 Good morning and welcome to the 22nd meeting in 2023 of the local government housing and planning committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent and all other notifications are turned off. The first item on our agenda today is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Are members agreed? We're all agreed. Thank you. The next item on our agenda today is to take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny, but, before we do that, I'd like to invite Marie McNair to make a declaration of interest. Thank you, convener. I'd just like to bring members' attention to my register's interest that I was a councillor on Western Barter Council until May 2022. Thanks very much. We are joined this morning for the session by Joe Fitzpatrick, who is the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning at the Scottish Government. And Mr Fitzpatrick is joined by the Scottish Government officials Hannah Keats, who is the unit head at local government policy and relationships unit, and Ian Story, who is the head of local government finance. We're also joined by councillor Katie Hagman, who is the resource spokesperson from COSLA, and councillor Hagman is joined by Simon Cameron, who is the chief officer of workforce and corporate policy at COSLA. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. I now invite Mr Fitzpatrick and councillor Hagman to make short opening statements. Thank you, convener. I want to thank the committee for the invitation to participate in this pre-budget scrutiny session today. I'm particularly grateful that, in inviting both councillor Hagman and myself, the committee has recognised the importance of involving both local and national government in these pre-budget discussions, in line with our Verity House agreement commitment. The Scottish Government recognises that local government workforce planning is a matter for each individual local authority. While some issues are experienced Scotland-wide, each council also faces its own unique set of challenges, requiring tailored solutions rather than homogenous approaches alone. That said, we're aware of the significant impact that workforce shortages in particular areas, such as environmental health and planning services, is continuing to have across Scotland. Those shortages undoubtedly impact upon our ability to achieve our three shared priorities. The Scottish Government is therefore fully committed to working in partnership with local government to ensure that the new deal with local government affords the greatest level of flexibility to councils to tackle workforce challenges in ways that work for them. Thank you for inviting us along to the pre-budget scrutiny session. I think that it's really important that we are able to come and speak to you today, and I'll certainly welcome the opportunity. I would echo the words of the minister there that we have an opportunity through the Verity House agreement and our shared priorities, those being specifically tackling poverty, but, importantly, net zero, and the sustainability of our services, which are absolutely crucial going forward. Clearly, there are challenges throughout local government and also with the Scottish Government. With that clear focus that those are outcomes that we're working towards, we want to be able to make sure that we're providing for all our communities right across Scotland, recognising that we have 32 local authorities who will, by default, do things separately and differently to meet the needs of their own communities as they see fit. Thank you for the opportunity today. Thank you very much to both of you for those opening statements. I will open with a general question, which is that I'd been interested to hear what you see as the main challenge that local government workforce is facing. Maybe I could address that initially to Councillor Hagman. You don't need to do that. Sorry, I should have told you that. They were all for you. You don't need to worry about technical stuff. Clearly, one of the main topics is our budgets. We do absolutely need to be planning for the future. There are issues raised around multi-year settlements, etc., but we do have an aspiration absolutely that we would want to see multi-year settlements that has been a long-standing position of COSLA. That's not to say that our local government aren't planning already. Clearly, we have to, you know, we've got key responsibilities and we are making those planning assumptions into the future, but with a certainty of multi-year settlements, that makes that journey an awful lot easier. We have issues around recruitment, which are well recognised. I think that one of the most pertinent is around planners. We acknowledge that, looking at the data ahead over the next 10 years, we're expected to need around about 700 new planners coming into the system. Now, there's only one university in the whole of Scotland that offers an undergraduate degree in planning. There was previously a master's degree, I believe, at Herriot-Watt, but that is no longer in place. There is nowhere in Scotland that planners can have that real deep dive, that expertise that having a master's degree offers. That is a clear concern for local government. That's just one aspect. We have issues around social work and we value all of our workforce. I think that it's really important to stress that point that there's no one aspect of our workforce that stands alone, and by its very nature local government is encompassing those whole drafts of professionals. That hopefully gives you a little bit of a flavour of where we're at. Thank you very much, and I think that we appreciate you highlighting the issue with the planners, because we're certainly aware of that. I think that Councillor Hagman has covered some of the main areas. Obviously, a couple of areas that she flagged are areas that we would be hopeful to make progress on. Multi-year funding is absolutely an aspiration. It continues to be an aspiration, but there is the challenge that we have in terms of the settlement that the Scottish Government gets from the UK Government. The medium-term financial strategy includes an increase in local government funding in cash terms of £1.5 billion from this year to £27.28 billion. There's a degree of certainty of where the Scottish Government wants to go to help local government plans, but we have the challenge that we receive in terms of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament on an annual basis. That has to interface with that in terms of the real world when we all have that difficult challenge of setting the budget for Scotland. Obviously, the new deal with local government is reflected in the fact that you're both here today. Minister, you said that in your opening statement. I'd be interested to hear what you think the key ways are in which the new deal can support local authorities in addressing the workforce challenges. I'll start with Councillor Hagman. It is vital that we concentrate on the outcomes that we are looking to achieve. Certainly, I've already seen evidence that, through the Verity House agreement, there's a collaboration. I've been in this post just over a year. When I came in, obviously, there was a steep learning curve for me, but I've been really heartened in the last six months of the work. There has been a huge amount of work to have all 32 local authority leaders sign up to this agreement. It's absolutely vital that we have eyes on the new fiscal framework. While I appreciate that we want to look at our workforce, so much of this comes down to finances and the challenges that we're facing. The fiscal framework is an aspiration. There's on-going work with that. It's not going to be a quick fix that we can find solutions to every issue. I think that there's wide acceptance of that. Together with that commitment, which we have signed up cross-party to ensure that we find a better way of working, there's real opportunities. I've seen that already, just with the cross-working between my officials in local government and officials in Scottish Government. There's real opportunities. We need to not lose focus on what those outcomes are. In the programme for government, there was a clear point on poverty being an issue now. Clearly, that's one of the strands of the Verity House agreement. I was really heartened to be invited into round-table dialogue with the Deputy First Minister, but then also with a separate round-table dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary for Education. Again, that's putting into practice what we've signed up. Clearly, we can sign all the pieces of paper that we want, but unless we follow through and we have that clear, open dialogue between Scottish Government and local government, it's not going to go forward. There's a real desire to make this work and deliver, as I say, for all of our communities. Thanks very much for that. It's quite heartening to hear the work that's already being taken forward. It's good to hear your underscoring around the new fiscal framework. Minister, I'd be interested to hear your reflections on the experience so far. Obviously, I was fortunate to come in. While that work was quite well-progressive, a lot of work had already taken place in resetting the relationship, which is what the new deal is about. One of the biggest things that Council Hagman talked about in her contribution was around building trust between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government. That has to be a two-way thing, respecting both of our democratic electoral mandates. Sometimes, in the past, we forget that the other side has a mandate, too, so sometimes local government might not recognise the mandate that the Scottish Parliament has around some areas. Sometimes, we forget that our councillors were democratically elected by their electorate and their elections as well. One of the really important things is respecting our two mandates and respecting that both spheres of government have a mandate sometimes on shared areas. There are areas where clearly the Scottish Government and local government have a mandate on them. We need to build up trust in order to do what we all want to do, which is to deliver on the three shared priorities for all of our citizens. That was a pretty significant advance that all six groups in COSLA, all six different political groups—the Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Liberal Independent Group, Scottish National Party and Scottish Green Group—were all able to sign up to agreeing that the three priorities of tackling poverty, particularly child poverty and transforming the economy through a just transition to net zero and delivering sustainable public services, were something that they would all prioritise putting party politics aside and recognising that those were three areas that we could work together across the parties and across the two spheres of government in Scotland. That is our starting point and we are developing that. We are improving trust going forward. There is obviously a big change in terms of the way that we have worked. In the past, the Scottish Parliament would pass a piece of legislation and ask COSLA what it is going to cost to deliver because you are going to be delivering it and you will get no say on it. That is whether it is a Government Bill or a Members' Bill. That was about the extent of that consultation by local government. I hope that we have much more earlier discussion between the Scottish Government and COSLA, our local government partners. One of the things that the Parliament needs to work out is how, if it is Members' Bill or Members' Amendments, across the Parliament, we all respect local government's democratic mandate. It will be more difficult how backbench Members' Amendments or Members' Bill can have the same level of collaboration with local government while respecting the different democratic places that we are coming from. That was really on my mind. That is absolutely a critical point that you are making at the end there around members' bills but also amendments to Scottish Government bills that come in stage 3. Has there been enough consultation with local government on that? That would be interesting to see what protocol needs to be put in place to make sure that that is happening appropriately. I will move on a little bit. Last week, we