Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that the situation goes significantly beyond what you are describing there. There are always ways in which parts of the public sector can improve what they do, whether they be administrative, technological or anything else. It is a bit like preventative spending—we have to spend a bit of money up front to make some of those changes. We do not simply spend less money by doing things differently. Quite often, we spend more in the short term by making those changes. The situation that councils are facing now surely means that some of their core statutory duties are at fundamental risk. Have you had warnings about that from COSLA or from anyone else?

The cabinet secretary spoke about some of the pressures that differ for different local authorities and drew particular attention to smaller local authorities where scale is an issue, but I will mention an issue that is facing some of our biggest authorities. I think that you are already aware of the extreme pressures on homelessness services. Those pressures result partly from progressive legislation on homelessness, which most of us in this Parliament strongly support, but also from changes in the asylum system that are beyond the control of local government, this Parliament and your Government. As a result of a combination of those factors, some local authorities are seeing unprecedented levels of pressure that will not only make politically unconscionable cuts to discretionary spending inevitable but threaten core statutory duties, for councils and for integration joint boards and health and social care services.

Earlier, you talked about the spending review and the idea that, as the UK Government approaches the next election, it will not want to do politically unpopular things that cut local government. Are you not in exactly the same situation right now? Your party is in administration in Scotland and in several significant councils that are facing those severe pressures. Is there not clearly a need for some way of addressing those specific, extreme pressures that have arisen, the reasons for which may be outwith council control or your control but which are going to make politically unconscionable choices inevitable at local government level in the immediate future?

10:45

What do we do about it?

That is the case despite the fact that much of what local government does—whether we are talking about the way that local government tax setting gets interfered with by central Government or the fact that the nature of its services is often defined by central Government—is a consequence of decisions by the Scottish Government, albeit that they play out at local level.

That is not a position that you would expect me to support, but the flexibility is there.

We are two hours in, so I am inevitably going to cover some of the ground that colleagues have already covered. Several members have talked about local government and I am going to have another stab at it.

The Scottish Government claims that there is a 2 per cent increase in real terms for local government, and local government claims that it is significantly lower than that. It is all very familiar, isn’t it? Pretty much every year, in good times or bad, there is a difference of perfectly valid and legitimate interpretation between central and local government about whether the settlement is generous, whether it could be better or whether it should be challenged.

Can I have a conversation that moves beyond that familiar debate about whether it is generous—there is inevitably going to be a difference of views—and focuses more on the consequences and the adequacy of the settlement to meet the need that exists at local government level. Most of us are aware that Scottish Government finances have been under significant pressure for a long time. Do you accept that, whether or not you have done as much as you can, local government finances are now under severe pressure?

I would like you to answer my specific question. Have there been warnings from any local authorities, or from other experts in local government, to say that core statutory responsibilities are now under threat?

I agree with you about where responsibility for the cause of the problem lies, but the responsibility for how we deal with the problem sits here, in the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament and at local government level. I am grateful for the offer to keep us informed. I hope that you will be willing to do that not only for the committee but for Glasgow MSPs on a cross-party basis.

I add one other comment. There was discussion earlier about culture funding. I am in the happy position that I will be sitting at this table on Thursday morning too, with Angus Robertson—lucky me—and, no doubt, some of these questions will be put to him. Will you have a conversation with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture about the impact on the national performing companies and the issues that were discussed earlier? It is not only about whether there is an uplift for them in the coming financial year—currently, there is not, and I would like to see that change if it is at all possible—but about the clarity about what they can expect in the future.

At the moment, the national performing companies are being told that they may see an uplift in the coming years. That is so vague and non-specific that they will be forced to make changes that will result in the loss of cultural infrastructure for Scotland. Even if they only had clarity about the trajectory that they can expect to be on, they might not have to make damaging choices. Will you commit to having that conversation with the cabinet secretary for culture and seeing what level of clarity can be provided that will prevent the companies from being forced to make damaging decisions?

I want to come on to an issue that relates to the way that your remit is constrained in law, which means that Parliament would have to decide to change it. Is there a gap in the information that is available to the public and to the political environment, given that your remit is focused on the Scottish Government?

At a previous meeting, we discussed the fact that you do not do forecasts for council tax. I am not sure whether council tax raises quite as much as non-domestic rates, but it is in the same ball park. It is either the second-biggest tax in Scotland or a close third.

Whether we are looking at forecasting or the concept of fiscal sustainability, councils deliver significant services in Scotland, and the same question about the sustainability of their finances in delivering those services that applies to the Scottish Government’s finances applies to them. Does the fact that your function applies only to the Scottish Government not mean that there is a serious gap? Most of your discussion of the local government budget is about the outgoings from the Scottish Government, rather than about how that money is used and how services are delivered.

If the Scottish Government or the Parliament, in a future session, were to decide that that should change and that the commission’s function should be broadened, would the commission be able to take that on?