Seòmar agus comataidhean

Just to clarify, if those things happen in the way that you hope that they will happen, is it your position that the uncertainty, vagueness or opacity around how, for example, flooding money is distributed among local authorities would be made clearer?

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

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.

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?

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?

Audit Scotland said that it wants the Government or public bodies to do that and that it wants clarity and more certainty around some of those things. However, it is odd, because there is no evidence or analysis around the issue that would back up that call—that is my concern.

My second question is about schemes. I am thinking about a scheme in Milnathort, which is an area that I used to represent. Just before I was elected, a £5.5 million flood defence was introduced—that was a hard flood defence—but it failed at the first time of asking. Subsequently, the World Wide Fund for Nature did a lot of work upstream, if you like, with farmers, by planting and so on, and we have never had a recurrence of that failure. Has any analysis been done of the efficacy of the different forms of flood defences that are mentioned in the report?

The member has probably had a flavour of the fact that committee members are keen to pursue what might seem fairly niche issues. However, if this proposal is to become law, it is important that we get the facts right.

On the nature of war memorials in Scotland, a study that was done by the University of Stirling about five or six years ago showed that there is no standard war memorial in Scotland. After the first world war, every community made its own decisions; some had Celtic crosses, some listed people by rank—although I should say that I have never favoured putting senior officers first. In any case, there is no standard way of constructing a war memorial in Scotland—there are different types.

Next week, I will attend a ceremony involving my old unit, in which a name is to be added to a war memorial of a guy who died in training. His name will probably go alongside four other guys from our troop who were killed in the Falklands; in other words, they were killed in an armed conflict, but he was not. Again, my point is that war memorials are all different—there is not a standard form. However, that particular war memorial is on my old base. I understand that the amendment that you will be lodging will not have any impact on that, because the public cannot get access to it, so that will be excluded from the bill. Is that right?