Chamber and committees

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?