Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to write to the committee with more detail about the role of the planning hub, but my understanding is that it will support local authorities. I am not talking about support with the small developments that are local planning departments’ day-to-day meat and drink; I am talking about support with some of the complex, large-scale applications that some local authorities will deal with more than others, depending on their location—there are obvious reasons for where some of those developments are happening, and the planning hub should be in a position to give that additional support.

Ivan McKee is overseeing the hub, which was set up with that approach very much in mind. I am, however, happy to furnish the committee with a bit more up-to-date information about what is happening and what practical support the hub might lend to local authorities that are trying to deal with things that could consume all their time because of the complexity. We will set that out in writing.

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

We absolutely must be proactive and think differently. That requires leadership at all levels and it requires a willingness to do things differently. We need to oil the wheels of that, and that is why we have the invest to save fund, which is in its first iteration. I put it on record that I am keen for that to be a strand through the spending review, as it can be a supportive vehicle for further change.

We are not starting from scratch on reform. Over the years, we have seen major reform in the justice system that reduced the number of young people being prosecuted in adult courts. We have seen investment in childcare, which helps parents to get back to work. We have seen the reform of policing with the introduction of a single body that has demonstrated the ability to respond, particularly with serious organised crime. In local government, we have seen shared services in many parts of the country.

However, we are only scratching the surface of the potential. We must all realise that reform is not a nice to do; it is absolutely fundamental, because the spending outlook is very tight indeed. We therefore need to look at the investment that is already in the system, whether it is for local government or health and social care, and consider how we maximise the resource that goes the front line. We need to do things differently through automation and digital to ensure that the money goes as far as possible and we continue to provide good-quality services. That is the challenge.

We can see great examples of that being done and efficiencies being created so that the money can be reinvested. I want the savings through the invest to save fund to be a catalyst for more transformation across the public sector, as there is far more scope.

There is always the coalition of the willing. In every part of the public sector, you always get those who are first out of the starting blocks and you then get those who are a bit slower to come to the table, but the whole public sector needs to go in that direction.

It is a complex formula that is designed to make an objective assessment of need. It uses the most up-to-date information and looks at indicators such as population, which you referred to, as well as rurality and deprivation.

The formula is kept under constant review, and is agreed with COSLA on behalf of the 32 local authorities, which sometimes have 32 different interests. That is the challenge. Trying to get everybody to agree changes when there will be winners and losers is incredibly difficult. I am always open to suggestions about how we can improve the funding formula, but any proposals for change need to be generated through COSLA in the first instance, and we need to try to come to a consensus that recognises some of that.

We have tried to work with local authorities in different ways through things such as the whole family wellbeing fund. We are working with local authorities to try to address deprivation and do upstream prevention work, and some funding streams try to recognise some of that. We have also worked with our island authorities to recognise some of their needs and costs. We have tried to do that directly with island authorities.

We have recognised some of the challenges. However, on the core funding formula, if I was to pitch up and say, “I will decide,” I can imagine that I would hear 32 voices, some of which might be happy and some of which would definitely not be happy. I come back to the point that there is always room for improvement, but it would certainly not be in the spirit of the Verity house agreement if I were to overrule local government consensus on the issue. However, we continue to discuss the matter. Around the edges and around some of those other funds, we might be able to address some of the issues that you have referred to.

It will take a number of years. Revaluation itself would take three years, and that does not have political agreement.

The first thing to do—before we get into what we do—is to see whether genuinely people think something needs to change. I could read out all the Opposition comments: no party in this place has not said that.

The next question is: where might there be a level of agreement? We will not agree on everything, but where is the potential for agreement? That is where the discussion will be taken forward, by someone other than me, and the next Parliament could begin to shape and plot out over a number of years the changes it would make.

The IFS pointed out that we could give soft landings to any change in a number of ways over a number of years. Gradual transitional arrangements could span as long as we wanted them to span, so that any changes take place gradually over a number of years, but we need to have a starting point. I have been clear—because I do not want political opportunism to scupper this reform—that we have to have a starting point of agreement. Otherwise, council tax reform will get lost in the noise of political opportunism. That is the challenge, and we are keen to hear what people have to say.