Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that local government in England is particularly happy at all, per se. I cannot really speak for it, but I have seen an unhappy tone in the media.

The Welsh also have a gap. It may be slightly less than ours, but it is significant.

The sustainability delivery plan will look at a five-year horizon. I accept the point about the need for an acknowledgement that looking beyond that brings into focus some of the demographic challenges that we are all aware of. Although there will be a five-year action plan, there will be an acknowledgement of those longer-term pressures that many countries—not just ours—are facing. We must use the levers that we have, but we also need some levers that we do not have at the moment. For example, migration would be an extremely welcome tool in helping us to recruit into key sectors where we have shortages and to grow the economy.

I will write to the committee with the information that I have garnered. I have had some detailed discussions with social security colleagues about that, because I wanted to reassure myself.

The budget set out a great deal of what is contained in the capital allocation—£768 million for affordable housing, for example, and other capital commitments for 2025-26.

When councils set council tax rates, we expect them to give careful consideration to local needs and services, while at the same time being mindful of the impact on residents and on household budgets, which are still under pressure.

As I said in my earlier answers, for 2025-26 councils will receive over £15 billion through the settlement. I think that that should mean that there is no need for any excessive, inflation-busting increases. What do I mean by that? I am not going to set a figure and say, “This is it, and anything above that is absolutely appalling.” I do not think that that would be helpful. I would hope that we will all be in a reasonable space and want to see increases kept to a minimum.

Each local authority will be different. I am aware that some of our smaller authorities might have additional pressures in areas where some of the larger authorities have more resilience. That is why it is important for us to look beyond the budget at the sustainability of some of our local authorities. How can they work together? How can we help them to become more resilient and more sustainable?

We have listened to the desire of local government not to have a freeze or a cap. The other side of that bargain is for them to recognise that, in setting the council tax, they should take account of the needs of local residents. I hope that we can get to somewhere that is a reasonable landing space.

First, you are right about variation—the 32 local authorities are all very different. Some quite substantial reserves were built up during the Covid period, but much of that is now allocated to specific purposes.

On the issue of debt, local government has borrowing powers—that is actually something that the Scottish Government does not have. Debt is not unusual, but what is important is how that debt is managed and its sustainability. For example, to compare the position of Scottish local authorities with that of local authorities in England, and considering the powers around general competence—it would not be described as that in an English setting—the level of risk in, and the appropriateness of, the decisions that got some English local authorities into difficulty would raise some eyebrows.

Here in Scotland, local authorities do not have the same ability to make those poor investment decisions and they are therefore not carrying the same level of risk that has led to some of the local authority bankruptcies in England. Local government in Scotland is very keen to have a wide array of powers, such as the power of general competence. I am sympathetic to that, but that needs to be done in a context of sustainability, financial prudence and, as Alexander Stewart pointed out, ensuring that debt levels are in a manageable space. Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission have important roles here and they have detailed oversight of each local authority, as well as of the collective position. We proceed with caution around the expansion of powers, ensuring that any powers are used within the framework of responsibility that local government would want to operate within.

The approach of prevention and getting far more upstream in our public services is as applicable to local government as it is to any other services. Some local authorities are further along the road than others. In its children’s social work services, through better intervention with families and working in a different way, Glasgow City Council has reduced the number of children who are going into care by 50 per cent. If I was in charge of a social work department in any of the other 31 local authorities, I would be beating a path to Glasgow’s door to see how the city council has done that.

I saw for myself what the council has done. It involves a very different relationship between social work and the families, which has transformed the way that interventions happen in a very positive space. That has kept families together and supported them, and has avoided children going into care. We know that children remaining with their families—where it is safe for them to do so—is a better outcome.

We are working with local authorities in the fairer futures partnerships in Clackmannanshire, Dundee and Glasgow, where families are getting the help that they need where and when they need it. That is helping to maximise support, to get further upstream and to achieve prevention. We are now expanding that into Aberdeen, East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire and Perth and Kinross councils. It is a matter of getting upstream and avoiding crisis.

There is a lot of other work going on that I am keen to support and to work on with local government. The single Scottish estate, where services can be shared within the public sector, should apply and must apply to local government, too. Instead of investing in a whole new building or utilising the buildings that we have, many of which are underoccupied, we need to get far smarter at sharing the estate and sharing services.

We have invested in the Oracle cloud system, which provides human resources, financing and purchasing capabilities. There are local authorities that are interested in that system, and I do not see why we should not have more and more onboarding of the public sector, so that we can have shared services and back-office functions.

On procurement, there is much more that we can do, through national collaborative procurement, to help bodies, including local government, to get better value for money in their procurement.

Those are just a few things. There are many other areas of reform happening, but I thought that those were probably the best ones to highlight.

Although we remain open to the idea of a motorhome levy, discussions with councils and land management organisations have highlighted some quite significant issues relating to how it would operate in practice. We would not want to have to build a costly and difficult administrative system. We will consider any developed proposals that work well to support the visitor economy. We recognise the impact of motorhomes on communities and some local authorities, and that some local authorities will want to receive support to manage it. We are open to the concept, but discussions are at an early stage.

It is a very important topic, and I am keen to support it. I will come back to the committee with details, because I want to make sure that I give you accurate information, which I do not have in front of me.

I certainly hope that that amount of money will be sufficient, given that it builds on other investments that have been made in the area. We will keep it under review with local government to make sure that any issues that emerge around the funding are picked up very quickly. I do not foresee any particular issues.