heard that the creation of a general power of competence for local authorities as there is in England and Wales would provide greater opportunities and powers to address challenges. I would be interested to hear if that is being considered. There is a huge amount of work on developing the fiscal framework, looking up where we can relax previous ring fencing and looking at what further powers can be extended to local government. Iain, do you want to say a little bit about the work that has been going on in the background? The fiscal framework is really critical to making sure that the new deal, Verta House, is part of the new deal. It is a really important part. It is a really good success and it is already changing the way that we are working. However, getting the fiscal framework right is crucial to making it work for the long term. We are working really hard and taking the time that it takes to get that right, and we have to get it right first time. The key thing that I think that Councillor Hagman said is that there is no quick fix in the fiscal framework. We have made quite a lot of progress in a number of areas and we are still making progress in other areas. We have made a lot of progress in terms of early budget engagement, and Councillor Hagman has met DFM a couple of times as part of that. We have also made quite good progress on the processes and approaches that would need to be taken forward, either by A council or all councils, in terms of coming forward with proposals for revenue raising powers. During those discussions, we have identified that we think that a general power of competence is probably not within the gift of the Scottish Government and perhaps not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament under the current devolution settlement. We are not currently working on a general power of competence, but we are establishing processes and the questions that would need to be asked if a council or councils wanted to come forward with some revenue-raising opportunities and to make sure that they are taken forward in partnership. I think that a key part of all of the fiscal framework—again, this comes back to Councillor Hagman's point about no quick fix—I think that everybody acknowledges that we are dealing with £12 billion worth of local government money here. We need to get this absolutely right. We need to avoid unintended consequences. That is one of the things that we are looking at in terms of the powers of revenue raising powers. We need to make sure that they are consistent with national policies, make sure that there are not unintended consequences, not overspill effects on other councils, on other services and things like that. That is the discussions that we are taking forward in partnership. Can I clarify something that you said? The idea with the councils coming forward with ideas for new revenue-raising powers, I think that you said something about an individual council could come forward. There is a nuanced approach to this. If Orkney had something that was unique and nuanced to Orkney, it could come forward with that proposal. That is the discussions that we are having at the moment. We do not think that everything needs to come via COSLA. If an individual council has a proposal that works for them and does not work for any other councils, we do not really see why there should be any barriers to them exploring that. The processes that we are putting in place are very much best practice in terms of policy making. Why are we doing this? What are the options to achieve it? What are the consequences of this? It is very much motherhood and apple pie, but it is seeking to establish that it can be deployed should Orkney. If an example wishes to do something that is unique to them. Just to build on what Ian has been saying and where the conversation lies, it is very much in the local governance review. Obviously, the local governance review remains a key commitment of Barity House. Throughout COSLA's position, there has been a symmetric approach being taken. To the point that Ian is talking about, the approaches that councils will take and that we will take with our public service partners—remember, this goes beyond just councils—is about looking at how we work across the public sector and how we can empower all public bodies at a local level, how they can deliver in shape and use public monies at a local level in the way that best suits and meets the needs. As Barity House has rightly done, setting out three key priorities. Those priorities cut across everything that we do as public service providers and our communities and the rest, so there are lines through which we should look at how we best operate. I think that the key connection that we need to ask ourselves is not what we do, but how we do. That is what is fundamental at the heart of Barity House. That is what has strayed into what the impact is for our workforces across Scotland. Clearly, we have many different policies and strategies in place across many different parts of the public sector, and we have the opportunity to draw the threads together to provide clarity to colleagues on the ground and to enable people to be empowered in the task that they do and share in delivering on those outcomes nationally, but fundamentally and critically at a local level as well. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. I will move on and bring in with the coffee. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning, minister, councillor Hagman and colleagues. I wonder if I could invite you to say a little bit more about how the fiscal framework will give the kind of flexibility that everyone is seeking and we are all talking about. We heard from colleagues last week in the session that there is still a feeling of a lack of flexibility in how the local authorities apportion their funding to various duties. Can I start by asking, does that mean that the redded ring fencing is at an end and we are replacing that with this flexible arrangement that we will collectively somehow agree to? Could I maybe start with Joe, please? We are committed to reviewing all the ring fenced funds over time, but what we are saying is that going forward, there should only be ring fencing with agreement. Clearly, part of the process is to develop an assurance framework, which is a different way of doing stuff, so we need to work together on that. We need to get that right. Right now, about 7 per cent of investment is formally a ring fenced, but we know that, on top of that, there is a significant amount of money that local authorities spend on statutory services, which obviously removes flexibilities. Within that, there is flexibility as to how that money is spent. However, the first stage of the work that we are doing is to review all existing funds, which are transferred to local government outside of the general revenue and general capital grants. We are looking at how much of that can be baselined for the 2024-25 budget. Obviously, the outcome of that work, which is on-going now, is part of the work that we are doing in terms of developing the fiscal framework, will be seen in the budget when that is published. However, a lot of work already happened and a lot of work continued to go. However, it is not backward looking, so it is about moving forward. There should not be ring fencing unless it is agreed. There will be times when the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities agree that, for a particular reason, there should be a ring fenced fund for one thing in particular, probably for a short time. That would be the expectation going forward. We would not be having ring fenced money in the long term, but the point is that it should be with agreement. It is great to hear that, after so many years in the Parliament, listening to that argument usually at this committee, year on year about ring fesses, it is great to hear that this flexibility is there. Councillor Hagmead, if it is your view of that and particularly in the workforce planning area, is the flexibility there to help the local authorities with the workforce planning issues that we face? I think that what the ministers just outlined is absolutely correct. Verity House agreement was signed on 30 June. It became a moment in time. To not look back, we have to acknowledge that, clearly, there is that 7 per cent that has been formally, legally ring fenced, but there is still around 63 per cent of our budget that is directed spend. However, that is where we have been last year. Moving forward, it is absolutely vital that we open the lines of dialogue. In terms of planning, a really good example, which I know is one that has been raised previously, is around about free school entitlements. Clearly, there was funding allocated and put aside for free schools. However, from a local authority point of view, we need to acknowledge that the funding that it costs to deliver school meals is not just x number of children with x number of this is how much it costs, because there are clear implications for our infrastructure, for managing those expectations, and then across the workforce we need to absolutely ensure that we have enough. It is very pertinent today, but our catering staff, our janitorial staff, all feed in to those nuances, and they are all different across 32 local authorities. I am aware of one councillor who told me that, in order to deliver free school meals with their current set-up in one of their high schools, they would need to start at half past nine in the morning with school lunches, and they might finish by about half past four. Clearly, that is not acceptable, but that is not the case elsewhere. In some of our small rural schools, we have capacity across our dining halls and staff available to come in. It is about having that real open dialogue and going forward, absolutely, where there are new initiatives coming forward. There is agreement to work to deliver, because we are signed up. We are absolutely signed up to those priorities, so we need to have real, honest conversations. I will go as far as to say that I was slightly taken aback that some of those conversations had not happened in the past. Let us not look back, but let us look forward to see how we can do it differently. It is genuinely quite exciting to be part of this. The second part of my question is about hard cash on the table. Due to the finance circular that I issued with the pre-budget, it shows that our real terms increase by 1.3 per cent and 4.3 per cent over the past 10 years. You mentioned, in your opening remarks, I think that 1.5 billion extra in cash terms to 27.28 per cent. However, our colleagues, particularly last week, continue to remind us that, in their view, we still need about a billion pounds more to deliver the level of service that COSLA would expect and local authorities would expect to deliver for us on our behalf. That is quite a gap there. I am sure that you realise that. Could you address that issue and give us your views about where we are in that long-running debate about cash on the table? There is no question that, in spite of the real terms increases that were allocated to local government and several other public services, this year that the pressures on our local authorities and other public services are unsurpassed, levels of in-year inflation have not been experienced in my memory. When I was very young, there were levels of inflation. There was nothing that could plan for that. That pressure is there. Our public services have done an amazing job to manage that in a way that protects the most important services, but let us not pretend that it is all apple pie. It is not. It has been really challenging this year, in particular. We are facing significant in-year increases because of inflation, because of high energy costs, higher than expected pay settlements. It is having to be allocated from this year's fund, so there is no question that there is a real challenge there. That is partly why we are looking at further flexibilities for local government, but one of the things that we need to do is to look at how we can empower local government to raise more of its own funds. That is a wider discussion. When I have gone around the country speaking to leaders of councils, I have been encouraging them to think about the thing that works for them, because it is clear that some ideas