Chamber and committees

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.

You said that it is not that statutory providers cannot give the comprehensive, holistic family support that you provide. The implication, perhaps, is that they will not give it or that there is some other barrier there. Can you expand on that? Why do you think that, although it is possible for a statutory provider to do what you are doing, it is not happening at the moment?

That was very interesting. However, that answer leads us directly into lines of questioning that other members would like to come in on. Therefore, I will leave it at that. If there is time, I will speak to Jim Wallace about some of Aberlour’s services.

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?

If the reports of the SQA attempting to limit the damage to its reputation in the OECD report are true, the SQA did not do a very good job of it, because the Scottish Government has decided to abolish and replace the SQA.

On the question of how we take this forward as a committee, I absolutely agree that there is a need for substantial public parliamentary scrutiny of the process. I would prefer that we discuss how we are going to do that as a committee in the normal way, through our normal work planning procedures. If we decide at our work planning discussion after the public session of today’s meeting to move forward with public sessions, we will do so and they will be on the record. However, I do not like the implication that the way in which parliamentary committees go about their normal work planning—in private, so that we can flush out the issues collectively and decide how we will go about things publicly—is somehow a behind-closed-doors process that lacks scrutiny in and of itself. That is the normal way that Parliament functions. I am quite sure that, as a result of our private work planning meeting today, we will make decisions about what we are going to do in public about this—as we would have done regardless of what has just happened this morning.

I will start with Maureen McAteer, but this is a question for everyone on the panel.

I say this with no prejudgment, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on why the third sector is providing something that councils either will not or cannot provide. What is the unique contribution that justifies a significant amount of money being given to third sector organisations to deliver this, as opposed to its being delivered through councils or regional improvement collaboratives if it is about scale and so on? Why the third sector rather than the public sector?

I agree with you about the inspection system. I hope that it will be significantly reformed by the current process. Unless anybody else wants to comment on that—please indicate if you do—I will move on to a couple of questions for Laura Robertson about some interesting points in her submission.

Laura, you mention

“educational instruction outside of school”

as an intervention in the context of the attainment challenge. Will you expand on what is meant by that? How does it come up against the tension around consistency of access? As much as we are aware that there are issues with young people not attending school, the overwhelming majority of young people do attend, whereas far fewer young people attend youth clubs and so on, which I presume are the other contexts in which those interventions are intended to take place. Even if we funded them significantly more than we do at the moment, we would still not get a level of participation that was equivalent to the one that we get in compulsory education.

How would additional interventions in the context of the attainment challenge reach the young people that we need them to reach, compared with doing it through schools—where, admittedly, not all the young people are present, but the overwhelming majority of them are?

Convener, may I rescind my comment that I had finished and ask one more follow-up question?