Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is the question that I have asked two previous panels, and it relates to the fundamental tension at the heart of public service reform. There is a difficulty because we are trying to bring together the mandate situation that the Scottish Government would like to see across all public sector reform—namely, having its targets in place—and the targets that councils set because they feel that they are the best people to know the local circumstances. That is the central problem that we are grappling with.

I cited the example of the national care service, because the Scottish Government has rightly said that the current system—for all sorts of reasons—cannot continue, but what the Scottish Government has proposed has, generally speaking, not been well received by the local councils. Will you comment, not on the politics of that but on the difficulty of bringing together the perspectives of national and local government to ensure that services are delivered in the best way? It is a challenge to bring your own perspectives together in a way that delivers improvement.

Mr Tough and Mr Emmott, would you like to see that as well?

That is a helpful comment, Mr Burr. Let us say that there was a new type of concordat. Would you want it to be negotiated by Government with each council or by Government with all 32 local authorities? How do you see the negotiation working to ensure that people in local government are satisfied that they are offering the best delivery?

I have two short questions to finish. First, do you have a timescale for those new discussions between local and national Government? Secondly, do they include discussion of your respective perspectives on the financial commitments that will be involved?

I wonder whether I could explore what I think is the tension at the heart of the issue. You have both been very clear in your evidence this morning and in your written evidence that there is no disagreement between national and local government about the principles of what we are trying to achieve, whether that is in addressing child poverty or net zero or whatever those principles are.

You have also been clear that there has to be much greater co-operation between national and local government but, at the same time, you seem to suggest that there are difficulties around delivery and different approaches. I will take the example of the national care service, because COSLA was clear a few months ago in response to the committee when it said:

“The Scottish Government should not consider breaking up the Local Government workforce as by doing so would have a negative and damaging impact on the cohesion and effectiveness of it but should instead ensure proper funding is provided.”

My question is that, although we want to establish much better-quality social care, particularly in relation to demographic changes, there seems to be a fundamental difference of approach between national and local government. Am I right in thinking that national Government, quite rightly in my opinion, wants to ensure that there are national standards of good-quality care, but local government thinks that delivery has to be done by local providers because they understand it best? Is that the fundamental tension in the policy?

I will come to Mrs Watters in a minute. Mr Sneddon, is that a problem with the consultation process? Can we achieve improved national outcomes and certain quality standards as well as the right delivery in local circumstances? Is there a structural problem, or is it just a matter of consultation and ensuring that national and local government work better together, as you said earlier?

That is very helpful. If the vehicle is still running and you would prefer it to stop, are there on-going discussions between local and national Government about how to improve matters?

The committee is interested in the issue on two fronts. First, as you know, we have issues with the initial financial memorandum to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, the lower estimate for the cost of which was £1.3 billion, which is a considerable amount of money in relation to some of the things that we are discussing.

Given that so many stakeholders gave evidence in committee that showed that the particular national care service programme that the Scottish Government has put forward is not desperately popular—we have four committee reports that demonstrate that—will the Scottish Government consider realigning some of that money to help with other expenditure? I am asking for confirmation that that will be reviewed.

Thank you for that. I will come to the point about widening the tax base in a moment, but I want to go back to the issue of projected increases in health, social care and social security spending. You said that you are looking at 500 different programmes to see where potential savings might be made. Does that include the national care service?

Secondly, I turn to the tax issue. You have made no apology for a progressive tax agenda, but is it not the case, cabinet secretary, that the current structures are not yielding the increase in revenues that we need? In the 2020-21 budget, the revenues were only £96 million more than the amount that was subtracted from the block grant—that figure came from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and the Scottish Government came out with the same statistic. What do you propose to do to ensure that the tax base is not only wider than it is now but also that the revenues that we get from tax overall increase? That is a major part of the equation that you described in your opening statement.