Evidence
I would like to welcome Jack McConnell, the Minister for Finance, and his officials. I have spoken to committee members and have decided to allow them to ask one question each after the minister's eight to 10-minute presentation. Members may then want to pick up on an issue in supplementaries.
It is a pleasure to be here. I will try to keep my introductory comments brief to give us a good chance to have a question and answer session afterwards.
I hope that the detailed background report that members received in advance of today's meeting was helpful. With me are Bill Howat and John Irving who will be available if the questions get too complex or detailed. If it would be helpful for the committee or individual members to have more information about things that arise during the discussion, I am happy to accommodate that.
As an Executive, we want to see strong local government in Scotland. As an individual, I, too, take that view strongly. Local government finance must fit into the overall financial management of public expenditure in Scotland, but it is important that local government finance is strong, stable and that there is some consensus among local authorities on the arrangements that are in place. That is the approach that was taken by the Scottish Office after the 1997 election and we are keen to maintain it.
Partly because local government accounts for such a large proportion of public expenditure in Scotland—some 40 per cent of the assigned budget—decisions on local government funding have a wide impact on the Executive and the Parliament's services and activities. The briefing paper does not cover housing, which has always been treated separately and which is the distinctive responsibility of Wendy Alexander. However, despite the fact that the housing remit lies elsewhere, I am sure that the committee will want to examine it in the context of local government at some stage.
We are committed to modernising and reinvigorating the system of local government finance, as well as local government generally; we do not want to see the system as one where only stability is important. We do not want to be conservative in our approach to local government finance and the system that governs it.
The system of finance is in good health. Over the next three years, there will be substantial increases in funding—the first real-terms increases for a long time. The three-year planning introduced by the comprehensive spending review will be helpful for authorities and for the system as a whole. The fact that we have not abolished controls on capital and revenue spending—which were important in the public interest—but have relaxed them is good for local democracy, local government and local services.
I suspect that one of the committee's main interests will be the report of the McIntosh commission and the recommendation for an independent review of finance. It may be helpful for me to make some introductory comments about that, although I am sure that the subject will come up again in questions.
The Executive has taken the firm view that now is not the time for an independent review of local government finance for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the existence of this committee and of the Parliament. An independent review may have been appropriate in the pre-devolution days when issues relating to local authority finance would never have received the attention that they will receive in this committee, in the Parliament and in the Executive. The existence of the committee and of the Parliament gives us an opportunity to discuss local authority finance issues over the next year or so and to move forward the debate about whether there should be an independent review and whether McIntosh should ever have had the remit to consider local authority finance.
When McIntosh refers to an independent review of local authority finance, he means a review of the balance between local and central funding—not a review of the existence of the council tax, of the total amount of money in the system, of what is being spent or of the guidelines and controls that are applied from the centre. At the moment, a review of the balance between local and central funding would be inappropriate for two reasons.
First, I reject the argument that local authorities in Scotland are not democratically accountable because they do not raise the majority of their revenue themselves. If that were the case, this Parliament would not be democratic and would have no mandate for the decisions that it makes.
Secondly, there are several ways in which the balance between central and local funding could be altered significantly. We could transfer large services such as education from the control of local government to that of central Government. I recognise that there might be some support for that in the Parliament—I have heard Mr Monteith propose it—but the Executive does not favour such a policy.
We could also reduce central Government support for local authorities and permit substantially higher increases in council tax than might otherwise be required or accepted. However, I do not think that that would be a good move at this time because it would introduce instability into the system, as well as threaten the assigned budget of the Executive and the Parliament.
There would need to be serious long-term debate before the third option—returning business rates to local control—could come back on to the agenda. This winter we face a revaluation of non-domestic rates, which will introduce instability into the system. A large number of businesses will find that their rates bills move up or down. The rate poundage in Scotland is likely to be set at a figure different from that in England, breaking the link that has existed for several years. In those circumstances, it is inappropriate even to toy with the idea of changing the system of national non-domestic rates, although I do not close off any options for the medium or long term.
Other issues to do with local authority finance—the idea of a local income tax has been mentioned—are policy matters that should be debated here rather than dealt with through an independent review.
I wanted to spend some time on that issue, but I will now discuss the reviews that are currently under way. It is important that the system remains needs-based, that it is seen to be fair, that it has the support of most local authorities, that it is stable and that the balance between central and local expenditure—particularly in the short term, when local authorities have some indication of what money they may be getting from central Government—does not change dramatically.
