Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will come back to the committee with that information, because I do not have it to hand. I assume that it would be done on a national basis—either that or on a regional basis. I would struggle to see how it could work effectively at a very local level. Let me come back to you on that.

I will ask officials to come in with detail on that, because they are closer to how it will work in practice. However, we have recognised the issue of data. The Scottish Climate Intelligence Service has been mentioned a few times during this session. It is jointly funded by the Scottish Government and all 32 local authorities via COSLA on a 50:50 basis. I think that its funding was about £1.8 million for 2025-26.

It is largely a capacity-building programme that takes a unique approach to supporting all local authorities. It is not just a data platform; it helps to build the capacity that is needed to solve the climate challenges that we have been talking about today. That includes using the data to inform your plans and then deliver on them. It also makes links with other organisations, such as Adaptation Scotland; officials will be able to tell you more about that.

We will look at how wider just transition considerations might be brought into that work. That is the overall aim, but Phil Raines might want to say a little more on that.

I apologise.

I will bring in Phil Raines in a second, but we have for sure been looking at the phasing of the climate plan.

The reality is that, although we can plan ahead on what we think we know, technology moves on. The political climate, too, might move on in a way that is not entirely helpful. We can set out our expectations and our plans for what we know and expect to happen, but—and I am going to end up talking about unknown unknowns, which I want to avoid doing—it is fair to say that there are risks inherent in assuming something to be the case that might end up not being the case.

All we can do with a plan that spans this length of time is to set out our objectives, the flow of funding, what we think can be done and when we think it can be done. Beyond that, it is very difficult.

This is a draft plan, and the reason that we are having these conversations is to work out what more needs to be done and what particular emphasis needs to be given. We will definitely feed that back. We can take back both the fact that the role of local authorities and their trusted partners is very community-based, and the question of whether there is something to do on better communication, consultation and two-way conversations about what communities want and on working in partnership with people—as this cannot be done to people.

We will take that back as something to reflect on for the final plan.

I will bring in Phil Raines. However, to give you further reassurance, I will build on what I have just said: a draft plan is a draft plan, and we absolutely want to hear views and reflect them in the final plan. There will be all the normal gathering of information and feedback—whether parliamentary, external or from our partners in local government and elsewhere.

Phil, I do not know what you might have by way of examples or next-steps mechanisms.

11:00

I contend that local government has been given a fair funding settlement; it has received a real-terms increase, meaning that the pressures of inflation, which have impacted all parts of the public sector, have been recognised. The funding is the funding; a real-terms settlement and more flexibility have been provided. I am keen to look at further flexibilities, and we are keen to work with local government on that, but, ultimately, the decisions of each individual local authority and the priorities that they set are for them as autonomous bodies elected by their local population.

Returning to reform, I note that one reason why I am keen to support local government reform relates to Meghan Gallacher’s point about how services are delivered. We need more shared services across local government boundaries and we need better use of digital and automation to provide better or more easily accessible services to the public. All those things are challenges for all parts of the public sector, and we are keen to work with local authorities, many of whom are getting on with looking at all that. We are keen to support that work because it is how we will make the money go further.

On the outlook—you can see what has been set out by the UK Government—there is an average increase in funding of 0.8 per cent over the spending review period. There is not lots of money sitting about doing nothing; it has all been allocated, and the outlook is very tight, indeed. Decisions need to be made because, if, beyond the real-terms increases that we have already given to local government, we were to give further funding to local government, it would have to come from somewhere. Would it come from health? Would it come from other parts of the budget? Those challenges will be set out in the spending review. We will set out our choices, and it is up to others to set out alternative choices.

AI is a tool; it does not operate on its own. We need to ensure that it is a tool that we can use to make improvements and to carry out tasks that previously would have been quite labour intensive. I am keen that people look to develop skills that enable them to do more complex tasks while more simple tasks are done through automation, and for AI to be used as a tool to provide information to help people make judgments about services.

