Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. You also mentioned the Barnett squeeze in your paper, which I will dig into just a little bit. In relation to this year’s budget, there was a surprisingly large increase for public sector pay in England of, I think, 5.5 per cent. Although we get the Barnett consequentials for that, am I right in saying that, with the Barnett squeeze, we do not get a proportional share and so, based on that, we cannot afford to give all our workers 5.5 per cent?

There is the separate issue that we might have more workers and they might be paid a bit more to start with. However, even if they were not, that 5.5 per cent increase in England does not allow us to pay a 5.5 per cent increase here. Is that a fair understanding?

That was a very full answer, which leads on to about 20 supplementary questions. However, we can pin down one or two things. For starters, are the English departments for health or education getting fully funded for their extra national insurance costs, or are they also having to find some of that money from within their budgets?

Fair enough. We have a choice here, but it sounds like there is a choice being made down south, as well. If the Department of Health and Social Care has to also fund GPs, it must also have a challenge with that.

You referred to the OBR’s thinking that the national insurance increase will push down wages. I get that for the public sector or for places with a fixed budget, but I am not sure why the OBR assumes that when it comes to the private sector. If you are running a restaurant that is very expensive—I believe the convener was at one last night—do you not just put another pound or fiver on your prices, and that will boost inflation and push prices up?

That is fair enough. If we just do not know at the moment, we will presumably find out in due course.

It strikes me that that is quite a big gap—between £500 million and £300 million—just because Scotland has a few extra workers. My gut feeling is that the UK Government is not fully compensating departments in England but, fair enough, we do not know.

You mentioned a few examples, such as the care sector. What about the case of general practitioners, for example, who most people would think of as being in the public sector? Am I right in saying that they are definitely not, in either England or Scotland, being covered for national insurance increases?

That is very well put, thanks. That makes it quite clear.

I have another relatively minor point to ask about. My understanding is that the UK Government is planning to cut back on consultancy quite a lot. Consultancy can be seen as a bit of a bad word and people think that it is all a waste of money, but is it not the case that consultancy is needed, because neither the UK or the Scottish Governments has expertise in every single subject—they need to buy in expertise? Is there a danger that, in cutting back too much on consultancy, you lose expertise?

Thanks very much.

I would like to see the report before it goes.

Convener, you have made quite a deal of the numbers and some of the other issues. Those aspects are worth raising, but I am not convinced that they are major issues. My experience of Disclosure Scotland’s PVG scheme, and of other schemes, is that a bit of paperwork is involved, but it is not a huge thing. If you are planning the report to be very critical, I would have problems with that and I would like to see it before it is approved.

On the same theme, everybody whom we have heard from, including you, has said that they are enthusiastic about the idea of outdoor education. However, there were some differences within that. For example, the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland said in its consultation response that

“if £34m became available to school education, AHDS would argue for every penny to be spent on better supporting pupils with additional support needs.”

Other members will ask you about the details of the costs. On the question of priority, some people argue that outdoor learning is a good thing but that it is not the priority and that you might put the money into additional teachers for schools, expanding childcare, free school meals, free music tuition or a lot of other things. How would you respond to them? Do you see it as the priority? If you have £34 million spare—I do not know whether you have it; maybe you can tell us—would it be the priority?

The parents who can afford it already spend quite a lot of money on children going on residential courses. Plus, schools do fundraising, which is seen as beneficial in some schools. If Liz Smith’s bill went ahead, those people would not have to give that money. Might a compromise be that the Government could create a pot to top up what is already being raised? A lot of money is raised by parents and schools. That would not need the bill, so I realise that it is a little bit off the subject, but is that a possible compromise?