Seòmar agus comataidhean

That came up in our previous session. A further example is prioritisation within portfolios. For example, in the health portfolio, clear priority has been given to patient-facing front-line health boards that have received, and will continue to receive, a real-terms uplift, whereas non-patient-facing health boards have flat cash and a higher level of efficiency savings. We are saying, “Right folks, patient-facing front-line health boards need to be the priority. Other areas of the national health service will have to do things differently to drive efficiency savings, such as looking at shared services and so on.” Even within portfolios, we are trying to ensure that priority is given to front-line services.

The 20 per cent target for the reduction in corporate staff numbers is sending a clear message that corporate functions in the public sector need to be done differently. Staff numbers need to reduce and services need to use digital innovation and automation in order to release savings for front-line services. That needs to permeate through every part of the public sector and every portfolio interest. That is the principle of what we are working towards.

I recognise the importance of our further education and higher education sectors. The college sector received an increase in teaching funding in the 2025-26 budget—

Work continues on that, convener. There is a slight frustration in that we are in agreement on 95 per cent of the framework and a lot is already being applied in practice. I referred in the meeting four weeks ago to there being early engagement, an open-book approach and so on. Those are all principles of the framework. Most recently, the approach on local government pay was very much in line with the framework, so there is a little bit of frustration about not securing agreement to publish—although those discussions are on-going—because of the issue of rules-based funding.

I have been in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the limitations of, and difficulties with, rules-based funding. The employer national insurance contributions issue is a very good example. If you stick to rules-based funding, it can be to your disadvantage when something such as an increase in ENIC arises unexpectedly.

We agree on 95 per cent of the framework. I hope that we can reach a position where we can secure full agreement and have a framework for the way that we do business. We can continue to discuss future funding formulas as well, but that should not stop us grasping and securing the progress that has been made, not least on the process around the budget, which I think local government itself has said has been the best for many years. We are still in the process, but I am hoping that we can get through it.

Do you have the numbers, Richard?

I am certainly happy to look at what others have done, whether it be Lithuania or Finland. If you have all the levers—

Or changing the direction of the spend. Let us take employability, for example, which we have talked about quite often. There are some good programmes in employability, but is that area of work as focused as it could be? Is it reaching and supporting those families that we need it to reach and support? Third sector spend has had quite a lot of success in reaching and supporting families. Is that being sustained in areas where there is evidence that it is working? Both are true: we need to interrogate spend to ensure that it is delivering but, where spend is delivering, we need to ensure that it continues and that there is not a disconnect, for example where something that works well ends up not receiving third sector funding.

We rely on the data that is provided, which we can then interrogate, on what is being delivered through third sector grant funding, the outcomes from the employability funding, some of which also goes to the third sector, and the outcomes from the Scottish child payment. There is less clear data in some areas—for example, do we have the data from the huge investment in childcare to show which families are benefiting most from it and which families are not benefiting because it is not flexible enough? Those are the areas that we need to get into. Do the mental health services that we provide reach the folk they need to reach to get people back into work and, importantly, to avoid people falling out of work? I am not sure that we have the data set on that that we want.

There is always a balance to be struck around what is universal provision and what is more targeted. When finance is constrained, how do you make sure that the available resources point in the direction to eradicate child poverty? That is what lay behind the free-school-meal decision.

We may well be looking through that lens at other areas, and it might be about the approach to rolling out. Going back to childcare, we need to look at whether that policy—which, incidentally, has been, in many ways, a big success of the early years offer, and is a very important support to families—is reaching and supporting the families who need it most. We are at a good point to ask ourselves that question. If it is not, what is it about the childcare system that is not able to do that? Is it too rigid? Is it not flexible enough? It was set up in a certain way, understandably, because there was an agreement with local government, and that is what has been provided.

Some of those things will not happen overnight; we will not say, “As of a week on Tuesday, it will be provided in a different way.” Some of those things take time to change, but my very strong view is that we need to have discussions about all areas of policy. Childcare is such an important tool in eradicating child poverty—for example, some families struggle to get consistent childcare throughout the day. If a mum is either not in work or is in low-paid or part-time work, what works for her and her family is a good starting point.

If what we have is not working, we need to look at how we can shift resources in order to be more effective in that space.

We have discussed the small business bonus scheme before. I hope that I have not given you the impression that it should stay as it is for ever and a day. Every area of policy should constantly be looked at in terms of whether it meets the objectives that it was set to meet. As I said last time, I am mindful of the current climate and environment for small businesses, which is very difficult. Certainty, in terms of knowing what the landscape and support look like, is important.

We are open to looking at whether the businesses that are supported are helping to meet the ambition of economic growth and to sustain town centres. In some cases, they will be helping, because some of the very small businesses tend to be located on our high streets, which we want to maintain and enhance.

Given the other difficulties that businesses are facing, I am mindful that it might not be the best time to create uncertainty about something that they rely on. However, if you are asking me whether it should stay the same for ever and a day, I say no. It clearly should not and will not.

“Discarded” is a strong word. I am not sure that it was discarded.