Chamber and committees

Of course it is. That is why Liz Smith is asking you directly. We might have to use instruments of torture in this round-table session. [Laughter.]

Mirren, you were next to speak. Liz Smith wanted to ask something specific there, but I am keen for you to have the opportunity to say what you want to before Patrick Harvie comes in with his questions.

11:45

One of the issues with the Scottish spending review is that there is a huge differential between who will gain and who will lose over the next three years. For example, housing will receive a 26 per cent real-terms increase in budget, whereas the budget for climate action and energy will decline by about 20 per cent. There is a kind of fan effect, as the overall resource is increasing only very modestly.

COSLA sought additional resources equivalent to the entire real-terms uplift in the Scottish budget this year, which would have meant nothing extra for anybody else. Clearly, that was never going to happen, but the amount of demand that exists relative to how resources and capital are allocated is a real issue.

Everyone is keen to say where additional funding should go, but I do not think that anyone around the table would be willing to say publicly where they think those additional resources should come from—although I would be happy to hear from anyone who is.

I thank the minister and move to the next item.

We will hear from the Minister for Public Finance on two instruments that are subject to the negative procedure—you touched on them earlier, minister, but never mind. They are SSI 2026/17 and SSI 2026/18. The minister is supported by the same three Scottish Government officials as last time. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement covering both instruments.

The last item on our agenda today is an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s Scottish spending review 2026. For this item, we are joined by Mirren Kelly, chief officer for local government finance at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Jack Gillespie, interim deputy director of finance at NHS Scotland; Sarah Roughead, chief financial officer at Police Scotland; and Tiffany Ritchie, acting director of finance at the Scottish Funding Council.

We will move straight to questions. As this is a round-table format, I will ask the first question, and we will see what interest that generates from others around the table. People should catch my eye, or that of the clerks, so that we can decide who speaks next. We will try to have as involved a discussion as possible.

We were originally going to have a panel but, because there are four of you here, that would be a bit unwieldy; you might all feel duty bound to answer every question and we would be here all day. If we do it this way, as a round table, we will cover much more ground.

The first question is to Mirren Kelly. The Fraser of Allander Institute has warned:

“The local government settlement looks very difficult over the 3 year period, particularly as this includes social care where the Scottish Government have assumed, again, that there will be growing demands.”

Do you have any comments on that, Mirren?

But how does the Scottish spending review help? You are obviously talking about a longer period of time, as opposed to having annualised budgets. Does that arrangement allow you to bring in more efficiencies, planning more strategically and delivering more effectively?

You are commenting on the number of health boards, because you are saying that it is a start. In this committee, we feel free to say what we think.

Four people are keen to come in.

You said in your submission:

“No university is forecasting a cash deficit throughout the forecast period; however, many institutions are taking proactive steps to keep them in a positive cash position.”

What sort of proactive steps are they taking? The word “proactive” can mean many different things.

We still have an unwieldy structure. In Ayrshire, there is an integration joint board, a health board and three local authorities. Although there is some cross-local authority working, that is not always the case. Sometimes there are shared services and sometimes there are not. I think that it would be better to have one structure under democratic control. I have been saying that for about 12 years. I am glad that we are moving forward—albeit at a snail’s pace—with regard to the islands, because it seems daft that, on some of the islands, there is a lot of overlap between the people who run the health board and those who run the local authority, which means that the same people move from meeting A to meeting B to meeting C.

In the long term, the single authority model is a sensible approach. Of course, the issue with such reforms is that they are expensive. It is not as though you can suddenly flick a switch. They will cost a significant amount of money and take a lot of time. However, in a country of 5.4 million people, in which we have community planning partnerships, city deals and so on, a much less cluttered public sector landscape would be more effective and efficient. I think that what is happening with the Scottish Funding Council, whereby more services are being integrated into one structure, is a good way forward.

I think that zero-based budgeting is about taking a fresh look, rather than just having the original structure grow arms and legs. It is about going back to first principles and looking at what we are trying to deliver in terms of output.