Reviews of the distribution system take place all the time through the distribution committee, which includes representatives of ourselves and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Progress reports on those reviews are available at any time, and I hope that this committee will become a forum for regular discussion of distribution and related issues. Over the summer, we agreed that we would conduct a review of poverty and deprivation as factors in the distribution process. We are keen to agree a remit for that review with COSLA early in October and to make progress with it, so that it can influence the distribution settlement that arrived at this time next year.
We also constantly review the capital allocation system, which has changed again in the period of the comprehensive spending review. The fact that we have abolished compulsory debt redemption and are now examining gross allocations, including receipts, in a flexible manner is a strong boost for local government and will lead to an improvement in its financial position. However, we need to keep the formulae for distribution of capital allocations under review to take account of new circumstances.
We are conducting an on-going review with COSLA of shared priorities in the areas of police, social work, fire and education. It is important that we do that to ensure that we still have the same priorities and that both sides are happy that the system is working and that money is being spent on the priorities to which additional finance has been allocated.
We have asked COSLA to discuss with the business community the opportunities for closer links between businesses and local councils. Business improvement districts would allow businesses in the cities to support financially—through an increased rate poundage—an improvement that might benefit them commercially, as well as the area. This idea is being debated in England, and we felt that authorities and businesses in Scotland should be allowed to consider it before coming back to the Parliament and the Executive with their thoughts. They have welcomed that opportunity, and we hope that they will pursue it in the months ahead.
Wearing my other hat for a second, I am particularly keen to examine how we can develop not just joined-up government in Scotland, but joined-up financing of government. Given the momentum of Parliament and Executive, and the momentum of the new councils following the May elections, I see no reason why, over the next few years, we should not be able to pool funding streams between central Government and local government. In that way, we can make better use of our resources together, rather than always do things separately.
We hope to have further productive discussions with COSLA in November, to announce in December initial allocations for next year and to have them agreed early in the new year. We expect the overall local government settlement to be announced as part of the expenditure statements that are due in October and will come before the Parliament for consideration at that time.
I want to put on record my admiration for councillors, who do a tremendous job in an almost voluntary capacity and who manage large budgets—at times, more effectively than other parts of the public sector do. They have gone through many trials and tribulations over the past 20 years as they try to balance those budgets, and we can learn from them as much as they can learn from us. That is the approach that I have taken in both of my capacities, and I intend to continue on those lines.
I also want to express my admiration for the day-to-day work of local authority staff, who over the past 20 years have had to be innovative in their use of resources to ensure the best deal for local people. I believe that the vast majority of people who work in the public sector do so not for the financial rewards, but because they are committed to what they are doing and to the services that they provide.
The immediate future will be interesting and challenging. I want to involve this committee as often as possible in debates about the way ahead for local authority finance in Scotland. I look forward to many more meetings with you in the months and years to come.
Thank you. If members will indicate to me that they want to speak, I will call them and say who is to speak next. Do not tell me that there are no questions.
Minister, you said something about the possibility of an independent review. Could you expand on why, when everyone else who is involved in local government seems to think that an independent financial review is a good idea, the Executive does not? Why is it against considering a long-term change such as the introduction of a local income tax or land-value taxation, or altering business rates so that they bear less heavily on small shops? Why is it all right to have new taxes in the form of road pricing or road tolls, but not in other forms?
A difficulty with the demand or request for an independent review of local authority finance is that, although there seems to be a consistency of approach among the people who are suggesting such a review, almost all of them have a different reason. Perhaps that in itself is a good reason for having an independent review. However, we have a new Executive, a new Parliament and a new Local Government Committee, and I hope that we would think carefully before going down the road of having an independent review of local authority finance. I hope that, as an Executive and as a Parliament, we would make a specific decision to consider the policy options that this committee has mentioned, because a full-scale review would have to do that.
The problem in responding to the McIntosh report is that it specifically refers to an independent review in the context of the balance between central and local funding of local government services. There are only three ways to change that balance—the three that I outlined. I do not think that any of them commands majority support in the Parliament.
The Executive agrees that it would be better, in the short term, for us to improve the distribution system and the capital allocation system; it would also be better in the short term to get through this winter's non-domestic rates revaluation—and the kind of instability that such revaluation has caused in the past—and through the period of increased resources resulting from the comprehensive spending review. Then we could perhaps consider whether we wanted to review the whole system, because by that time this committee will have had many debates, the Parliament will have had debates, the local authorities will have had some stability in their finances and the distribution system reviews will have started to bed in.
