As I mentioned, the medium-term financial strategy included 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 be taken when the Scottish Government’s budget is passed. As Councillor Hagmann said, there has been a lot more earlier collaboration with COSLA. Councillor Hagmann has already had meetings with the Deputy First Minister. That has happened much earlier than it has done in previous years. That engagement is definitely front-loaded this year.

If we are talking about planning, we are making those changes right now. The bursaries are in place. We are also working with heads of planning to look at what more we can all do to make the planning system more efficient. You will be aware that one of the things that is coming through is permitted development rights. If we get those right, they could take pressure off our local government planners. We need to get them right, because we do not want just to say that everything is okay while it becomes a free-for-all. There needs to be appropriate planning support, and that is why we are consulting and will be introducing further legislation. I am absolutely open to suggestions on what further work we can do.

Although we are not doing it right not, we will also be working on the digitisation of some of that work, which will potentially offer huge advantages in the future. A number of local authorities are already digitising some of the work that they are doing. They are moving more online and using less paper, and it is much more efficient. It is important to remember that that does not all rest with local authority planners. A huge amount of weight and sometimes a fair amount of unfair criticism is placed on local authority planners, particularly when things do not go the way in which some applicants would like. Applicants have a responsibility to make sure that an application is submitted with the required information so that the planning authority can make its decision as speedily as possible.

Sometimes, folk will not like the decisions that come out of a planning process. That is why there are appeals. From speaking to developers, however, I know that one of the issues that they are keen to see resolved is the time that applications take. If applicants are going to be told no, they want to know sooner. It is partly on the applicants to make sure that their applications are as correct as possible. We are working with local authority partners and heads of planning to try to understand what more we can do to help with that process.

Are we talking about planning or wider local government?

You are conflating two very different points. The Verity house agreement drew a line in the sand for how we operate and collaborate going forward. If you want to talk about what we are doing on planning, I will say that it is a real issue that has been identified by local government, the Scottish Government, Heads of Planning Scotland and the RTPI, all of whom have recognised its challenges. The challenges are not straightforward. It is not just that folk are leaving planning; it is more than that. There are challenges with recruitment and in having a new planning regime that is transformational for Scotland, and we want to make sure that we get the most from that so that it creates all these opportunities. That is why we have, for some time, 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 for planners that will be needed. That is a higher number than I had heard, but, for sure, a substantial number of new planners will be required over the next 10 to 15 years. We need to plan for that, and we are doing that.

One of the important pieces of work that we have done is the “Future Planners Report”. The Scottish Government provided funding for Heads of Planning Scotland and the RTPI to look at how we can tackle some of the challenges that we face, and their report is useful. It was published in 2022, and I am sure that the committee is well aware of it. We are taking forward the actions in that report. Nothing in that report is unachievable. There are a number of short-term actions, medium-term actions and long-term actions, and we are making real progress, particularly, right here and now, on the short-term actions. We will continue to work with our partners to do more, because some real challenges could be coming up.

Pam Gosal mentioned undergraduate courses. In my home city of Dundee, the Duncan of Jordanstone college of art and design at Dundee University offers an undergraduate course, but other undergraduate courses have stopped operating. That is partly because people who end up becoming planners often do not have that career as their initial aim. They start off doing something else, such as architecture, and then do a masters, and a number of masters courses are available across the country.

To support that shift, we have funded 10 RTPI bursaries for students who will undertake Scottish postgraduate planning degrees this year. We will see how that goes and whether we can expand the number of bursaries to encourage more folk to make the shift. We need to make sure that folk who are looking at their career choices at school realise just how exciting planning is. Folk often do another course and then realise that they want to be a planner, and they then have to take a further course. I have been engaging with young planners, who are a enthusiastic group of folk. They are keen to make sure that the wider potential employment pool understands exactly what planning does and how exciting it is, particularly in the context of national planning framework 4 and the transition to net zero. If we can get that message across, more colleges and universities will consider providing planning as an undergraduate course. I am aware of at least one other university—I cannot name it just now—that is considering starting an undergraduate course in planning. It would be good if that were to happen.

We need to do more to encourage people. We are keen to look at whether there might be an opportunity for work-based training so that young folk can do their undergraduate course while working for, say, a local authority. A number of local authorities are keen to help with that process, but we need to make sure that it will work for the universities, young people and local authorities. One of the challenges is that NPF4 provides a huge number of opportunities, which means that there will also be an increased draw from the private sector. We need to make sure that we increase the size of the pool, but we are working on that with local government and other partners.

Councillor Hagmann covered most of the points eloquently. We cannot overemphasise the need to ensure that we have a workforce with the correct skills, and apprenticeships are part of that. The Withers report is really helpful in helping us to navigate that going forward across not just local authorities but the whole public service. Councillor Hagmann covered the other points.

Yes. It is a really good question. When we speak to local government finance colleagues, they will often highlight the fact that, where there is ring fencing, other bureaucracy is involved that is challenging and requires resource. As Councillor Hagmann said, we need to make sure that that reporting is supporting us in reaching outcomes. It is therefore really helpful that, in the Verity house agreement, we have some agreed outcomes and are shifting to that approach.

Simon Cameron mentioned the Christie commission. How many years ago was that? It was a long time ago. Mark Griffin and I sat on the Finance Committee at the time of the commission. It was going to help us shift to an outcomes-based preventative approach. That is really difficult to do. Hopefully, the Verity house agreement helps us do that, by focusing rigidly on the outcomes that we are trying to achieve and by making sure that everything that we do supports us in achieving those outcomes.

It is not unusual for legislation that comes through this Parliament to be amended at stage 3 in a way that creates another reporting responsibility. Very often, that reporting ultimately lands with local government staff, because they are the folk delivering the service on the ground. That is why we all need to think about how we do such things a little bit differently. I absolutely understand why members of Parliament want to see how money is being spent and the outputs, but surely our focus has to be on outcomes. In education, how are we giving young folk better opportunities for the future? How are we 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 that for a number of years, and hopefully the Verity house agreement will help us on that path.

The numbers are slightly up.

Both things can be true, because, as Councillor Hagmann indicated, individuals’ experiences in an area where there have been difficulties with recruitment due to Brexit or shifts in ways of working can make it feel as though there has been a cut, because there has been a reduction in staff in a particular area.

The figures that are published are overall figures, as is appropriate, but the experience on the ground for someone in an area where there has been a shift of people away might suggest that there has been a reduction. I do not think that anybody is coming to you with untruths; they are just expressing what they are seeing on the ground, which, as Councillor Hagmann said, might vary.

They were published on 12 September. They cover the NHS, for example, where there has been a significant increase, as we would expect. In the devolved civil service, there has been a slight decrease. There has been a very slight increase in the figure for local government, but it is pretty flat.

The statistics across public services have been published, and it might be useful to share those with the committee.