 Good morning and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2023 of the local government housing and planning committee. I hope everyone had a great summer. I'll remind members and witnesses to ensure that all their devices are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting and I'll just say apologies because I've got a new gadget and I'm not quite sure how to turn the notifications off. I'd like to welcome our new member Pam Gosall to the committee and to invite her to declare any relevant interests to Pam. Good morning everybody and thank you chair. I have no declaration of interest. Thanks very much and I'd like to invite other members who might have any relevant interests, Marie and Mark. Thank you chair. Can I have direct members to my register of interests as a former councillor at Western Bartlett Road up until 2022? Thank you, convener. This is the first committee meeting since my vegetable interest has changed, so just to put it on record that I have ceased being an owner of a private entity property and arelandored but advised by the standards clerk that I must make that declaration for a year following the cessation of the declaration. Okay thanks very much for doing that. Our second item is to decide whether to take items 5, 6 and 7 in private. Are our members agreed? Great we're all agreed. Thank you. We now turn to agenda item 3 which is to take evidence on our post legislative scrutiny of the Community Empowerment Act in 2015. We recently concluded an inquiry into part 2 of the act. Part 2 is concerned with community planning and the Scottish Government has now published its response to our inquiry report. That was the fourth part of the act looked at by this community or our predecessor. This committee has also looked at part 9 on allotments and our predecessor committee looked at part 3 on participation requests and part 5 on asset transfers. Each of those are important elements in empowering communities and so today we're taking the opportunity to reflect on what progress has been made across all four areas of the inquiry. We are joined in person to do that work by Tom Arthur, who is the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, and Joe Fitzpatrick, who is the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning. The ministers are joined by the Scottish Government officials Andrew Connell, who is the Community Planning and Public Service Reform Team Leader, and Kathleen Glaeswick, who is the Community Empowerment Team Leader. We are also joined this morning online by Councillor Stephen Heddle, who is the vice president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, often referred to as COSLA, and Councillor Heddle is supported this morning online by Garrick Smith, who is the policy manager of the workforce and corporate policy team at COSLA. I'd like to welcome you all to the committee. We have a number of questions, as you can imagine, and I will start the first question. The evidence that we heard during our inquiry into community planning from community organisations, particularly communities of interest, was a lot less positive than the evidence from public bodies about the extent of the shift of power towards communities. Eight years on, how successful has the act been in shifting power towards communities? That's something that would be interesting to hear your reflections on. In answering that question, it would also be helpful to hear if you could set out what you understand community to mean and, moreover, what community empowerment looks like to you. I think that I'm going to start with the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance on that one. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. On the specific points about community planning partnerships, I will, of course, leave that up to my colleague, Mr Fitzpatrick, to respond to on behalf of the Government as a lead minister. However, with regard to the broader question of community, of course we have recognised terms, whether they be community of place or community of interest, but I think that what's paramount is ensuring that communities have that space to define themselves and to understand themselves and, as such, to be able to engage with public services through that shared understanding that they have developed of their own identity as a community. That's something that I take very seriously, both in the work that I'm leading on community wealth building and, indeed, the work more widely around community empowerment, whether that be through participation requests, asset transfers, a wider work that we're doing around the review of the Community Empowerment Act, and also the work that we're undertaking on the review of local governance, that key word being governance, not government. Of course, working with communities is going to be paramount to that, and exploring in partnership with COSLA ways in which we can empower communities further and place more resources and decision-making power in the hands of communities. Part of that is being able to recognise that communities have a role in being able to define themselves and how they understand themselves and finding the models and the range of powers and levers that are best suited to their particular needs. Thanks very much for that. Joe, do you want to come in on the community planning aspects? Yeah, I think that it is really important that the points that Mr Arthur made in terms of engagement with the wider community and getting people involved think that that's really important, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the community planning partnerships to identify the measures that they need in order to assess whether the work that they're doing, their partnerships, are having an effect. From a Scottish Government's perspective, we don't currently commission research to look at that abstract of what impact does community planning partnerships have in the round. I think that would be quite a difficult exercise to take forward. I think that it would be difficult to measure some of the positive aspects of community planning partnerships. The most important thing about the bill, the act, was that it put those partnerships on a statutory footing whereas previously they were not. I think that that's a good thing. It's really important that when we're measuring how effective the actions that we're taking that the partners who have responsibility are making sure that they measure the outcomes appropriately so that we can assess not whether the partnership is working but whether the actions that the partnership are taking and driving forward are having the impacts on the communities. It says something that the very first part of your question was about those marginalised communities because sometimes it is so easy to say that we're doing all this amazing work and because all the people who are around the table are connected but it's often the people who are not around the table that are most needing the support of the community planning partnership. That's why we need to continually assess to make sure that we're doing that correctly and if we see particular gaps and look at how we address them. One of the areas where we know there was a particular gap was around gypsy and traveller communities and so we've now taken action to make sure that we now know how to and have the tools to engage meaningfully with that community on their terms, not on our terms, not on engagement on the terms of a particular part of a partnership or the Scottish Government or even this committee but on their terms. Okay, thanks very much for that. It's interesting that in the Verity House agreement, I think that's the first time I've been able to say that in public, the Verity House agreement, the community planning partnerships, it says that the community planning partnerships will be recognised as a critical mechanism for alignment of resource locally focused on prevention and early intervention and it goes on. The important piece is that in the agreement between COSLA and the Scottish Government, community planning partnerships are really being focused on or kind of central. I'd be interested to hear what you think, where does the role of community, if we haven't got it, the committee has kind of brought forward a number of proposals and ideas about how we can improve community planning partnerships. If there are things that need to be done to address those things, how do we get communities really having a voice through community planning partnerships in the new deal that's been agreed? First of all, the new deal is much wider than the Verity House agreement. The Verity House agreement is one of the planks of the new deal, so the two things are not the same. There's a lot of work still on going in terms of delivering the new deal with local government, but the Verity House agreement is a really important partnership agreement between the two spheres of government, the Scottish Government and our local government partners. It's absolutely correct that within that there's a recognition both from the Scottish Government and COSLA about the important role of community planning partnerships, so it's really important that's there, right at the centre and within that agreement between the Scottish Government and the local government. I'd like to bring you in on the question around how successful the act has been in shifting the power to communities also your thoughts on what is community, what does community empowerment look like to you and then also how do we ensure that through this Verity House agreement that really puts the community planning partnerships in a central role, how do we make sure that communities have a voice in this new deal? Yes and thanks chair, apologies for my croaky voice although I am so thrilled today. I think the act obviously has made a difference and that's not an assertion, I think that's recognised by independent bodies assessing it as well such as the local government information unit and clearly the change in emphasis on who is empowered or obliged to participate in terms of the partners, wideness from essentially councils and health being the lead into the police and fire and the enterprise agencies I think has been very positive and also we've seen a good number of community asset transfers and they absolutely welcome the existence of the participation requests. I think it's clear that we could do more to make people aware of how we can participate and there is clearly a lot of work that's ongoing in terms of this from the local governance review and I note the launch of democracy matters 2, the six month conversation to encourage more community participation which is launched last Monday and obviously in terms of engagement with the communities I think we want to also emphasise the best practice that we can carry forward and we have the various fora in which we can do that in terms of the community planning improvement board, community planning network and the third sector interface. Empowerment I think runs through this, I mean the local governance reviews about the three impowerments, functional, fiscal and community and the whole aspect of that permeates the very health agreement obviously more of which later. But just to perhaps pre-empt the conversation in that a lot of the principles in the very house agreement are based on the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the subsidiarity is key in this, the taking decisions at the most appropriate level closest to the community and you know that's something that in local government we realise is incumbent on us at the very same time as we speak to the Scottish Government about the transfer of impowerment in the three ways from the Scottish Government. In terms of what community means I think the ministers have defined it in probably the similar way to how I would so I'm not labelled as a point any further. Okay great thank you very much and I just want to say that I'm admiring your backdrop and with the pointer that shows us where you are thanks for that orientation. Yeah exactly. Okay I'd like to bring in Pam Gosall. Thank you chair. Just sticking to obviously the subject on community participation and empowerment is described as you've probably heard as more a tick box exercise and just diving a little bit more into this that it's said that there's a lack of visibility on the community planning partnership in the wider community and it's clear that there's a certain groups feel that their voices are not being heard. So will the Scottish Government take this opportunity during its review of part 2 of the act to help renew CPPSs, focus on the importance empowerment and participation through identifying opportunities to drive improvement and shared best practice? Could I ask the minister? Yeah I think we know for sure there is some really good practice going on out there which is why and it's important that that is shared across Scotland. I think it's also important to remember that we would not expect all community planning partnerships to look the same by definition they are going to be impacted by their locality their communities so there will be a degree of variability but it's I think reasonable to assume that we should be trying to drive up standards and effectiveness of those of all CPPs and I don't think that that should be a top down thing in terms of us telling CPPs what to do and how to operate but it's about making sure that the platforms exist for sharing that best practice and also looking at whether there is then a need to adjust guidance at some point in the future as well. So the bodies that the Scottish Government work with collaboratively in order to to make sure we are sharing that best practice obviously. COSLA is the other arm of government with a very close interest but crucially also the community planning improvement board and that is really really important looking it's a product of the pandemic but its role I think is still really useful in terms of bringing together people from across CPPs in order to make sure that we are sharing that best practice and also the community planning network that Councillor Hiddell mentioned as well. Using those bodies I think it's we can then make sure that we are sharing that best practice and you know if discussions around that would suggest that there's a need to update guidance then that's something we can we can look at do but I think it is important that we don't ever suggest that we've got community empowerment, community planning right and that's the box text we need to continue looking at how they operate and how they represent the communities. In terms of some of the communities I'm kind of engaged with some people who when you speak about the CPP they're initial response as well we don't really have any engagement with the CPP and obviously the CPP is not an entity in itself it's a body of its parts and if we drill down then often you find out that many of the partners of the CPP are engaging directly and maybe there's a bit for us to for those partners to think how better they can articulate how that feeds back into the CPP those connections whether it's with the police with the fire with the local council or with the third sector interface so but there's no one suggesting that everything's perfect and we can't make improvements I think everyone in the sphere wants to do more and wants and recognises that we are on a journey and we can we can make this better. Here could I come back with a follow-up please it's good to hear that obviously you're working with many partners the two of the areas that it'd be good to hear from yourself both ministers it'd be really good is one on digital divide because we all know that it's so hard basically for people out there that have that digital poverty that they can't ultimately participate in democracy so how would you be looking to basically work on that that's one and the second thing that obviously I've spoke a lot about in my last committee is about the outreach and making sure that we are reaching out to all those communities whether it's disability or whether it's being communities so how are you looking to basically go and reach out to them and you know encourage them to participate and empower those communities Tom in a minute to kind of talk about the democracy matters conversation which goes beyond digital obviously is a big big digital part to that but it does go