Chamber and committees

That issue is causing me some concern, and I intend to investigate it after the meeting. I have only just become aware of the information that the BBC published this morning.

My letter to the committee is based on the advice that I took at a given moment. I am the author of the letter, so I take responsibility for its contents. I am not concerned about the part of annex A of the letter in which I talked about the

“Number of people who have reported difficulties in accessing the COVID status app”.

I do not think that that is in any way contradicted by the data from the BBC this morning. However, on the final part of annex A, on the

“Number of people who have reported inaccuracies with the information contained in their vaccination record”,

as I have said to the committee, I am concerned by the fact that data is not currently available. I am exploring that point as we speak—or I would be if I was not here. It is being inquired about on my behalf.

The circumstances in which vaccination certificates are required for entry are rather limited—late-night premises with music that sell alcohol, unseated indoor events with 500 or more people, unseated outdoor events with 4,000 or more people and any event with more than 10,000 people. If people want to go to a mass event such as a Scotland rugby match or a large football match, vaccination certification will be required, because it is an effective way of trying to suppress the virus and improve vaccine uptake.

I accept the obligation on Government to make sure that we provide the highest quality information about the rationale for why it is in an individual’s best interests to be vaccinated, and our clinical colleagues support that argument extremely well by giving dispassionate clinical information to members of the public to aid them in that judgment. I understand that people will have hesitancy in some circumstances, but all that we can do is provide the best clinical advice, which many of us have followed and which we encourage other citizens to follow.

I can understand that happening in a society where many organisations want to play their part in suppressing the virus. We are very fortunate that many organisations, businesses and institutions in the country recognise the serious threat that the virus poses to human health and want to play their part. I can understand why some of them, without a requirement from the Government, want individuals who come to particular events to show their certification.

Organisations need to make a judgment about whether that is leading to any form of exclusivity, if they are interested in wider participation. I am sure that people at the event that Mr Mason will be attending will be interested in hearing from a range of diverse voices. Organisations have to make that judgment, but I can understand why they want to play their part and to do all that they can to suppress the spread of the virus.

It covers a much wider range of sectors. I think it is one or the other, though.

Good morning, convener. I am happy to address those issues with the committee this morning. The local governance review started prior to the election. We have engaged substantively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the review’s development, and with wider stakeholders across the country to gather input on and consideration of the response to the review.

There are two substantive elements of feedback from that. First, there is what I would describe as the general responses of the public and community organisations, which reflect on the accomplishments of communities, particularly during, but not limited to, the pandemic. The committee heard this morning from a range of community organisations, so it will have heard some of those responses.

Secondly, a range of propositions have emerged from local authorities and community planning partners about how the aspirations of the local governance review could be put into practice. The Government is considering some of those proposals and will respond to each of them with our feedback on the issues and aspirations that they raise. That is essentially what we are focusing on in the aftermath of the review. That forms part of the agenda that will play into the introduction of a local democracy bill in this parliamentary session, to which the Government is committed.

Fundamentally, I come at my politics with the view that decisions are best taken as close to people as possible, which is why I believe in Scottish independence. It is important that people can influence and shape the decisions that affect their lives. Ultimately, a discussion needs to be had about the proper arrangements that are necessary for the exercise of democratic governance.

We have a national health service, for example. I do not hear any argument that suggests that the NHS should be changed in some way from its current composition to having more localised governance. Ministers are accountable to the Scottish Parliament for the delivery of NHS functions, as provided for in statute. Decisions will be taken about where the responsibility for those functions is best exercised—it is not solely for the Government to take those decisions, but for Parliament as well.

A substantive issue that the committee must consider in its work on local governance relates to the Parliament’s view on questions of accountability. I frequently hear members of Parliament pressing the Government to be responsible or to account for certain things that have happened that are not exclusively the responsibility of the Government, but are responsibilities of local authorities or other bodies. Indeed, I regularly answer questions from members on that theme.

Parliament acts in a fashion that essentially wants the Government to be accountable for some of those responsibilities. However, the question on those points is not just for the Government to answer. Parliament must also be clear in its mind about where that accountability should rest and how it should be exercised.

We are taking forward practical discussions on that subject with local authorities, with discussions under way on, for example, proposals for tourism taxes—I cannot remember their formal title. There is an appetite for such a discussion with local authorities, if they wish to have it.

Evidence is available from the Accounts Commission’s scrutiny of the way in which individual services are delivered. The Improvement Service also does a lot of good work on charting the relative performance of local authorities. The range of differences in individual service areas can be quite difficult to justify.

The Improvement Service is there to help local authorities to deliver their improvements, and I very much applaud it for its work, because it is prepared to confront the variation in performance amongst local authorities. If we are to have an honest conversation about this, that point has to be addressed, and the reports from the Accounts Commission and the Improvement Service tend to give an insight on a service-by-service basis into where some of the differences lie.

Mr McLennan is tempting me on to territory that is the proper preserve of the finance secretary, and I will refrain from getting myself into difficulty with her at this time in the budget cycle. It is never a good idea for a cabinet secretary to get into trouble with the finance secretary, so I will leave it to Ms Forbes to update the committee on the substance of the point.

However, as a general observation, I would say that in recent years and for certain wholly understandable reasons, given Covid, Brexit and other factors—you name it—the UK Government has been unable to offer longer-term financial information. However, we now have much greater line of sight in the forthcoming period than we have had, which is very welcome. As for how the finance secretary handles that situation, I shall leave that for Ms Forbes to share with the committee.

Mr Griffin has raised a very serious point. It brings us back to the question of the outcomes that we are interested in achieving with all of this activity, which, in this case, must be that individuals feel that they are able to shape the direction of their community and the place that their lives have within it. As a result, the statistics that Mr Griffin has put to me, which might well show a decline, are concerning.

Interestingly, I thought that, in extremis, during the pandemic, the degree of community leadership, interaction, decision making and adaptation was higher than I had seen it in my many years of experience. That tells us that it is perfectly possible for communities to be much more closely involved in shaping their agenda and direction as a consequence of their interventions.

We must ensure, however, that communities are not disengaged from that process, and that they do not find the process much more difficult to participate in because of the way in which we structure such processes. It is up to local authorities to ensure that they are putting out—as I think they did during the pandemic—a welcoming invitation to communities to shape the nature of the response that is pursued in individual communities. We must ensure that that happens not just in a pandemic but all the time. That is one of the fundamental points of the Covid recovery strategy that I put to Parliament before the October recess: it is about trying to capture and continuing to mobilise that sense of community discretion and influence, which has been such an asset to us during the pandemic.