Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Convener, we can discuss that later, but I am concerned that there is nothing in the FM about savings.

What about Canada and the Netherlands?

I want to pick up on something that Andy Witty said—the issue might also affect others. Obviously, the colleges sector would like more money, and I wonder whether you think that the Scottish budget is spread out in a reasonable way, or whether we should be giving more money to colleges and universities, which would mean less money for other sectors. Over the years, we have been generous to health, which has received a real-terms increase every year, and social security spending is going up quite a lot due to things such as the Scottish child payment, which has been very successful. Have we got the balance wrong between investing directly in the economy, via the universities and colleges, and investing in health and social security?

I will continue on that theme with two questions, and I go back to Andy Witty first.

You suggest that we have more money for colleges, as there is money coming through in the consequentials. The simple answer is that the money is going to social security. There has been a huge increase in that area last year and this year. Would you go as far as saying that we should cut back on social security, which would hurt some of the poorest people, in order to put more into colleges or other sectors? I aim that question at you to start with, but others might want to come in.

On a slightly similar theme, Mr Begbie, you said that we have a lot of people in low-paid jobs. Presumably, that includes cleaners and people who work in Tesco. If they all go into the tech sector, we will still need cleaners. Should we just be upping the minimum wage so that people in basic jobs are paid much better? Is that what you are arguing for?

The subject of savings has already been mentioned and I think that there are two short paragraphs about savings in the financial memorandum. I take your point that that is not one of the aims of the bill but, if there are to be savings, presumably they should be in the financial memorandum. I want to explore where there might be savings. One obvious area would be the state pension. If we take the basic state pension figure of around £10,000 a year and we had 400 people ending their lives, that would be a saving of about £4 million for the Department for Work and Pensions.

I take that point from the NHS point of view, but in some cases the family or the person is paying the care home fees. That can be around £6,000 a month, or £72,000 a year. An early death could be to the family’s financial advantage, and, sadly, we have known throughout history that some families want their relatives to end their lives more quickly in order to get their hands on the estate. If a person’s estate is going down by £72,000 a year, that is a big incentive for some families to encourage an early death, is it not?

I accept that there are some safeguards in the bill. The concern is that, in legislation in this country and in other jurisdictions, often the initial jump has certain safeguards, and then things get watered down or widened out over time. I accept that you cannot be responsible for that, but the big jump is allowing this at all, and none of us can anticipate whether it will stick firmly going forward or whether it will gradually change. We have to take some of those things into account at this point, as we look ahead.

Can I press you on what you mean by public sector reform? Do you just mean cutting jobs, or is it something else?

Is it a legal requirement in Australia that people pay more wages?

Over a year.