���˿���

There are different ways of looking at the question. Fundamentally, it is the duty of the whole of Highland Council to think about those issues, as it is the duty of the Scottish Government to think about the issues and take policy decisions that support the repopulation of those areas.

I am not certain that the composition of the council and the policy decisions that are taken necessarily lead to questions being asked about the availability of public services in particular localities. Given the strategic importance of the repopulation issue, it is for Highland Council, NHS Highland, the Government and various other public bodies to take those decisions in a way that advances such questions, rather than seeing repopulation as being driven by the nature of or the arrangements for electoral representation in a locality. It would reflect pretty badly on any public authority if it was not taking the steps that could be taken to support repopulation, if that was a policy objective.

As I think the committee has heard from Boundaries Scotland, the questions with which Boundaries Scotland has to wrestle are driven by internationally strong practices around the nature and configuration of electoral wards. Boundaries Scotland needs to apply those considerations principally around the question of electoral parity with an understanding of the geographical entity and community that they are addressing and considering.

It is important that, as Boundaries Scotland undertakes that work, it engages substantively with local communities. I am satisfied that Boundaries Scotland has done that to good effect. Its ability to do that with regard to the Highland Council provisions might have been enhanced, had there been greater co-operation with Highland Council. However, in the other local authority areas, as the committee has heard for itself, there has been feedback from communities about the value of the dialogue that was facilitated by the approaches that were taken. It is important that Boundaries Scotland listens carefully to the feedback from island communities and recognises their distinctive characteristics. In the case of a number of proposals, communities are very satisfied with the arrangements that have been proposed.

Island impact assessments are part of the statutory framework, so an organisation must consider whether, in its judgment, the nature of the approach that it takes satisfies the statutory requirement. It is therefore for Boundaries Scotland to come to a conclusion on that question.

The work that Boundaries Scotland undertook on the issue inevitably required it to wrestle with the question of islands impact assessments, as we have heard. In all its undertakings it considered the implications for representation and for engaging and involving members of the community. I am satisfied that Boundaries Scotland was able to pursue that framework in its work. Of course, advice that it would seek from the Government on the question would be given within the context of the statutory framework.

That is quite a difficult matter to resolve, because of the decisions that have been taken. The statute on the composition of Scottish Parliament constituencies has put in place particular arrangements for Na h’ Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland because of their distinctive island characteristics. That does not apply to any other constituency in the country. There is a place for specific measures of that nature—indeed, the point that Paul McLennan put to me about Arran is an example of how that has been deployed by Boundaries Scotland.

There will be a requirement for electorates to vary in size, because of the locality factor. However, if we were to do that in all circumstances, we would create very varied parliamentary constituencies and local authority wards, which would be unsustainable, given the necessity to ensure that Parliament and local authorities are representative of the areas that they are designed to represent.

Yes. If Parliament approves the propositions we will, essentially, be giving effect to processes that originated in the 2018 act. That was envisaged by the act, which expressly acknowledges, as is right, that we might have different arrangements for different communities. Boundaries Scotland has considered the point; if Parliament approves the propositions to take those steps, it is perfectly within the statutory framework for such arrangements to be put in place for the local authority elections.

For completeness, I should say that I cannot conceive, in the circumstance that Parliament does not approve the regulations, of how alternative propositions could be put in place in advance of the 2022 local authority elections. There is not sufficient time.

There are two aspects to Mr Griffin’s questions. The first is my view of the individual proposals. Mr Griffin will know that I am not a minister who avoids questions, but I will avoid that question because statute expressly takes ministers out of a review role in the process. Parliament has decided that, so it is important that I do not express a view on whether a proposal is right or wrong. Parliament has decided that ministers should be removed from a review role; I should respect that.

The second question was about what would happen if Parliament was to reject any of the statutory instruments. Let me get the sequence correct. If the committee did not recommend approval, I would, obviously, in the light of the committee not being prepared to support an instrument, look at the decision and would likely seek Parliament’s leave to withdraw it. That would be the appropriate step for the Government to take. I would then refer the matter back to Boundaries Scotland.