are coming through the Parliament just now, the visitor levy, and second properties. Those will work for some local authorities, but they will not work for others. We need to be open to the idea of listening. Obviously, there is a working group within COSLA, which is Councillor Hagman and co-chairs, but there are 32 local authorities and there might be other ideas out there. It might be that a local authority comes up with an idea that they think is bespoken to them, but another local authority says that it will be useful for us, too. We need to be open to that if we want to have the public services that we all aspire to for our public services. Thanks for your perspective on the cash on the table issue. Is it enough? How much more do we need? How do we get there? I think that I will start by saying that it is never enough. Local government is an incredible privilege because we are right in the heart of our communities. I have described it before. It feels like sometimes we are literally on that front line holding our communities, trying desperately to provide and stop people falling through the cracks, but also trying to encourage people to invest and support enterprise and business and all those issues. It is a myriad of different points. Not one of them is working in silo. We work collectively together. In terms of cash, no, absolutely not. There is never enough, but our workforce is on the front line of that. Again, nobody is denying that Scottish Government and local government are not facing huge challenges, but we desperately need to invest in our workload. Our front line workers are key in order to deliver for our communities, but they are also key in preventative work. Things often go wrong. We see levels of child poverty, gaps between those who have and those who do not. We see that getting ever-increasingly difficult. We are seeing more strains on our health service, for example, and local government has the real opportunity to dive in at an earlier stage to prevent many of the really hard-hitting issues and chronic situations that are developing across the community. We need to invest in our workforce. We need to ensure that our workforce remains healthy, physically, mentally and that it is supported. We also want to keep them in local government. If they want to come into local government, there are real opportunities to develop careers in local government, and we want our workforce to feel valued as well. There is a huge body of work to be done. Again, I cannot reiterate enough that element of 32 local authorities. What works on one does not always work across. We need to have that power of competence of delivering it back to local government. We will argue for that. We need to have the open dialogue at the start, and that is where we are at. We can get very carried away if this is where we want to get to, or we can look back and see where we are right now. That is why it feels quite exciting that there is an opportunity with the Scottish Government to do something a bit different and to have those conversations that are not always easy, but we are having them, which is brilliant. Thank you very much for those responses, convener. I will hopefully come back in later on in the meeting. Thank you very much, Willie. I have a bit of a follow-up to that. Cash, there is never enough cash, and there is an opportunity for revenue raising, but I think that both of you earlier on pointed to some kind of need for certainty. I said that we have got one-year budgets, annual budgets. Are you interested in to know if you are discussing a way to create some kind of certainty even within that budget settlement so that councils can plan? Is that something that has come into the fiscal framework discussions, as of yet? Again, it is about setting that expectation. We are not at a point of saying that this is how we are going to do it, but, absolutely, I think that these are all the nuances that we need to take forward into that fiscal framework. This week, we have got the COSLA convention that is happening, or we have got our confidence for the first time in three years this week, and that convention we are taking a piece on the fiscal framework. Again, it is great that we are having this discussion here today, but we need to have this discussion with all of our councils and all of our councillors as well, so that there is a real understanding. I think that, absolutely, going forward, that has to be part of the dialogue and form part of the framework that we are developing. I mentioned earlier that the medium-term financial strategy did include increases in local government funding to give an indication, but it is just an indication. The lack of certainty around funding from the UK Government means that the final decision will ultimately be when the Scottish Government is passed. As Councillor Hagman said, there has been a lot more earlier collaboration with COSLA and Councillor Hagman's meetings with Deputy First Minister, which is much earlier than would have happened in previous years, so that engagement is definitely front-loaded this year. Good to hear. Thank you very much. I would like to bring in Pam Gosall. Thank you, chair. Good morning, ministers, and good morning to the rest of the panel. As you probably know, today is the first day of the industrial action by the non-teaching staff, and last week we heard that the Verity House agreement has had very little impact at unison discourse with COSLA. Joanna Baxter, head of local government unison, alluded to the fact that perhaps it is being used as a reason why one side cannot take the other. For example, COSLA cannot criticise the Scottish Government by asking why it won't provide more money to fund pay deals. Similarly, the Scottish Government refuses to interfere in COSLA's relationship with trade unions. Where are the lines of accountability drawn here, and how can you guarantee there are constructive conversations about financial resources? I think that it needs to be really clear that the current strikes that are happening at the moment are as a result of negotiations within the Scottish Joint Council, the SJC, and that firmly lies with local government. Local government are the employers, and it is only local government that can go forward in the paid discussions that we have met throughout the process. Obviously, it is not really for the committee here to start delving into those negotiation nuances, but I am quite happy to confirm that I have continued to meet our trade union colleagues and certainly met them yesterday. I will continue to meet them. I have been asked have I ever not met them at their request. That has never happened. To be clear—again, it is a point that I have made previously—that local government finance absolutely—our workforce is crucial. I have stressed that point already, but we also have to have sustainability of all our services. That is a point that has been raised by COSLA leaders. Clearly, I have got a spokesperson role, and I get my mandate from the COSLA leaders on this one, and they have been very clear that sustainability is key to our services. Absolutely, pay will form part of that. Certainly, this year, the way that the negotiations have worked out, we put forward a very strong offer at the start of the year. Clearly, that was not acceptable. We have worked collaboratively with the Scottish Government to look at how that offer can be increased, and there has been additional funding put into the settlement from re-profiled funding. Ultimately, that is a pay offer worth nearly £0.5 billion. It is a strong offer. I do not particularly think that it is appropriate to go into the nuances as all the details, but I am happy to answer any questions on that as well. There has to be a firm line. This is local government's role to negotiate. The responsibility lies with local government. It is not, with all due respect to the minister, it is not for the Scottish Government to dictate, because there has to be that level of respect. Otherwise, if we do not have that level of respect, we are going to undo the potential of real positivity before we have even got out the starting blocks on this. I hope that that helps. Chair, could I come back on that, please? Counselor Katie, you are absolutely right. Obviously, you are showing where accountability lies. However, there is a pay offer on the table, but I believe that I heard, if I did not hear right this morning, that that pay offer, they are wanting certainty where that is coming from, that it is not coming from more cuts, because local government is really suffering. You are right that they are the people that are delivering on the ground, but they are suffering. If they are going to be basically cuts that they are going to take Rob Peter to give to Paul, that is what they want to know where the cuts have come from. I think that the Scottish Government is accountable here, because it comes down to the funding settlements, obviously, and where the Scottish Government can help as well, because they directly, like you said, they cannot step in, but it actually starts at them, so basically they can help out there. That is where clarity is needed, that these cuts, if they are cuts, where are they coming from? What is your view on that? Again, without going into the nuances of details, I certainly heard Mr Ferguson this morning on GMS making that claim. I was also invited on to GMS and spoke just after eight o'clock, which I confirmed at that point, that letters have gone to our trade union colleagues on 22 September and the 24th, so that was Friday night, and on Sunday again, it was very clear in that letter. I gave a direct quote on GMS this morning. I am happy to give the direct quote on that letter, which said, we are able to provide the reassurance that you have requested that additional resources have been identified on the basis that there is no detriment to either jobs or services, because we understand and recognise that there is that concern, and we have repeatedly and consistently given that reassurance. I am slightly concerned that Mr Ferguson has said in a public statement that we have not given those concerns, because those letters have gone through it. Those were joint letters. It would appear that there was information that there was conflicting letters from the Scottish Government and COSLA. Again, for the record today, it is important to say that there has been a joint approach going forward, and letters that have gone out have been jointly agreed between the Scottish Government and the local government. I am not sure where Mr Ferguson is getting that information from. