Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will keep my questions brief. This session has been invaluable. It has been interesting for me to listen to it.

We have had a number of conversations about the so-called economic performance gap and you have clearly illustrated the reality and why it is more complex than simply seeking top lines. I am quite intrigued by the percentage of our conversation this morning about getting further clarity on the operation of the fiscal framework, with the different events that influence data and information coming in from the UK Government and the Scottish Government.

I also feel that, every time that we have these sessions, we are descending in terms of transparency, which has to underpin the point of why we are doing this. Things seem to become ever more opaque, ironically, as we get more data and information, and that is clearly driven by a system that seems to encourage short-termism and more complexity, becoming ever more inefficient. That is just my observation from sitting and listening to this session, but I am interested in hearing your views, because your work rate must also be increasing.

That is very helpful. I will pick up on a comment that you made earlier about HMRC. Have you got any indication from HMRC as to whether it might start to make more data available? You were talking about self-employed people, and, with the making tax digital programme coming during the next tax year, there will be much more data available, even if it is not collected—and it could be during future phases. There must also be more data available with people making interim, mid-year payments, which came in a few years ago. The whole point is to make data more readily available to mitigate the problem of the self-employed figures.

Mr McGowan, I have a question for you. In this inquiry, we have touched on the potential perception, real or otherwise, of a conflict of interest. Have you had any initial engagement on that? I note that at point 5 of your submission, with regard to what you refer to as the “Rangers case”, you say:

“The form and nature of this Inquiry has yet to be confirmed.”

Have you had discussions with Government as to the nature of that inquiry, given the significant potential for interest? For example, it could be led by somebody from the Scottish legal fraternity, which is relatively small, with many lawyers going to the Crown Office and vice versa. Have any such discussions taken place?

Of course, but surely you would be pushing to protect yourself and your reputation. Surely your view—I am interested to hear whether this is, indeed, your view—would be that the inquiry must, ideally, be led by someone external to Scotland altogether, because of the potential conflict of interest given the Crown Office’s role in the Rangers case.

I am not necessarily focusing on that. It is about the decision-making processes—and not only the question whether an inquiry should be set up, but its nature in respect of good governance. That is why I am asking the question.

I do not have anything else to ask, convener.

Professor Escobar, do you have any final comments on the issue?

It is really interesting for me to understand what the blockers are and to what extent the bill can be an enabler. Economic strategy, in and of itself, can indicate intent, but it does not necessarily bring all the pots of money to the table. We have some control over various things in the public sector, some of which Councillor Forson mentioned, but we also talked earlier about small and medium-sized enterprises. Primarily, much of their funding will come from banks, which will take a completely different view of the matter, given their attitude to risk, and they may not be at the table.

I am trying to get a sense of how much of a shunt the bill could provide, although, in my assessment, there would still be considerable blockers. As Councillor Forson said, as a minimum, we do not want the bill to get in the way.

I am not disputing that; I am simply trying to gain from you an understanding of where we are at. Even if—assuming that the bill goes through—the Government sends out a clear indication of its intention, in and of itself, that will not necessarily attract the range of funding that would be required to enable projects. Even if we completely agree that community wealth building is good and should attract funding, it will not do so in and of itself. I am trying to get a better understanding of where we are at.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. You have started to touch on this already in the various comments that you have all made, but I am interested in your assessment of whether, if the bill is right, the money will come. There are elements that we are already doing—I am thinking about community asset transfer, and procurement has also been mentioned. Theoretically, the bill should enable additional things. I appreciate Oliver Escobar’s comment about local councils, although they have more borrowing powers than the Scottish Government does, because they have the prudential borrowing scheme.

Based on the experience that you all have, do you think that the bill, in and of itself, will help to facilitate clearer lines of sight on funding? Perhaps Councillor Forson might like to come in first, because Clackmannanshire Council has already been doing some of this work, so she will be acutely aware of the funding challenges that exist in the work that the council has under way.