beyond that but in in terms of reaching those those communities you don't normally engage I think it is so important so Tom will be able to talk about how in terms of democracy matters some of the partners that are helping make us make sure we get there but I think it is the responsibility of all cpp partners to make sure that not just in their work as part of the cpp but in all of their work their statutory members for a reason and they have a responsibility to make sure that they are engaging across our varied and diverse communities and that's how we'll get things right by having that meaningful engagement in everything they do and I think that is perhaps we were going to talk about the successes of cpps and maybe that is one of the successes is it's not really measurable as such it's difficult to report but the recognition of all of the partners about their role to engage with all parts of community I think is in a better place than it would have been if it wasn't for the cpps. Could I ask the same question to councillor Stephen please? Cazor Heddle and then Tom can come in with his part too. Yeah thanks very much for that question I mean I really hope that empowerment isn't a kickbox exercise because I mean if we have one job it's to serve our communities we're clearly this is always so compromised by the the resources and the manpower we have available to try and do everything that we would like to do but I mean in terms of the community voices not being heard I would acknowledge that this is probably true and I would say it's not solely the fault of the community planning partnerships I mean it's a it's a function of inequality which we need to address through through all our policy areas and I think there's also an issue of voices not so much not being heard this is not being expressed and it's what can we do to reach out to help people express their voice and subsequently be heard and I mean this works obviously across the a number of the things that we highlight you know locality plans local police plans in terms of planning there's the risk that the communities who are well resourced in terms of time and money can shout louder than the impoverished communities who lack both of these things so it's how we can help them I think it's a question that has to permeate all of our thinking as the minister said this is something that we need to consider alongside our partners and I acknowledge the the help that we get from our partners in the community planning partnerships notably my own area the third sector interface who have developed the community engagement principles that all our community planning partners use and have conducted a number of exercises that physically goes to every area of our community which is in Orkney dispersed over 20 inhabited islands so we need to get it better and as mentioned before the best practice and sharing the best practice is absolutely something that we have to do and we have various vehicles through which we can do that thanks very much tom did you want to come back in just briefly to build upon what's already been said I'm pointing around digitised very well made and of course that's why we take a we employ a multitude of different channels for engaging with individuals with communities collectively when we launched jointly launched the democracy matters face to conversation last week it was an in-person event with a range of stakeholders present so recognising that need to make sure that we are not just relying upon one means of communication engagement is important and that informs all of our approach to wider engagement the point ensuring all voices are heard I think is absolutely paramount is of such importance and I come back to that point I was making earlier with regards to response to the question of how we would define a community I think we'll all be conscious from our engagement on the respective constituencies in regions that there can be voices which purport to be the voice of a community but that would be contested by other people within the wider community and that is something that we always have to bear in mind so ensuring that the fullest range of voices are heard is important and not just from a perspective of inclusion or equality or rights but ensuring that we can harness that collective expertise knowledge insight and live the experience that exists across our community and bring that to bear it's not just a failing of inclusion if these voices are not included it's a missed opportunity to bring that knowledge and insight as I say to bear and that particular unique set of experiences that different groups will bring and often we can find that some of the groups who can be perhaps historically have perhaps been most marginalised in the democratic process are often those who engage most relatively most frequently with public services and in such can bring a very powerful set of insights to that conversation so yes we do it from a perspective of principles of inclusivity and equality but we also want to do it so we're bringing that collective expertise of our communities to bear so we can all benefit from it thanks very much for that we're now going to move on to a bit more detailed topic and community planning and Miles Briggs's questions thank you convener good morning ministers good morning to panel as well I think on two occasions when you've both been at committee you've outlined just how much third sector has played an important role in our communities and especially during the pandemic and I know in the evidence session to the committee the community planning minister acknowledged that there are places where the third sector involvement is not happening in scotland now our report recommended a new requirement for cpps to invite the third sector to engage in community planning and the government's not accepted that recommendation so can I ask what do both ministers intend to do to try to make sure our third sector are really part of the conversation going forward I think you're quoting me and if I suggested that it wasn't happening at all anywhere then I think that that's that was probably an unfair thing for me to have said I'm not sure it was what I said clearly in some areas there is particularly good practice and so I think a couple of examples I'm aware of is Argyll and Bute Perthekin Ross there's a particularly good interface there with with the third sector so clearly there's examples of how we can win at least one of those locations the third sector actually shares the shares the chair and but I think and I could be wrong but I think all cpps do involve the third sector but but can can can that be done better can there be more I think so I think the current guidance provides the flexibility for that to be done in a way which works for the different localities and again I think we need to be careful not to be saying well this works really well in Perthekin Ross so therefore you should all follow this model and government to instruct in that way and that just wouldn't be appropriate but it is appropriate that we make sure that we are sharing best practice practice so again the cpib the body that helps us helps us do that along with the community planning network and I think it's absolutely right that the third sector is involved in there as part of that I think the pandemic showed that cpps have created the connections which give resilience at that time of the pandemic and so I think it is important we in terms of delivery of some of these so many things during the pandemic could not have been achieved without a good interface with the third sector so because of the work of the cpps I think the connections were already made so there wasn't a need to to bring everyone around the table in order to to be able to deliver for communities so I I'm not suggesting that every cpp has it has it right but I am suggesting that it would be wrong of us to impose particular models but I think the committee's comments are heard by Greg Hogan, chair of cpib who will help us look at all of the guidance and if there's a feeling that there's a need for us to refresh on that guidance then we'll do that if we feel there's a need to once we've had those conversations including looking at the work of this committee which you know you took took a huge range of evidence which is really really helpful and you know it may be that we decided this in for a short time working group in order to to look at how we improve the guidance to make sure we help encourage best practice if we will it's good to hear that you're willing to look at that I do think kind of our evidence to point towards some sort of formalised role being needed and actually on another committee I sat on with regards to the integrated joint boards one of the lessons was not including the third sector in their work had actually prevented some progress as well so interested to see as a minister said earlier I think we're missing an opportunity not including the third sector so to try to have a formalised role I think would be helpful and one of the keys to that is actually community engagement expertise and I know that in our evidence local authorities and at council heddle I think you pointed us towards this didn't necessarily have the leadership skills around collaboration so I wanted to ask specifically where the panel believe that community engagement is indeed a professional skill set and what work will be done to help develop those skills given in many councils and maybe aren't resources to deliver these individuals to work or training council heddle I pointed towards what you said last time so maybe bring you in yeah sorry just checking as we're muted there thanks very much and before I specifically answer the question can I just maybe perhaps add some further examples so best practice that's underway because I think Dumfries and Galloway we believe that the the third sector interface officers chair and support their four locality hubs which is geographic forums in their structure Perthyn Cynross has been mentioned in South Ayrshire we understand that the TSI is an active member of the community planning board and is representation across the partnerships to teach delivery partnerships and in my own area the voluntary action or local TSI is a leader of one of the thematic groups and you know we very much value their their support and I mean in terms of the change in the act we don't feel like a change in the act in the act itself would be necessary and you know if we're cautious in terms of that it's because we feel it might limit the local flexibility in terms of ensuring the best vehicle for the engagement with the third sector and absolutely value the work of the CPIB and agree that a change in guidance we must appropriate and would support the minister's suggestion for a short-term working group if that was to take place in terms of leadership whether leadership in community planning or leadership in general is a professional skill I think the way that we we can support this at present is through things like the role of the Scottish Leaders Forum in support and collaborative leadership in the public sector. In terms of the support and leadership within the community planning partnership I think it's a degree of mutuality there that people should should be expected to help bring each other along and that would be you know a valuable thing both in terms of understanding shared perspectives but also you know it's just development within the the community planning partnership itself. Does anyone else want to come in on that point? In terms of leadership I mean I probably agree with what Councillor Heddle has said maybe just add in a couple of examples I think part of the issues I think we need to make sure that it's not just assumed that always the local authority will be the provider of leadership because I think that's not always the case and I've got a couple of examples from recent visits that I've taken where there was other other skills brought to bear so I think one I mentioned last time was the west of the hills community in terms of producing their local place plan they supplemented the skill set that they and the local authority had using consultancy and that worked for them and it gave the community more independence I guess than it being a local authority person that was taking that leadership role and the other community I visited one of the communities I visited during my summer tour was the Strun community on Sky who are looking at repurposing a building as a community asset for the future and they pulled in the support of Planning Aid Scotland to help them to give supplement the skills they had but to be fair that community was pretty rich in terms of the skills they had round the table and so I think again it's a maybe not a one-size-fits-all but I think what we need to try and avoid doing is assuming that this leadership role should always be one that is from either government either national or local level because sometimes that would be potentially removing the independence of the community. I'm actually just going to come back and get into a little bit of granular detail there so it's great to hear you you know recognise the importance of the skill sets around the table I think that one of the things that we were getting at in you know or what kind of came to light when we were doing this work gathering this evidence was really about some kind of acknowledgement that community engagement is a professional skill and that that needs to be resourced and whether that's within the local authorities or you know third sector or wherever that we need to really start recognising that because there's so much work that needs to be done in Scotland right now in the face of the changes that we need to be making where those facilitation skills those engagement skills are crucial and we talked earlier in the conversation about how do we um it's not just about so voices that are not being heard but also councillor Heddle pointed out how do we actually create that space where people can actually feel comfortable and safe to express themselves so I I do think that is a professional skill set that and we need to recognise that we need to give resource to that and that's not about dictating what it will look like on a local level but it means it we have to get out of this and I know that we are challenged in Scotland generally with the budget and situation but we have to get out of this I think that we need to start looking at how do we get that soft infrastructure in place in Scotland so that we have people who are there able to work in communities with that engagement with that facilitation and that communities are not trapped in the cycle of one year funding for those people and that one year as you well know is not even right that one year is taken up with report getting the money in the first place and then having to to report so I think there's something there that we maybe need to continue the conversation on but I'd be interested to hear your initial thoughts on that so I definitely agree with what you're saying I think the west of hails community's experience is one that the committee might find valuable in terms of hearing their experience it was obviously a community which has been particularly deprived a lot of marginalised parts of that community and so their experience in producing one of the first new style local place plans in the country that's been agreed by the council so so it has that new status and so I think that there may be one of one of many communities who are showing showing the way for others but it's possibly worth looking at thank you I would only add two points first it would of course be remiss if there's not to recognise the huge contribution that many of our partner organisations such as DTAAS, Scottish Community Development Centre and many others who have been supported by the Scottish Government provide directly to communities. The second point is I very much recognise the concern to express with regards to the the funding environment in which we operate and I think we can all understand it was a was a cascading effect it occurs from when budgets are set by the UK government and the impact that has upon our ability to forward plan and the impact that then has upon local government and other partner organisations as much as we seek to provide a degree of certainty or confidence through medium-term financial