Chamber and committees

One of the difficulties is having to disinvest from areas that are, perhaps, not so effective and switch resource. At a time when resources are not increasing, difficult choices have to be made.

I have one final question, which is about how priorities link in with the national performance framework. The submission from COSLA says:

“There needs to be an improved mechanism for assessing how we are reaching the National Performance Framework goals.”

What could, or should that mechanism look like?

Ms Rowand, do you have any understanding of why that was the case? Have you tried to find out from the Scottish Government why that funding arrived so late? I would have thought that, with something so essential, you would be champing at the bit to obtain those resources.

Yesterday, I visited a social enterprise in my constituency, which echoed more or less exactly what you are saying.

About 22 years ago, when I was a member of the Social Justice Committee, we had an inquiry into the voluntary sector, and one of the issues that was raised during that was the problem of “initiative-itis”, whereby funding is provided for new initiatives for one to three years, and, by the third year, the staff of the project end up very nervous about whether the project will survive and spend their time wondering whether they will have to get another job and looking for other pots of funding. Often, good projects are established but are then discontinued. It seems that the situation has not necessarily changed as much as it should have done in the subsequent two decades. Is the SCVO concerned that there is perhaps an emphasis on the new rather than on things that have been proven to work and deliver on the ground?

That is a fundamentally important point. Given that we are in a time of financial challenge, I am not convinced that there will be significant additional funding—let us be realistic about it. However, if the money can be spent more effectively and efficiently, that would be good. I can only imagine how difficult it is for staff—wondering every year whether they will have job after the end of the financial year and having to wait months for the processes to work through. The situation really is unacceptable, so we must address it.

The Scottish Property Foundation’s submission says that

“resources should be directed towards areas of government dedicated to supporting economic development.”

I will put to you the question that I put to Mr Sim earlier. How much additional resource do you believe should be put into that, and where should it be funded from?

Thank you, Liz—your timing was absolutely perfect to the second.

I thank our witnesses for their very helpful evidence. As we have concluded our questions, I suspend the meeting until 10.45 for a break.

It is very helpful for you to put a sum on what you would require. In your paper, you noted:

“That capital review projects further real terms erosion of support for research and innovation over the coming years.”

The Scottish Government had a 9.7 per cent real-terms reduction in its capital grant allocation. How can you ask for additional funding in capital when the only way that the Scottish Government can meet its capital requirements at a time of high inflation is to borrow additionally, almost up to its limit?

Thank you for that response; it is helpful.

Paul Bradley, your submission says:

“This tough environment is preventing voluntary organisations from long term planning, as well as harming financial sustainability and predictability for lenders, and requiring the frequent and resource intensive process of chasing small funding pots at the expense of focusing capacity on service delivery.”

I think that we are all familiar with that situation. You go on to say:

“Ultimately this is hampering the Scottish Government’s ability to address its core priorities.”

In terms of the review, how can that situation be improved?

You are saying that there should be “a significant increase”—that there should be much more. How much more, and what does “significant” mean? Are you talking about 5 per cent, 10 per cent or more? Given that there has been, as I mentioned to Mr Sim, a significant reduction in the Scottish Government’s capital allocation—9.7 per cent in real terms—where will we find those resources? If the financial review is to look at things in the long term, we must be able to attach numbers or percentages on what we are talking about. The phrase “significant increase” does not mean anything to me. Statistically, a significant increase could be 1 per cent or it could be 10 per cent or 20 per cent. What do you actually mean, and how should it be funded?

I do not think that I will be able to pin you down much further. However, you mentioned enhanced borrowing powers. That is something.

Your submission mentions the prediction of a significant rise in non-domestic rates income over the next few years. A number of colleagues and I raised our eyebrows when we read that. You say in your submission:

“This implies an expectation of rateable valuation uplifts for commercial properties which may not materialise as the economy adapts to the post-Covid era, particularly if there is a reduction in the number of NDR producing commercial properties as buildings are changed to alternative uses.”

How do you see the market going? Do you feel that the predicted rise in non-domestic rates is achievable? Is it realistic, will things stay much the same or will they deteriorate? What does the SPF feel the position is and how would that fit into the Scottish Government’s framework?

Perhaps the review needs to be more ambitious in that context.

I have taken up enough time and, obviously, I need to let my colleagues in.