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Obviously, it is important that the offset recognises that Government pay negotiations are rightly between COSLA as the representative of the employers, local government and trade unions representing the workforce. That said, the suggestion that you, in your initial question that the Scottish Government has chosen to stand back—I do not know if there are exact words, but effectively to stand back from that is not factually correct. Going right back to the start, the Scottish Government provided a further £155 million in the 2023-2024 allocation to support meaningful pay rise for local government workers. When we saw that inflation was rising, that was additional money after the budgets had been set. In addition to that, we provided reassurance that will support councils with the £94 million increased recurring costs for future years. That was a real concern for local authority when they made the not the last offer they offered before. They were really concerned not necessarily about that money but what they do for future years. Unusially, because of the Verte House and the collaboration around that, Deputy First Minister was content to provide that assurance going forward. I think that group leaders across the local authorities welcomed that. I think that it was unanimous, as I understand, in terms of then making that further offer. When that offer was rejected, there was a huge collaborative effort between COSLA and the Scottish Government to look at how additional funds could be identified without impacting on jobs and services. There was a huge effort from Scottish Government officials, COSLA officials and local government finance officials to work really hard to look at how they could identify reprofile money and capital to revenue opportunities to make sure that we could prioritise £80 million from existing spend and identify emerging underspends to enable that last offer that COSLA has made. It is obviously good to hear that two of the unions recognise that that offer met the demands that unions have made. I guess that we will continue to work to try to make sure that the third union gets the clarity that they seek. However, COSLA has identified joint communications that we would hope would reach the way to metro members. Are we able to give a little bit more understanding of where the £80 million came from? If that would be helpful, we can. As members will be aware at this time of year, this is when ministers start to see underspends in budget lines. That is why we have the autumn budget revision and summer budget revision processes. That, through the course of the year, spending does not necessarily go as planned. That involves underspends and underspends. However, in the current situation, ministers have been able to identify £22 million of capital underspend, which cannot traditionally—capital could not normally be used for pay, but as local government has more flexibilities on resource-to-capital switching and some councils will be using resource funding to fund capital investments. That will allow them to switch that funding back out so that they can use capital for the capital investment and not have no detriment on local services. A further £21 million was identified from existing underspends—existing identified underspends on employability programmes. Again, that was identified jointly between Scottish Government officials and directors of finance at local government. A further £30 million has been reprofiled on the pupil equity fund—the local government attainment grant, as it is now called. The funding for the pupil equity fund goes straight to head teachers, and it is provided to two head teachers on a financial year basis. Although the head teacher spends that on an academic year basis, sufficient councils have accrued £30 million that they will be holding back to the £24.25 to fund the schools and make sure that the schools get that funding. The knock-on consequence of that of moving from a financial year to an academic year funding means that, in £26.27, there will be a £30 million liability that would not otherwise have existed. That has been reprofiled forward from £26.27, and a further £7 million has been reprofiled from councils existing to the redress scheme for survivors of historic child abuse. Again, that is simply a reprofiling. Councils have committed to giving £100 million to contribute to that redress scheme. They will now pay that £7 million over the same period, but on a different pay scale. Again, that is just reprofiled £7 million forward from later years into this year. Again, that has no detriment to the scheme, and Scottish ministers will pick up any shortfall in the middle. In combination with those four factors, that has facilitated the £80 million, which has obviously been provided in a one-off, because the £94 million was already guaranteed for next year. As I have hopefully outlined, none of those have any detrimental impact on existing services. I really appreciate getting that detail, because I think that uncertainty has been a big piece of the puzzle and a desire for clarity. It is really good to understand where the funding has come from through the underspend and reprofiling. I would like to bring in Miles Briggs. I wanted to move on to ask a couple of questions about what the workforce looks like in local government. Our predecessor committee looked at workforce planning back in 2018 and noted that local authority workforces tend not to reflect the communities that they serve. So, I wanted to ask what progress has been made to try to make our workforce more representative and specifically around senior positions within local government and any work that both COSLA or Scottish Government have been doing on this. So, I may be bringing yourself in, Councillor Haggbenstaff. Thank you. Clearly, we have various legal duties across local authorities to report back on what our workforce looks like, and, certainly, as an elected member that sits on my scrutiny committee, I receive those reports annually. Members will scrutinise those reports, because, absolutely, we want to ensure that our workforce is reflective. Clearly, apprenticeships is one avenue that local authorities will be using. We have fantastic local employability partnerships that work in conjunction with our local authorities to ensure that we can provide that certainty of employment for our local communities. However, there is a huge amount of work that is done on data gathering and benchmarking. It is an absolutely on-going issue. From the last equalities report that I have received in my own council, I noted that we were hitting the minimum targets. My question to COSLA officers is that it is great that we are hitting the minimum, but let us be more aspirational than just hit the bare minimum, because we want to be a leading employer. Clearly, across Scotland, local authority, the workforce is going forward, but I do not know what Simon has an awful lot more detail possibly than I do. I would just reflect that there is a broad range of not only local activity but national activity targeting diversity across not only the teaching workforce, the education workforce and all other parts of our workforce. One of the key challenges that there has long been with diversity and understanding what the make-up of our workforce is is the fact that, when it comes to our public sector equality duties, the responsibility on employers is only to ask the question. There is no legal duty on anybody, any one of us, to disclose the information. There has been a long challenge that, as local authorities, through a range of the groups that we have got such as the Scottish Council for the Quality Network and through our Society of Personal Development, Equalities, Working Groups and so on, we have been trying to overcome how we pose to people the importance and the value of sharing your diversity information within an organisation so that we can use it as effectively as possible in our workforce planning so that we can understand where we are underrepresented, where we need to better reflect the communities that we serve. I think that there is a challenge there to assure people—not convince them but assure people—that the data will be used appropriately and accordingly so that it will look different across Scotland and that, when we have that data, it will positively impact their work experience that they have got with us as employers. Very good. One of the things that we need to do across a number of areas is to make sure that we are showing just how desirable it is to work in local government and how it is at a rewarding and a number of fields at a rewarding career path to take. Maybe we have lost that a little bit, but I think that there is a huge amount of effort going on between COSLA and a range of partners to make sure that we are highlighting some of the careers in which there are real opportunities for young people in particular to progress into those careers with a real opportunity and a sense of pride in what they are delivering for the wider society. Thank you for that. Last week, we heard and it was mentioned around the Withers report. What seems to still be a lack of connection between workforce planning within our college sector and local authorities? What seems to have been a missed opportunity to look at different pathways for people into different jobs? That leads me on to my next question with regard to reports that have been published, often highlighting that most local authority staff are women and inequalities around pay and progression within councils. Looking at that, I wondered what actions have been taken specifically around that issue and the gender pay gap. Do you think that that is improving and that councils are not managing to make progress on that? There is a range of work that is on-going, and I know that Simon has outlined some of that. I will maybe bring him in in a second. The improvement service does a huge amount of work and there is collaboration across local authorities as to best practice. We have to have that benchmarking data, and it is really important that we do that. I think that reflecting back on my conversations, the down-table conversations on child poverty, and the point that you raise about women and inequality and low wages is absolutely one that we are hearing loud and clear. To reflect back to the previous question, that is one of the reasons why the current pay offer is heavily weighted to those on the lower end at the request of our trade union partners, but in terms of the specifics, I might be putting Simon in. I suppose that just reflecting on the gender pay gap, councils are continuously working to close that gap. As councillor Hagwin has reflected, that is a key part of our thinking when we are going through negotiations with trade unions on annual pay settlements. Clearly, in terms of how we attract and offer a broader range of opportunities, offering a broad range of flexible working opportunities is a key part of what we can do for our communities and attract people to the careers within Scottish local government. Yet again, I think that there is something that we still all collectively need to do in terms of that challenge about the value of all the types of roles that we offer, the diversity of the different types of contracts that you can have within local government, the opportunity that provides individuals with. The more that we can do to demonstrate that there is value from all of our colleagues who work behind the scenes, who do catering, cleaning, janitorial roles within schools and with many other facilities that actually help children and young people to help our communities on a day-to-day basis, is a key part so that we do not continue to focus on only certain professions within the workforce. That is perhaps one of the things that is to all of our detriment, is that we tend to spotlight key professions but we do not understand that they are all interrelated, they are all interconnected. They all can only deliver the services that they do by working together. Thank you for that. In terms of future budgeting, do you know what is currently outstanding across local government around settling equal pay claims? Some councils have obviously moved to do that but I wonder what financial level we are talking on a round for authorities that have not done that to date. I do not have that specific information today but it is something that we can follow up with following the committee. That would be welcome. I am not going to bring in Miles, I am going to bring in Mark Griffin. Last year's spending review suggested that public sector workforces would have to shrink, including local authority workforces, in order to remain sustainable. Minister, is that still the Government's view? It still remains the Government's view that we need to continue to make sure that, with the limited resources that we have across public service, we are applying them to achieve the best possible results for citizens. We need to continue to look at ways of doing things more efficiently and more effectively. That is part of the flexibilities in terms of local government to ensure that they can do things differently, if appropriate. I guess that is where that says. Nonetheless, we have managed to provide additional funds to local government in recent years. Similarly to Councillor Hagman, with the Government suggesting that the workforce will have to be just remain sustainable, are you able to set out whether that is possible for local government to reduce workforce levels and still provide the level of service that you are or are expected to? Yes. Our key services are transforming. We are having to adapt. We are having to look at different ways to do things. With my resources hat-on, I do sit with a digital hat-on. By that nature, there may be services that may be provided in a different way in the future. However, it is clear that, in order to have that proactive downstream funding, it is so important. Our workforce will have to adapt, but there may be areas where we are