Chamber and committees

I went to the immersive Van Gogh exhibition, which was an incredible experience, but I forget how that was funded. I do not know whether there was private money behind that.

My final point is on genealogical research, social history and financial inclusion. You mentioned places where some of that is happening. The pressures on museums have also been raised, and I have said the same thing to Historic Environment Scotland, which does not do nearly enough to capitalise on the attractiveness of its assets.

My impression is that Edinburgh has been absolutely bursting at the seams this year, and I also hear that from people in other parts of Scotland. Many Americans have returned. Notwithstanding the climate challenge that that presents, of course, it seems that there is a huge opportunity there. A few years back I took a genealogical trip across to the Grand Central terminal in New York, and it was hugely oversubscribed, and there is Ellis Island, which will tell you about the appetite that is there.

I understand the point about cost, but local museums really need somebody who can answer genealogical queries. For example, if somebody from the States or Australia wanted to find out about their auntie who was from Forres or wherever it was, it would be great if they could go to a museum and talk to somebody who could help with genealogical research and social history. They would be getting a service that they could not get anywhere else.

On the financial inclusion point, it seems that if it is happening, it is happening piecemeal. Is there a case for saying in general to museums and libraries, “We are going to have to do new things to attract more people in?” Measures for financial inclusion could be a source of income.

I just wanted to say that it raises a really interesting point, because I think that this will require a change in attitude when it comes to monetising the assets that you hold. You could make the service free to local people, but the fact is that, if other folk are coming to use it, it puts a burden on the library. We should perhaps have that change in attitude: let us monetise this. That might well be difficult, given that, as Jamie Halcro Johnston has said, there are all these different ancestry organisations, but what I would say is this: these are your assets—try to monetise them.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect. I would have voted no.

I am the new boy on the committee, so my questions might not be exactly as they should be.

You talked about how you work with Audit Scotland. How does HIE respond to concerns about transparency and accountability? You will know that issues were raised in previous reviews. Will you outline what those concerns were and how you have responded to them?

First, I go back to the very start of the discussion, when reference was made—this is in the report, too—to instances in which some communities might be more likely to advance their case more effectively, if I can put it that way, particularly where high-value homes are concerned. The convener was quite passionate when asking about that.

I think that we could all agree that, intuitively, that would make sense, but I am conscious that you said that there was no analysis and no evidence of that, unless I picked that up wrong. You said that the issue came up with stakeholders. Are you able to say which stakeholders raised that?

Yes. I would just say that I am aware of some councils that have been so incensed by the Accounts Commission’s work that they have threatened not to pay the fees for it; I know that that is a very problematic thing to happen. They feel that the burden of scrutiny, which relates to the question whether it is proper audit scrutiny, is now becoming very onerous.

I got involved in local government in the early 1990s, so my experience probably pre-dates yours, Andrew. Since that time, the range of things that the Accounts Commission and the auditors, and Audit Scotland, look at has grown hugely. For example, I have seen comments on the quality of politicians in different local authorities. Even in the report that we are discussing today, I note the wide range of commentary that goes beyond the two areas—which, I agree with the Auditor General, are crucial and important—of value for money and ensuring that money is being spent properly and legitimately.

The report before us mentions, for example—Andrew, you mentioned it, too—the need for a line of sight and some longer-term certainty on strategies. However, there seems to be no acknowledgement of the nature of the funding that goes to the Scottish Government, by which I mean the certainty of funding. The position now is certainly more uncertain than I can ever remember it being. Even this year, we are going to have to present a budget to the Parliament before we know what the settlement is from Westminster, and there is chopping and changing from year to year.

You now comment in your reports on a range of different things, but I question whether sufficient regard is given to the wider environment. I acknowledge that you have mentioned the very constrained environment in which local authorities are working. However, in general, whether it is the on-going effects of the financial crisis in 2008; the constrained public sector budgets—I will not say “austerity”—that we have seen for 15 years now, since 2010; or the effects of the pandemic, there seems to be no recognition of those constraints. To me, it would be of more value, if you want to go into those other areas and comment on what Governments, public bodies or councillors should do, to hear those constraints being acknowledged.

My final, very specific, question goes back to an exchange with Jamie Greene. It is about the nature of the local government funding settlement. Once upon a time, somebody said that only two people in Scotland properly understood the formula behind it—it is a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question. You talked about how difficult you were finding it to track money that was allocated by the Government to councils for flooding. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so, if I am getting this wrong, please say so. There was mention of ring fencing. I assume that you would not support ring fencing as much as you would support there being more clarity about what money was being allocated and for what purpose.

Thank you, convener. I have no relevant interests to declare.

I was interested to read about the £11 million settlement. Many people will be reassured to hear that public authorities will challenge contracts that have not been properly delivered. Was any part of that process either informed by or done in conjunction with Audit Scotland? Did it help with that, or was it taken forward solely by HIE?

It will be for others to judge, but it would be useful to know whether you believe that you have met the concerns that have been raised. I suppose that that was the point of my question. As for other recommendations made by Audit Scotland and the Auditor General, there will be different views on their impact and scope, but do you consider those recommendations to have influenced your current practices? If so, can you give any examples of that?