Seòmar agus comataidhean

Transformation means that services need to be provided in a way that maintains service quality but looks to deliver things more efficiently and effectively and makes resources go further.

I have mentioned already the opportunity for shared services; I am thinking, in particular, about those areas in which it is difficult to recruit—areas that come to mind include planning. There are already good examples of local authorities sharing waste management services and back-office functions. There are many opportunities to do that.

On the use of digital, from the first round of the invest to save fund, there are good examples of local authorities’ digital solutions. Glasgow City Council, for example, received £100,000 for its smart and connected social places programme, which looks at digital solutions to enhance public services and deliver efficiency gains in housing and health and social care. Perth and Kinross Council received £500,000 to reduce energy costs and deliver a reduction in environmental impact. Falkirk and Clackmannanshire Councils were given £2 million to look at closer collaboration and shared services. There are many other examples from the fund. Those areas are ripe for looking at.

I should add that that work does not just need to be between local authorities. Transformation can happen within local government and health, and the single authority model is being looked at in some areas of the country, particularly where the health and local government boundaries are coterminous; other public sector bodies within the localities are also being looked at.

The trajectory of funding and all the pressures on public finances is what we need to consider to ensure that public services can be sustained going forward. Every part of the public sector is having to look at this.

I am happy to do that.

COSLA and local government in general have an important role to play through the Improvement Service. The whole idea of the Improvement Service was that there would be collaboration around good practice, because why would you not want to roll that out?

This issue is not particular to local government—I have also seen people in the health service not wanting to do something a certain way because that approach was invented elsewhere. Also, it is true that change is difficult, and sometimes there are barriers to change. However, that is no reason not to do it. If another local authority, health board or whatever has shown that a service can be delivered in a way that is more sustainable and cost effective, why would you not want to do the same? That is the cultural change that is required, and leadership will be needed to ensure that that happens.

I do not believe there is any part of the public sector that cannot be improved and transformed, particularly given the tools that are now at our disposal in terms of digital technology and automation. We can do things differently to help to release resources and people to do other tasks.

Let me make some high-level points first.

The consultation sets out a range of options. I have been clear before and I will be clear again that none of them is ours or endorsed by the Scottish Government. The consultation is putting out choices to see whether there is a potential political consensus to be built.

I was looking at some of the comments, and I note that every single party in the Scottish Parliament has said that continuing with valuations at 1991 levels is not sustainable or correct. The question then is what we can do about that and whether there is a landing space for doing things differently and taking forward reform.

It will take a lot of time, and we have talked about at least a decade for substantial reforms. Some things could be done sooner than that—around the number of bands, for example, even within the existing valuation system.

Looking at a couple of the headlines this morning, can we agree on what changes should happen? There has been some predictable political opportunism and misinformation—if I can say so—from some outlets. Does that bode well? I guess that it is a question of whether we are up for a serious discussion about reform. We could go for another decade without any change if there is no political consensus to do something.

Let me take the opportunity to reassure the public. One clear principle that we have stated is that any proposal that on its own would lead to a significant increase in council tax in any particular area would not be acceptable to us. We would not support that. Some of the lurid numbers being bandied about based on a consultation do not help to inform the public.

The work the IFS has done is good and factual. The options are in the consultation, although we could look at other options such as local revaluations. They are far more complex to do but they would address some of the issues such as the increase in property prices in Edinburgh and the Lothians, as each area would take as a starting point an understanding of its growth. That is more complex to do, but it is an option. Frankly, if there was a landing space around such an option, it would merit further discussion.

I point out again—because of the misinformation—that our position and our contention as a Government is that any exercise should be revenue neutral. The idea that council tax reform is some mad revenue-raising approach from the Scottish Government to take people’s money could not be further from the truth. One principle we would not budge from is that the reform has to be revenue neutral. It is not about raising more money; it is about having a system that is fairer.

The consultation is out. We are keen to hear what the public have to say, and we are keen to hear what other parties have to say. I know that COSLA is engaging with each of the parties as part of its manifesto development for next year. That can only be good. The report will come out next year on the back of the consultation, which will end at the end of January, and it will then be for parties to decide what they do with that and whether they put forward a proposition in their manifesto. Then the public will decide and judge how important they see it as an issue.

In truth, it will be for Parliament in the next session to look at whether there is a landing space. This consultation is putting out options to see whether work can be done to create a landing space in the next session of Parliament.

Yes. As the fund evolves, the situation will not be fixed. We will learn lessons from how this first tranche of funding has been delivered and will consider what impediments there have been and whether anything needs to change with regard to flexibility. We are not set on having exactly the same arrangements again. We want to encourage people. As I said earlier, I am keen for this to be seen as an on-going process, not as a one-off event. Transformation will take many years and so we need to make sure of our support for what needs to be done.