looking to expand our workforce. It has to be done on a local authority basis. I have repeatedly come back to the Verity House agreement, but that is where it is crucial to have those really honest dialogues. There are areas in Scotland where there is depopulation and services have to be delivered in a different manner. There are other areas that are saying, of course, that are in population. Therefore, the demands on those services are really stretched. We have to be adaptable, we have to be flight of foot, where there is opportunity with shared services. That is something that we are actively taking part of. Certainly, with my digital hat-on, the shared platforms and the shared delivery are something that I am working through. I sit again with the Government on those discussions, because clearly we need to do things in a different manner. Ultimately, ensuring our workforce is protected is a key element. We acknowledge that we have an ageing workforce and we have real issues in terms of recruitment. I cannot say a definitive yes, but this would be okay or no. That would not be because it is so nuanced across the plain, but I would say that local government is standing ready to adapt and, where possible, we will ensure that we are still delivering that real baseline for our communities. As service delivery changes, how are COSLA and local authorities assessing the impact on its workforce, particularly the impact that it has on women and minority groups within its workforce, to make sure that it is not impacting negatively on them more than on other groups? Similarly, what assessment is carried out on the impact on women, minority groups and communities that rely on the services that are going to be delivered in a different way? Clearly, we have our legal duties that we need to respond to, which I think was outlined by Simon. We will continue to do that. Obviously, we are working within our community. As a local councillor, we are hearing directly from that, but clearly we need to have the data too. That is where we need to work in partnership with colleagues right across. The point that was raised earlier is not just about local government, but about all our public services to ensure that we have that consistency going right through. In my role as a resources spokesperson, I have reached out to the women's budgeting panel and looked at the wide range of issues, but I will turn to Simon to see whether there are any other points that I have missed in my summary. I think that you make the key point. Obviously, we have legal duties, so all the time the decisions that councils are making are informed by equality and human rights impact assessment that they will do at a local level, which is understanding what bitiqueting actions they need to take or how they eliminate any impact on our communities and our workforce. That is the real key element of that. We do not only need to look at the impact on our communities, but we also need to look at our workforce when we make the decisions at budget time and throughout policy development at a local level. That is a critical part of what we do. Thank you, Mark. I am now going to bring in Pam Gosall. Thank you, chair. I am just talking about the skills gaps here, the skills shortages in local authorities, and the council commission has noted that there are challenges in recruiting both at operational and with leadership staff. When I was talking about skills shortages last week, one of the panels spoke about how higher levels of economic and activity play into the recruitment challenges. Councils are coming up with different innovative ways to engage with the people out there for the workforce. Of course, education skills and employment are also the responsibility for the Scottish Government. I want to ask how the Scottish Government is supporting this drive. I want to ask the minister to please you. Direct employment is a matter for local authorities to shape their workforce, but clearly there will be areas where there is a Scottish-wide issue in particular in skills gaps and in those areas, which I guess should be coming to specifically shortly, environment, health, planning and building standards. Those are challenges that you will have heard. It is absolutely appropriate in those circumstances that we work in collaboration with our colleagues and our colleagues in local government, but also our colleagues in further and higher education and in the specific profession. The area that I am most aware around is in terms of planning. The Government and COSLA are working with the heads of planning hops and RTPI to make sure that we are taking that forward. There is a lot of work going on in those areas in which particular skills gaps have been identified. The first thing that we need to do is recognise that there is a challenge and work together to meet those challenges. That is something that we are absolutely doing in collaboration with our local government partners and others. Thank you Minister for your response there. Just talking about earlier on, I noted that you spoke about obviously the future here. It is very important to have early consultation with local government in relation to new Scottish Government bills legislation coming forward and members bill. Obviously we talk about that today and we know that 700 planners are needed in the next five years. Council of Katie spoke about the challenges around that as well with only one university having that course offered there. We have got new legislations. I have practically come out here nearly every week, such as the short-term lets and other legislations. We have spoke about many times in this committee. Minister, how do you see a question for yourself? Obviously discussions are happening now for the future, but what about current legislations like that? We know that there are shortages and we know that there is a huge demand on planning and building standards. How are you looking to tackle the demands that are coming up now then? Obviously we are conflating two very different points. There is a line in the sand in terms of how we operate and the Verity House agreement do that line in the sand in terms of how we collaborate forward. If you want to talk about the planning issues in terms of what we are doing then this is absolutely a real issue that has been identified by local government, Scottish Government heads of planning, RTPI have all recognised the challenges here. The challenges are not just straightforward. It is not just that folk are leaving planning. It is more than that. It is the challenges around recruitment. It is the challenges of having a new planning regime that is transformational for Scotland and we want to make sure that we get the most from it. It creates all of those opportunities. That is why we have been working with our partners to look at how we can address that. I am not sure that I recognise the number that you gave. That is a higher number than I have heard, but nonetheless there is for sure a substantial number of new planners that will be required over the next 10 to 15 years. We need to plan for that and we are doing. One of the really important pieces of work that we took forward was the future planners report. The Scottish Government provided some funding to assist with the heads of planning and the Royal Count Planning Institute to look at how we can tackle some of those challenges. That report is really useful. It was published in 2022. You will no doubt that I am sure that the committee is well aware of it. We are taking forward the actions in that report. There is nothing in that report that is unachievable. There is a number of short-term actions, medium-term actions and long-term actions. We are making real progress, particularly in the right here and now on the short-term actions. We will continue working with our partners to do more, because those are potentially real challenges coming forward. One of the issues that you mentioned was opportunities for undergraduate courses. There is an undergraduate course in my home city in the Duncan and Jordanson College of Art in Dungey University, but other undergraduate courses have stopped operating. Partly that is because often people who end up becoming planners do not start off doing something else, whether it is architecture and then doing master's courses. There are a number of master's courses across the country. One thing that we are doing this year is to support that shift. We have funded 10 RTPI bursaries for students undertaking that postgraduate planning degree in Scottish planning this year. We will see how that goes and see whether that is something that we can expand to encourage more folk to make that shift. One of the big things that we need to do is to collectively help when folk are particularly at school to look at their career choices, to make sure that they realise just how exciting planning is, because often folk go through another course and then realise that it is actually a planner that I want to be and that they have to do a further course. I have certainly been engaging with the young planners who are really enthusiastic group of folk and are really keen to help to make sure that the wider potential employment pool understands exactly what planning does and how exciting it is, particularly in the context with NTF4 and the transition to net zero. If we can get that message across then more colleges and universities will consider doing that undergraduate course. I am not sure if I can name them just now, but I am aware of at least one other university considering staffing an undergraduate course, which would be good if that happens. However, we need to do more to encourage what more we can do. One of the things that we are keen to look at is whether there is an opportunity for work-based training so that young folk can do their undergraduate course while working for a local authority. A number of local authorities are keen on helping with that process, but we need to work out and make sure that it will work for the universities but also for the young people and our local authorities. One of the challenges that we have is that NTF4 provides a huge number of opportunities, so there is an increased draw from the private sector. We need to make sure that we are increasing that pool, but we are absolutely working together on that with the other partners. Thank you, minister. It is great to hear that you have some great work happening in the future, which I will look forward to seeing. However, what are we going to do about the challenges and recruitment right this minute? The fact that we have so many legislations going on, and members' bills as well, how are we going to help local government at this moment in the challenges? What kind of talks are you having there? How can we help with that? I am not sure. Again, I think that we are... I think that we are talking about planning, I think that we are talking about why the local government is... No planning, because obviously they... Good. If we are talking about planning, then the changes that we are making right now, so the bursaries are there, we are working with heads of planning also to look at what further we can all do to make the planning system more efficient. One of the things that you will be aware of coming through is the permitted development rights. If we get that right, so then that potentially takes pressure off of our local government planners in terms of the work they do. We need to get it right, though, because obviously we don't want to just say everything's okay. It's a free-for-all, so there needs to be appropriate planning supports, so that's why we're consulting on that, that's why we'll be bringing further legislation forward. I'm absolutely open to suggestions on what further work we can do. One of the other pieces of work that we're working on, it's not right now, but the digitisation of some of that I think potentially offers huge advantages in the future and we also... We can already see a number of local authorities digitising some of the work that they're doing and making moving to more online, less paper, much more efficient. I think it's important to remember that this doesn't all rest on the local authority planners. A huge amount of weight goes on to local authority planners and sometimes a fair amount of unfair criticism when things don't go the way some