It is unlikely that Boundaries Scotland could undertake and complete the process, and that Parliament could consider revised proposals from Boundaries Scotland, before the 2022 local authority elections. The Gould principles, which came into force after the challenges that we faced in the 2007 Scottish parliamentary and local authority elections, recommended that there be no change to arrangements within six months of an electoral contest. For elections in early May, that brings us back to November. I hate to remind colleagues how close that is, although they might feel that it is getting closer, given the temperature this morning. There is no way that the work could be done by Boundaries Scotland and completed by Parliament before November, so changes that Parliament did not support would have to be left until after the elections.

On the impact of that on wider boundaries activities, I would have to consider what other issues we are putting to Boundaries Scotland. My recollection is that there is some upcoming work that it is required to do. I ask Maria McCann to give me some assistance on that.

The link between public spend and outcomes is complex, but it is critical that it be properly understood. The national performance framework helps us in that endeavour, but there are other things that also do so. The process of audit and evaluation, particularly policy audit and evaluation, is critical in that journey.

There are other interventions, such as the independent care review, which took about three years to consider its evidence. I will summarise thousands of hours of research and analysis in the next couple of sentences not to be in any way disrespectful but because we have limited time. In essence, the review said that the money is not spent well on delivering good outcomes for care-experienced young people and, therefore, we should reshape that spend. We are now doing that, which we set out by our acceptance of “The Promise” report and the steps that we announced in the programme for government.

That is a good example of exactly the point that Michelle Thomson puts to me: we are spending our money one way, but it is not delivering good outcomes, so we need to think about shifting how we spend it, which is what we are doing on that issue. There are other examples that I could cite. In youth justice, over about 10 years, we have substantively realigned the way in which we spend our resources to deliver better outcomes. Many fewer young people have their life chances influenced, affected and undermined by interactions with the criminal justice system because diversionary routes are available to them to enable them to achieve better outcomes when they have faced difficulty in their lives. That involved realignment of spend from how we did it before to how we do it now.

There has to be a willingness to consider some of those questions and we must be prepared to spend the money differently, however complex it might be to decide on the priorities and challenges.

That is my point. In many respects, we are trying to create new data sets. For obvious reasons, we have been severely restricted in the collection of data during Covid. When I pressed the education system for information on participation, engagement and attendance, there was a fair amount of resistance from a number of public authorities—not least, local authorities—to the data demands that I was placing on them, but I wanted to be satisfied that there was online learning and adequate engagement, and I could collect that information only from local authorities. We have to strike a balance in relation to what we can reasonably and legitimately demand at any one time during a pandemic.

That is an entirely fair challenge. I would not advise that a minister’s only interaction with the performance of a policy area should be to look at that chart and say, “Oh, that’s improving, I don’t need to worry about that”. We have to go beneath that and look at the patterns and the trends. I assure Ross Greer that when ministers are briefed about detail and performance—and this relates to my response to John Mason a moment ago and a number of other answers that I have given this morning—the underlying pattern in performance is highlighted, challenged, explored and compared against what might reasonably be expected, so that there is a proper understanding of whether the conclusion that has been arrived at is reasonable.

I want to see improvements in economic performance and economic growth, which is vital for us as a society. A multitude of factors affect economic performance. We are vividly seeing the effects of Brexit on economic activity, and we are seeing the impact of Covid on the economy. However, the growth figures show that the recovery is improving following the downturn as a consequence of the pandemic. That is welcome.

The Government is focusing on a range of interventions to improve performance. As part of the Covid recovery strategy, it is important to improve families’ financial security, which is critical to eradicating child poverty. To strengthen that financial security, we have to have better-paying employment opportunities in our society. Stimulating a higher-quality economic environment is crucial.