Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask a couple of questions: one on absence rates, which is probably for Katie Hagmann, and one on the ageing workforce issue that was covered last week.

Councillor Hagmann, we heard last week that absence rates, particularly among non-teaching staff—we talked about that area earlier—have significantly increased in the recent dataset. Is COSLA doing any work to understand what is going on there and the reasons for that? Is it due to long Covid, general health issues or stress? How do you gather and collate that information, and, more importantly, what are you able to do about it? If you cannot help us with the details now, the committee would appreciate any follow-up information that you have to help us understand it.

Is the picture of absence changing significantly in any way as a result of the past three years, with Covid? If so, can you pin down a particular reason for that?

Thanks. I have a question on the ageing workforce, which is probably more for Katie Hagmann, but I would appreciate any comments from Joe FitzPatrick as well. We heard last week that there is an ageing workforce in local government, and we are seeing people retiring earlier. I asked how we can have both things at the same time, and colleagues gave a perfectly good explanation of why that happens. Do we accept and understand that? What are we trying to do to address it?

I looked at the Withers recommendations on skills. Is the skills delivery landscape an area where we can deploy some of the report’s recommendations to help us? If the ageing profile in local government continues to drift upwards, we will probably need to start thinking about what we do about that at the sharper end—the earlier end, the apprentice end—with new starts and the type of recruitment and skills development that Withers talked about. Can you say a few words about that?

Good morning, minister, Councillor Hagmann and colleagues. Will you say a little bit more about how the fiscal framework will provide the kind of flexibility that everyone is seeking and talking about? We were told by colleagues at last week’s meeting that it is still felt that there is a lack of flexibility in how local authorities apportion their funding to various duties. Does that mean that the dreaded ring fencing is at an end and is being replaced with the flexible arrangement that, collectively, we will somehow agree to?

That is encouraging.

The second part of my question is about hard cash on the table. The pre-budget finance circular that was issued shows a real-terms increase of 1.3 per cent and an increase of 4.3 per cent over the past 10 years. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that £1.5 billion extra in cash terms is to be provided between now and 2027-28, but our colleagues—especially those from whom we heard last week—continue to remind us that, in their view, we still need about £1 billion more to deliver the level of service that COSLA would expect local authorities to deliver for us on our behalf. There is quite a gap there, as I am sure you realise. Will you address that issue and give us your view on where we are in that long-running debate about cash on the table?

Thank you. Councillor Hagmann, I invite you to offer your perspective on the issue of cash on the table. Is it enough? How much more do we need? How do we get there?

After so many years in the Parliament listening to that argument, usually at this committee, year on year, about ring fencing, it is great to hear that that flexibility is there.

Councillor Hagmann, what is your view on that, particularly in the workforce planning area? Is the flexibility there to help local authorities with the workforce planning issues that we face?

Okay. Many thanks for that.

John Paterson, you covered a lot of ground in your opening statement. I have been a member of the Public Audit Committee and its predecessor committees for more years than I can remember, and I have dealt with section 22 and section 23 reports and so on from Audit Scotland.

I have to say that the response that you are giving to the committee does not appear to be consistent with your accepting the recommendations in full. You said that you do, but I do not get that impression from some of your responses. You said that you do not “share the gravity” of the situation and that the potential for the misapplication of public funds is “negligible”. Do you accept that you are absolutely required to comply with the Treasury’s guidance on this? If you do not do that, where does public assurance come from?

This is my last question. You also mentioned the separation between English and Welsh canals and Scottish canals. Was any opportunity taken to consult with the organisation there about how it went through the process? Is it in the same boat—literally—as you, or has it completed this exercise and complied fully?