applicants would like. There's a responsibility for applicants as well to make sure that when they submit an application that it's submitted with the required information which then helps the planning authority to make its decision as speedily as possible. Clearly, sometimes folk are not going to like the decisions that come out of the planning process and that's why there is appeals, but from speaking to developers, one of the things that they're keen is that it's the time, so if you're going to be told no, then let me know it's no sooner and I think part of that is on the applicants to make sure that their applications are as right as possible and that's one of the things again that we're working with local authority partners heads of planning to try and understand what more we can do to help with that process. Richard, I do have a follow-up on a carers, but I'll wait for you to say that I've got any more time. Well, I think we need to move on. I'm going to now bring in Ivan McKee. Thank you very much, convener. I just want to pick up on one point, circling back on the general power of competence that Ian mentioned. I suppose I'm just looking at that and thinking, well, if this is something that UK Government has power to do and they've done that for local authorities in England, but we're in this strange position where the Scottish Government doesn't have the authority to give that power to local authorities in Scotland as a consequence of your reading of the devolution settlement, so first to clarify, is that where we are and that's a kind of strange position to be in, but then do you see value in the general power of competence? Is it giving English local authorities the ability to make progress that Scottish local authorities can't do and is there value in us having that power in Scotland and if so, is it something that there should be conversations with the UK Government about, and I suppose that that's a question for the minister as well. Yeah, sorry. No, and if I may, I mean, I'll just say absolutely there is value in that from a local government point of view. Obviously the legislation with the Scottish Government and the UK Government needs to, it's a conversation that obviously I'll sit to one side, but no, I think there's absolutely a desire from local government that this is pursued, so I think that's just my simplified response from me. So, I mean, I think whatever the constitutional situation is, I think we should step back and what is it we're trying to achieve and if we can achieve that without changing and going down what would almost certainly be a challenging constitutional battle line, then we should try and do that because local authorities are wanting these additional powers sooner. So that's why my message to leaders across Scotland has been, you know, if you've got ideas then let's test them out and let's see what, and if the challenge is this, is that this can't be resolved without that power, then I think we need to look at it, but I don't think I've seen anything where that would be the case, I don't know if Ian's aware of anything, where that would be the case if there is, we need to look at it, but if we're looking at whether, you know, there's one magic power that makes everything okay, then looking down south that wouldn't appear to be the answer, you know, we've got 26 councils in some of England's most deprived areas at risk of effective bankruptcy now, we've seen Birmingham, we've seen Slaw, Croydon, Woking, so clearly there's something not right there and, you know, if there's lessons to be learnt then great, but I'm not sure there's any one, you know, sweeping power that has the ability to resolve some of these challenges. I think that the secret for us is to make sure that we're working in collaboration and with respect, and I think that that really gives us the opportunity to make a difference on the ground in shorter time than what potentially would be a constitutional back-up. Yeah, I get all of that, you don't want better to be the best if there are things that we can do, we should absolutely go and do them of course on a specific basis, and of course there are problems with local authorities in England, that can be a whole range of reasons, but I don't think it's necessary, I might not necessarily be due to that power, but I suppose the question still stands and principle does the Scottish Government, everything else being equal, think that there's value in having that power, because it certainly seems to work, Councillor Higman saying that local government would be very happy to have that power alongside everything else that they're looking for. I mean, I'm happy to come in, yes, that is absolutely something that local government is looking for, but in the interim at this point, I think it was referenced previously, one of the points that COSLA was very keen, and certainly I was very keen, is that actually we co-chair the working group initially. There was a bit of a discussion whether that was going to be a co-chaired model, and we agreed that yes, this is a working group of equals, so there is that ability to bring forward within that form, obviously it sits with ministers, and we've got Tom Arthur, Patrick Harvie and Jo Fitzpatrick, who all sit on there, so there's a real opportunity right now, and as we say, if there's a desire to explore new and innovative ways of local government revenue raising, we do have a vehicle to do that. Right, so that the person who was going to raise was about staffing numbers, and first of all, you'll have heard the evidence we've taken, and there was a bit of, kind of, tune and thrown around what the numbers were, because the Scottish Government numbers as published would indicate that there had been quite reasonable increases in local authority staffing levels, and the retort to that, of course, was that, yes, but there was some extra workload there that would require an extra staff, and also there have been some reclassifications there around about alloys and so on. So I suppose the question is, is there an agreed set of numbers taking all of this into account, or is there a desire to work together to publish an agreed set of numbers? That means that everybody can kind of look at this thing on a level playing field basis, because at the moment you can understand it's very confusing when people are telling us there's been staff cuts, but the numbers are showing the opposite. I mean, I can come in as a starter on that one. There's not an agreed number as such, and I think that that would be an almost impossible task just to reflect the nuances and the differences across local authorities. Clearly, there are some areas where we've got plenty staff and we're delivering. There is shortages of staff, obviously we've touched upon planning, but we have shortages of social workers and quantity surveyors, environmental health officers, specific teaching staff as well, so we have to be clever on this one. I think we have to also acknowledge that we're working on the backdrop drop where there has been years of austerity and there's the impact of Brexit and there is also the real impact of the pandemic and where we're at, and that has changed the working patterns. Obviously, we want to support our workforce as best as possible and we do have to have that degree of flexibility, so certainly from a local government point of view, these are all parts of the mosaic that we're pulling together for that bigger picture. Well, yes and no, Brexit impacts recruitment, but it doesn't impact what the actual number is. If there are shortages, absolutely, but again, that's a separate issue. It's an important issue, but it's a separate issue to whether the number is actually increasing or decreasing as we speak. In a pandemic yet it's been and it's gone and there might be some spillover from that, but we'll isolate that. I think that those are all issues, but frankly, I don't think they're relevant issues to understanding whether we can expand whether the number's going up or down. No, I appreciate that. The point of our digital transformation, and again, going back to planning, there's work being looked at in terms of e-portals, et cetera, and how we're delivering in a different manner that actually meets the needs of our community. We do have to have those sometimes difficult conversations. I know, certainly, again, reflecting on my own local authority. There's some areas where perhaps our third sector partners are delivering where initially or previously council would have been delivered. It's about having those really honest and equally where you've got enterprise agencies and other parts of the sector delivering. We need to have a real understanding of where the responsibilities lie with a focus on what are our outcomes, what are we trying to achieve. So, just to wrap that up, we're affecting a position where we're going to have to agree that we're not in a position to be able to say what the number is, whether it's going up or down, and we're not in a position to be able to get to that position at any point in the future. That's kind of where we're at, is it? No, no, the statistics are published, and so the latest statistics were published in the 12th September, which, for local government, shows over the last year roughly a very slight increase. Some of that might be because of some of the additional things that local government are doing, early learning provision, for instance, so you would expect to see an increase. Right, what we're hearing is that on a like-to-like basis, there's alloys in and out of that, there's extra responsibilities in and out of that. So on a like-to-like basis, we're not in a position to be able to say whether the number's going up, down or staying the same. So the statistics across local government, I'm sorry, across public services are published, and maybe that is something that would be useful to be shared with the committee. I've seen those numbers. That's on the 12th September, which covers NHS, for instance, where there's a significant increase, as we'd expect, devolved civil service, where there's a slight decrease. The figure for local government is a very slight increase, but okay, pretty flat. So the Government's position is that local authority number is increasing, so when people say there's been cuts and there's less people in local authorities, that's not correct. That both things can be true, because, as Councillor Hagman indicated, that there will be the experience of individuals in some areas where there's been a shift of, you know, whether it's because of difficulties in terms of recruiting because of Brexit, or because of a shift of the way the work is done, it can very well feel like there's a cut in somebody's particular area because there's a reduction in staff in that particular area. The figures that are published clearly are overall figures, and I think that's appropriate. The experience on the ground for someone who's in an area where there's been a shift of people away might be that there's a reduction, so I don't think anybody's coming to you with untruths, it's just that they're expressing what they're saying on the ground, which, as Councillor Hagman has said, might vary. Well, feeling is one thing, but the numbers are like an up or down, and it's saying the same. Numbers are slightly up. So when people say there's less people, that's not correct. I clarify, I suppose, from a cos of our time. From the rest in terms of when you look at the tracking over the figures and the rest, there was a reduction of 32,000 full-time equivalents across the period of 2009 to 2016, and whilst there has been a slight increase, our figures actually remain at 2,011 levels when they fell dramatically. This is 2020, 2009. I know I've just provided that clarity on where the numbers go. I know what the numbers are, the numbers say they're going up, but nobody can agree whether that means the numbers are going up or they're not going up, and that's the problem. So you can understand how it's really difficult to make any sense out of that, and people keep talking about things that happened 10 and 15 years ago, which frankly is quite unhelpful in regards to where we are today. Moving on from that, I want to explore a wee bit about what works on going to try and look for opportunities to do things more efficiently. So, obviously, Councillor