���˿���

I meant that, for many families across Scotland, the status quo was pretty tough and grim. When it comes to recovery, we cannot be content just to go back to the way things were. We need to resolve some of the structural challenges in Scottish society and the Scottish economy. One example is that work needs to pay. We cannot expect families to make ends meet through insecure employment. The fact that so many children in working households are in poverty should be a huge incentive not to return to the way things were, but to do things differently.

Another example in the economic sphere is town centres, which you mentioned. Prior to the pandemic, we were already grappling with the way in which our town centres have changed, because people shop online and local town centres perhaps struggle to compete with some of the bigger urban centres. The pandemic has exacerbated those trends: more people have started shopping online, more people are digitised and our town centres are struggling more than they were, even with the big emphasis on shopping local. Those are two examples of how going back to the status quo is not an improvement, which should be an incentive to act.

Your question about local government’s role is important. During the pandemic, we saw that—homelessness is a good example of this—when there was an urgent need to act, because it was an emergency, we did not get sucked into process and bureaucracy but we focused on outcomes. Rather than get bogged down in the process of ending homelessness, we just decided, together, to end homelessness and to ensure that everybody had a home.

I go back to Miles Briggs’s question about preventative spend. In thinking about our national performance framework, of which COSLA and we are joint signatories, we need to focus on outcomes rather than process to fix the issues. We need to take that approach to every problem—rather than get fixated on process, we need to have the outcomes in mind and deliver those. It is easier said than done, but there are no more excuses, because we focused on outcome rather than process during Covid.

Thank you very much.

As someone who was not formerly a serving councillor either, I have to say that it is good to have some company at this morning’s meeting.

I can think of quite a number of examples. However, before I go through them, I have to say that one of the points that I frequently make about preventative spend is about the importance of Government and the Parliament going hand in hand on this. We are going to get into this again over the next few months, but I would simply note that, every year, Parliament scrutinises—and quite rightly so—those budget lines that go down as well as those that go up. As you will know from your years as health spokesperson, Mr Briggs, the problem with preventative spend is that additional spend in one area—in other words, prevention—means an equal and opposite decline in other spending areas. When I have come before the committee, previous members have asked me why, for example, I am not spending more on environmental measures to reduce future health harms. Mr Briggs will know as well as I do that, if we were to reduce spend in acute health areas and move that money into, say, more parks—I do not mean to be facetious, but you will understand what I am saying—there would be a bit of an outcry. That is what we have to do with regard to preventative spend.

One example that I would highlight would be our spend on active travel and low-emissions zones, both of which have, as you will know, a direct impact on lung health. As a result, although that spend is part of the transport budget line and has to be accommodated there, the benefits are seen in the health budget. We need to start scrutinising overall budgets. Perhaps the committee could take up that matter, given its diverse range of subject areas, but we have to get into the spirit of looking at what is happening in one budget line versus what is happening in another.

Another area in which the committee might take an interest is community wealth building, which involves us investing in local economies and community economic development rather than in big national economic development, knowing that, when you invest in local communities and create jobs at a local level, that inevitably has a bigger impact on, for example, the amount of spend on welfare support. If we are spending on creating jobs, we are not spending on welfare support, because individuals will be earning sufficient sums of money to support themselves and their families.

Those are two examples, and there should be more. In order to get more, we need to take a more holistic approach to the way in which I set that budget and, more importantly, the way in which the budget is scrutinised.

Yes, there will be on-going support. If I can be a little tongue-in-cheek here, it takes us back to the core question for the committee, which is about ring fencing versus maximising local authority discretion, and I look forward to the committee’s steer on that. We will certainly provide on-going support—not only financial support but support in kind—as we develop the approach, and we will help to facilitate work and provide expertise and guidance. However, when we are developing new strands of work, the big question for us, and for the committees, is whether we ring fence funding for specific outcomes and purposes, and that includes community wealth building.

Community wealth building will play an important role in our wider economic strategy. I want that strategy to have a strong local dimension, which will require local authorities to think creatively about their role in helping to develop local economic strategies. We will continue to provide support and encourage local authorities to keep on doing what they are doing: working with local communities to develop bespoke local economic strategies.

I will answer, but if Andy Kinnaird wants to add anything, he is welcome to do so. The climate emergency is the overarching priority for NPF4, so NPF4 will make a fairly urgent and radical shift in our spatial plan and policies to meet our targets and it will prioritise the reduction in emissions in a way that also responds to the nature crisis. NPF4 will play a key role in integrating land use and transport; it will focus on place-based outcomes when it comes to the climate emergency; it will support green economic recovery; it will promote nature-based solutions; and it will apply the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

All those things are geared towards responding to the climate emergency. There are key themes but, if you want one overarching priority that brings everything in, it is responding to the climate emergency. Planning has such an important role to play, because we have a choice with every planning application—do we improve how our communities live and work together or hinder that in a way that increases or reduces emissions?