The process involves more than just that fund. The Improvement Service has a huge role to play, as do SOLACE and all the professional advisers. That support for transformation can come in the form of funding or it can come in kind and through the use of the expertise of those who have already gone through the process and can share their practice. Glasgow City Council has done good work around reducing the number of children in care, for example, and I am aware that a lot of local authorities have been knocking on Glasgow’s door to find out how that was done, because they see the value of reducing the number of children in care and of doing things differently.

Thanks for the opportunity to come to the committee to talk about reform and associated matters, the budget and anything else that the committee may wish to ask about.

I understand the value and importance of multiyear envelopes and having a line of sight on the funding over the spending review period—not just for local government, I hasten to add, but for other parts of the public sector and third sector organisations as well.

We have not been able to provide that before because we have had only single-year budgets and, therefore, it has been incredibly difficult. We will, of course, have to wait for the autumn budget at the end of November to know whether any changes to spending review assumptions will be set out by the UK Government, and whether those will have any unknown impact on our assumptions going forward. There are a lot of caveats to the size of the pie to consider before we start to discuss what that looks like over the spending review period.

I understand the importance of flexibility. Prior to the 2025-26 budget, ring fencing had been removed, but the 2025-26 budget delivered a baseline of a further £524.9 million of funding. That is almost £1.5 billion in the past two years, which was prior to agreement on an assurance and accountability framework, because those two things go hand in hand. We give flexibility, and there are areas in which there are clear Government and, most often, joint objectives, but we need an assurance and accountability framework to make sure that all those things are delivered, because ministers in this place will be asked about the delivery of key areas of policy that are delivered primarily by local government.

I am keen to look at how much further we can go on that and to work with local government to see whether we can make further progress.

Indeed.

I have not seen that particular podcast, but we are always up for good ideas. I will pick that up with one of my colleagues; Ivan McKee leads on planning. We have looked at reform through the planning hub and being able to supplement some of the challenging big planning applications that local authorities will be faced with. The whole idea of the planning hub is that it is a transformation and a vehicle to support some of the pressures that local authorities are facing. If technical digital solutions can help with that process, I am all for it. If Tom Hunter has not been contacted, I will make sure that he is, and we will follow up to see whether that can be looked at in more detail.

I am sorry to interrupt. We all need to set out our principles. I have set out two principles. The first is that we would not support a proposal that would lead to a significant increase in council tax in any particular area, and the second is that any proposed solution must be revenue neutral. I am keen to hear what other parties’ principles are. I would like all the various principles to be set out honestly and openly, because I would like to find out where there might be some landing spaces, given the principles that we have all set out. I have set out my principles.

Beyond that, I am willing to look at where there might be a landing space for us to make progress. In the past, the process has stalled because we have not been able to reach enough political agreement on some of those principles. Every party has an opportunity to respond to the consultation. COSLA will meet every political party. We have a chance to develop our own policies in the manifesto space, but let us start by setting out our principles. I have set out two, and I am keen for other parties to set out their principles.

A significant increase is an increase that is unaffordable, astronomical, high or unreasonable. It is not possible to put figures on it, but we all recognise that we do not want to hike up people’s council tax simply because they happen to live in an area in which—through no fault of their own—there have been big increases in property values. For example, I would not support a proposal that would penalise people in Edinburgh and the Lothians simply because there happen to have been big increases in property values in the region.

That is an example of the type of details that we would want to work through. We would want to consider what “reasonable” means and what the mitigations would be. One option would be to mitigate over a number of years any increase in costs that people might face. If we were able to reach an agreement on a particular system, we could mitigate any such increases by means of a transition over a number of years that meant that those increases were modest and not significant in any reasonable person’s estimation.

However, we are miles away from being at that point. At the moment, we are having a debate with a view to finding a consensus, instead of trying to find areas of division by challenging one another on what we intend to do and outing one another as wanting to do this or that.

Incidentally, the example that one of your colleagues highlighted this morning involved an increase at the extreme end of a 14-band model that I have not agreed to—it is an option, but I have not agreed to it—which would affect properties worth more than £1.8 million. No one should start from the position, “This is what you’re trying to do.” I am not trying to do that; it is not my proposition. It is genuinely the case that, the more we try to do that, the less chance we will have of finding common cause and doing something about the 1991 property valuations. Let us not start with areas of division but try to find areas in which some principles can be set out on which we can agree. That is my plea and suggestion.