The Executive believes that it would be wrong to introduce the potential for instability in the short term, as would be caused by the suggestion that we might be considering either a dramatic change in the non-domestic rates system or a significant shift that would take one of the big services away from local government and put it more directly under central Government control. That is the thinking behind the announcements that were made this summer and, in particular, behind the response to McIntosh. The announcements have been a response to McIntosh's recommendations rather than to a theoretical demand for an independent review, which would be for the longer term.
My question arises from what you said about capital allocation. The section 94 rules mean that a council with a common good fund that would generate capital from current revenue has to spend that revenue within that calendar year. Does the Scottish Executive have any plans to relax those rules—to relieve the section 94 problem—thus enabling a fund for a particular project to be gathered over a number of years? Some people might call that creative accounting, but it could be workable and it would not affect the public sector borrowing requirement.
I am looking hesitantly at Mr Howat on my left, who is the chair of the capital allocation planning committee, which is a joint committee with COSLA. I am not aware of any discussions on changing the rule at the moment.
Bill Howat (Development Department, Scottish Executive):
We are aware of a number of different approaches by different councils, and if Mr Stone's proposal were to be put to us in a worktop way, I do not see any reason why it should not be considered. However, it would be for ministers to consider that proposal both in the context of the present allocation system and with due regard to the impact in the longer term of public expenditure in relation to the comprehensive spending review settlement.
We are opposed to a major reorganisation of the boundaries and sizes of authorities, and to any further splits in authorities like the ones that occurred during the recent reorganisation. However, I am acutely aware that many smaller authorities have difficulties with large-scale projects—because of their size, their revenue base and the size of their capital allocation, which is based on their population and other factors. Mr Stone is presumably referring to examples in the Highlands. I am aware of difficulties in the Borders with, for example, the financing of schools projects. In some small authorities, the move towards private finance initiatives can be difficult for commercial reasons. I would like it to go on record that I am willing to consider creative options to solve some of those problems; but we have to bear in mind the need to agree systems with COSLA that are fair to all authorities and that properly share out the cake in any financial year.
On the subject of stability in local government finance, it has been mentioned to me a few times that local authorities feel constrained by the current annual budget reviews. The system prevents them, not necessarily deliberately, from acting in the medium term—they have to consider only short-term budgetary matters. Would you like to say anything about that perception? Can the Scottish Executive do anything to address that situation?
The comprehensive spending review has given us the opportunity to indicate at least what the overall cake might be over a three-year period. The guideline system gives us an opportunity—given that there will be no dramatic changes from year to year—to indicate to authorities where they might stand in relation to that.
I am keen to ensure the maximum stability in long-term local authority budgeting, as I am keen to develop our own budgeting. The only caveat that I would add is that we will always be in the situation—certainly in the short term, in this Parliament—of agreeing an annual budget. The Parliament could, from year to year, change a figure that had been allocated to local authorities as the overall settlement for that year—that option will always be available to the Parliament. I see no reason why we cannot indicate two or even three years in advance what the resources might be and how they might be shared out. If we can move in that direction, that would be welcomed by councils and it would also be good for us.
Local authority expenditure, because it makes up a large proportion of our overall expenditure, can seem to be an easy target when the Parliament wants to spend money on something else. If one of the other committees wants to spend extra money on transport or something, the easiest pot of gold to raid is the local authority budget, as that committee does not have the responsibility for spending that money. On the other hand, there will be constant pressure from individual members of the Parliament asking for their local authorities to be treated as special cases or for the formulae to be tweaked to allow certain projects to go ahead. Therefore, long-term stability would be in everybody's interests—the Parliament's as well as the local authorities'. We are keen to consider that, but there are no short-term easy answers.
I am interested in the funding of long-term care of the elderly, particularly in the potential for more overlap between health service budgets and local authority budgets. I am aware of many problems throughout Scotland; in many cases, there seems to be a turf war between the health service and the local authorities over who is responsible for funding the services. Do you or your colleagues, Susan Deacon and Wendy Alexander, intend to improve the way in which services are delivered by pooling those budgets or by bringing them closer together?
Yes. That is one example of how it could be helpful if central Government agencies and local government worked more closely and pooled resources. I would welcome any such ideas and initiatives, and I would encourage health boards and others to work closely with local councils, sharing resources and ensuring clarity about where responsibilities lie so that there is no duplication.
