���˿���

I appreciate the need for urgency. Was anything picked up in the committee’s evidence sessions after the bill was introduced that might have been gathered through the public consultation that you are now reflecting on?

As you will know, we have heard a range of views in our evidence sessions. Some witnesses have raised concerns about the bill’s broad scope and how it could impact the speed and cost of assessment and remediation, while other witnesses have said that the bill does not go far enough and that they want the bill to cover all fire safety aspects of buildings, rather than just cladding. What is the minister’s—and the Government’s—thinking with regard to the balance of those arguments? Is there any potential for prioritisation based on the risk of multiple fire safety issues?

Good morning. We have heard from witnesses concerns that certain key terms in the bill are not as clearly defined as they could be. People have talked about the meaning of “development”, “premises” and “risk to human life”. We heard contrasting evidence during the previous evidence session. Do witnesses have any concerns about the terms that are used in the bill? Do those definitions need further clarity in the bill?

Thank you.

Does the Government have an analysis or an interpretation? Last week, I asked the directors of finance for an understanding of core local government services and how the financial settlements over the years since 2013-14 have contributed to the services that are not ring fenced or are not mandatory. How have financial settlements impacted the core budget? Does the Government have an analysis of core local government spend?

Okay. I will take that on board when it comes to the presentation of figures.

We had directors of finance before us last week, and the director of finance from Argyll and Bute Council talked about the presentation of figures almost being alternative realities. Has there been any discussion with the Parliament and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and with COSLA, on the development of the fiscal framework so as to come to a figure that is universally and commonly accepted as being the reality that is facing local government, which would allow both sides to come to an agreed position when it comes to this annual fight over figures?

Thank you for that clarity. We have also previously spoken about another issue relating to the presentation of figures. The Government says that, since 2013-14, local authority finance has increased by 2.6 per cent. That is an entirely accurate presentation of the figures. Local authorities’ contention is that, between 2013-14 and now, they do far more, which is obvious when we look at social care contributions, the provision of 1,140 hours for ELC, free school meals and so on. They do a whole range of things over and above what they did in 2013-14. How can the committee get to an analysis of the baseline of local government funding, stripping out those extra commitments, to gain an understanding and appreciation of what has happened to core local government budgets during the period?

Last week, the director of finance at Glasgow City Council gave an example of someone working 20 hours a week for £20,000 who then starts to work 40 hours a week for £40,000. Although that represents an increase in pay, it does not take into account the huge increase in the hours that are being worked. What is your take on that? How do we analyse core Government funding without the extra things that local government is doing to address significant national priorities, which we agree with? How do we get to a deeper understanding and analysis of what has happened to local government finance?

Good morning, minister. I want to discuss the presentation of the budget figures and how we compare like with like, and how we compare the budget before us with budgets from previous years, so that the committee and Parliament can scrutinise the figures.

The Government has talked about a 5 per cent increase in this year’s budget compared with the previous year’s budget. COSLA and local authorities have said that a better interpretation would be to compare the entire amount of money that local authorities received for this financial year with the amount for the coming financial year. Their interpretation is that, under that analysis, there has been a 0.2 per cent reduction in real terms. Why does the Government choose to compare a budget with another budget, rather than considering the in-year additions that the Government has made to support teacher pay and core pay?

Good morning. I would like to probe a bit more the difference between the Government’s rhetoric about the uplift to local government funding and the pretty bleak picture being painted by you guys from the coalface, essentially.

The Accounts Commission has said that, in the 10 years between 2013-14 and now, local government has had a 2.6 per cent real-terms increase. However, Martin Booth pointed out that, when you look at that increase, you can compare it with going from working 20 hours to 40 hours and see it as an increase in budget, so you could say that, mathematically, that figure is correct. Can you drill down deeper into that and outline, in cash terms and policy terms, what those extra 20 hours a week mean? We know about the 1,140 hours, free school meals, IJB contributions and teacher numbers. Are you able to set out what services you provide over and above those that you were providing in 2013-14 and what they cost you? How do you compare that with the 2.6 per cent uplift that the Accounts Commission talked about?

I am more than happy for you to give an answer in writing, if that is easier.