strategies and indicative budgets but I do recognise that point and also the specific challenge around resourcing to provide that level of engagement that we want to see but I think it's also important to bear in mind that when we speak about engagement for example with local government was an element of almost additionality doing something additional and part of the agenda of empowerment of the view of local governance of moving to a more participative form of democracy is where it's no longer viewed as something as additional but is integrated in as part of the approach and analogously with community wealth building thinking about that aspect the economic element with democratising of our economy again some of the narrative is about that being something additional and indeed it does require additional support in that transitional face but the destinations for something is much more integrated in mainstream so I think it's important point to make as well but notwithstanding it I reckon these are medium to long-term aspirations that we'll seek to advance of course in partnership there is that continued need for support in the immediate term. Yeah I would agree with you I think that I think that's absolutely what we need right now is that it's that transition that we're going through as we move to fulfil the aspirations of the community empowerment agenda and it's like how do we get there and it's having that additional support there. Councilor Heddle did you want to come in on anything there or shall we move on? I'm happy to move on okay super no no sorry I was going to oh you are coming in all right okay that was that go on that's just the new zoom environment I know right don't know what the rules are. Yes I was just going to generally support what Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Arthur have been saying there and you know particularly around the fact that resourcing of the community planning partnerships isn't something that solely has to come or should come from local government it's a totality of the resource from from the partners and it's a matter of enabling all the partners and including local government to have the financial flexibility to be able to do this. I mean in general we are not in favour of ring fenced allocation supports of money because we don't think that allows us the flexibility to deliver best value across all the service areas that we have to do and this is the case here as well we wouldn't support a direct a direct budget towards this we would support certainly you know guidance to all partners as to how the community planning partnerships should function and be supported but it's the financial flexibility to be able to to do this it's the kind of general principles of support in this case all right great thanks for that so it seems to be that maybe there needs to be more discussion with all the partners in the cpp in terms of everybody getting involved in how to bring about that that improvement in skill sets I recognise that there are some cpps where it's working very very well and then there are other places where that maybe needs to you know there's like a kind of equivalence that needs to be recognised there in terms of contribution to how the cpps are run I'm going to move on and I'm going to bring in Marie McNair thank you thank you good morning ministers and counsel heddle and officials it's great to see you here this morning really appreciate your time I'm going to touch on community councils and obviously they've been around for many years 50 in fact what role do you see them having in helping to deliver the aspirations of the very house agreement I'm just going to two other points do you believe legislation should be used to give them an enhanced role in local democracy and are you confident that they're sufficiently representative of the local communities they serve well thank you very much for the questions and let me think was join all of you in wishing a community cancer the very happy 50th birthday all roughly 1200 of them across the country I certainly know from my experience and as a constituency representative the invaluable contribution they make to the communities undertaking a range of different activities and also providing that important insight and scrutiny to the decisions that not just councils but their parliamentarians take as well I think that and I'll ask Mr Fitzpatrick wants to come in in any specific aspects of the verity house agreement but I think community councils have a very important role to play as we undertake this second phase of democracy matters and considered the ways in which further power can be put into the hands of communities I'm going into that process with no preset ideas of what the outcome should be now that could potentially lead to calls of suggestions for a more enhanced role for community councils I'm conscious that I think committee maybe has been having some interest in the parish council model south of the border and how that links with the quite varied landscape of local government in England sometime almost a tripartite structure of any fact in the district in the county so I'm not going in with any preset ideas about what the future of community councils should be what I think is absolutely imperative is that this review progresses is that any of the ideas that are put forward we consider in consultation and in partnership and collaboratively with the partners in local government and with communities but recognising that there may be various models that will emerge through the review process and as such that might seek to enhance an existing structure within community councils or potentially new models could be brought forward as well but I want to reiterate I think community councils do an invaluable job I think to make a huge contribution to Scotland collectively I want to work constructively in a way that we can seek to maximise the impact to have and if through our deliberations and engagement that we land a position of an enhanced role for them potentially in statute then that is not an option I would be closing off at this stage sorry so I guess there was a ask around very house agreement and I guess the main point in terms of the very house agreement is there's a commitment to the conclusion of the local governor's review is within that so that would be the I guess the main main point is the recognition that that needs to be completed within this parliament thank you can a point you want to make on community councils yes thanks I absolutely believe the community councils have a role in both community empowerment and as envisaged by the very house agreement and you know I absolutely hope this is going to be explored to the fullest extent through the democracy matters to conversation I also believe that the empowerment of community councils is something that should be explored primarily by local government in line with subsidiarity I should have declared an interest at the first instance there and saying that I am a former community councillor myself for four years before I became a councillor and in my own area I think community councils certainly fulfil a very important function you know primarily as a sounding board for the local members but also in actually doing things because we resource them in order to an extent and ensure that they have a paid clerk so they have an administrative function as well and I mean I think that that's maybe an example of how we could in a careful way explore enhancing powers for the community councils because at present they're limited in what they can do because they cannot be an employer so it's they have to rely on the local authority to do things for them as a proxy in many cases so you know they could obviously be more empowered but I think this is something that should be done carefully just so that we don't end up closing off perhaps examples of good practice through a you know a prescriptive model which might have unintended consequences I just really want to come in and echo and agree with what councillor Heddo said particularly that point of the subsidiarity and recognising local government statutory oversight of community councils and also again that point councillor Heddo made with regards to not taking an overly prescriptive approach and recognising that there may be different models that will be different areas but I think it's very important that we go through this process of the democracy matters that we are collectively open to what the outcome of that may be but of course any next steps if all of them that would be something that would be done consistent with principles of the House agreement and close partnership working. Thank you convener and good morning panel. I was going to focus on part nine of the act around about allotments and the committee's inquiry into part nine suggests some actions for both the Scottish Government and the local authorities around about waiting less access to land, integration with wider priorities, sustaining allotments, occasion of a national forum and others I thank the Government for the response to that. We've also taken evidence from some interested groups, Grow Green Scotland and Glasgow allotment forum in particular who stress a number of frustrations with progress in terms of delivery of the act on the ground so I really just like to explore the Government's perspective on that if you recognise those frustrations and lack of progress that those groups are citing and what work in progress has been made more recently to deliver on improving access to allotments and community growing spaces. I think part of the frustration particularly from the groups that you've mentioned is because where it's in a position where the recognition of the value particularly of community growing has grown in the last number of years and we're now seeing increasing numbers of community growing organisations across the country, lots and lots of different models. That work is supported by the Scottish Government. Since 2012 we've awarded over £1.8 million to directly support and increase the land that's available for community growing through various grants, fundings but I've visited lots of communities through the summer. Some of them I was specifically visiting a community growing facility, others I was there looking at some regeneration but very often even when I was not expecting to be visiting a community growing facility the organisers would say well and there's where we're going to put the community growing facility or in Shetland, I've forgotten the name of it but there was a particular structure they were going to do which was a Shetland specific polytunnel that was able to withstand the winds that one of the communities there were showing me where that was going to be fitted and I think the recognition of the benefits of community growing in particular allotments, yes there's absolutely a role for allotments too but there's a wider movement and a range of community growing organisations in virtually every community. Benefits of those community growing organisations I think need to be fully recognised because it's not just about the growing of food which is really important given the current crises that we're facing but there's the wider benefits in terms of community cohesion mental health physical health there's a education I visited in Dunun a community growing scheme there that was just attached to a school it had been an old school garden the community growing facility had gone in they were all properly certified to work with with the kids so the kids were able to come in and initially obviously this is all really dirty and yucky and look at the worms but now it's so successful that the school is saying well thanks very much I think we can maybe do this now so that group are now looking for another area to develop and we need we being the collegiate we of public Scotland and wider actually because business plays a big role in this as well look at what more we can do to enable that one of the big opportunities is the good food nation which I think gives us the opportunity to tie together a number of strands that we have I was at a conference last week organised by surf looking at regeneration but specifically looking at community growing as part of regeneration across Scotland and it was a really good conference it had a combination of people from the kind of standard regeneration groups across Scotland but also a range of people who were involved in all sorts of different models for community growing and we need to share the energy that was in that room more for our part in the Scottish government as well as supporting a lot of a lot of those a lot of those organisations whether it from regeneration grants or from other empowerment grants there is the specific aspects of the of the act in relation to allotments and waiting lists so the government has surveyed local authorities to try and identify the work that's on going obviously this is a responsibility of local authorities rather than one of of Scottish government but we were keen to work with COSLA and our local government partners to see if there's more we can do particularly in light of the good food food food nation bill so we've now have contact points for allotment services across Scotland and we're working with authorities to share good practice I touch base with councillor Gail McGregor who's the the cause I'll lead to suggest that we might consider how we can better support local authorities across Scotland what we need to be careful obviously we're not causing an additional layer of bureaucracy in terms of reporting but we're keen to work with local government partners to see whether there is a way of bringing commonality to the reporting that local authorities already do in order to make it easier for committees like yourselves and others to have that transparency of what's happening across Scotland but for sure there's a huge amount of work going on and a huge amount of progress happening right across Scotland particularly in that community growing forum where previously the only option for growing your own food was to have an allotment which is really challenging for many many people uses a substantial amount of land for per person whereas community growing can potentially help reduce those waiting lists by giving people a more appropriate access for some people so I think that this is a really exciting time in this field particularly with the opportunities that the good food nation plan brings for us okay north thanks for that and just I recognise my own constituency in Rakhazia we're seeing a great project Scottish Government funding part to implement allotments working alongside the pantry network so it's very effective project and I recognise your comments on community growing but I think government taking recognition also of these frustrations that are being expressed by these groups on allotments I think it's very valuable because there are some straightforward simple things in there that could probably be implemented on about data and definitions and waiting list management and so on that could be really help address many of those frustrations and we are obviously working with partners and what one of the groups to help us do that is the tripartite group so that's Scottish Government working with local authorities and the Scottish allotments and garden society sags working together to be fair there's been a slowing down of the work there because of the work that we're doing on good food nation and you know it's time to be the same people that are doing the same work and good food nation has been prioritised I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing but you're right there are probably some easy gains that we need to do but we need to do that in partnership rather than telling colleagues thank you thanks very much at polycrubs is what you were looking for in terms of the windproof poly tunnels called a polycrub and they are popping up all across my region I wanted to bring cancer head all in on that question I thought you would like to give you opportunity if you have anything to say I can declare another interest in that I have a local authority provided allotment and the cultivation of this hundred square meters of weed bearing soil just fills me full admiration for that but I waited a few years before I managed to get this and it's been a you know a source of both frustration