Chamber and committees

Stephen Boyle, a lot of that is obviously in your area of interest. One thing that you said in your submission was:

“Our report last year on affordable housing noted that the Scottish Government had not set out the outcomes it intended to achieve from its investment.”

Is there an issue there about not being able to see the wood from the trees sometimes? Building houses is obviously a good thing, as you get new, modern houses that are easier to heat, safer and more comfortable, et cetera, but is that an aspect of it?

To go back to housing, it is about whether people have a warm, comfortable, safe home and what impact that has on mental or physical health as we go forward.

I will stick with questions to Stephen Boyle, to change the order a wee bit. In March 2016, when I was convener of the Finance Committee in session 4, we wrote to the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, with a number of recommendations and proposals. We asked whether borrowing powers under the fiscal framework to fund preventative spend, creating a culture of innovation and the use of digital technology could provide potential solutions to achieving a decisive shift towards prevention.

At that time, after the Finance Committee had spent five years on preventative spend, which we went back to on a number of occasions—as Professor Mitchell in particular will recall; he gave a lot of evidence, as he has commented today—we were very optimistic about the prevention agenda. Obviously, there is now a feeling that it has not transpired as we would have wished.

Nonetheless, what progress do you feel has been made in creating a culture of innovation and delivering improved milestones, benchmarking and performance targets? How far have we moved forward? Are we 10 per cent, 40 per cent or 70 per cent of the way there? I am trying to find out where we are on the way up the mountain at this point.

Thank you. I open up the session to questions from other members, starting with Daniel Johnson.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence and my colleagues for their questions.

Agenda item 2 is formal consideration of the motion, which I invite the minister to move. Members have no further comments, so I will put the question. The minister has not moved the motion yet.

Motion moved,

That the Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends that the Budget (Scotland) Act 2021 Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Tom Arthur]

Motion agreed to.

Agenda item 1 is an evidence-taking session with the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth on the draft Budget (Scotland) Act 2021 Amendment Regulations 2021. I welcome to the meeting Tom Arthur, who is joined by Scottish Government officials Niall Caldwell and Scott Mackay, and I invite him to make a short opening statement.

Thank you. You talked about the NHS and mentioned that the autumn budget revision allocates £834 million to the health budget for Covid-19 response. However, that is reduced to a net increase to the health and social care portfolio as a whole of £473.2 million. Do you believe that the transfers—which include £292.6 million to social justice, housing and local government to support integration, school counselling services, carer’s act, free personal and nursing care and the living wage—fulfil the spirit of why that money was allocated as consequentials in the first place?

Professor Roy, I would like you to elaborate on what Professor Mitchell said. You said in your submission:

“The lack of attention to delivery means that the Christie Commission has become almost an idealist document in the eyes of some rather than a useable guide for delivering public service reform in practice.”

Why is there a lack of attention to delivery?

So reach is an issue, although there are pockets where things are happening. Professor Roy, where are we doing well? What pockets or areas can we learn from at this point in time?

Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have received apologies from Michelle Thomson, and I welcome Alasdair Allan to the meeting as her substitute. As this is the first time that Dr Allan has attended the committee, I invite him to declare any relevant interests.

I have a question for Professor Roy, unless anyone else wants to come in, about an issue that we have covered only briefly. In your submission, you say that

“there needs to be more of a focus upon empowerment, particularly at a local level”,

and you ask about the reforms that are “hindering progress”. To what extent do people in communities want to be empowered? Do people want to have that level of responsibility? My experience from 30 years as an elected representative is that most people just want services to work efficiently and effectively. A minority want to be empowered and to have more say in their community, but a lot of people just want to get on with their lives. They want the rubbish to be collected—that is a pertinent point at the moment—and they want street lights to work, no potholes on the roads, good schools and a working NHS.

To what extent is empowerment a reality in ordinary people’s lives? How do we ensure that empowerment does not just mean passing down responsibilities, in a town of 10,000 people, to 20 to 30 people who might go to a monthly meeting?