Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your written submission states:

“The Scottish public sector is also comparatively larger than the rest of the UK and better paid with a widening gap.”

For example, 17 per cent of the workforce in England is in the public services, whereas the figure for Scotland is 22 per cent and the average salary for the same job is £2,400 higher in Scotland. Do you want that gap to be narrowed?

I thank all our guests. We have run slightly over time, but that was worthwhile to get as many contributions as possible. I hope that everyone feels that they have been listened to. We will take your views into account when we produce our pre-budget draft report.

We will continue taking evidence on the sustainability of Scotland’s finances on 1 October. Next week, we will discuss digitisation and reform with Estonian MPs, officials and relevant organisations because we are off to Estonia for a few days to address those issues.

We will take a five-minute break to allow for a change of witnesses before moving on to our next agenda item, which is about the national performance framework.

I think that “level of obscurity” says a lot.

The next item on our agenda is our first evidence session in the joint committee inquiry into the Scottish Government’s proposed national outcomes, which form part of the national performance framework. I welcome to the meeting: Sarah Davidson, chief executive of Carnegie UK; Dr Max French, assistant professor, Newcastle business school, Northumbria University; Dr Alison Hosie, research officer, Scottish Human Rights Commission; and Lukas Bunse, policy and engagement lead, Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. As with the previous panel, if our witnesses would like to be brought into the discussion at any point, please indicate that to the clerks and I will then call you. I thank you for your written submissions. We will move straight to questions.

One of the first things that I should ask about is the fact that none of you seems to be particularly impressed by the fact that the national performance framework is to continue to be called the national performance framework. Is that right?

That has exhausted the questions from committee members. I will put a further one to Lukas Bunse, but others can contribute if they wish.

You have said that one issue with the national outcomes is that the framework has the potential to reduce inequality, but that splitting inequality across different outcomes means that

“there is a risk that inequality is not given the prominence it deserves”.

Thank you very much. Before we wind up, does any member of the panel wish to make any final points?

Thank you very much. We will put a number of the issues that you have raised today directly to the Scottish Government in the weeks ahead. I thank you all for your contributions today and your excellent submissions.

We will now move into private session to discuss a contingent liability and our work programme. I call a two-minute break to allow our witnesses, the official report and broadcasting to leave.

I do not think that ours is the only party that has had ideological conflicts, given that we have gone from Corbynism to Starmerism in the space of the past three or four years.

Lewis Ryder-Jones is the only witness who has signalled that he wants to come in. I am hoping that others will be a bit more enthusiastic as we progress.

Lewis, in your submission, you said that

“‘growing the economy’ cannot be a legitimate priority, without important caveats”,

that Scotland’s income tax system

“can, and must, do so much more”,

and that we must be “even bolder” on income tax. You mentioned council tax as well. Would you like to take up the cudgels?

Indeed.