and joy for me so I absolutely support the expansion of allotment provision I think it's a powerful force for well-being and it's also has clearly a role in you know it's a source of food supply I think in terms of cultural stability to support this area of well-being sadly it's limited by the challenging financial constraints facing the local government I wonder to what extent it plays into the wider community well-being role to what extent the planning can take a role in this in that the perhaps mandatory green spaces could become mandatory brown spaces in terms of new new planning developments but I also note the development of the community gardens and the polycrubs as you mentioned our local health board has developed a polycrub in the site of the new hospital and you know again I think this is a very positive development for everybody who has a chance to interact with it so general support would be my own personal perspective I know it also however sort of cost I didn't provide any evidence to the costless inquiry on allotments so I won't purport to represent all of our member councils thanks very much for that I just I mean I am and it's great to hear Mr Fitzpatrick all of your experience and the Danoone story is tremendous I could declare an interest that when I lived in New York City I used to be majorly involved in community gardens there but I think one of the things that I noticed is we've got this direction of travel in the community empowerment act around allotments and the frustration that Ivan McKee is kind of raising and our desire for that to be paid attention to and something that's been brought to my attention recently is an allotment community garden project that has been told by a local authority that they are now going to have to pay the full ground rent on common good land that's going to be £13,000 a year and that can't be paid out of their charity their fundraising charity money so there seems to be a bit of a we need I think there's more work that needs to be done in terms of really allowing or supporting that community empowerment agenda particularly part nine of of the act to kind of flow through to the most local level and I and I totally understand that local authorities are potentially having to take those difficult decisions because it is a very difficult time in terms of local authority funding and finance but it is just how do we start to recognise where we're all going together and I think it's really fantastic that you're highlighting Mr Fitzpatrick the good food nation plan and local authorities will be coming up with their plans and hopefully they will work synergistically with the local food strategy plans that have had to come out of the community empowerment act so I think there's still some more work for all of us to be doing in terms of highlighting the importance and the enthusiasm that is coming from communities to seek the opportunity to have their own resilience and access to locally grown food and all of the benefits and the value co-benefits that come from that. I'm going to move on to something a slightly different topic and I'm going to bring in Mark Griffin. That's good. Good morning. I've got a few questions just around the person in the act relating to participation requests and asset transfers and just kick off by asking if you think those two instruments around asset transfers and participation requests have helped to empower communities. Yes, I do. I think they have played and they continue to play an important role and I think it's important to recognise that they operate within a broader context of rights, they are just two particular mechanisms that are at the disposal, but we have seen since these respective powers came into force I think some 79 participation requests and over 200 asset transfer requests with many more having also subsequently been made. So I think they're playing an important part within the ecosystem of community empowerment and I think they are important tools as well and enhancing a more participatory approach to our democratic culture and indeed as a key lever and enabler of not just regeneration but of community wealth building as well specifically on the asset transfer request. Talked about the numbers of applications for both asset transfer and participation requests and the participation request being a good bit lower than asset transfer, does the Government have an opinion as to why that might be and whether you would consider there's any more work needs to be done to improve awareness and encourage communities to go down that particular route? On that latter point, yes, we ever see something that has been considered through the work being undertaken in the Community Empowerment Act review. I think what we've seen with participation requests is a development and evolution, I think, for the outset to some extent where we're predominantly still coming from community councils, but the subject of the participation request, the relevant PSA, is no longer just exclusively local government, we're seeing a wider range of partners and they are being used to allow communities to engage in a range of different decision making around roads and other local assets, for example, but what we have to do is to have a more detailed understanding of the landscape and that is work that has been undertaken through the Community Empowerment Act review. That information should become available as we move towards the completion of the review in the early part of next year, so I think that with this learning to be undertaken from the experience today, when what previous consideration has demonstrated that the legislation was working as intended, but we recognise that there may be some opportunities for further development. One particular issue that has been raised before is the absence of an appeals review mechanism, so that is something again we're giving, we'll give further consideration to and I'm sure I'll be looking forward to engaging with the committee at the completion of the Community Empowerment Act review to explore what the findings of that have been. So that's specific with participation requests. With the asset transfers, I think we're seeing that grow and work on it and it is, of course, as I say, it is one of the number of tools that are available, but as I look towards the introduction of legislation later in this parliamentary session on community wealth building, I think one of the key tools and enablers that has helped us to make progress in a way consistent with community wealth building aims has been asset transfer requests, one of many admittedly, but I think it's been an important one. I think that's going to have a pivotal role to play, so that is something again as it's reviewed through the Community Empowerment Act will inform what, if any, further steps we have to take in partnership with our local government partners and other public bodies to consider what ways we can enhance it and what further support is required. That's good to hear. The previous version of the committee in the last session flagged the issue around the lack of appeals process for participation requests, so it's good to hear the Government are considering that. And similarly, the predecessor committee also raised concerns about the asset transfer process potentially being overly bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult sometimes for local organisations to navigate, particularly the examples that we've heard around the opportunities for community groups to take on areas of ground for allotment. So has the Government done any work on the process around asset transfer, how to make it easier and more accessible for community groups who have that aspiration to take on a particular piece of land or asset that's held by a public authority? There's two aspects, of course. There's the authority and there's a community group wishing to take the asset on. With regards to supporting community groups, we have provided funding to the community ownership support service who provide expertise, expert support and guidance to organisations seeking to take on an asset. More broadly, there was the establishment of the national asset transfer group, which has been working, I think, helping as well to try to address these issues around consistency and sharing best practice. I don't know perhaps, Kathleen, if you want to speak to some of the work that's been undertaken in that forum. Yes, we've been working with a group of experts and we've looked at various parts of the asset transfer pieces of legislation, and a particular piece of work that we're doing with them now is on the review. We'll be working closely with them at picking on each part of the act to see if it's fit for purpose or if any changes are needed to be made. In Council ahead, do you have any points to make in relation to the effectiveness of the participation requests or asset transfer powers in the legislation? Yes, thanks. First of all, I'd like to welcome that. The community bodies have the opportunity to make participation requests and, indeed, to request asset transfers. Those are both useful tools in the way that the community can engage with local authorities and public authorities to influence and shape the public services. However, I suppose I'd note that the participation requests, particularly, are only one of a range of ways in which communities can want to get involved in services because there's a participatory budgeting and delighted to trumpet that local government has met the target in respect of that. Local access panels and community consultation on council plans, et cetera. On the specific point of an appeals process for participation requests, I mean, Cossadysna currently have a mandate for more members to introduce an appeals process, so if one was required, we'd need to consider carefully our members the best way for this to be supported, given the resource implications in the work that's already in place to ensure community participation. The point that was made around the different, perhaps lower uptake participation requests compared to asset transfers, and I mean, this is possibly due to higher levels of awareness of the asset transfers, in which case we can do more to raise awareness of the participation requests through the various fora or disposal. It's also probably due to the more tangible and finite nature of asset transfer. Certainly, we're aware that there's a number of good examples in ways in which groups are being supported to take ownership directly of the asset or not to take ownership directly of the asset but to take over the management of them. I think I've made in this forum in the past the point that some groups prefer simply to manage the asset rather than take on the liabilities and leave that with the local authorities, which will have next views on this, but I'm currently supporting this mode of operation as well. We're now going to move on to questions from Willie Coffey. Thanks very much, convener. Good morning to you. I wanted to ask about two aspects of the act that have not yet been brought into force. As you know, the act came into force in 2015, and it's now eight years on, but part seven of the act is intended to facilitate support or engagement in football clubs. Part 10 is to enable ministers to require public authorities to help the public to participate in the decision-making process. Was it just to get your views on those aspects and whether you'll bring those provisions into force any time soon? On part 10, I would first of all situate this in the context of the review and not want to presuppose any outcomes. Indeed, the wider democracy matters, I refer to that several times, but I would recognise it well with my operating government with distinct reviews. People will bring forward ideas as and when they see fit. With regard to part 10 on requirements, it's not something that has of course been introduced and it's not something that we certainly have any plans at this stage to take forward. Of course, any move to introduce that mechanism or some similar mechanism would require very detailed consideration and very close engagement and a clear rationale for it, but what we've seen in recent years is not just significant improvements in the ability of communities to engage and to participate in decision-making and to take on assets through statutory means, but also through non-statutory means in councillor, Heddo touched upon participatory budgeting, and let me again to the deal in the summer commending congratulately and achieving that 1 per cent target. Participatory budgeting is an example where there has been an opportunity for communities to have much more say in how resources are allocated in their particular area. One of the things that has been very encouraging around participatory budgeting is notwithstanding the benefits that it confers, but moving away from just discrete pots of money specifically allocated to authorities' challenge in themselves and how communities can have more say over existing budgets. For example, on budgets around roads and maintenance and the environment, there are some really excellent examples of that. I would have to go and commend the work of one of the local authorities in my constituency, the Renfisher Council, and what they have achieved there as well. I think that we are actually with regard to the overall culture around community empowerment, notwithstanding what has been achieved through the statutory mechanisms. We are seeing non-statutory mechanisms as well taking place, and I think that through the work of the local governance review and working in partnership under the provisions and the spirit of the verity house agreement, we will achieve much more by trying to change culture, change practice when necessarily having to have more statutory mechanisms. However, I do not want to preclude the outcome of the review, and I would only want to reiterate if anything, any decisions that are arrived at that will be done so on a spirit of partnership consistent with the verity house. Thank you very much for that, Tom. That is a good response. Before we come to the football issue, perhaps, if Joe is addressing that, I would like to say that the purpose behind that intention is in effect and working well, because I am certainly aware of the participatory budget and successes here and everywhere in Scotland, particularly in East Asia. I was saying that we do not think that we need to bring it into force. There is good enough practice taking place that means that we do not need to bring that into effect. Yes, I am sorry. I thought that your question was specifically around the football clubs. Can you clarify what you are particularly aware of? There were two parts. Council Herll, part 7, is about football club supporter engagement, but part 10, which has not been brought into effect yet, is to require ministers to enable public participation in the decision making process. The minister was setting out there some really good examples across Scotland, where it is kind of happening anyway, without having to bring this piece of legislation into effect. Is that your shared experience? I would say so. I think that a requirement is perhaps a sledgehammer to character, not to suggest that community participation is a not. Community participation is extremely important. I think that all spheres of government would be extremely unwise, not to wish to do this as a matter of course, in all the business that we do. My own belief would be that it is not necessary to enact that. Okay. Thanks for that, Council Herll. Joe could turn to yourself perhaps to answer the part 7 on the supporters' engagement in football clubs. Yes, part 7 gives ministers power to make regulations to facilitate supporter involvement and give fans rights in a number of areas. The Scottish Government held a consultation in 2016 on that, and there has been no action taken since. I think that this would sit within the portfolio of the minister for sport. If colleagues are okay, I would ask the minister for sport to write giving an update on where the Government's views are in light of the responses to that consultation back in 2016. Finally, I will ask you about when will the Government conclude its overall review of the act and how soon do you foresee that being published? That would be in the first half of next year. That is the aspiration. As I indicated earlier, I would be more