Hagman, we've talked about digital and automation of processes. There's clearly work that's been referenced before around about different local authorities collaborating on shared services. There will be other areas where third sector perhaps is more capable than local government are picking up specific activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I really just wanted to draw out some specific examples you're going to maybe share where there's been good practice there, quantify how much it's saved compared to the counterfactual, and then what work is on going to drive more improvements in that regard, and what impact you can see that having on helping to tackle the recruitment challenges. So I'm happy to come in on specific examples. I think across the education collaboratives that's a really positive piece of work, and looking at that, yes, there will be savings and so far that where you have, say for example, a higher or an advanced higher that's been delivered online across two different or three different local authorities, yes, you will have a savings of a teacher, but actually where we've not been able to recruit, we're actually ensuring that there's opportunities for our young people. I can write down to my own ward level, there's young people in my town who are able to do advanced higher subjects, which without that collaboration, through the education collaboratives that have been set up, they just simply wouldn't have that opportunity in terms of putting a direct spend or a direct cost on that. We can certainly look and we can see if we can provide you with some level of that detail, but it's not just about that finite cost and obviously we have to be really mindful of all our budgets, but we have to be able to provide for our young people and for our communities in wider shared services. The education collaborative is one, obviously we've got shared services across planning within local authorities and building control etc. That's another example that's already in situ. We've also got, which was referenced again at one of the down table discussions where you've got social work working within schools to ensure that actually we're looking at that outcome. Now there may be savings if you're using the same facilities etc and you're sharing services across departments as well as across authorities, but it has to be taken in that wider context, but in terms of the specific details we can certainly take a note and try and come back with a bit of finite cost on that. Let's thank for that. I suppose given this is probably the number one challenge that you face in terms of resources, you've already said there can never be too much money, being able to do things more efficiently, clearly, and we all recognise that there's plenty of scope for that because the technologies evolve and the scope for co-operations have identified between local authorities and the wider public sector and elsewhere. We've not even talked about states or any of the scope that exists there as well. I suppose I'm slightly concerned that you're not able to quantify any of that, given it's the biggest challenge you've got. As I say, we can come back with that level of detail. I don't know the sign of the ending. Right, so there's nobody with that kind of running track or if that's just how much we've saved this year through the good work that we've done to make the process more efficient. I don't have it with me today, but we will have that information. Is that something that government works with local authority on? Do you have a perspective on that? Ultimately, government will work with COSLA on any of those areas. Collaboration is key. Clearly, we have a shared desire to make the progress. Obviously, in the wider public service, we need to look at where we can use technology better. We can do things differently. Work on going in terms of the wider public service reform led by others, but the key is for us to work collaboratively. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much and we welcome that detail coming forward another time. I'd like to bring Mark Griffin in for a brief supplementary. Thank you. Just briefly to ask the minister or Councillor Hagman whether to help us to understand the workforce numbers issue, whether there is any more detailed breakdown by department on health count at local authority level to help us to understand, perhaps, movements between departments and get a better understanding of workforce issues within local government. I'll defer to Simon on this one. There are regular figures produced by every individual council with regards to their own workforce. They've got monthly workforce or quarterly workforce monitoring figures that are produced on their websites. There is actively work on going with colleagues within the improvement service to look at a data dashboard. Obviously, we used a data dashboard during the Covid pandemic, so that is work that is on going at the moment that can hopefully get us to a position whereby councils can use that platform and we can have more real-time data. I suppose that one of the significant challenges—and I understand the points that we made about the data that we've got—obviously, it only gives you a moment in time. We are trying to find the data that is live and can clearly give us a picture of what is happening on the ground and the rest is something that we are actively working on across local government at the moment. Thank you very much, and that stands out a very constructive piece of work that you are working on with the improvement service. I would like to bring in Willie Coffey. Thank you. I wonder if I could just raise a couple of questions on absinthe rates, if I can—probably with Katie and maybe on the ageing workforce issue that was covered last week to Councillor Hagman. We were hearing last week that absinthe rates, particularly in the non-teaching staff area that we have been talking about earlier, have had significantly increased in the recent data set that we have. Is there any work going on in COSLA to understand what is going on there? What are the reasons for that? Is it long Covid issues? Is it general health issues? Is it stress-related? How do you gather and collect that information? Probably more importantly, what are you able to do about it? If you cannot help us with the detail of that now, I would certainly appreciate and ensure that the committee would have any follow-up information that you may have to help us to understand that. Thank you for that. It is really pertinent. Again, certainly on a local level, people will be looking at this data and, obviously, going forward with significant pieces of work nationally, we are collecting that data. Again, I will maybe bring Simon in on the nuances of that, because it is important information. As I said at the earlier point of the committee, ensuring that our workforce is supported, ensuring that they have good mental health, ensuring that they feel supported in their roles is absolutely vital as a local authority, as the employers, we have a duty to look after all our staff across Scotland and across all our communities. However, in terms of the specific detail, I will turn to Simon. Thank you very much, Mr Hangman. I suppose that it is usually just to confirm, due to the reflection of the Covid pandemic and the work that was established during that period to work across all parts of the public sector with colleagues in health and so forth, to have a very clear focus on mental health and wellbeing. That work continues very much across a range of advisory groups and networks across all public sector partners. That activity is making sure that there is access to the appropriate supports that can assist individuals. Obviously, what we need to do collectively across the public sector is to make sure that they are available on platforms on a consistent basis in all parts of the country. Clearly, where you are in a remote and rural area, where there are pressures of staffing and so on, the pressures will be different in different places. Yet again, going back to some of the work around data dashboard and understanding where those pressures are coming from in a real-time basis is going to be a critical part to how we continue to respond. Fundamentally, though, it comes back to one of those key parts of the opportunity through Verity House but also through the public service forum and local governance review. What are the pressures that there are on staff across the piece because of the very many different policies and strategies that exist? How can we better streamline those, coordinate those and connect them so that individuals are better able to focus on delivering the roles that they are employed to do as opposed to monitoring or reporting the work that they are supposed to do? Is the picture changing though, Simon? Given the last couple of years or two or three years of Covid, is the picture of absence changed significantly in any way? Is there any particular reason you can pin this down too? I think that it would be wrong to say that the picture hasn't changed in clearly because of the Covid experience and I think that just a general kind of point in terms of people on their own health and wellbeing and yet again concerns there may be in terms of the continued global pandemic that we all live within in the rest of any kind of transfers that there might be. That continues to be a part of it. I think that that's why the work that we've got to look at will how can we adapt and change the types of contracts and ways in which people are working to better enable them to do their jobs and give them that opportunity to get the better work-life balance is essential. It continues to be that part. Thank you very much for that. On the issue about the ageing workforce, probably again more for Katie, but I'd appreciate any comments from Joe as well. We were hearing last week that we've got an ageing workforce in local government, but we're also getting earlier retirals and I was certainly asking how can we have both at the same time, but it was a perfectly good explanation given from colleagues last week about why that happens. Do we accept and understand that and what we're trying to do to address that? I was looking at the withers recommendations on skills, the whole skills delivery landscape. Is that an area where we can deploy some of the recommendations in that report to help us? If the ageing profile within local government continues to drift upwards, we probably need to start thinking about what we do about that at the sharper end, the earlier end, the apprentice end, new starts, that type of recruitment and skills development. I suppose that, whether I was talking about it, I'd invite Katie to say a few words about that and perhaps I'll also invite Joe for his perspective too. Clearly across local government you have got an ageing workforce. We also acknowledge that there may be some staff across a whole host of our departments that are looking for retirement and that they are looking to take early retirement. We need to re-pro-file some of our workforce where we're constantly aware of what that looks like and how it can best deliver. We're also very aware that where redeployment is perhaps an opportunity that we need to support our workforce through that. Redeployment may not be the option that everybody wants to go for. There may be a real desire to say that there should always be that opportunity. There's a real emphasis to ensure that all levels of our staff are supported. Clearly it was touched upon, and I mentioned it previously, about our local employability partnerships, working with DWP, our colleges and our third sector. We want to ensure that we can bring that new cohort and support them through a career in local government. That is a career option available to them. It is important that we keep a watching eye on this. Coming back to monitoring and benchmarking across Scotland from a local authority level, it's crucial that we follow and see where the data is and how best we can support our communities. Thanks for that, Katie. Minister, any view on that? I think that Councillor Hagman has covered most of the points eloquently. I think that we can't overemphasise the need to ensure that we have a workforce with the correct skills and apprenticeships. I think that it's really part of that. I think that the weather's report is really helpful in telling us, helping us how we navigate that going forward across the public service, not just local authority. I think that Councillor Hagman has covered the points. OK. Many thanks for that. Thanks very much, Willie. I'm now going to bring in Marie McNair. