Seòmar agus comataidhean

Those are the types of discussions that we will have about the budget. Normally, if there is a new burden, as local government would describe it, or a new funding stream to deliver A, B and C, there would be a negotiation as to what that would look like. Local government will provide a lot of information about what it would cost, as it will not cost the same in each area, and we see where that lands. The process can be quite backwards and forwards. A landing spot for delivery will then be reached, because the policy is seen as something new that the Scottish Government is asking local government to do. We do not just put a finger in the air and say, “Oh, we think that that’s enough”. There is quite a lot of negotiation. Ellen, do you want to come in?

I raised that at the finance interministerial standing committee—FISC. Whatever we thought about the levelling-up funding—we would all have our views on funding a roundabout, for example—there is now a collective view that that money needs to be spent more strategically and efficiently. However, I made it very clear that money that had been promised had to be delivered, because, as you have pointed out, projects have been scoped, plans had been made, and what communities, towns and cities expected to receive needs to be delivered. After that, there is a need for a more strategic and efficient use of our collective resources.

Again, all the devolved nations made it very clear that things such as shared prosperity funding need to be routed through the devolved Administrations, because that will make sure that the money is spent in the most efficient, effective and strategic way rather than in little bits here and there.

There was no real pushback on that. However, there is still a question about what happens to what has happened so far. It would not be fair to remove that funding. The sooner that there is clarity and certainty, the better. We can then move on to a better way of working together on those strategic issues.

Part of that is about building the right number of houses of the right size in the right places. There are lots of issues around the size of homes and making sure that they are correct for larger families, and around accessible housing. Having the right plan is absolutely critical. Part of it is about building but, as you know, some of it is about bringing homes back into use. We are having lots of detailed discussions with local government about what it will take to get voids turned around more quickly. I think that there are 1,800 voids in the city of Edinburgh alone, or maybe it is 2,000—

That is where we get into the territory of what is appropriate. The Verity house agreement is about both spheres of government recognising each other’s roles; it is also a move away from ring fencing, as we talked about earlier. That does not mean that the expectation of reform and transformation goes away. There is a question about how we collectively hold each other to account for progress. The best way to do so is probably to highlight and champion best practice, and perhaps also to ask other authorities when they will use it.

There are also the external stakeholders who will say, “This is good practice; why is it not in place?”, and they will bring their own influence to bear. It is not in the spirit of the Verity house agreement to say, “If you don’t do this, we’re not going to give you your social work money”—that is just not where we are. However, if you are asking me whether I would like the pace to be picked up a bit, the answer is yes.

There might be ways of incentivising. The work that is done around the—I am going to get the name wrong.

I am mindful of that issue. In the past, for example, we have done a transformation fund and things that involve councils bidding in or partnering up, but I am not sure whether COSLA would be terribly welcoming of that approach. Its view would probably be, “Give us the money”.

We can agree on the key priorities and that we need to incentivise reform and more spending on prevention because—as we know—it is cheaper in the long run. However, it is hard to do that while authorities are also spending money on services in the here and now. It is a question of how they move beyond the here and now. Glasgow did that with its social work service. We supported some of the collaboration and we helped it to reshape its service while keeping the show on the road. It can be done. That did not cost huge amounts of money—it was a bit of money, but not a huge amount—and it was jointly agreed.

Dundee has done some work around the no-wrong-door approach, whereby all the agencies take off their badge and instead are in communities, asking families how they can be supported. It is not always a question of spending shedloads of money; sometimes, it is about doing things a bit differently.

We do not have in mind reaching a certain figure within 10 years or anything like that. It is more about evolution than a revolution.

Evolution includes the work around the levies and decriminalised parking enforcement regimes. There is a desire to move forward on the cruise ship levy, and there are also a lot of discussions around fees and charges. It is a case of taking it step by step.

There is a broader discussion to be had about local government’s desire for the power of general competence, which I mentioned earlier. I will bring in Ian Storrie or Ellen Leaver to talk about that. There has to be balance between what that means and what the framework around it is. There is a desire to look at what European local authorities have in place. Some have developed quite strong fiscal powers on land value, for example. I am open minded, but the detail is always more complex than the high-level aspiration.

Ellen or Ian, would you like to speak about that?

The visitor levy is a local levy that councils can choose to deploy or not to deploy. We are either in agreement that councils should have fiscal powers—given their desire for more fiscal autonomy and flexibility to grow the quantum that they have at their disposal—or we are not.

I will bring Jennie Barugh in.

We will look at that as part of our budget, in terms of the best landing space for us. Obviously, there is a material issue in relation to which year the block grant adjustment is applied to.

No.

That has been the whole debate.