unhappy to appear before the committee to discuss the outcome of that in the next steps, once it is published. A few times you have mentioned—I will direct the question to Councillor Hedlach, because I think that he mentioned it more times than anybody else this morning—democracy matters part 2. I think that we would be interested to hear a little bit about what that process is going to be. We are familiar with part 1, and we took evidence around that as part of other processes that we are doing. It would be interesting for us to hear what you are going to be doing in terms of engagement and the time frame of that. I will share with your indulgence what I would like to bring in my colleague, Mr Smyth, on this. He will be closer to the timeline. The launch took place on Monday in terms of specific activity that Cosru will be involved in. We will be doing our best to promote awareness of this, but in terms of specific actions around this, I think that we have yet to often thrash out how we can ensure that the work is as effective as possible and engages and secures as many and wider range of views on future models across Scottish communities. For time being, I think that I would leave it at that. Thanks very much. Mr Arthur, you would like to come in. I am anticipating this run for about six months. It will take us to February, so roughly concluding it at any note in the approximate timescale, so it will be the view of the Community Empowerment Act. We are working with partners to facilitate a range of engagements that will take place across Scotland. We have published materials as well, so there are a number of pieces of work that are taking place to facilitate that activity. If it would be helpful or useful to the committee, I would be happy to provide maybe a written update towards the end of the year, beginning of next year, just in the progress that has been made today. Of course, at the conclusion, more than happy to be here before the committee to discuss further. You are certainly lining up some more work for yourself in terms of coming to see us. I just want to say thank you so much for everyone joining us this morning and helping us to understand your perspectives on community empowerment and the direction of travel for this community empowerment agenda that we have in Scotland. I am now going to briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of officials. We now turn to agenda item 4, which is to take evidence on the new deal with local government, which was agreed between the Scottish Government and COSLA and published in June. We are joined once again for this item by Joe Fitzpatrick, who is the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning. The minister is supported for this item by Ellen Lever, who is the deputy director of local government and analytical services division at the Scottish Government. Councilor Heddle is also joining us again for this session, and this time is supported by Sarah Waters, who is the director of membership and resources at COSLA. Both of our witnesses intend to make short opening statements. I will invite Mr Fitzpatrick to do so first, followed by Councilor Heddle. I will then open questions for members. I thank the committee for the opportunity to give some brief opening remarks. We collectively recognise that the two spheres of government play a vital role in delivering sustainable public services that our communities rely upon across Scotland. Building, maintaining and valuing a strong working relationship with local government is therefore a key priority for this Government. As the committee will be aware, the need for a reset of the relationship between local and national government was first set out in the resource spending review last year. The First Minister reiterated the commitment to a new deal with local government in his policy prospectus, a fresh start for Scotland in April and again on 30 June, when he, the Deputy First Minister and myself signed a partnership agreement to be known as the Verity House agreement alongside the COSLA presidential team and political group leaders. I believe that the Verity House agreement will better enable both spheres of government to work effectively together to achieve improved outcomes for communities across Scotland. However, the agreement only marks the beginning of the new deal with local government. COSLA and the Scottish Government are working jointly at pace on a new fiscal framework and shared work programme, including an outcomes and accountability framework, to underpin the Verity House agreement. Taken together, those should balance greater flexibility over local financial arrangements with clearer accountability, while demonstrating strong delivery of better outcomes for people and communities. If we can get this new deal right, I believe that it will make a positive difference to our communities and the lives of the people that we serve. I would like to echo the minister's remarks and acknowledge that we are in the early days of the Verity House agreement, so we very much anticipate on-going discussions with the committee as the agreement mature and becomes the default mode of operation. The agreement will set the tone for positive joint working on a range of key areas, including the community planning agenda, which we have just discussed. We need to work together to ensure that local community planning partnerships are able to maximise the role that can play in strengthening local democracy in acting on decisions made locally, in the way that you highlighted yourself in the previous session. Sign on the Verity House agreement at the end of June marks a positive step in terms of our shared task to reset the relationship between local and national government, in which the minister has just mentioned. As we make progress, I too believe that the agreement will enable us to secure on a costless key priorities, which is a renewed relationship with the Scottish Government based on trust and mutual respect. Having said that, I am encouraged by the impact that the agreement has already had on working relationships even before it was signed. We have recently held a number of engagements involving officials from both spheres of government, and I think that this momentum is set to continue in the future. In addition, as Mrs Patrick said, the agreement marks only the beginning, and it is just one element of a new deal, but I do sense fresh optimism and willingness across politicians and officials alike to make the most of this opportunity. I am looking forward to seeing communities across Scotland reaping their rewards, which I think will come from our spheres of government working together to secure all the empowerment that we want to see devolved to the local level. Thank you very much. I am just really heartened to hear the progress that has been made since we were all together in May in Edinburgh on the session that the committee held around the new deal. It is great to see that things are moving along swiftly. We are passionate about keeping an eye on that. Obviously, local government is in our title, so it is important for us to support the process as much as possible. The new deal highlights three shared priorities for the Government and COSLA, tackling poverty, adjusting transition to net zero and sustainable public services, and notes that there will be a focus on achieving better outcomes. I would be interested to hear from you both what kind of discussions you have had around how you achieved those outcomes, but also how those priorities were identified and agreed? It would be good if Sarah and Ellen are able to contribute to the session, because they have been very much involved in the actual day-to-day work around this. If we look to the three shared priorities, we will look back to the resource spending review, which is roughly aligned with the priorities from that. Obviously, coming from there, there was a degree of work in which Sarah and Ellen will have been involved in to look at that and then take that back to the politicians. There was not a particular argument around those three priorities, but they make sense. The value of that is shown by the fact that the house agreement with those three priorities was not only able to be supported by the Scottish Government and the COSLA presidential leader, but by the political leaders across the COSLA organisation, so all parties were able to sign up to that. That is the strength of having looked at some top-level outcomes and what difference are we trying to make. On many of those things, whatever our political perspective is, and we might have differences about how we get there, we share a common desire to improve the lives of people in Scotland, and those three priorities help us with that. In terms of identification with the priorities, Ms Blackbricks explained essentially where they came from, and they chimed very well with the priorities that we have articulated in our own COSLA plan. If you look at them, they are so fundamental that it would be difficult to argue with them. There are so many good things that will flow from them should we be successful in tackling those three on the face of it, fairly simply expressed ambitions, but absolutely fundamental to the whole well-being and future of this country. We have not really had any disagreement over the priorities. It has been pretty much from the start. It has been agreed that those are the fundamental things that we need to work on, both in terms of tackling poverty, eliminating inequality, recognising the existential threat of the climate crisis, and we need to be able to provide the services that matter so much to the communities. Thanks for underscoring the fact that it is difficult to argue against those three priorities, absolutely. Mr FitzPatrick suggested that maybe Ellen and Sarah might want to come in on a bit more detail, so Ellen, I will start with you. I want to say that one of my challenges around facilitating is that they tend to go to the people in the room. I am mindful about going to people online, but Ellen, I will go with you first and then Sarah can come to you. Thank you, convener. I would absolutely echo what the minister and council ahead have said. There was not ever any sense of disagreement. They were very naturally come to us through priorities in reflecting first on the resource spending review and that commitment to a reset, but the wider context of the resource spending review and through a number of discussions, both among officials and among ministers and politicians through the multiple governance that we have in place to support that relationship over the past 12 months and more since the resource spending review, it has really been about how we go about that relationship that we have had the discussion being focused on. The sense of coalescing around those priorities came very early and fairly easy to providing that focus point. That sounds like a very constructive process, Sarah. Do you want to get out? I mentioned the Covid recovery strategy, so that was something that both spheres of government jointly signed up to, so the three priorities there were financial security for low-income households, well-being of children and young people and good-green jobs and fair work. I think that threaded through that Covid recovery strategy was that person-centred service focus. Again, combined with the resource spending review, it just seemed the natural place to go. Reform is never far away from all agendas, given resource constraints and demand pressures. Just to echo what colleagues have said, but those were the key areas where these priorities flowed from. Thanks very much for that, and thanks for reminding us about the Covid recovery strategy. I think that that is an important piece of the background there. I would like to move on, and I'm going to bring in Willie Coffey with questions. Thanks very much, convener. Good morning again, Joe. You and I, Joe, are probably the two members around this table that were around during the historic Concordat in 2007. As you will recall, that was very much based on connecting itself with structures within the national performance framework. The new deal doesn't connect it to the national performance framework, but I think that you mentioned an outcomes framework. Could you give us a little bit of a insight into how that will be achieved and how we will measure progress and outcomes this time around? So MPF hasn't been... MPF is still there. That still exists, but it's probably useful at this point then to recognise that the new deal is not just the Verity House agreement. I think that's really important, because I think sometimes these are being used almost as if it's the same thing. Verity House agreement is part of the new deal with local government. It's the partnership agreement. Under beneath that, there are three other aspects, and one of them is, I think, really important to what we're talking about here. So the second area is the fiscal framework. Third area is the completion of the local government's review, which we've talked about in the last session, and the final strand is the joint work programme with outcomes and accountability framework. I think that that is really, really important. I think that's the big difference between the Verity House agreement and the concordat. The concordat served a really important purpose, and it was transformation at the time. I think that for the new deal with local government, we are obviously learning from some of the challenges that, over time, the lack of an outcomes and accountability framework. Let's be honest, we're averted to old ways, and ring fencing increased us the easy way of ticking a box effectively, the easier way of getting accountability to this committee sometimes, I guess. So it's really important that we get that outcomes and accountability framework right. That's not something that we can do overnight, but the Verity House agreement gives us a set of agreed ways forward, ways of working to achieve an outcomes and accountability framework, which, hopefully, will stand us in good stead for well into the future. I certainly recognise what you've said there, Joe. But this time round, do you think that all of the council, the participant councils, and COSLA are signed up to the new deal? That was the issue before, that not all of the councils carried it through, let's say, and that led to more of a reliance on ring fencing, which none of us want these days. Are you getting a broad sense that there's agreement amongst the participant councils? I've met all of the leaders of all of Scotland's local authorities, and obviously as part of that, the leaders of each of the political groups. And I think that the appetite is absolutely clear, and I think that folks see the real opportunity here, to get that reset not just for this year, not just for next year, but for the long term, to really reset the way that the Scottish Government and local government work together to the benefit of our communities. The appetite for those changes, I think, across the parties, may be in a way that it wasn't. Maybe that's partly to the fact that there's maybe a little bit less flag waving than maybe the concord that was flagged up. It's clear that we're on a journey and there's a lot of work for us to do. The Verity House agreement was a really important part of that process, a really important partnership agreement, but it's in no way concludes the New Deal with local government. It's a starting point. It's about how we're going to work together respecting both of our democratic mandates. Thank you, Jo. I'd really appreciate if Councillor Heddle had a view on what makes it likely this time round, Councillor Heddle, that this will be perhaps more successful than the previous concordat was in 2007? Well, I think that the previous concordat was welcomed by councils at the time. I too was around at that time, the new council in 2007. The fundamental principles of the concordat, I think in terms of respect and local governments, need to be able to take the totality of the resource and apply it to a subset or a smaller set of really defined outcomes. It's not dissimilar to what is being spoken about here. I think obviously the Verity House agreement goes further, as Ms Ifis-Patrick says. There's more to the New Deal than just the Verity House agreement. Perhaps what the previous concordat lacked was the accounting and