Seòmar agus comataidhean

I go back to Heather Williams’s point about silos. In an area such as the Highlands and Islands, if people find it hard to keep their homes warm—indeed, we have some of the highest levels of fuel poverty anywhere in the country—they are, unfortunately, more likely to need NHS services. However, those services are under huge pressure.

You talked about silos, Heather. Even in the health service, primary and secondary care are not really integrating, and as a result, more pressure is being put on, for example, the Scottish Ambulance Service, which is not directly under the control of NHS bosses.

We have talked very generally about public service reform across the country, but is such reform almost more important in rural and island settings than in other areas, simply because fewer choices and alternatives are available?

That is the point. You have all made a very good case for why you believe that the NPF is important. What evidence is there that the Scottish Government feels the same way?

Thank you. Sorry, convener, I was just enjoying your questioning too much.

I suppose that my point is similar to the point that Liz Smith has already made. Over the next few years, we will see a tightening of budgets, perhaps a lack of sustainability in the public sector and some tough decisions made. Given the concerns over what has been delivered or which outcomes have been followed so far, the Government now has much harder decisions to make. What confidence do you have that it will be easier and more likely for it to follow the desired outcomes here? Will it just be a box-ticking exercise?

Do you have anything to add, Lukas?

I am not sensing a huge amount of confidence that the Scottish Government is committed to the NPF in delivering on the outcomes. Obviously, it is updating the framework, but I wonder whether there is much point in updating something that it is not going to follow anyway, on principle. With that, I will hand back to the convener.

In five years’ time, we will be back here and you will be saying—justifiably—the same things, which is that it is important that the Government, whatever colour of Government it happens to be, needs to look longer term but it is not doing so, and that there needs to be a refocus on that.

David Lott, you talked about the cross-subsidy for research, in particular. I have a very simple question. Is there a concern that, if there is a squeeze on some of the funding for research, universities’ focus may well be on the return on investment—on the areas that attract the largest grants—and that some research that might have social good will be deprioritised?

Good afternoon. I have a couple of questions. The first, for David Lonsdale and Vikki Manson, follows up some of the questions that have already been asked. Both of your organisations welcome the recent statement’s focus on economic growth. However, funding for enterprise bodies has been cut over the past few budgets; visitor levies have just been discussed; DRS introduced huge costs to the sectors but was dropped; and there has been the licensing of short-term lets. Regulatory burdens go up. There is also a differential between the rest of UK and Scotland in rates relief. I look for an honest answer: although you may welcome a refocus on economic growth, how confident are you that it will be delivered?

So, would that be about deferring the block grant adjustment?

The Scottish Government—both in correspondence with us and publicly—has said that, in relation to the winter fuel payments, the decision of the UK Government has meant that the Scottish Government has no choice but to replicate the UK Government’s position. That is not true, though, is it? There are choices and options. What are they?