projects that do not fall within that definition? What will happen if a project has a red light against it but is only £3 million outside the target? How will such exceptions be handled?
I would not want the committee to think that we wait for a red or an amber before we take action. Issues are examined regularly to ensure that progress is being made. Given the type of programmes that we deal with, we need to be assured at all times that appropriate progress is being made. I am sure that the committee will readily understand that, if we reach December and we have a collection of reds on the efficiency programme, the likelihood that we will be able to deliver the efficiency savings by the end of the financial year will be slim.
To clarify what you said in your previous answer, you expect the lower-level work, whereby things are monitored daily or monthly, to flag up any difficulties so that you can take action to correct them.
If an issue reaches a level at which it has to be reported to the strategic board, we will have reached a pretty sorry state of affairs. Many interventions will be made to ensure that programmes are delivering long before we get anywhere near a three-monthly review. If a programme is not performing three months into the financial year, the room for manoeuvre will have reduced by 25 per cent. We must be acutely aware of the demands so that we can guarantee that progress is being made.
How will the reporting of cash-releasing savings overlap with or relate to the reporting of single outcome agreements with local government?
The reporting streams will be distinct. The single outcome agreements will be published and they will be reviewed during the year. They will certainly be reviewed after the end of the year to determine how much progress has been made.
What will be Audit Scotland's role in reviewing progress? How will it report to the Parliament?
That is not a question for me to answer. We have been in dialogue with Audit Scotland about the formulation of the programme and we secured its agreement to the changes to the definitions that the previous Administration agreed with Audit Scotland—one change that comes to mind concerns the disposal of assets.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his departmental officials for their evidence. I wish the department well in its quest for more efficient government.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—