accountability framework, which is proposed here. You made a very good point in terms of how this relates to the national performance framework. Clearly, local government and Scottish Government are co-signatory to the national performance framework. I think that the spirit of proportionate reporting would be wanting to see where national performance framework indicators or indeed local government benchmarking framework indicators, the ones that we have already in place, will map or can be amended to fit the more important accountability framework that we must develop. In terms of the buy-in, certainly at our leaders meetings, we've had unanimous support for the Verity House agreement. We've also had all our group leaders co-signing back at the end of May. I think that we'll recognise how good this can be for our communities if we can make it work, so I think that the buy-in at this stage is good, although, of course, it can never be taken for granted. I mean, we anticipate, but there will be areas on which we will disagree. Perhaps within local government or between local government and Scottish Government, we will need to resolve that in a respectful and understood manner that is outlined in the Verity House agreement itself. Okay. Thank you both very much. Thank you, convener. Thanks for that. Thanks, Willie. I think Sarah indicated that she wanted to come in. Yeah, thanks, convener. I was just, I suppose, just to reiterate, Council Head or Heddles Point, there was not a month went by in the first half of 2023 where we didn't speak with our group leaders, political group leaders about this through our leadership sounding board, so at every month we were discussing the tone and content of the Verity House agreement, so very much focused on how we would develop jointly the way we were going to work together. So I think to get to the 30th of June we did, as Council Head or Heddles said, get the buy-in from the group leaders who eventually went on to sign the agreement, which I think was no mean feat. We're now in the period of working jointly with Scottish Government around the development of what we're going to do, and likewise we're involving our professional associations from across Scottish Councils, so we'll very much continue in that vein, which is really positive. Thanks very much. I'm now going to bring in Pam Gosall. Thank you, Chair. In the past, considerable amounts of local government budgets have been ring-fenced to deliver on Scottish Government's priorities, so if councils have that independence, what assurances exist that such a move will have a positive impact on the delivery of shared priorities and outcomes, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Scottish Government does not re-aggress from this independence? That's a really important question, and that's why we're not coming with the Verity House agreement. It wasn't a here's it all completed. There is a lot of work to do to get that right, to get that right in a respectful way, working together with COSLA and the Scottish Government, and that work that Sarah mentioned is on-going now to get that outcome framework correct. Obviously, part of the work that's already on-going as well is around the fiscal framework to identify a better way of taking that forward, looking at where we can have different arrangements in order to agree our shared outcomes. A little bit of deepening in that, what role would the Scottish Government be if a local authority is failing to make progress on shared priorities, or if services in key devolved areas such as education or social care are perceived to be underperforming? Have you gotten that far in the agreement work that you're doing? I think that we need to respect our different democratic mandates, so that's the starting point, so this can't ever feel to local government like the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, coming in to check their schoolwork, check their homework and work in that way. What's really important as part of the outcome framework is transparency, so increasing transparency in a way that works for all of us. So we're not talking about overreporting but making sure that transparency is there, and that makes sure that, in the Scottish Government, and also making sure that there's clear lines of accountability, who's accountable for what part of decision making, and that allows our electors to challenge us and it allows local governments to challenge them. If we get that right, then it's really important that we get that right, and that will take time, and that's some of the work that's on going. Thank you very much. Councillor Hiddle, do you want to follow up on anything there? Yeah, I mean, this is related to Mr Coffey's question about the accountability framework. Clearly, we've made the point which has been accepted by the very health agreement, but from this point onwards, the default position would be no ring fencing or direction funding unless it's a clear joint understanding for our rationale for such, and that is on the basis that we feel if we have the flexibility to allocate our limited funding within our local authority areas and across our services, we can achieve the best value and the best balance of outcomes for our community and in terms of the shared ambitions that we have with the Scottish Government. Mr Fisbar, you made the very good point that we're not solely accountable to the Scottish Government or this committee or the Accounts Commission or Audit Scotland, but we're also accountable to our own electorate, and they very much will hold us to account to deliver the services as best we can, and if we're not delivering the services that we should expect, we need to explain why and how and hope that there's a degree of understanding. Clearly, in terms of some of the areas that have been highlighted, your speedmark and our homework were regular education inspections, where social services are inspected by the care inspectorate, so there are mechanisms in place, along with Audit Scotland, along with the Accounts Commission, that keep an eye on local government and how we're delivering our services, but the key thing in this is going to be the accountability framework and outcomes framework, that we were speaking about in the previous question, and we need to be able to get that right, because the quick-pro quo, obviously, is for having the presumption of local by default, national by agreement, no-ring fencing, is that it'll lead to an improvement in services, rather than a diminution in services, but they need to be looked at in the fatality of the services that we provide. Thanks very much for that. Minister, you indicated you want to come back in. Actually, Councillor Hurrell made the point that I forgot to make about independent scrutiny and the kind of range of bodies which have that role as well. That's why your teamwork, right? It's great. Pam, you wanted to come back in. Thank you, chair. Under the new verity house agreement, there'll be more flexibility for councils to spend as they see fit. We've spoken about that, which we've heard today that it's very welcomed and it sounds great, but my question is around where accountability will lie. Recently, we all know that it's revealed that councils are expected to make cuts around £300 million. If, for example, a council makes a decision to access from the education budget and then attainment begins to fall, who is accountable for that? Is it the Scottish Government that left councils no choice but to make those cuts, or is it the council's responsibility for taking the money out of the education budget? First of all, obviously, the minister. I think that it's really important that we develop clear lines of accountability, who's accountable for what, and that's part of the work that we're doing. I think that just in terms of some of the back side to the question there around local government finance, I think that it's appropriate to recognise the challenges that all public services are facing in the current times with the massive inflation, let alone just the energy inflation, and the challenges that are facing on all aspects of public service. However, just to respond to the point, we do have the Accounts Commission report, which is clear that we have increased local government funding over years. That doesn't take away the challenges that local government are facing just now by any means. I think that it's appropriate that we have a mature conversation, a transparent conversation, so that we can show who's accountable, how the money's been spent and what the outcomes are being achieved and what the lines of accountability are where those outcomes are not being achieved. That will be really important that we get that right in that accountability framework. Could I ask Councillor Herrick about this as well, please? Yeah, thanks. I don't spoil the teamwork, but I think that the Accounts Commission also noted that in real terms local government funding had decreased over the years, which is clearly a problem for us. In terms of the accountability, well, the various functions and services are devolved to local government, so the accountability lies with us in the first instance and in respect of these services. I think that it's important to acknowledge that. We have to represent to our communities why things are how they are and the reasons for that. If we don't have a good explanation for it, clearly they will hold us to account. The point that I think we've made in the past is that there's a risk in the Scottish Government feeling that they have the ownership of all problems, including our own, means that they feel that they must address these problems directly, which leads to the ring fencing and direction of budgets, which from our perspective leads to situations in which we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. The oft-sighted example, if you want to know what sort of ring fencing and direction of Spain means, is to look at the condition of your roads, because that's one of the areas that's not protected and it's to take the brunt of the cuts. So I freely admit that I think that local government will find itself more accountable, but appropriately accountable for the services that it provides as part of that. Continuing on that theme, I recognise that you're in a process of co-design in a way on some of the aspects that you've outlined. I'd be interested to hear and I'll start with you, Councillor Heddle. You've talked about local by default national by agreement, but I'd be interested to understand what mechanisms would be put in place if you've had that kind of discussion to resolve any kind of disagreements, whether either either national or local government, where there's a disagreement that you might have about the rationale for a national approach. Have you explored that yet? Have you got those mechanisms in place? Well, I mean, we have to recognise that this is the early days of the agreement and it's a work in progress and there's lots of things that require to be completely bottomed out, but I think that if you refer to the agreement, we set out how we should carry these things forward in the first section, the way we work together, starting off the positional media trust in respect and recognising that if we do disagree on issues that we'll deal with the matters constructively in the spirit of co-operation and through the engagement mechanisms described in section D of the agreement, which is the various forms of dialogue that's to take place from early between the First Minister and the cost of president, but also through our leadership sounding board and the groups of cabinet members. That is also augmented by the almost continual dialogue that I can see happening already between our respective officers, and Sarah might want to come in on that, but I think that the positive thing that I want to emphasise here is that our dialogue is already so much better and that the prospect of being able to resolve things in a informed and deeply respectful way is greatly enhanced. That's great to hear that the dialogue is much improved. Minister, would you like to come in on anything there? There's not much to add. I think that having that spirit of partnership at the centre of all of our interactions is crucial and clearly there will need to be a mechanism for how we take forward disagreement, but if we have that spirit of partnership as our starting point, then hopefully those disagreements will be the exception rather than the rule. Anybody else want to come in, Ellen? The only thing I would add to what you said is that a lot of those engagement mechanisms are building on what's already in place and has been working well, either over a period of time or which we've established as part of the process of negotiating the Verity House agreement, and we've decided that that's a relevant mechanism to continue and to embed into the agreement. That's particularly the case in relation to the joint meeting between the leadership signing board and senior cabinet ministers to which councillor had all referred. That was a key part of the process for the Verity House agreement and something that we think would merit continuing. Thanks very much for that. I'm going to move on. I'm going to bring in Marie McNair. Thank you, convener. Minister, the new deal states that local government settlement will be simplified and consolidated. Can you expand on how you're progressing towards a settlement and what benefits this approach will deliver? So there's a fair bit of work already taken place to develop the fiscal framework. Part of that work is looking at all the areas of ring ffencing and direction and looking to see where opportunities can be to relax that. The starting point is that if we're going forward, we shouldn't have ring ffencing, but there's obviously a fair degree of, well, it's actually about 7% of council funding is currently ring fenced, but it's fair, I think, in the spirit of partnership to recognise that even when funds aren't ring fenced, often there is a degree of direction. And if you speak to senior council officials, they will tell you that sometimes even when there's no ring fencing, it's the reporting that is overly burdensome. So if we can try and find mechanisms that give us that assurance in terms of outcomes, then we can remove some of that unnecessary bureaucracy going forward. So that is a work in progress, but a significant amount of progress has been made, and we're hoping to have made some progress for this year's budget. Thanks. That would be very much welcome from councils. Obviously, previously said, being a previous councillor, so I cannot get it. We heard that some individual councils are happy with the current funding formula, will the fiscal framework and related work address these concerns? And finally, also one of the stated priorities, as already mentioned, of the new deal is tackling poverty. Some feel that currently funding formula doesn't give enough weight to recognise poverty and deprivation levels. Will this be something that you consider going forward? These are matters that have to be taken forward in collaboration with our partners. It would be absolutely wrong and against the spirit of Verity House for the Government to say, we're going to change the funding formula, you know, actually. So any changes around that have to be in partnership. I guess in terms of tackling poverty, by giving local authorities more flexibility around how they use their budgets, I would hope that many of them would choose to use that flexibility to target poverty. It's one of the three outcomes that we've agreed, so it absolutely should be there. I know that some local authorities, my own local authority in Dundee's, took a decision to fund many of the anti-poverty measures beyond what would be a statutory because of their particular circumstances in the city of Dundee. I guess if we give local authorities more flexibility, then they will be able to make those choices, which work for their areas. That is the principle of subsidiarity. Those decisions being made at the correct level and respecting the democratic mandate that our local government colleagues have in their own right, but maybe Ellen might be able to say a little bit more about some of the works in terms of the work around the fiscal framework. I'm happy to. I'm sure also that Councillor Heddle and Serra will have a view on this. It's obviously for them