Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to look at the implications that HIE highlighted around the lack of a definite commitment to an assisted-areas map. I ask the witnesses what the importance is of having an assisted-areas map and how it should be developed, and what the implications are of not having one. I ask Steve Fothergill, who I know has a close interest in the issue, to respond first.

David Bell wants to come in.

Do you agree with the point about the Highlands being given the same status as London? I do not know whether I misinterpreted what was said, but it seems that, in the levelling-up process, the Highlands were put on the same level as London. I see Steve Fothergill shaking his head. Maybe he can clarify.

You have questioned the criteria that could be used to determine an assisted-areas map. Surely we have templates that were in use previously; we have the EU template.

I just want to clarify something in my own mind. I have this vision of a big pot of liabilities taken from all four nations sitting down at the Treasury in Westminster. How is that accounted for?

Thank you. I call Mark Ruskell.

Some of that might come up in my next question—you can come in after that.

Auditor General, I want to continue with a question about those resources: £1.5 million of the funding that was approved as contingency in 2021-22 was used to recruit additional permanent positions. Was last year’s request for management contingency effectively a request for additional staff and therefore additional recurring budget? I am concerned not to mix up recurring and non-recurring contingencies.

Thank you, Auditor General.

I will ask the first question. Back in January 2021, the Scottish Commission for Public Audit approved your budget proposal for 2021-22, which included a request for an increase in contingency to £2.4 million, to implement

“a long-term sustainable resource programme”

to meet the needs and demands of public audit. I will not go through it line by line to talk about what has been allocated to what, but you said then:

“If we identify any potential underspend against this budget allocation, we will indicate this at the earliest opportunity for a return to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.”

You gave that undertaking. The latest management contingency update letter appears to suggest that £107,000 of non-recurring surplus has been used to secure “time limited external support”.

In relation to the £500,000 management contingency that is sought for 2022-23, will you expand on the types of unplanned financial risk for which it could be used? Will any underspend be returned to the Scottish consolidated fund? Basically, why have you not returned the surplus money from last year? Will you give the same undertaking this year?

I call Daniel Johnson.

Are you online, Alan?