Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the back of her response to the convener’s initial questions, I would like Mirren Kelly to expand on a couple of points in COSLA’s written submission.

You have been critical of the lack of data on and drivers for the key priorities in the RSR. I presume that the data and drivers are the indicators in the NPF and the data that underpins them. Is your criticism about the lack of clarity over whether that is indeed the case or about the indicators and the data that underpins them in the NPF being insufficient to fulfil that role?

Again, you mention that the framework as a whole does not reflect the reality of the past 10 to 12 years and the pressures that the public sector has faced over that period. Were you looking for a framework that better reflected that? Is COSLA looking for more about the narrative and the rhetoric to acknowledge that reality or do you think that some specific points are missing that would have better reflected that? In other words, is it that you do not feel that the Government has acknowledged that reality, and are there specific changes that you would make to better acknowledge it in the review?

Absolutely.

In preparing options for the budget or questions about a draft as it stands, has a councillor ever directly referenced the national performance framework indicators? Have you ever been asked how something contributes towards a certain indicator or is the discussion at local level entirely based on the strategy for Fife that you have just mentioned? I am not criticising councillors or council officers, by the way—I am just trying to get an understanding of whether the NPF informs day-to-day discussion.

I apologise to the secretary of state, because I will probably have to leave the meeting slightly before it is formally closed.

I will stick with questions on the methodology. My first one is not specific to Scotland. Will you explain the rationale for using House of Commons constituencies as a unit of measurement to cap the number of bids that can be made? It strikes me that that leaves the whole process open to suspicion and accusations of it being used potentially as a system of patronage for MPs in marginal seats whom the Government of the day would like to keep on side for electoral reasons. Will you explain why, despite those concerns, which have been made about previous funding systems, you felt it appropriate to use constituencies as a way of capping the number of bids?

I am sure that he will have your endorsement on the leaflets that go out in a few months’ time.

I will move on to some Scotland-specific concerns about the methodology, which I am sure you are already aware of. Without trying to put words into your mouth, I am taking your initial response to the convener’s line of questioning as, in essence, saying that you are operating the equivalent of a no-detriment policy for the amount of funding that Scotland is to receive compared with what it would have received if we were still in the European Union.

Bringing that down to a regional or local level, concerns have been raised by Highland Council in particular that, while the Highlands and Islands were considered a transition region under European arrangements and were eligible for more funding—which was certainly disproportionate to their population share—the Highlands were not a priority for the CRF and were ranked lowest on the scale for the levelling up fund. Could you defend the place that we have got to? It certainly appears that our Highlands and Islands local authorities feel that they are now being put at a significant disadvantage compared with if we were still in the European Union.

I would like to drill down into that. I understand your point entirely and I think that it is right that there are differences in methodology between the different nations to recognise different local contexts, but can you explain why the transport connectivity methodology is different, given the particularly acute transport connectivity issues that we have in some areas of Scotland?

Going back to the point of there being no detriment to Scotland overall in terms of funding, would you be willing to confirm now an extension of that principle to the Highlands and Islands specifically? Can you confirm that your intention is to ensure that the region is no worse off in terms of funding through these arrangements than it would have been if we were still in the European Union?

On that point about transport—this is particularly relevant to the Western Isles ferry services that you mention—evidence was submitted to us with concerns about the differences in methodology between Scotland and England, with transport connectivity being a much more straightforward part of the process in England, where there is a 25 per cent weighting for it.

The argument that is being made, which I am sure everyone around this table would agree with, is that transport connectivity means lifeline services for some communities in a way that it does not for many other communities across the UK. Transport is important to everyone but, for some folk, “lifeline” barely scratches the surface of how important it is.

Could you explain a little bit about why there is that significant difference in the methodology between Scotland and England? Could you respond to the concerns that have been raised with us that that essentially puts some of the least connected communities at a disadvantage because their lack of connectivity is not being taken into account in the methodology, whereas if they were in England, it would be?

Thank you—I look forward to seeing that.

Would any of the other panellists like to come in on the wider question of why the third sector is providing something that the public sector cannot or will not provide? I will perhaps ask folk who are joining us remotely first. Jim Wallace, do you have any thoughts on that?