to speak for the views of local government, but we have had long discussions about the fiscal framework, and we're continuing to have those negotiations. Obviously, the questions about quantum are very key to that, and how we come to that quantum, but distribution is an element of obviously how the local government settlement is delivered to councils. It's something that is very relevant to the discussion, but those are very live negotiations. I think the minister has very succinctly put those questions about the purpose here being to empower local government to make those decisions locally. Where we can get to and the fiscal framework to make that as smooth and as transparent as possible is our ambition. Thank you, Councillor Heddle. Yes, thank you very much. I think that in terms of the simplified and consolidated quantum that we have, there's two aspects to that. The consolidator obviously is the removal of the ring-fencing and directed spend. In local government, we feel that there's a lot of that, that we only have the ability to spend about 30 per cent of our budgets in terms of that aspect that's not ring-fenced or directed. Serra might be able to direct me on that figure, but that's my right collection of what it is. The other thing is that by simplifying it, we should have a shared understanding of what it all means, because every year at present, we have a post-budget bun fight where the figures are presented by the Scottish Government and by local government that are at odds in interpretation. If we want to carry forward a mutually respectful relationship, we need to get away from that, so this is a key aspect to that. Fundamentally, we can't get away from the fact that local government needs more money if we're going to be able to carry forward all our aspirations because we're struggling to provide all the services that we wish are present. We've lost a significant chunk of our workforce since 2013, and it really is a struggle that I've been a councillor for 17 years, and it's as hard as it's ever been to come up with a budget that's just not going to devastate the services that we provide for our community. Fundamentally, we need more money. We can't get away from that, but however much money we get, the removal of ring-fen scene, the directed spend is going to enable us to prioritise it most appropriately to the needs and aspirations of our community. Sarah Boyack, would you like to make any further points for a hand-back to the convener? I think that you'll know yourself that the local government settlement is extremely complicated, and I think it's made more complicated not necessarily just by the ring-fen funding but by the in-year transfers that come from different portfolios, so part of the work that Ellen and I are trying to do is to consolidate some of that so that it's not the annual kind of, oh, I wonder if that portfolio is going to transfer in that money or not, it actually is transferred in because it provides the funding for a function that local government will carry out. I think in terms of the funding formula, that would very much be a decision that leaders would have to take because it would impact all councils. There is, as Councillor Headle says, an issue with the overall quantum, but what we don't want is local government tearing itself apart in terms of the way that the money is distributed. As Mr Fitzpatrick said, if councils see more flexibility with the way that they can use resource, hopefully that aids their budgeting as much as redistributing, but as we did back in, I think it was 2018, we did review the funding formula and looked at the funding floor, and at that point professional advisers who advise leaders said that actually stability was extremely important, and I think with redistribution you could get a real volatility there. There was a second part of your question. Oh, yes, sorry, I think it was Councillor Headle had mentioned that we do get into this kind of post-budget bun fight every year about ring fencing, et cetera. I think currently COSLA's position would be that around about 65% of our budget is really not able to be used for local priorities. It goes on things like teachers pay, teachers pensions, all the other things that councils have got to provide for, but what we're really working hard as part of the fiscal framework is actually getting that kind of common understanding of the challenges on both sides. Some of that challenge comes from Scottish Government having a top-line budget figure of, I think it was about £59.4 billion last year, but actually not all of that is at the discretion of Scottish Government. There are things that come out of that that have to be factored in, so it's getting to the point with the budget engagement between Councillor Hagman and the DFM and Mr Arthur, where there's that common understanding on each side. I think we've struggled to do that in the past, but we're really working hard to get to that position. Thank you. That's interesting to hear that level of detail and that common understanding that's being worked on. I would imagine that part of our demonstration of success, maybe not necessarily this year because it's early days, but into the future will be that we won't be having the bun fights because there's been so much co-design up front to lead into the budget discussions. I'd like to turn to the area of public sector reform and the new deal talks about working constructively and quickly to remove barriers, which hinder flexibility with a focus on enabling innovation and whole system improvement. Clearly that gives an opportunity not just to improve service levels but also reflecting back on the previous question to potentially find ways to do things more efficiently and effectively by taking down barriers, removing duplication between Scottish and local government. I'd like to explore a wee bit further what works happening in that space and if there's any examples of those barriers or opportunities that have been identified and the process to tackle and remove those. Passing over to Ellen, if that's okay. Thank you very much for the question. There is a commitment to a shared approach to public service reform within the Verity House agreement and there are discussions said as being more closely involved than I have. It's sitting with other colleagues, so I'm sure she could speak to it, but about having that joint programme, looking at public service reform with local government. What does that mean? I'm very much focused on that person-centred approach, which was so central to the Covid recovery strategy, learning from the range of pathfinder and project approaches that have taken place across the country. It's about building on that and looking at where we can scale up the learning from those pathfinders and where we can start to see that take place, build on that in local government but also being very conscious within our decisions as a Scottish Government and in our public bodies landscape in relation to public service reform, about how that can impact a local government, thinking back to the earlier session as well about the role of those partners within community planning partnerships, so needing to see it very, very holistically. Serra will have more to say perhaps in the detail, but we'd be happy to take that back to colleagues and arrange for a letter to committee setting out more of the information about that programme. Thanks for that. That sounds relatively top-level, should be good to get into some of the specifics where opportunities have identified, quantified and what work is happening to take it forward. Councillor Heddle, do you want to comment on that? Yeah, it's the, I was, Ellen Sack, they beat me to the punch in mentioning the Covid recovery strategy as a kind of template for where we could go. I just want to highlight the on-going work that's being carried forward by the community planning improvement board on three main areas, which is climate change, financial security for low-income households and the wellbeing of children and young people. So this is some work that's on-going and being led by that, I would hope, would feed in to this aspect of the very housing area. Okay, and Serra, is there anything you want to comment on any of the specifics here? Yeah, a lot, I think a lot of what you're alluding to and suggesting that you'd like information is actually coming through the officer discussions that we're having. So we've held a number of set of workshops between senior Scottish Government's deputy directors, et cetera, and COSLA's staff, and Solace and directors of finance. And a lot of the barriers to reform have come up. So actually through the shared work programme, we're going to have to develop solutions to the things that are getting in the way of data sharing, like accounting regulations, like funding flexibilities, et cetera. So we've got to work through these things. We actually wrote, COSLA wrote to the Finance Committee with much more detail on this so we could perhaps share the letter with you. And one of the key concerns in the submission that we made to that committee was that there are going to be some key touch points between wider public service reform, i.e. the 129 on bodies that are part of the Scottish Government's programme, and local government. Now in the resource spending review, local government was invited to take a complementary approach to public service reform. Local government is doing a huge amount in that space, and as I say, that letter articulates some of that. But there's some touch points. If you think about two overlapping circles, there are things that police, fire, skills development Scotland, all the other bodies will do that will impact locally. And that brings us back to community planning as the key body or the key driver of local resource decision making and working through some of those person-centred service challenges because there could be decisions taken by national bodies about reform that actually make no sense locally on the ground when you get into a place and the delivery of services in that place. So we are working closely with Mary McCallan's team to make sure that we don't create tensions between national programmes for public service reform and local approaches to person-centred services because we've got to make sure that those touch points make sense and that local government is fully involved, as is articulated in the Verity House agreement. I understand that, and I can see the importance of that. I suppose that what I might have expected to hear is that there are areas of duplication that have been identified. You did mention data sharing and the opportunities there and the ability to move data common approaches to digital overlaps between the work of different agencies, government and local government, where people are all in the same space trying to do the same thing, because clearly in Europe where there are cost challenges identifying and freeing up resources from those areas has got to be a prize worth seeking. Yes, so sorry if I could just add, I mean a lot of, I mean that local government is doing a huge amount in the area of shared services even within COSLA. We have the Digital Office, we have Trade and Standard Scotland, we have Business Gateway, we have My Job Scotland, these are all services that are shared by local government across Scotland and as I said the letter that we sent to the FPAC goes into more detail on that. Okay, look forward to seeing that. The other question I was going to ask is the situation with regards to UK government in this regard, because clearly we're increasingly seeing a situation where UK government is seeking to engage with local government through a variety of mechanisms, is that something that has been considered within the discussion in the new deal or is it something that's kind of been left out of scope in terms of how that relationship potentially cuts across some of the work that you're doing? Yes, so the new deal is a, in the very house agreement, it's the agreement between local government and the Scottish government, so I guess that's, but these are all factors that we need to be all up to as we move forward. Okay, so that elephant in the room is being considered? Well, the agreement, it's an agreement between the Scottish government and local government. Okay, thank you. Did you want to ask a question about the community? No, no, no. Okay, great, okay, great, thanks very much. I'm now going to bring in Willie. Thanks again, convener. Joe, I wonder if I could just stick with the scrutiny function for a moment, and I've got a couple of questions on that. I mean, it's a new deal, it's a new arrangement, it's enhanced representation, let's say, with our COSLA colleagues. Does that not imply that there could be or should be a rebalancing of the scrutiny function? I know, as a member of the Public Budget Committee, that we do get some site of the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland's reports about performance within our local government, but it's by no means the same degree as the scrutiny that the Parliament has directly to look at government in Scotland. So, do you think there needs to be a little bit of a rebalance there in the scrutiny function, or are the mechanisms that are all in place sufficient? So, I don't think it's unreasonable that those bodies that Council has mentioned earlier that cut out independent scrutiny and it's wider than the Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission, but that they just can check their processes, and I think that the Accounts Commission, in particular, are likely to do that. I do think that it's really important that those of us with a democratic mandate to serve our constituents in this Parliament respect the democratic mandate received by local councillors in their elections. I think that that's a really—if we can all sign up to that, then we can have appropriate scrutiny. If there's a policy area that's shared, then let's get those lines of accountability, let's challenge the Scottish ministers for the policy areas that we've set, but ultimately it would be for local government to be challenged by their electorate on the decisions that they're making, which may very well be different decisions in different localities. Thanks for that, Joe. I'll turn to Councillor Heddle. Steve, there is an increased role for COSLA perhaps in national policy development, so does that kind of blend itself to people like us in this committee in the Parliament seeking to scrutinise that aspect of the work that you do a bit more effectively to ensure that outcomes in the framework agreement are being delivered, or are you satisfied that the models for scrutiny that are in place at the moment are sufficient to achieve that? I would say at this point that we are satisfied that we are having appropriate scrutiny at present, but we recognise that this is a work in progress. We will very early recognise it in section C of the very House agreement on the accountability and assurance aspect of it, where we say that Audit Scotland, the Accounts Commission in Scotland, should be invited to support and provide independent evaluation of progress. We've had admittedly very high-level discussions with the Accounts Commission on this already. Clearly, this committee exists and has the ability to scrutinise local government where it sees fit. At this point, I would say that we have to respect that this is a voluntary agreement between the Scottish Government and local government, and that looking at the way that we are working in partnership, we already have the existing scrutiny that is being applied to us. The way that we work together differently should hopefully mean that things are working better in general terms. Sorry, I'm being very vague in how I'm describing this, but we're recognising that this is a journey, not a destination. I think that, Mr Fisbar, I made the good point that I'll pick up on, which is that the principles that are in the partnership agreement, the very House agreement, are underpinned by the European Charter Laws of Government, which we're keen to see legislated for as well. Alongside that is the principle of subsidiarity that respects the devolution of power to the appropriate level. I would seek your indulgence for that. We don't become too heavy-handed on the scrutiny at this point and that they give you the assurance that in local government