Chamber and committees

Thank you. Helen, I should note that, when Kirsty Morrison was making those comments, Ian Bruce was nodding his head, so there is clearly strong agreement on the panel in relation to that.

Kirsty Cumming, thank you for Community Leisure UK’s submission. As I read it, I got the sense that public service reform has already swept through the leisure part of local authority provision, that Community Leisure UK has had to deal with a lot of that public service reform, that efficiencies have already been realised and that there is maybe a concern that you have done your bit already and you are not quite sure what else there is to do. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but that was the sense I got from your submission. Is that fair, or do you want to say more about the experience of your members?

Your point is well made, but I will nudge you more about that tension when there are national priorities and manifestos, and the Government attempts to implement them using budget lines at the local authority level to get some of the outcomes that it stood on at national level. That creates a tension with local democracy because of the mandates that local authorities have.

I do not want to open up that can of worms—that would be a whole other evidence session in itself—but, with specific regard to the budget that we anticipate being announced before Christmas, do you think that it would be helpful if ring fencing were eased on any specific budget lines that are currently ring fenced? I am not asking about the general debate but the specific budget lines.

I may very well agree with you, Mr Robertson, but we have to scrutinise a budget.

I thank Mark McAteer and David Robertson for what has been a truncated evidence session. It is possible that it has been of more benefit to us than to you, but, as we map out how we are going to scrutinise public service reform, these evidence sessions are invaluable. Again, I thank both of you for your time this morning—or, now, this afternoon. We will now move into private session.

12:35

Meeting continued in private until 12:58.

I am pleased that you had the chance to provide your perspective on other evidence that the committee has heard. That is important, and it is now on the public record.

That was helpful. Helen Malo talked about getting better outcomes along with best value, and my questions are all about how we drive efficiencies with public service reform. I am encouraged by Kirsty Cumming’s comment that this is not job done—indeed, it is the opposite. The efficiencies that have been realised in the sector in the past 10 years have not been part of a strategic approach; the approach has been to shave expenditure each year, instead of taking a step back and looking at the best way of reforming the sector to drive better outcomes and best value.

Again, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, Kirsty—I am just trying to understand your position. Could you confirm that what I have said is the case? How would you reform the sector?

That was helpful. I have no further questions, so I will pass over to Murdo Fraser.

Max, that is an important question, but it will have to be a final question because time is against us. If there is something that the witnesses have been meaning to sneak in that they have not quite managed to sneak in to their evidence yet, this will be their last opportunity to do so.

Max, who would you like to go to first?

Item 2 is an evidence session for the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny inquiry into how the 2027-28 Scottish budget can best advance public service reform.

We will hear from two panels of witnesses. For our first panel, I welcome to the meeting Ian Bruce, chief officer of Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector, representing the Third Sector Interface Scotland Network; Kirsty Cumming, chief executive officer of Community Leisure UK; Helen Malo, senior policy and public affairs manager for Scotland at Hospice UK; and Kirsty Morrison, policy and public affairs manager at Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. Thank you for coming to help us with our scrutiny.

I apologise that there are no opening statements this morning, but we want to maximise our time for questions.

Ian Bruce, in your helpful submission you say that you are concerned that, if we do not get things right, savings targets could be described as “salami slicing” and that the £0.5 billion target should be released through successful outcomes of service reform, rather than being an end in itself. I am paraphrasing your submission. How can we reform public services in a way that avoids salami slicing?

Mr Robertson has not had a chance to respond to some of your general points. Feel free to bring him in now, before we move to colleagues.

At the heart of that question is the issue of resilience. If a third sector organisation or charity that is a key public service delivery partner falls by the wayside, for whatever reason, where is the resilience? That is exactly the situation that Lorna Slater has outlined. Does anyone want to give any reassurance on that point?