Chamber and committees

Good morning. Professor Roy, I come back to an answer that you gave to the convener about the important issue of the increase in public spending and tax revenues. You set out that increasing productivity is all very well but there are issues about the rate of change in the public spending commitment as well as the rate of change in tax. That is what will be crucial.

I relate that to a comment that David Bell made:

“Nevertheless, given the potential consequences of a widening fiscal gap on the ability to provide public services, it is important that as full an understanding of the causes of changes in demand for public services and changes in tax revenues be available to”

the Scottish Government as possible. How easy is it to get the necessary data to understand what is causing the changes in demand for public services? That is critical to policy decision making.

I am interested in the issue because, as you rightly said, it gets to the heart of policy making. I fully understand the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s role in the matter and that you are very much involved in the quantitative statistical analysis, such as projecting demographic trends and how the population is changing. However, what matters to policy makers is whether there are trends within those demographic changes that lead to changes in demand. That is the crucial point for the Scottish Government. From the work that you do over years, would it be possible to isolate some trends in that change in demand or would the commission not do that?

I ask the question because, before the summer recess, we held a number of sessions with witnesses from the public sector. As a committee, we have been asking what we can do to progress public sector reform. The answer depends on some of the stuff that you are saying, because knowing what the future demand for some public services will be, and whether demand will increase or fall, is absolutely critical for the Scottish Government to be able to make sensible policy announcements. I am anxious to know whether we think that we have the right data to enable us to get to that set of information, so that the Scottish Government, and the committee, are able to make sensible policy suggestions.

I understand the point that you are making—it is not your job to suggest the policies. However, to be effective in policy making, we need the right data. In your sustainability report, you have projected increases in health spending, social care spending and social security spending over 50 years. Those are all big asks. It is helpful to understand what the demand is composed of and whether there are other areas of public sector spending in which there might be a little more scope for efficiencies. That is a dilemma that faces the committee.

Thank you very much.

My question is the question that I have asked two previous panels, and it relates to the fundamental tension at the heart of public service reform. There is a difficulty because we are trying to bring together the mandate situation that the Scottish Government would like to see across all public sector reform—namely, having its targets in place—and the targets that councils set because they feel that they are the best people to know the local circumstances. That is the central problem that we are grappling with.

I cited the example of the national care service, because the Scottish Government has rightly said that the current system—for all sorts of reasons—cannot continue, but what the Scottish Government has proposed has, generally speaking, not been well received by the local councils. Will you comment, not on the politics of that but on the difficulty of bringing together the perspectives of national and local government to ensure that services are delivered in the best way? It is a challenge to bring your own perspectives together in a way that delivers improvement.

Mr Tough and Mr Emmott, would you like to see that as well?

That is a helpful comment, Mr Burr. Let us say that there was a new type of concordat. Would you want it to be negotiated by Government with each council or by Government with all 32 local authorities? How do you see the negotiation working to ensure that people in local government are satisfied that they are offering the best delivery?

I have two short questions to finish. First, do you have a timescale for those new discussions between local and national Government? Secondly, do they include discussion of your respective perspectives on the financial commitments that will be involved?

I wonder whether I could explore what I think is the tension at the heart of the issue. You have both been very clear in your evidence this morning and in your written evidence that there is no disagreement between national and local government about the principles of what we are trying to achieve, whether that is in addressing child poverty or net zero or whatever those principles are.

You have also been clear that there has to be much greater co-operation between national and local government but, at the same time, you seem to suggest that there are difficulties around delivery and different approaches. I will take the example of the national care service, because COSLA was clear a few months ago in response to the committee when it said:

“The Scottish Government should not consider breaking up the Local Government workforce as by doing so would have a negative and damaging impact on the cohesion and effectiveness of it but should instead ensure proper funding is provided.”

My question is that, although we want to establish much better-quality social care, particularly in relation to demographic changes, there seems to be a fundamental difference of approach between national and local government. Am I right in thinking that national Government, quite rightly in my opinion, wants to ensure that there are national standards of good-quality care, but local government thinks that delivery has to be done by local providers because they understand it best? Is that the fundamental tension in the policy?