Those of us—I say us, as I still think of myself as having a local government connection—who have been involved in local government over the past 20 years regularly spoke, in pre-reorganisation days, about links between housing and social work or between leisure and education and so on. I hope that the new single-tier councils have helped to secure those links. I am sure that we can all think of ways in which local authority services and Government services can work more closely together.
We should also be creative and think about areas in which the services are not closely linked. There should be no reason why local authorities and central Government cannot share the same buildings or administrative resources, making use of slack resources at different times of the year. There should be more secondment between the officials of both tiers of government, so that experience and best practice could be shared. The links and co-ordination could be improved, and examples of best practice—in budgeting and financial management, for example—could be shared among services that have no connection as well as among those where a close connection exists.
I am very positive about that whole agenda, but I take it in its widest possible sense. I would even go so far as to say that we should not restrict ourselves only to the services for which the Executive is responsible and for which local government is responsible.
Three quarters of the civil servants who live and work in Scotland are employed by reserved departments at Westminster—the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and so on. In the longer term, we will need to look at them as well, but that may be a discussion for another day.
I was delighted that, in his opening remarks, Mr McConnell said that he would be conservative in his approach to local government.
I had a good teacher, Keith. [Laughter.]
That apart, I know that you are looking at next year's budgets. Has a decision been made as to whether local councils will again be expected to finance pay awards from efficiency savings?
No, a decision has not been made. I expect to clarify the position when the expenditure settlements are announced for next year. It is only fair to say that, in a number of detailed areas, it is important that our joint discussions with COSLA should be given their proper place. I would certainly be happy to come back to the committee once those discussions have taken place.
The minister said that the problem would be that people would be punting for their own areas. I will try to put this in a political context without seriously punting for Glasgow—
I did not say that that was wrong.
Glasgow is an illustration of the problem. The minister said that local government finances were in good health and that there was stability—the document that was distributed talks about the benefits of pooling business rates to give that kind of stability. Does he agree that exactly the opposite case could be made for a place such as Glasgow, where infrastructure is developed to support businesses but the business rates are distributed across the country, so that businesses do not benefit from that money? The services that the rates provide go far beyond Glasgow itself. The flight from the cities, which is to some extent due to the financial system, results in a smaller tax base to meet intense local need.
If there is not to be an independent review of finance, in which such things could be explored in more detail, what is the minister's attitude to the debate about metropolitan status for cities such as Glasgow? Figures suggest that, by 2001 or 2002, the majority of people who work in Glasgow will live outside the city and will therefore not contribute through council tax. Is there some way of recognising the role that a city such as Glasgow plays in the broader cultural and economic life of Scotland?
There is a whole range of points worth mentioning on this subject. First, although the current system of the minority of local government expenditure being raised by council tax and the majority effectively being raised by national taxation might seem an imbalance, it allows those people who, as is the case in Glasgow, live outside the city but work in it every day to pay towards local government services in the areas in which they benefit from them.
Part of the justification for the current system is that national income tax and other taxes make a contribution; it is not all down to those who live in an area to pay their way. At least for the short term, it is also true that the distribution system—which is in theory, and largely in practice, based on needs—should take account of two factors in relation to places such as Glasgow. The first is the fact that Glasgow has a wider status; people who do not live there use the city every day and night. The second is deprivation factors, of which Glasgow in particular has pressed for a review. There is an assumption that councils would benefit directly if deprivation factors were to be given a slightly higher rating in the distribution system. That is true of Glasgow and of Dundee, where the problem of people using the city every day but not making a contribution to the cost of local services via council tax, or other ways, may be even more acute than in Glasgow.
It is important that we get the distribution system right and the needs assessed correctly. It is also important that those needs include deprivation factors and the wider city status that pulls people in every day, thus increasing the use of services and the cost to the local authority. Particularly in cities, the idea of local businesses agreeing with the council that they and their employees benefit directly from a certain service—or could benefit from a service or infrastructure improvement—and of them paying for that service, should be of interest to local authorities and to the businesses. I am not referring to business improvement districts exactly, because we cannot always take an idea from elsewhere and use it in exactly the same way in this country. It is possible that we could reach some agreement on that over the next few years.
Some of the services provided by Glasgow are not just Glasgow-wide, or even greater Glasgow-wide, but Scotland-wide. The status of cities such as Glasgow, and the services that it provides, should be recognised in other parts of the Executive's budget, in relation to grants awarded for specific services or the delivery of our own services in those areas. Many different factors are involved, but it would not be inaccurate to say that I sympathise with the position, particularly in Glasgow and Dundee, where there is a gap between the local taxation base and the number of people who use the cities' services every day. We cannot change dramatically, or overnight, the system of local authority finance to cope with that, but the distribution system should be sensitive enough to try to deal with the problem.
