Chamber and committees

I want to go back to points that, in particular, Alastair Sim made. I understand entirely the line of argument that the partnership approach that was taken in the pandemic was successful, so why would we wish to alter it? However, there is an assumption that the people who are involved on either side next time will be as reasonable and willing to co-operate as those who were involved last time. We generally do not make laws on the basis of the individuals who are around the table at any particular time—the laws that are proposed would be here permanently. Should we be pursuing the line of argument that, because partnership worked this time, it will definitely work next time? Is not the point of the bill to have a back-up option in place if partnerships break down?

On the point about taking people to court—in this case, the Government’s ability to take an institution to court—what if, this year, we face another pandemic that forces us into making decisions hour by hour? With the best will in the world, pursuing court action cannot result in your getting a response as quickly as you might like in the face of a public health emergency. That is exactly what we are talking about here. If you are faced with having to make decisions urgently—say, within a couple of days or, indeed, on the very same day—and the partnership approach does not work, by the time you have gone to court to get that resolved, the situation might or might not have got markedly worse in an avoidable way. Is this not about reflecting the urgency of a future pandemic?

COSLA’s submission also makes some criticism of the NPF goals and the need to improve the mechanism for assessing whether we are reaching them, saying that that should be integral to the spending review instead of

“some high-level numbers which are limited in their usefulness”

being set out. Can you clarify which high-level numbers you are referring to? Again, is that a criticism of the NPF indicators?

Eileen, you have mentioned that, like every other local authority and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament itself, you have just gone through your budget-setting process. How much of a role does the NPF play at council officer level in that process? Are the NPF indicators part of your day-to-day discussions when you prepare options for councillors?

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?