Seòmar agus comataidhean

This has been an incredibly interesting session. I am going to go back a little, if that is okay, because the theme that I want to ask about is the benefits and challenges of long-term funding. We have heard a lot about the benefits of such approaches but, again, this is all about teasing things out. The fact is that, when it comes to being risk aware or risk averse, local authorities and the Government are very much on the risk-averse side rather than the risk-aware side. It is just in our nature. It therefore does not surprise me that Glasgow City Council highlights in its submission certain major concerns about all of this.

I will come to you first, Professor Jung, on that juxtaposition, because you mentioned that relationship. Given that the issue is systemic and that that is how Government works, will it be difficult to turn that tanker? How can we move from a risk-averse process to a risk-aware process in a Government structure? How do we look at funding in that way, considering the concerns and challenges that Glasgow City Council puts across in its submission?

That is excellent. Karin, I will come to you to get your opinion on that issue, and I will give Erica a chance to comment, too. The Government has restrictions and we know that we have to go back to the public pound and be accountable to taxpayers, so is long-term funding possible?

Thank you, convener. I apologise for doing this at the end. I had a rural internet hiccup at the worst possible time, when we were voting on amendment 58 just before the break, and I have been trying to come in ever since. Basically, I was put down as having not voted, due to the problem with the internet connection, but I would like to put on record the fact that I would have voted against amendment 58. I apologise for the lack of internet support.

Good morning, everyone. I want to pinpoint the inflation uplift point. I will come to you first, Rachel, as you mentioned it. We have talked about multiyear funding and flexible funding. We will always rub up against a dichotomy with the fact that there will be fixed costs that have to be taken into consideration. That is a standard point. If we put that into multiyear funding, the inflationary uplift becomes part of an issue. Will you give me a little more information on what you mean by inflationary uplifts? How will they happen? How can we do it? I know that that is a big question.

I totally accept that, and I understand the position that you are in. I am sorry to force the issue, but what I am trying to get at is that we need to know what you advise on how we can do this. I know that that is a big question. It is not just a matter of doing a simple sum and giving inflationary rises. Given that there are fixed costs, we have to assume that, with multilevel funding, they will be fixed for the term, whether that is three, five or 10 years. Are you talking about an inflationary rise on everything? What are you asking for?

Lynn, you come from a different area. What is your opinion on that?

I totally get that. It was a horrible question, so I apologise.

Ran, I will ask briefly for your opinion on the same question. It is a horrible one, I know, but what if we cannot do all three?

I am going to put you on the spot here, Lynn, and I apologise for doing this. If we are looking at multiyear funding, flexible funding and an inflationary bump but we cannot do them all, which one would you put to the side? Sorry—I know that it is a horrible question. There are restrictions, and there are fixed costs, so there has to be an understanding at the beginning that those will be there. Could a rise for inflation be the one that will just not get over the line? Would that be fair?

There you go, Lynn—you are not on your own. Thank you very much.

Okay. I accept that. I do not think that I have time to ask anyone else to comment.