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister, and Councillor Hagman. Most of the comments that I was going to make on workforce planning have been covered, but the pandemic has just been touched on and with that has brought significant changes for the workforce, from the shift to remote and hybrid working, significant increased demands on the local government services. I want to ask how has this impacted on staff wellbeing, and are there any particular groups that may have been disproportionately impacted? Clearly, that is a huge issue for local authorities, and we will get our reports back at a local authority level. We have to be mindful that there is an impact absolutely on our staff, and we have to be able to support where there are the options for remote and hybrid working. We also have to be realistic that sometimes remote working is not always possible, and then on an individual basis, obviously challenging conversations have to be taken. Obviously, we will work with our entire workforce, and we have to be mindful that the environment is tough for some, but we do need to have robust processes in place. There is work going nationally, and I think that Simon referred to the fact that we need that level of consistency throughout the country, because there is not always that ability to get the support, maybe necessarily right, where we would want it, so if that is not available, what mitigation can we do? However, there is a huge onus on our heads of HR and our senior leadership team to be supporting all levels of their teams going forward, and ultimately we need to have an environment where everybody is feeling valued. As I said, our workforce is on the front line of our communities in so many different places, and we have to make sure that we look after our staff, because without our staff, local government would literally be nothing. We would need that. I just want to pick up on that. The piece about creating an environment where everyone feels valued and then we have also been using the word efficiency, and I think that there is something there that has a bit of a tension around when we need to move to efficiencies and create a service in a more efficient way, some of the things that I pick up from talking to local government's workforce is that sometimes that efficiency goes counter to really feeling that they can do the job in the way that they need to be doing it. I think that it is that bit about people-centred services, and when we move to too much efficiency in a people-centred service, they do not quite match up. I wonder if you have any thoughts about that? That is where having that strategic leadership within our local authorities comes back to some of perhaps the issues of recruitment and why we need to ensure that we acknowledge all aspects of our workforce. Often, our managers and our senior leaderships are having to have really challenging conversations in developing the workforce to ensure that the workforce goes forward with that need, but while still ensuring that we are the wellbeing of our workforce. It is a challenging question, and it is one that elected members sit with, because clearly we are responsible to our communities as well. Having those clear lines of communication with our staff is crucial. We work collectively through COSLA, but we also work individually with our trade union colleagues, and there are regular updates across the workforce to ensure that there is that dialogue. That is good practice, and I know that that is happening across local authorities. I might turn to Simon to confirm some of the local arrangements of where we are working and having those dialogues with our workforce to ensure that everybody is feeling not only heard but listened to, because there is a difference between hearing something and actually listening to it. I suppose that you reflect absolutely, colleagues on the ground are continuously engaging with staff to understand how they are feeling, what support they can be provided and more. I suppose that one key point, and yet again reflecting back into Verity House and the opportunity that is in front of us. The pandemic, if nothing demonstrated that when change is needed, we can change. One of the things that I think we have long struggled with, and we have long spoken about it through Christie and previous reports, even back to the Macintosh report, is the establishment of the Parliament about the relationships in the way in which we work. We need to articulate to those who we want to come into local government and into public sector in general, but those who are within local government that, although change will happen and change is required, they will still have work. It is not what they do that will change, it is how they do it that will change. The roles that we have all got, we absolutely can see are innately vital to our communities that are as important. We need to be able to work together across government and local government and the wider public sector to better articulate what it means to be in public service, what those roles and those jobs will look like and what the career opportunities that there will be. We no longer live in a world where a career is any one thing, a career is now made up of many different opportunities. We need to articulate to children and young people that there are many ways into careers and there are many opportunities once you get into organisations and what is in front of you. Out of Berry to House, out of the discussions that we are having with our professional advisers, through local governance, through public service form and that person centred approach, that is the key challenge for us to articulate to people across Scotland. Thank you very much for that, Simon. That is really helpful. There is another thing that I would like to pick up on as well. I think that it is related to a workforce planning in a way, a workforce in, I think maybe Simon, you said earlier, it is not, or maybe I have got it mixed up, but it is not what we do, it is how we do it. One of the things that I have become really aware of in this committee is the number of plans that council has to come forward with. Because of, and to go back to earlier part of our conversation, the number of bills that come through, and we talked about members' bills and amendments, and often a bill has a requirement for a plan. It seems to me that that is something that has come up here at the committee before, that there is a level of onerousness in the plans. What I am also beginning to notice is wondering around a coherence across various bits of legislation in terms of those plans. I just wondered if that is something that is, I know it is early days, but I just wondered if that is something that is being discussed under the agreement, in particular in your agreed shared programme activity. Is that something that you are looking at creating that coherence potentially? Absolutely, yes. It certainly is. One of the points is about the data gathering, and there is a lot of emphasis that has been put on that. I think that it is referred to sometime as that burdensome data gathering that is put on local authorities when we are so focused on collecting the data that we get lose sight of what it is that we are trying to achieve. Streamlining that and actually working with Scottish Government, again, focusing on those outcomes, but a lot of this does come down to trust. I think that Joe referred to this in his opening remarks. It is about recognising that local government has a key responsibility. I am sitting here with my mandate, my democratic mandate, that is as equal to anybody's democratic mandate. There are not levels of democratic mandates. We are all equal, and I think that there is a real opportunity to recognise that and work in collaboration to have that level of respect both ways between local government and Scottish Government. It is a really good question. When we speak to local government finance colleagues, they will often highlight the fact that, although there is all this ring fencing, there is all this other bureaucracy that they have to, which is challenging, which takes resource. As counsel Hagman said, we need to make sure that that reporting is supporting us in reaching to the outcome. It is really helpful that, Verity House, we have got some agreed outcomes and shifting, Simon mentioned. Christy, how many years ago was that? It was a long time ago, I think. Mark Griffin and I sat on the finance committee at the time that it was going through, and we were worried that that was going to help us shift to an outcomes-based preventative. It is really, really difficult to do, and so, hopefully, Verity House helps us with that by focusing rigidly on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve, so making sure that everything that we are doing supports us in achieving those outcomes. It is not unusual for legislation to come through this Parliament, and then at stage 3, there is an amendment that puts in another reporting responsibility, and, very often, ultimately, that reporting lands on local government because they are the folk who are delivering the service on the ground. I guess that is why we all need to think how we do those things a little bit differently. I absolutely understand why members of Parliament want to see how money is being spent and what the outputs are, but surely our focus has to be on what those outcomes are. In terms of education, how are we making young folk given them the better opportunities for the future, driving poverty down, particularly for young people? Those are objectives that are agreed as priorities across the political and public service spectrum, so we need to work harder to focus on those outcomes. We have been trying to do it for a number of years, and, hopefully, Verity House helps us in that path. That is good to hear. Something that is coming up for me is that we would welcome to hear what you and where you get to in that conversation. At some point, the Parliament needs to be involved in that. If there are amendments coming from members, it needs to be a greater understanding of those impacts. At some point, there is a moment when Parliament needs to get involved as well and to have that education, that understanding of impacts on amendments. I think that, if I may, certainly that the Convention of Scottish Leaders meets regularly, and certainly where there are amendments and opportunities to feed in, leaders will take that opportunity. We also have the opportunity to have that early dialogue with the Scottish Government, and certainly through our thematic boards at the Convention of Scottish Leaders, we will look and have dialogue and discussions. They will not necessarily be making decisions, because that will be for the 32 local authority leaders to decide going forward. However, I think that absolutely there is an opportunity that certainly Verity House allows local government to have that early dialogue and that continued dialogue as well. That is good to know that those mechanisms are in place, those communication forums. That brings us to the end of our session this morning. I really appreciate your coming today. I think that it has been very useful. I am sitting here feeling a great sense of delight to have both the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Leaders represented in that conversation. That is the fruition of the new deal with local government, and it is good to hear that it is being very positive and constructive so far. Thank you so much for joining us. We now turn to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the valuation proposals procedure Scotland amendment regulations 2023. There is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on negative instruments. Do members have any comments on the instrument? The committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument. We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next item in private, so that was the last public item on our agenda for today. I now close the public part of the meeting.