Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am going to bring Amy Woodhouse in, but leadership was something that I was going to come to you next on, because you said in your submission:

“There needs to be a consistent commitment to and leadership of the NPF throughout the Scottish Government and other public bodies that delivers policy coherence across strategies, plans, frameworks, and activities.”

Have you identified a significant gap in that regard?

I agree with that. If I have to do a piece of work and I have been given a deadline of Friday, I will do it on Thursday. If the deadline is the following Monday, I will do it on Sunday. If there is no deadline, there is always something else to fill my time. I do think that that is an issue. With the best will in the world, we always have other priorities, some of which are time driven.

I said that I would go back to Amy Woodhouse. In your submission, you say:

“We believe there is scope for funding to be more closely aligned to the national outcomes, and we would welcome the opportunity for discussion about how this could be taken forward appropriately.”

How can it be taken forward? You talk about that in your submission, but, rather than read it out, I will let you cover that ground.

I think that everyone on the committee supports multiyear funding, if it can be delivered, because the current situation is extremely wasteful, as has been pointed out. People are doing an excellent job, but, in the run-up to the end of the financial year, they are wondering whether they should be applying for a job elsewhere, because their current funding might not be renewed. That is an important point, and it is something that we have taken on board.

Four people are keen to speak, and I will take them in order. Daniel Johnson will be followed by Michelle Thomson.

I am quite happy for you to mention that. We are here to hear your views and opinions and that of your organisation, and to share it with others. There are quite a lot of common threads here. For example, Jamie Livingstone’s submission says:

“As a non-public body, we are not held to account for how our actions and decisions impact on the National Outcomes.”

In his submission, Keith Robson has expanded on that point:

“Our core funding is not currently directly contingent upon demonstrating our contribution to the delivery of the National Outcomes as we report using the Outcome Agreement with the SFC which is our guiding document. None of the additional funding we receive through the National Training Transition Fund, Upskilling Fund, Universities Innovation Fund and Workforce Development Fund is contingent upon demonstrating a contribution to the delivery of the National Outcomes.”

Should it be?

Absolutely.

I am keen for our guests to make any last-minute points. You do not have to make any final points, but if there is anything that you think that we have not touched on that we should have touched on, now is your opportunity. I will also give my MSP colleagues the same opportunity.

I will not go round the table one by one; it is up to our guests to let me know if they have any points to make. You do not have to if you do not wish to. Does anyone want to make any final points?

Before I let in Douglas Lumsden and Vicki Bibby, I want to go to Keith Robson. You said in your written submission that you want to avoid

“significant additional reporting burdens at a time when our core funding is failing to match rising costs.”

I have noticed that you are writing things down. Do you agree with Jamie Livingstone, or do you feel that that is an area of disagreement? What do you feel about data and reporting?

We would have to start again and reinvent the wheel.

That would be very helpful. Does anyone else have anything that they want to say? As would be said at an auction, going, going, gone.

I thank everyone for their contributions, which will be extremely helpful to our future deliberations. Once we have completed our evidence taking, we will work to put together a report, which you will all be able to access.

Our business planning day has been confirmed for 1 September. We have completed all our work for today, so no one has to stay behind. I thank everyone very much.

Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Before we start, I put on record the committee’s thanks to members of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, who visited us here at Holyrood yesterday. We had a very productive discussion on the work and approaches of our respective committees in relation to public administration, and it was fascinating for those of us who were here to see how in parallel we are with that committee with regard to our experiences and the challenges ahead of us.

Today, we continue our evidence gathering for our national performance framework: ambitions into action inquiry. I welcome to the meeting our first panel of witnesses: Mirren Kelly, chief officer, local government finance, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and Tim Kendrick, community manager, development, Fife Council. First of all, I would like to thank you for your excellent written submissions. Both were interesting and have certainly given the committee food for thought.

I will go straight to questions. Mirren, the first paragraph of your submission says:

“COSLA would further welcome a future opportunity ... to provide oral evidence to the Committee on some of the wider aspects concerning the Ambitions into Action Inquiry and expand on experience to date.”

Let us kick off with that, then.

Indeed, but I am not saying that you should go over the whole paper.