Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you feel that there is not enough prioritisation at present? Do you feel that all 81 indicators are treated equally?

What would you advise the Government to do, then? Should there be a document that explains the linkages between the spending review and the NPF? How do we get them better entwined?

Hopefully I will be quick, convener.

I do not want to flog a dead horse, but I want to ask about the student loans situation. I am a new member, so this is all new to me, but have we seen this level of impairment in previous years or is it unique to this year?

But we have seen this level of impairment in Scotland before.

Will that resource still be available in the years to come?

Just another couple of things—sorry, convener, I know that time is an issue.

Can you give us a bit more information on the £24 million reduction due to underspends in the young persons guarantee?

Do you feel that it might be possible to demonstrate the effects of that approach to health spend, for example? I hate to use the term “ring fencing”, because we want to get away from that. Nonetheless, could you invest in health at the local government level and keep that investment separate so that it can be identified, in order that the Government can then track that through and see what the savings might be later on?

I go back to what the convener said about paying for somebody’s operation. Surely the best thing is for that person not to need the operation in the first place, and to invest in leisure facilities at the local government level so that people are healthier and there is less of an impact on the health service later. I know that it is difficult, but if there was a way of trying to demonstrate that, it would be easier for the Government to move some of that spend to a more preventative approach at the local government level. Anything that you could do on that would be really worth while.

I want to dig a bit deeper on the preventative approach that we have spoken about. I keep banging the drum, but I always feel that the best early intervention and prevention is done at the local government level. I get what the convener said. It is often difficult to move budgets, but health spend does not always have to be spent on the NHS—money for a health outcome could be spent in local government, for example. The same applies to justice spending. How does local government make the case for that? Could more data be provided that shows the outcomes to demonstrate to the Government that money should be spent in a certain area to save money on health and justice later?

Do you think that COSLA could push ahead with that? The convener is right—everyone who comes before the committee says that they want more money. It would be great if the Government could give everyone more money, but there is a finite pot. It is important to demonstrate that investing in local government will produce a return later on.