Aberdeen City Council used £1.2 million from the invest to save fund to address increasing demands and pressures from an ageing population with complex care needs by developing advanced digital tools to enhance care efficiency and quality, ensuring that services are flexible, comprehensive and person centred. You need to understand your service users—who they are and what their needs are—and how you overlay that with the best use of your workforce, and automation, AI and digital tools can be absolutely critical to ensuring that you are optimising your workforce to deliver the task at hand.

That process will be overseen by people, particularly if the end user is someone who is vulnerable or older. We are not talking about removing that interface of people providing intimate care in people’s homes, for example. We are talking about using tools to enable services to be more efficient with regard to who goes where, when, to whom and why. We are also looking at things such as dementia tools that can enhance the service that is delivered by people to keep people safe in their own homes. Some of those initiatives have been around for a while; they have not just been developed. The potential for optimising services and ensuring that they are being delivered in the most efficient way is an opportunity that we should not turn our backs on. Other countries are embracing it. We are not unique, so we need to embrace it too, not just in local government but in the health service as well, in order to get the most out of the funding that we have and to try to release people to take on some of the more complex roles that there will be.

Also, as I said—we make no bones about this—we need to reduce the size and cost of the whole public sector in Scotland, because it is not sustainable. Every part of the public sector has to play its part in making sure that we can afford the public sector that we have and, importantly, we can prioritise and redirect funding to the front line to support social care and other growing areas of demand. We have no choice. We need to do that.

Yes. It is not my area of specialist knowledge, but all of the issues are considered as part of the energy requirements of our country going forward and the energy use that will be required in the modern world.

Data is just one part of that future, but it is a critical part. We could be at the forefront of much of the technology. We have some fantastic data centres and data capability—here in Edinburgh in particular, where we have innovation and partnering with universities that are at the forefront of using the knowledge for public good. I also point out that the work is not out on its own; it is about using the knowledge and capability for improving public services for the public good.

I am happy to write to you, convener, if you would like a little more assurance on the data centre issue in particular.

I recognise that those issues are not just for local government, as the national health service, for example, faces some of the same challenges.

The report that the Accounts Commission published in the summer was helpful. It called on councils to align workforce plans and strategic priorities, so that they can ensure that their workforces are the right size and shape and that their staff have the right skills. It is about having the right people in the right places.

We know that there are some critical workforce shortages in this area, and it is no surprise that they are mainly in social work and social care. Not every part of the workforce will be on a downward trajectory. If you look at social care and the investment that is required into the future, you can see that we will need more people to come and work in health and social care, so we need to ensure that the funds will be there to prioritise those frontline services, which will mean doing things differently elsewhere.

As we have touched on already, planning and environmental health are ripe for a shared-service approach. At the moment, councils try to hold on to those specialist staff but find that, often, they go to another local authority, perhaps because it is bigger and has a better rate of pay. Could we do something regionally in that space? Could some services be nationally provided? We absolutely need to be willing to have those discussions about whether every one of 32 local authorities needs every one of those departments. There is already some sharing of staff, which I welcome, but that needs to be the default across the board. Perhaps some larger local authorities could provide those services to smaller neighbouring local authorities. We need to get our heads into that space because, otherwise, councils will continue to fish for people in the same small pond rather than thinking about how they can deliver the services differently but more sustainably. That would be beneficial, as dealing with the costs of recruitment and backfilling gaps in the workforce with agency staff is an expensive way to deliver services.

The social care space also has some good examples of local authorities being able to recruit and retain staff more ably than others. People should look at how those local authorities have been able to hold on to staff and reduce agency costs. The same thing applies in the health service, although some health boards have managed that better than others. Again, where there is good practice and something has been shown to work, I would need some convincing about why that is not being adopted elsewhere, if I can be so blunt.

This is not some complex magic answer. A lot of the answers are already there, but they need to be scaled up and that approach needs to become the default for how services are provided.