we'll do our utmost to live up to the things that we're promising. Thank you both very much for those responses. We're now going to move on to questions from Mark Griffin. Thank you. Recently, the First Minister has said that any issues related to pay negotiations are one for COSLA councils and their employees, but I've been sitting here long enough to have heard previous First Minister, previous finance secretaries and local government ministers say the same, only to get involved in negotiations when strikes have caused school closures and rubbish to the stark mountain. Given that local councils rely overwhelmingly on the vast majority of the funding that is spent on staff wages, what do you see as the Government's position to support those pay negotiations, whether that means just getting on the table or putting more money on the table to make sure that local services remain sustainable? It is important to re-emphasise the point that local government pay negotiations are a matter for local government as the employers and the unions. That is enshrined within the very House agreement that that is the correct procedure, and the Scottish Government should not interfere in that process. However, in line with the very House agreement, in spite of the cuts that the Scottish Government has received, the Scottish Government has already committed to £155 million to support the meaningful pay rise for local government workers. We've done things differently this year, whereas maybe in previous years there would be the threat of strike action and then the Government would come in and provide additional funding. We've recognised the challenges that youth outlined and that £155 million of support was provided up front to help to support COSLA in their role as the employer. There are three key strands of the very House agreement, and one of them is that strand on sustainable public services. Who has ultimate responsibility for making sure that those services are sustainable? What is a sustainable service? If paying inflation reaches the point where services, public services, stop being provided, are we just talking about services reaching a sustainable level where the Government and councils say, well, we can provide X, Y and Z sustainably, but A, B and C has to go? Or are we talking about providing the existing level of services sustainably? How is pay inflation an impact on that? Clearly, pay inflation is a real challenge for all parts of the public sector just now, so whether local government, Scottish Government or other public sector authorities are facing pay inflation, which is driven by the general inflation and the cost of living crisis, are all challenges that we are having to face in a way that we have never had to experience before in a year. I am trying to stay as non-political as I can, but the impact of that budget is being felt in every part of the public service across Scotland and the rest of the UK. That is a real challenge. Verity House's partnership agreement means that we take those things forward together, working in partnership. The truth is that what is right for one area might be different for another area. That is how we can empower local government to make those decisions rather than directing from central government. We can allow local government to make choices that will have the biggest impact on their local area. I mentioned earlier about my local authority, Dundee City Council, on the choices that it made at the budget last year to put extra funding into supporting anti-poverty measures because of the particular challenges that we see in the city of Dundee. There is already a huge amount of money being spent mitigating Westminster policies, and that money, which, if we did not have to do that, could be deployed in different ways. Dundee took some difficult decisions not to do some things because they thought that those things were really important. It is absolutely appropriate that that kind of decision is made by the politicians at a local level who are elected by their constituents to take those decisions rather than being directed by the Scottish Government in order to make life easier. We are in committees like this in answering questions. Council Heidel, is it possible for local government to meet that key commitment of the Verity House agreement to sustainable public services and meet the demands of local government staff when it comes to their pay claim? Back to the fundamental question and principle that local government should be adequately funded and that includes being able to pay our workforce in a way that is equitable across the public sector and with the other areas of the public sector. Our ability to be able to do that depends fundamentally on how much money we get. Obviously, the next budget is going to be crucial for that. I must absolutely acknowledge the £155 million worth of funding from the Scottish Government that Mr Fitzpatrick alluded to that has enabled us to construct a pay offer to our workforce that we believe does match the other parts of the public sector. However, this is a solution for this year and it is a solution that is yet to be accepted and rejected. Clearly, it is a hot topic for local government and we will have a special leaders meeting to discuss this very afternoon. It is undeniable that, between your question, the overall quantum is fundamental to the services that we can provide. I fully acknowledge that this is true for the Scottish Government as much as local government. However, if local government is not adequately funded, it will ultimately not be able to do everything that we want or everything that we need to do. I will bring Miles in with a range of questions to wrap us up. I have a couple of questions regarding scrutiny over the new deal. Specifically, the refreshed role and remit of the Scottish Government place directors. Prior to this, the committee has had no engagement with place directors. They seem to have been misplaced for some reason. Can you outline their roles and how you envisage that working in practice and also what opportunities there is going to be now for Parliament to scrutinise this additional role that they will have? A place director is something that has been around for a while. They try to understand, promote and support how public services work together. That role has been reinforced in the Verity House of Women. I would not expect place directors to be accountable directly to this. It would be quite strange, because they are doing a piece of work for not making decisions as such. Ellen, do you want to maybe just get a place director for some place? Thank you very much. I am indeed a co-place director for Renforshire. Place directors are formally known as location directors, so you may have heard of them in that terminology, but they are senior civil servants who are appointed alongside a regular job to be a liaison, to be a point of contact, to participate in community planning meetings and other meetings with local councils and local partners, and to have regular engagement that they are able to both feed into local government but also to take back that local intelligence into Scottish Government as part of a range of discussions. We recognise that that role has varied over time. It has had more focus, it has had less focus, and it works really well in some areas. Much like your discussions earlier on community planning partnerships, they are very much a part of that process too. Again, a very deliberate choice, like the community planning references, to bring that in to the engagement mechanisms within the Verity House agreement to reinforce that role, to give it a place, to give it more emphasis, not saying that it works brilliantly, but explicitly referencing that we need to look at how we make the most of that, and it is much like the community planning partnerships if we did not have them. For the Verity House agreement, we would have had to invent them to be able to have that maximum impact and that soft intelligence locally. That is why they are situated there, but recognising that there is much more to build on. Thank you for that, and it is maybe something that we will want to follow up on in terms of how that has taken forward. The new deal does state that the strategic review group will provide assurance that Scottish and local government are maintaining all commitments set out in the agreement. I wonder what opportunities there will be for scrutiny of that group's work. Will it be required to publish progress updates at regular intervals, for example? The strategic review group is not something new. It is a meeting of the Deputy First Minister and the COSLA President, which Jenna Looke said. All matters of shared interests, so I guess the outputs from that would probably be more normally scrutinised through other parliamentary channels rather than directly through that journal. The strategic review group was actually something that we established following the last Scottish parliamentary election, and the current Deputy First Minister was then also Cabinet Secretary for Responsibility to Local Government. We needed to increase our formal engagement mechanisms to create a space on a regular basis for those discussions about issues that were coming up, to provide an escalation route, if things were challenging, but also to have that really focused space to discuss our key priorities, such as poverty and how we are working together to advance those, not to replace any of the portfolio or thematic groups that already exist elsewhere, but to provide that overarching dialogue and engagement. We took a decision that we needed to continue that as part of the Verity House agreement and to bake that into the agreement as well. Thank you for that. I think that it may be useful if we had a flowchart over how these strands all connect as well. With regard specifically to the Verity House agreement, it reiterates a commitment to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Governance into Scots law. I wonder whether you could outline to the committee what timescales you expect that work to be completed and any parliamentary timescales that will be needed as well. We absolutely remain committed to supporting Mark Ruskell in bringing forward that bill to the reconsideration stage. The Verity House agreement makes it absolutely explicit that we are committed to the incorporation of the charter. In fact, the Verity House agreement draws largely on the charter in terms of the language that is used. Just because the European Charter is not enshrined in domestic legislation does not allow us to work and to meet the aspirations of that legislation, which was an aspiration of clearly of this Parliament. Mr Ruskell took the view that we should wait until the UNCRC bill was taken forward for recent reconsideration and we have now had that announcement. We will continue to work at pace to bring the bill back for reconsideration too. It is a complex issue and we need to make sure that we get it right. It is an absolute commitment and it is one that COSLA will raise up virtually every opportunity because it is really important to local government that we have enshrined it in law for the future. I hope that all members agree that that is really important that we take that forward. That is helpful and if you could keep the committee updated on that, it would be useful. I just wanted to bring in Councillor Heddle in case he had any response to any of the questions. Yes, thank you very much. Can I just return to the place director point? I think that this is a very useful provision in the very House agreement and it is clearly related to paragraph 6 in the same agreement around the community planning partnerships, where it says to be right and nice and a critical mechanism for alignment of resource locally focused on prevention and early intervention and deliver ownership by otherwise. The Scottish Government will ensure that these public bodies that can contribute to community planning play their part, including involving third sector and community bodies in providing and improving wellbeing. I think that this is where the police directors come in in supporting or encouraging the agencies or agency partners to progress in terms of alignment of budget and policy to support the work off and within the CPPs in terms of police. I think that this committee recognised already that agency partners need to be empowered to do this, so I think that this is going to be a key area where they will come in. Thank you for that. I think that we'd agree with you that it's just the scrutiny role of their role and that's important for their committee to consider as well. And just finally, I wanted to ask with regards to local governance review, could you say a bit more minister with regards to your plans for concluding the review by the end of this parliamentary term? Is it still expected to result in the local democracy bill being laid during this current session? So, as Tom Arthur said in the last session, we would expect to get the output from the local governance review by the beginning of next year or early next year, I think, is the language that he uses. He's leading on that. It's a really important piece of work on going in relation to that democracy matters conversation that's on going now. Equally, there is important work on going in terms of looking at single authority models, particularly around Orkney and Western Isles. I think that our Gail and Bute Council are looking at whether that works for them too. That's one of the things that I've been saying to local authorities when I've been going around. If there's something that you kind of think that maybe wasn't going to work two years ago, and clearly that's where our Gail and Bute were a few years ago, and you want to look at it again, then don't hesitate. So I think that our Gail and Bute are likely to come forward with a single authority model that they think might help them in terms of getting to that sustainability going forward, and these need to be worked through and in partnership, and then hopefully that will allow us to make those changes. Any of that, we wouldn't expect them to be carbon copies, so I think if there is, it does end up being three single authority models. I would expect them to be unique on each one, working for what is right for each of those areas, but I know other island authorities, particularly Shetland, are of the view that that's not a route they want to take, and they've talked about the partnerships and the way that they've developed partnerships under the current arrangements, and we'd hold those up as exemplars. So I think there's a lot of learning to be done. Any changes we make around this, I think other authorities will be looking to see how it all works, and even if we don't end up with a single authority, hopefully the work in looking at that will help us improve the sustainability of public services as a whole. Thank you, and in terms of that single authority, we had very constructive discussions when we were up on Orkney around their plans for that, but it wasn't quite clear where any future funding formula discussions, if that happens, and if councils do move towards that, would take place, especially with regards to health funding and council funding. Is there any work taken place around what that would look like? I think that there's work looking overall, but you're probably jumping three steps ahead in terms of getting there, but clearly that's part of the work that needs to take place, but equally in terms of high accountability for matters which are Scottish Government ministers' responsibility, how we resolve those things. We'll do that in the spirit of partnership that is enshrined in Verity House, and hopefully that will help us to take that forward in a way that works for everyone. Thank you. That concludes our questions. I think it's been a very useful session. It sounds like you're having a good, so far so good, constructive relationship. The trust is there, and that's tremendous, and we look forward to hearing updates on how things are going. So thanks so much for all of you coming in to give evidence today, and thanks actually to the Minister and Councillor Headall for giving a long session. We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next items of the agenda in private, so as that was the last public item for today, I now close the public part of the meeting.