���˿���

Mr Thomson, you have been excoriating in your criticisms of the situation as we face it. In section 4 of your submission, you say:

“We find this attempt to lure businesses to these sites on the back of taxpayer funded tax breaks abhorrent”.

That is pretty strong language. Do you actually believe in the concept of the green port, or do you think that the aims and objectives could be achieved by another means?

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?

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?

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?

I will come to Mrs Watters in a minute. Mr Sneddon, is that a problem with the consultation process? Can we achieve improved national outcomes and certain quality standards as well as the right delivery in local circumstances? Is there a structural problem, or is it just a matter of consultation and ensuring that national and local government work better together, as you said earlier?

That is very helpful. If the vehicle is still running and you would prefer it to stop, are there on-going discussions between local and national Government about how to improve matters?

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?

Good morning. I welcome the acknowledgement of the serious fiscal situation that the Scottish Government faces. It was good to hear that from you.

In your statement to Parliament on the medium-term financial strategy, you said that you committed to the Scottish economy being on a sustainable trajectory by 2026 and you made no bones about the fact that tough decisions would have to be made. I want to ask about that. All the forecasters and the Scottish Government statistics predict considerable increases in health, social care and social security spending over the next five years. I think that I am right in saying that, for social security alone, there will be an increase from around £5.3 billion to £7.8 billion.

Those policy areas all tie in with your comments about addressing poverty and the needs of the most vulnerable. If that spending is going to be so high, where will you be able to make the tough decisions that will help the fiscal situation?