Jack, it will not surprise you that the Scottish National party favoured an independent review as part of the overall McIntosh package and therefore is not particularly happy with the Executive's decision. Do you agree—you probably will not, because you are a politician to your fingertips—that the fact that we will not have an independent review will make the public less easy about the outcome and the solution to financial affairs in local councils? In the present context, if the Executive and the Parliament make the decision, that gives it a heavy political overtone, whereas the public would feel a lot happier with an independent review.
That depends on what we do. If we respond to public concerns, particularly on the points raised by Johann Lamont and others, and if we are seen to be responding promptly, that would be welcomed by those who elect local authorities and who elected us. That is one of the things that the Parliament should be seen to be doing. We should not, as was always feared, distort the relationship between local authorities and central Government or shift the balance of power, but secure improvements. Even if those improvements are just adjustments to the system, people can see the effects in their everyday lives. If, as a Parliament and as an Executive, we can be seen to deliver those improvements, whether one party or four parties supported them, that would be a good thing and people in Scotland would welcome the fact that we had taken that action. It is down to us at the end of the day and if we do the right things, respond sensitively to legitimately raised concerns and are seen to be making sensible choices, that will be a good thing.
Although the system of local authority finance is broadly accepted by people in Scotland, and the council tax is remarkably well accepted given the controversies that surrounded its predecessor, in the past it has left a lot to be desired in terms of transparency. That was a consequence of the nature of Westminster Government, and the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive can improve the transparency of decision making: we can explain the nature of decisions and grant allocations; we can debate the guidelines and controls, or the lack of them, and put forward different points of view.
One of the beauties of devolution is that the framework within which local government in Scotland operates will be open to more democratic scrutiny. That is what we are here for and, in the early stages of the Parliament and Executive, it is what we should be doing. In the longer term, there may well be a case for independent review but, in the first year or so of the Parliament, we should take that responsibility ourselves.
It says in the paper on why the Executive has rejected an independent review of local finance that the modernising agenda for local government finance will be brought forward with COSLA and third parties. Which third parties are being considered, and, moving on from that, what examples are there of pooling funding streams? That is an area that a lot of people have talked about and that could move us on significantly.
The third parties would vary according to context. In relation to business improvement districts or ideas like that, representatives of business organisations in Scotland could play a role. There should be discussions with the voluntary sector and with other parts of the public sector. We should be taking a flexible approach to trying to improve what we do.
I said earlier when Dr Jackson was not in the room that I am keen that we share best practice and experience and swap skills between central and local government in Scotland, and perhaps with the departments at Westminster with responsibility for reserved matters. We could deliver local and Scottish government services in a more joined-up way and, in the longer term, we could do the same thing with the reserved areas. Sharing resources, cutting out duplication, making best use of good practice, swapping management skills and making more flexible use of direct service provision should all be on the agenda, but we need to do things sensibly and take a long-term perspective.
Jack alluded to the prospect that the rate poundage will change and there may be a disparity between Scotland and England. The last time that happened it was a horrendous experience for householders—although that would not happen again—and businesses in Scotland. He said that the upheaval created by revaluation was a reason for not having a review. However, if the five-year revaluation is coupled with the fact that, as Jack also pointed out, councils only raise 20 per cent of their budget, which makes them unaccountable to the public for their spending, that makes two good reasons for looking again at the financing of local government.
I want to be absolutely clear on two points. First, I do not accept that the fact that local government in Scotland raises about 20 per cent of its own revenue leads to councils being unaccountable; they are accountable. If we were to use that formula to measure accountability, local councils would appear to be more accountable than us. None of the members around the table raises their own revenue and we should bear that in mind. However much Gil might want that to be different, that is the position.
Secondly, and more seriously, the difficulty with the business rate revaluation this winter is that the valuations of property on which that revaluation will be based are obviously based on valuations made several years ago in England and Scotland, at the same time. The relative economic performance of both countries—and of different regions in England in comparison with Scotland—will have changed in that time; therefore, it is theoretically possible that we could end up with exactly the same rate poundage in Scotland to raise exactly the same amount of money in percentage terms as the English valuations would. It is more likely, however, that there will be a different rate poundage at the end of the revaluation exercise. The rate poundage in Scotland could be slightly higher or lower than that of England.
