Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can that be fixed at a local level?

The independent care review talked about a lack of evidence and data on other non-social work professions. Is there a lack of data on who does what?

I will press you on the pattern of thirds. Is that primarily down to whether a student ends up in a big council such as Glasgow or a small one such as Clackmannanshire or the Western Isles, or is it down to the individual person or something else?

Is that between councils?

I will start with national insurance and the increase in employer contributions . Your report says:

“It is currently unclear whether the Scottish Government’s share of compensation will be based on the Barnett formula, or its higher-than-population share of the public sector wage bill.”

We seem to be a little clearer now on what is happening—I do not know whether you are clearer on that. It seems that, under either formula, we will not get the full amount of national insurance. Is that correct?

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?