That is a helpful opening question. Let me tackle it in two ways. First, we are mindful—as committee members will be, as members of the Scottish Parliament—that many people are still grappling with the immediate impact of Covid. I have just said that I am self-isolating; other families are self-isolating, too, and that will have financial implications. As we consider the long-term recovery, we cannot lose sight of the fact that many families are grappling with the here and now. Therefore, the first point is that we must try to support families as much as possible, and we must support the public, private and third sector organisations that are critical when it comes to dealing with the immediate impact of the virus—for example, in relation to insecure employment and children’s education.

The second part of my answer is about how we deal with the long-term economic recovery—I think that you alluded to that. During the pandemic, it has been said more times than I can count that we need to recover in a way that delivers for people. We cannot just recover the status quo; we must go further in tackling the inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and in ensuring that we deliver in the ways that we were grappling with prior to the pandemic.

Let me talk about the areas in which the committee has a direct interest. First, we have to ensure that there is warm, safe and secure housing for families up and down the country. That comes from our commitment in “Housing to 2040” and the significant spend on affordable homes.

Secondly, local government has been a key partner during the pandemic. We need to make sure that it is resourced with sufficient funding and sufficient levers of control and influence to enable it to respond.

The final part of the committee’s name is “Planning”. The fourth national planning framework, which will be a long-term plan that looks to 2045, presents an opportunity to ensure that we have the development and the infrastructure that are needed to support sustainable and inclusive growth.

I will stop there, rather than go on. As we look at the long term, we cannot lose sight of the immediate challenges, and this committee is one of the most essential committees of the Parliament when it comes to supporting and delivering for families and communities.

Paul McLennan is another former councillor with a wealth of experience. It is wonderful to have you in the Parliament and on the committee and I look forward to working with you.

The UK Government had announced that it would be starting a spending review last year but, for understandable reasons, that was delayed. We hope that it will be delivered this autumn, but we will wait and see what the UK Government does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer signalled his intent to publish a comprehensive multiyear spending review later this year.

The challenge for us is that, because local government is such a substantial part of the Scottish Government’s budget—more than £11 billion every year—it is very difficult for us to provide that long-term security without having long-term security ourselves. How the Scottish Government’s budget works is that, although we are given funding, which is gratefully received, it can be revised up or down. You can appreciate that if, for example, we commit next year a particular amount of money for local government, the risk is that our budget might be revised down, which would leave a shortfall. If local government planned on the basis of that funding, we would have to deal with a gap.

We desperately want to provide that long-term security and we desperately want that long-term security ourselves so that we can make long-term plans, which we have been unable to do because of year-to-year budgets. My sincere hope is that we will get the spending review this autumn, which will allow us to embark on our spending review and provide multiyear certainty to local government.

Until we have that security, it would not be prudent for us to provide it, because there are too many risks attached to our ability to deliver on the funding amount that we might confirm. We want to give that security because I know that local government wants to give security, for example, to some of the third sector organisations that it supports, which often appeal to local government for a multiyear settlement. It is a domino effect, but my hope is that that might change this autumn.

I will ask Andy Kinnaird to come in on that question, because it is about process and development. As I said, the national planning framework is long term and is a national plan—[Inaudible.]—in communities. In other words, it is about how we create liveable places, the wellbeing economy and better green places. It is about sustainability, places that can be invested in and places that can be inhabited.

If it is okay, I will ask Andy Kinnaird to talk about the process, the role of local consultation and local government’s ability to feed in.

You will know that, over the past two years, I have chaired a cross-party group on the reform of council tax—again, unfortunately, that had to be suspended because of Covid. The commitment is to look at council tax more generally and, hopefully, to invite a citizens assembly to consider the reform of council tax. I think that the issue should be seen in the wider context of local government flexibilities and taxation, but the commitment is to conduct a review of council tax as part of a wider consideration of local government fiscal powers. To go back to Elena Whitham’s question about what reform of the fiscal framework would look like, we need to see council tax as part of that wider conversation.

We need to ensure that planning departments in national parks and local authorities, as you mentioned, have the resources that they need to implement and deliver NPF4. There will be a programme of engagement with local authorities to understand the need for delivery and implementation and respond to that. We cannot divorce the policy from its delivery. Planning is one of the most obvious policy areas that will work only if it is delivered and implemented. Planning departments and policies are front facing as they engage with the public.

Andy Kinnaird might have something to add about the process, but I confirm absolutely that we will engage and are engaging with planning authorities to ensure implementation and delivery.