The new deal in the Verity house agreement is between local government and the Scottish Government, so those are all factors that we need to be alert to as we move forward.

Well, the agreement is between the Scottish Government and local government.

Work is taking place on the overall issue, but you are probably jumping three steps ahead of things. Clearly, though, that will be part of the work that will need to take place. Equally, we will need to look at how we might resolve the issue of accountability with regard to matters that are the responsibility of Scottish Government ministers. We will do that in the spirit of partnership enshrined in the Verity house agreement, and I hope that that will help us to take things forward in a way that works for everyone.

The starting point is respect for our different democratic mandates, because this cannot ever feel to local government that the Scottish Government is coming in to check its homework. An important part of the outcomes framework will be increasing transparency in a way that works for all of us; by that, I mean not overreporting but ensuring transparency and clear lines of accountability so that people know who is accountable for what part of decision making. That will allow our electors to challenge us and local government’s electorate to challenge it. It is important that we get that right; it will take time, but that work is on-going.

It is important that we develop clear lines of accountability and make clear who is accountable for what, and that is part of the work that we are doing.

Part of the question was about local government finance and it is appropriate to recognise that all public services currently face massive inflation, including energy price inflation, and that that causes challenges for all aspects of public service. To respond to your point, the Accounts Commission’s report makes it clear that we have increased local government funding over the years, but that does not by any means take away the challenges that local government is facing.

It is appropriate that we have a mature and transparent conversation so that we can show who is accountable, how the money has been spent, which outcomes have been achieved and where accountability lies if outcomes are not being achieved. It will be important to get that accountability framework right.

It is important to emphasise that local government pay negotiations are a matter for local government as the employers, and for the unions. It is enshrined in the Verity house agreement that that is the correct procedure and that the Scottish Government should not interfere in the process. However, in line with the Verity house agreement and despite the cuts that it has received, the Scottish Government has already committed to £155 million to support a meaningful pay rise for local government workers.

We have done things differently this year. In previous years, there might have been a threat of strike action and then Government would have come in and provided additional funding. We have recognised the challenges that you have outlined and £155 million was provided up front to support COSLA in its role as employer.

Pay inflation is a real challenge for all parts of the public sector. Local government, the Scottish Government and other public sector bodies are facing pay inflation driven by general inflation and the cost of living crisis. We are facing in-year challenges that we have never had to face before. I am trying to be as non-political as possible, but the impact of the mini-budget is being felt in every area of public service across Scotland and in the rest of the UK. That is a real challenge.

The Verity house agreement means that we can take those things forward together by working in partnership. What is right for one area might be different for another, which is why we want to empower local government to make choices and decisions. I hope that, instead of directing from central Government, we can allow local government to make the choices that will have the greatest impact on local areas.

As I mentioned earlier, my local authority, Dundee City Council, made a budget choice last year to provide extra funding for anti-poverty measures, because of particular challenges in the city. A huge amount of money has already been spent on mitigating Westminster policies. If we did not have to do that, the money could be deployed in different ways. Dundee City Council took difficult decisions not to do some things, because other things were thought to be really important. It is absolutely appropriate for such decisions to be made by politicians who are elected by their constituents to make them at local level, instead of their being directed by the Scottish Government in order to make life easier when we have to answer questions in front of committees such as this one.

Place directors have been around for a while. They try to understand, promote and support how public services work together, and that role has been reinforced in the Verity house agreement. I would not expect place directors to be accountable directly—that would be quite strange, because they are doing a piece of work; they are not making decisions as such.

Ellen, do you want to come in? I guess that you are a place director for some place.

We remain absolutely committed to supporting Mark Ruskell in bringing his bill forward at reconsideration stage, and the Verity house agreement is absolutely explicit in saying that we are committed to incorporating the charter. In fact, the language used in the agreement draws largely on it. Just because the European charter has not been enshrined in domestic legislation does not mean that we are not allowed to meet the aspirations of the legislation. Clearly, that was an aspiration of the Parliament.

Mr Ruskell took the view that we should wait until the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill was taken forward for reconsideration. We have had that announcement, and we will now continue to work at pace to bring the bill back for reconsideration, but this is a complex issue and we need to make sure that we get it right. It is an absolute commitment, and COSLA raises the matter at virtually every opportunity, because it is important to local government that the charter is enshrined in law in future. I hope that all members agree that it is important that we take that forward.

It would be good if Sarah Watters and Ellen Leaver could contribute on that issue, because they have been very much involved in the actual day-to-day work on that. The three shared priorities roughly align with the priorities in the resource spending review. Obviously, there was a degree of work, which Sarah and Ellen will have been involved in, to look at the priorities in the spending review and take something back to the politicians. However, I do not think that there was a particular argument around the three priorities, because they make sense. That is shown by the fact that the Verity house agreement, with those three priorities, was supported not only by the Scottish Government and the COSLA presidential leader, but by political leaders across the COSLA organisation—all parties were able to sign up to that.

I guess that that is the strength of looking at top-level outcomes and the difference that we are trying to make. On many of the issues, whatever our political perspective and our differences about how we get there, we share a common desire to improve the lives of people in Scotland, and the three priorities help us with that.