Seòmar agus comataidhean

The only general point that I would make is that, before the reset of budgets, the public sector per se, including our institutions and universities, was constrained by the fact that the Scottish Government’s budgets were constrained and were not keeping pace with inflation. The point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget reset was to recognise that. If we include in that figure the lack of ability to keep pace with inflation, we could say that about a range of services, because the money was simply not there. Our budgets were not keeping pace with inflation, which is why the reset has been so important—and welcome, I have to say.

However, if your question is whether universities are getting a fair share of the reset, I will come back to the committee on that point. I am absolutely happy to answer that question.

We absolutely must ensure that all the component parts that make up university funding and are the bedrock of the sustainability of the HE sector are looked at. The tuition fee issue is one of those, but the issues of international students, research and other costs have, unfortunately, all come along at the same time and they are putting pressure on the university sector. We will continue to work with the sector. The universities are not all in the same position, and some have more resilience than others, as some current issues have shown to be the case.

You make a fair point, but there are other major issues impacting on the university sector.

I am sorry that you feel that about the response. It is very important to try to create some level of cross-party agreement on principles—it may not be on the detail—because doing nothing is not an option. Katie Hagmann from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been leading on that and, as I understand it, she has had cross-party meetings on behalf of COSLA that will help to scope out where there may be a landing space for agreement.

I am keen to set out between now and the beginning of next year, in advance of the 2026 election, where there may be cross-party agreement in order to allow whatever Administration there is after May next year to take action on more fundamental reform of council tax. That may be more difficult in the run-up to an election, but I think that we all agree that there is inherent unfairness in council tax and that it is very limited in its scope. If we were to agree some principles, it might pave the way for more detailed discussions about reforms that could command a majority in Parliament. There is no point in going down an avenue that will never command a majority in Parliament—that would be a waste of everyone’s time—but I think that there will be principles that we can agree on.

Katie Hagmann has been leading on that, and she has the Government’s support. I am keen to engage directly with her after the budget has been concluded to build on the discussions that have taken place and the work that she has done.

It is hard to see how there will be progress this side of the election. If there was agreement on some principles that could work their way into manifestos, for example, or areas where there is more consensus on reform, that would be a good thing to break through some of the inertia and the lack of agreement. However, there is not going to be time for practical work to drive that forward, beyond the work that is already in train, which you mentioned earlier. It is about seeing whether there is scope for cross-party consensus on some change that could hit the ground running in the early part of the next session.

We have had no official confirmation from the Treasury. I am waiting for a reply to my letter on the issue, in which I put forward the case that the full cost for the public sector is more than £500 million. If we include the areas that you mentioned—social care, universities and so on—that takes the figure up to more than £700 million. The figure that has been talked about in the public domain, which is based on information from sources, is between £300 million and £380 million. However, at the moment, I have not had it confirmed that we are getting a particular figure. Therefore, I am still pursuing the Treasury on that.

When we get to a final position, if it is only a Barnett share, that will not be acceptable, for all the reasons that I have set out previously. It would not recognise the investment that we have made in the public sector, and I do not think that we should be penalised for that. Once we get to a final figure, I will want to ensure a fair allocation of that. Clearly, we have not just the health, police and fire services but the Scottish Government and local government. Local government’s analysis was that the figure for it is about £265 million, so you can see that the gap is a real issue.

There is a degree of resilience in the budget allocations to local government and the portfolios. That is helpful, but we should not underestimate the impact. If there is a shortfall of circa £200 million or £300 million, that will represent an opportunity cost, because the money will have to be found and it will not be possible to spend it on other things in the portfolios.

The issue is far from resolved. We have a live negotiation with the Treasury, and we have had no formal response to say, “This is it—end of.”

I will set out as much detail as we are able to at that stage. Artificial intelligence and digital technology offer huge opportunities, and I want to say something about that in the plan. Work is already going on around the use of digital. In the NHS, there is the work on the digital front door, which is starting with NHS Lanarkshire. Digital is also being used in some of the capabilities of our public bodies. For example, the smart use of digital has already avoided the requirement for massive recruitment exercises. I will set out as much detail as I can at that point.

It should not be ruled out for ever and a day. It is there as an option, but it would very much depend on the circumstances that you have laid out. However, for the foreseeable future, it is definitely not the right time.

The tax strategy looked at whether there was scope, although not in the short term, to get additional powers, through agreement with the UK Government, on wealth taxes, for example. It also looked at working with the Scottish Land Commission on the issue of land—I know that that has been of interest to the committee previously—which could include consideration of a carbon land tax. However, that will not happen in the short term and will not raise revenue in this session of Parliament.

As I highlighted, our tax revenues are very strong but our issues include the complexities of the fiscal framework in relation to net gain compared with the rest of the UK and some of the constraints on things that we might want to do, such as boosting the economy through migration.

Earlier, I set out other levers that we are looking at for fiscal sustainability. I set out seven areas that we are exploring in order to contain costs and prioritise our funding. More detail on that will be set out in the fiscal sustainability plan, alongside the medium-term financial strategy, in the spring. We recognise that areas such as the workforce, reform, prioritisation of front-line services, the public sector landscape and support for back-room functions all offer opportunities to create the headroom to ensure that our resources are spent on our priorities.

Colleagues in various councils are doing their best to deliver services of the highest quality for their citizens. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills wanted to make sure that there is stability in teacher numbers, so we have agreed with COSLA that the £145 million funding uplift, plus the additional money for additional support needs, will enable stabilisation of teaching figures at 2023 levels. Some councils are already beyond that, and councils that are below that level will require to make the investment to bring numbers up to the standard.

I am not going to focus on one particular council’s issue. I will look at it, but you are giving me quite a lot of detail—

In some areas, a policy clearly sits in the policy area to which the money is allocated, but delivery will be through local government. For example, the free school meals policy sits with education and the direction of mental health support policy sits with health, but delivery of those policies is a matter for local government. We would not necessarily want 32 local authorities to decide what the policy around mental health interventions should be, because the expertise sits within health. Likewise, with free school meals policy, what is to be delivered in terms of the structure, the costings and the requirements sits with education, and local government, working in partnership, has agreed to deliver it. I could go through a list of other polices and rehearse that position.