The most important thing is that the amount of money raised in Scotland and England, in relative terms, would remain the same. Scottish businesses, in terms of what they pay to us in non-domestic rates, would not pay a penny more than their counterparts south of the border. In my view, they would not pay a penny less. It is vital that the nationwide—in the UK sense—system of non-domestic rates provides a level playing field. I want to reinforce that point. I have had a series of discussions with business organisations to try to minimise the turbulence that would be created by a possible small adjustment up or down in the rate poundage. There is a perception that that might affect the take, but it does not. The poundage will change if the valuations have changed.
I welcome Jack's comments regarding metropolitan status for Glasgow and the sympathetic view that he will take towards the distribution formula, particularly for areas such as Glasgow and Dundee. Given the fact that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Unison are continuing to press for an independent review—that pressure will not go away—and the fact that the public is concerned about increases in taxation, or at least the possibility that it will not be decreased, would not an independent review strengthen the Executive's position?
We understand that there are pressures on the consolidated fund, but the outcome of an independent review might reveal practical alternatives that are not dissimilar to those that are being implemented at the moment. Would not that add stability to the system, rather than having a spectre of an independent review a few years down the line?
I welcome any attempt to be helpful. It is much appreciated and will be remembered—and quoted back regularly.
I do not like the sound of that. I know where you live, Jack.
I think that Kenny is suggesting something that may be true, which is that the independent review may come out in support of the current system. From that point of view, I think—and my view is shared by my Executive colleagues—that, in the first two years of the Parliament, we need to be seen to be making changes as a result of the improved democratic scrutiny offered by the Parliament and Executive.
One of the areas in which that can happen is in improved democratic scrutiny in committee, in Parliament and in the Executive, of the financial arrangements—their transparency and logic. Where it is sensible and prudent to do so, we should adapt and adjust those arrangements to deal with short-term and long-term difficulties.
We start from a very strong position. The comprehensive spending review has produced real-terms increases in revenue expenditure for the next three years. The relaxation in capital controls has increased the availability of capital expenditure. The stability in the system in longer-term planning—it is not absolutely guaranteed year on year, but is at least indicated for three years—allows councils to plan ahead. The guidelines give us stability and transparency that we did not have under the capping regime.
In all those areas, this committee and the Executive have an opportunity to consider how best to adjust the system of local authority finance so that it continues to be allocated on the basis of need and is best spent across Scotland. We must ensure that we use public resources, locally and centrally in Scotland, to the best possible effect. We will do that by taking actions and proving that we can do it.
In the longer term, there may be a case for a wider review. This Parliament may consider that later in the session. In the short term, if we are seen to be taking those actions, we will all get the credit. The Executive and the Parliament are not in different corners: we are all in this together. We must use the committee structure of the Parliament to consider solutions, as well as to keep the Executive under scrutiny.
Thank you, Jack. It is now 5 o'clock and we have been here since 2 o'clock. I will not abuse the convener's role by asking a question now, but I will say that I was pleased by what you said about the progress of the distribution. I was pleased to hear that you would welcome that matter coming back to this committee. I think that this committee will want to keep its eye on that.
As an ex-councillor, I am delighted by the idea of a three-year spending projection. I am thinking of the budgets not only for local authorities, but for voluntary organisations and other funding bodies. The idea also links in with what Bristow said, as once it has been established clearly whether it is the local authority or the health board that looks after the patient or client, it will be helpful to have an idea of funding.
You have been here for 45 minutes. It will not be your last 45 minutes before this committee; you will be back. We hope that Eugene Windsor and your diary secretary will make arrangements so that you will be here for longer next time. That will allow us to pursue some of the issues that we opened up this afternoon. On behalf of the committee, I thank you and your officials for attending. Your officials were not put on the hot spot, but they should not hold their breath next time.
Thank you. We have had a good discussion. It has been a chance for both sides to spell out a few ideas.
I want to record that we will probably make the initial announcements about next year's allocations in December. The final decisions will go to the Parliament for decision making in February or early March. Therefore, a very important meeting of this committee might be some time in January to consider those provisional allocations. That meeting will give the committee the chance, in the interests of transparency, to hear an explanation of how the decisions are made and the logic behind them, and to comment in the margins on some of the allocations and on whether the system has been handled in the right way. We can look forward to that discussion.
Thank you. Members can go home now.
Meeting closed at 17:04.