Chamber and committees

It would be good to get away from that, would it not? Previously, we had the concordat, which had a very different way of delivering services. Ring fencing was almost entirely done away with at that point. However, it is fair to say that perhaps there has not been delivery in some quarters of some of the priorities. Let me be as gentle as that.

As we have touched on on a couple of occasions in this session, the question is: what could be done that strikes the right balance between maximising flexibility and having accountability for what is spent? There might be some issues around the transparency of what is spent on what. How that is achieved is part of the discussion that needs to be had.

Let us go back to homelessness. No one in this room and probably no one in local government or elsewhere would say that investment in homelessness services is not a priority. However, that is a discrete amount of funding. I would need some assurance, if there is not a discrete pot of funding for that purpose but the funding goes into a bigger pot and homelessness is an agreed priority for all of us, about how that translates to what is delivered by a local authority on homelessness services. That is a really important, discrete area of work that supports some of our most vulnerable people.

That is one example. We need to track that out and discuss what that might look like in order to give all of us the assurance that we need. If questions are asked in the chamber about homelessness, I need to have assurance and confidence that what I say about the delivery of homelessness services is the reality on the ground.

Those are the types of discussions that we need to have. We need to get it right, and the approach needs to be able to last for the long term, so that we can get away from what you have described as being interminable annual discussions.

That is not to say that local priorities are not important—they are important. Each local authority, quite rightly, has priorities that differ, and that is not to cut across that at all. However, some priorities will be agreed. The Covid recovery plan maybe points the way to some degree, in that it was all shoulders to the wheel against clear objectives and joint priorities. There might be some lessons in that for how we apply that learning to other areas.

On the last point, I need to be totally honest: there is no more money on the horizon, because there is no more money on our horizon. There is no magic pot of money hidden away—that is absolutely not the case—and, for the first time in a long time, there is very limited, if any, carry-forward for the Scottish Government. These are really challenging times.

The answer to the point about flexibility is yes. To go back to the exchange with Mark Griffin, there is a balance to be struck. It is right that the presumption is to maximise flexibility, particularly in these challenging times, but you will often have heard, as I have, Scottish ministers being asked about and held to account for the delivery or otherwise of local government on key shared priorities. That is the important bit that we need to get right. It is about the accountability, trust and confidence that ministers would have in education, housing or whatever. If ring fencing was removed, what commitments would be made that those would remain a priority?

In that regard, I can think of discrete areas in my portfolio, such as homelessness investment. Important investment has been made in the housing first approach and in ending homelessness and, as the minister responsible for that, I would want assurance that that remained a priority and that the appropriate funding would be allocated to deliver on the commitments that have been made.

Those are all part of the discussions that we continue to have. The core of the new fiscal framework and the new deal will be about trying to get that balance right. We do not want to micromanage local authorities, but we want to have confidence and assurance that, when we agree priorities to make people’s lives better, we see some delivery of the improvements through whichever partner we are working with.

It is not just local government that needs to look at service reform; rather, we need to look across the public sector to see how we can do things differently. That is not about having a diminution or reduction in the quality of service; it is a recognition that, if we look towards years 3 and 4 of this budget cycle, we see that continuing with business as usual is really not an option, given the reductions in resources that will be coming to the Scottish Government. Over the next couple of years, we need to look at how reform could happen.

The Accounts Commission has likewise said that local government needs to be part of the story, and it is a huge part of the public sector landscape. We have just touched on local government’s role in health, but there is interaction between local government and other public services and interaction between local authorities regionally.

We need to have quite a rapid dialogue. It is a dialogue; it is not for us to tell local government how it should reform. It needs to be primarily a dialogue in local government about the appetite for reform and change. I certainly think that there is an appetite in the Scottish Government to support that type of thinking. If we can be of assistance to local government and, indeed, other parts of the public sector, we are keen to do that.

Do you mean in respect of the financial framework and borrowing powers?

Of course. Absolutely.

There has been agreement to talk, but there has not been much detail about any progress being made specifically. I would be happy to drop the committee a note on what the latest position is.

Maybe I am being entirely optimistic here, but I would like to think that the UK Government perhaps recognises the fact that the arrangements that have been around for over 20 years are now wearing a bit thin and are not fit for purpose. That might be a good starting point. I will write to you, or I will ask the DFM to write.

I will perhaps ask colleagues to come in on some of the detail of financial transactions. Financial transactions are available to the Scottish Government. It is for it to decide how to allocate them. Because there are restrictions on how financial transactions can be used, housing has done quite well out of them when they have appeared. They have fluctuated, however, so we do not really know well in advance what financial transactions allocation we will get through the UK Government. The allocation comes quite late, so it is hard to plan a 10-year investment around financial transactions. When we have had notice of financial transactions availability, the affordable housing supply programme has generally done quite well out of that. This year, we have seen an increase of £17.6 million in financial transactions, which has helped with the balance of capital availability.

I do not know whether anybody wants to add anything on FTs.

Are you referring to the open market shared equity scheme?

The OMSE scheme works to reduce risk, in that you have to meet certain criteria to be able to access it. It is right that we have that flexibility to support those who are on low to moderate incomes, and who would not be able to afford to buy their home otherwise, to access the housing market.

It is important that strict affordability criteria are in operation for the scheme. That will, we hope, mean that people will not get access to the scheme if they are not able to afford it. They are encouraged to seek independent financial advice before taking out any shared equity agreement, in addition to any requirements that their lender has. That said, it would be remiss of me not to point out that, whether you are in a rented property or are paying a mortgage, interest rates, inflation and the cost of living—everything that is bearing down on household costs—put pressure on every household budget. We need to be very much alive to that. However, it is important that we provide that opportunity to people who otherwise would not have it.

Ian Storrie will keep me right, but the funding formula is a matter for COSLA. Over the years, adjustments have been made to the funding formula, but it is a thorny issue among local authorities. There is probably quite a lot of hesitance in COSLA and local government more widely about opening up that Pandora’s box, because there will be winners and losers from any adjustment to the formula. It is not something that we can do to local government; it has to be initiated by COSLA. If COSLA and local government were to pitch up and say that they wanted to look at that again, we certainly would not stand in the way of reviewing the formula, but it would have to be led by them. I think that that is the position.