Chamber and committees

There is undoubtedly a discussion to be had on that, but I would have to inject the word “performance” into that discussion as well. Part of the reason why we have to introduce ring fencing is that we see too great a variation in performance among local authorities in Scotland. Some local authorities might be good at delivering outcomes in certain areas while others are poor at doing so. The Parliament—understandably, I think—pressures the Government to ensure that performance is at a higher level.

We have tried to address that in different ways. As part of the concordat with local authorities, in 2007, I introduced the concept of single outcome agreements. We tried to reduce the reporting burden on local authorities by putting in place agreements with them about what outcomes we could expect them to achieve if we relaxed ring fencing. I have to say that the response to that and the achievement of outcomes was highly variable around the country. The evidence supports that.

I am not in any way closed to what Councillor Evison proposes, but there would have to be an honest reflection of the fact that performance among local authorities is too variable around the country for us to be able to move confidently into that territory at this stage.

It is difficult to make a judgment about individual systems. The international review can help to inform our deliberations here about what the right factors and considerations are.

Fundamentally, the processes that appear to me, through the international review, to be having the greatest effect are the ones that provide sufficient opportunity and scope for communities to shape their contributions to how their priorities are determined. That would best be described as a more permissive approach to the scope and influence of local communities.

A second dimension concerns fiscal decision making. Some of the examples that have been cited have reflected the choices that are made by individual local communities as being of a character that can enable them to take much more responsibility in making fiscal decisions about their wellbeing. I will not suggest that that is easily replicable in this country. Essentially, it comes down to the degree of tolerance of difference in levels of local taxation and local responsibility between areas. I am not sure that we would be able to sustain the argument, or that that argument would be as well received in Scotland as it perhaps is in other places that have provided examples in the international review.

Good morning, convener. I am happy to address those issues with the committee this morning. The local governance review started prior to the election. We have engaged substantively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the review’s development, and with wider stakeholders across the country to gather input on and consideration of the response to the review.

There are two substantive elements of feedback from that. First, there is what I would describe as the general responses of the public and community organisations, which reflect on the accomplishments of communities, particularly during, but not limited to, the pandemic. The committee heard this morning from a range of community organisations, so it will have heard some of those responses.

Secondly, a range of propositions have emerged from local authorities and community planning partners about how the aspirations of the local governance review could be put into practice. The Government is considering some of those proposals and will respond to each of them with our feedback on the issues and aspirations that they raise. That is essentially what we are focusing on in the aftermath of the review. That forms part of the agenda that will play into the introduction of a local democracy bill in this parliamentary session, to which the Government is committed.

Fundamentally, I come at my politics with the view that decisions are best taken as close to people as possible, which is why I believe in Scottish independence. It is important that people can influence and shape the decisions that affect their lives. Ultimately, a discussion needs to be had about the proper arrangements that are necessary for the exercise of democratic governance.

We have a national health service, for example. I do not hear any argument that suggests that the NHS should be changed in some way from its current composition to having more localised governance. Ministers are accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the delivery of NHS functions, as provided for in statute. Decisions will be taken about where the responsibility for those functions is best exercised—it is not solely for the Government to take those decisions, but for Parliament as well.

A substantive issue that the committee must consider in its work on local governance relates to the Parliament’s view on questions of accountability. I frequently hear members of Parliament pressing the Government to be responsible or to account for certain things that have happened that are not exclusively the responsibility of the Government, but are responsibilities of local authorities or other bodies. Indeed, I regularly answer questions from members on that theme.

Parliament acts in a fashion that essentially wants the Government to be accountable for some of those responsibilities. However, the question on those points is not just for the Government to answer. Parliament must also be clear in its mind about where that accountability should rest and how it should be exercised.

I would not suggest that ring fencing is a precise science; rather, it is a question of judgment.

As I indicated in my earlier responses to the convener, in 2007, the Government substantively relaxed ring fencing in local authorities. I used to know the numbers off the top of my head, but I am a little rusty nowadays. I think that we reduced ring fencing to about 15 per cent of the local authority budgets, when it had previously been as high as around 70 or 75 per cent. We reduced it because local authorities argued that they would be better able to meet the needs of their local communities in their financial decision making by having that greater degree of flexibility.

That point lies at the heart of Ms Gallacher’s question. Local authorities have that flexibility to meet the different and distinctive needs in their localities because the demand that one local authority needs to meet will be different from that of another. We have tried to address that as far as possible.

When the Parliament wants the Government to ensure that particular outcomes are achieved—the Government might wish to do that, too—the tendency is to introduce ring-fenced funding so that we can be certain that resources are released in expectation of those outcomes. That relates to some of the questions that Mr Briggs put to me and it is often the judgment that is involved in deciding whether resources should be ring fenced or put into local authorities’ general funds.

On Ms Gallacher’s point about the budgets that are available for local authorities, the Government has wrestled with many financial challenges over the past 10 years. As we wrestled with the challenges of austerity, we tried to provide the best and strongest settlements that we possibly could for local authorities.

The Parliament, of course, must agree budget provisions and political parties always have the opportunity to shape the Government’s budget proposals by exerting influence over them. That will be the subject of debate in the forthcoming budget. One thing that strengthens local authorities’ ability to meet the needs in their communities is the degree of flexibility that the Government has provided for them by relaxing ring fencing.

We are taking forward practical discussions on that subject with local authorities, with discussions under way on, for example, proposals for tourism taxes—I cannot remember their formal title. There is an appetite for such a discussion with local authorities, if they wish to have it.

It might help if I were to provide Mr Simpson and the committee with the opportunity to have a more detailed briefing from the officials and teams who have developed the app. I would be happy to arrange that, if that would help to reassure members about the issues and practicalities.

In some circumstances, that happens in other environments. If I show my passport at an airport, I am showing it to a complete stranger who will know my name, date of birth and passport number.

I do not for one moment trivialise the significance of the issues raised.

I contend that that is exactly what the Government has done by recognising that, as I confirmed again to the committee this morning, the Government can sustain the regulations only if there is a proportionate justification for doing so. That is, in essence, the answer to the question that the witnesses expressed to the committee and the point that Mr Rowley fairly puts to me in his question. I cannot sit here and say that the regulations will be in place until a given date, because the state of the pandemic could improve to an extent to which I do not have the justification for that. I cannot say to Mr Rowley that the regulations will be here until X date, because that would in essence be to prejudge the three-weekly review that we have to undertake.

We expect cases to be high and hospitalisation to remain high, and that will put great pressure on the system. That is why we need to take steps to suppress the prevalence of the virus, and the best way to do that is to increase vaccination uptake.

I hope that that helps to address Mr Rowley’s question.