Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. If you have the opportunity to give a written update to the committee, I would look forward to that development.

That is useful. I have a couple of points for clarification. A lot of what you have just mentioned would require legislative change. Do you envisage that happening in this session of Parliament and as part of the programme of reform that you are taking forward before the next election?

On the specific issue of fair work, do you agree with the broad thrust of my point, which is that the SFC needs more power to intervene when there are fair work issues?

I absolutely agree that colleges and their principals need more flexibility but, in the past 10 years, we have seen a range of acute problems at specific institutions and have seen examples of very poor work practices. As you mentioned, the SFC has limited ability to intervene. A sector-wide approach would not be appropriate because the problems have often been institution specific and the whole sector should not be “punished” for that. Do you agree that, if the SFC is being empowered to take further action, it should have the power to take further action with individual institutions that fail to meet their fair work obligations?

Only a handful.

If I recall correctly, that was an Scottish National Party conference announcement this time last year. Have you had any discussions with the Government since then, and has it given you any indication of how it is progressing with that policy, or whether it is still doing so?

To clarify, is your suggestion with the point about using scenarios in planning that, at budget time, the Government should indicate that, if it spends more than it has allocated on public sector pay as a result of negotiations, the likely excess will have to be drawn from X, Y and Z areas of other spend?

To follow up on John Mason’s line of questioning about issuing bonds, I recognise that we have not done that before, so it would be uncharted territory. Do you have any expectations about the relative value for money in issuing bonds versus going through the national loan fund?

That is a useful point. Thank you.

I have a question on public sector pay transparency. Going back to the discussion that we had last week, Graeme, I will put some of that on the record and follow up on Michael Marra’s line of questioning. You mentioned recognising that the Government cannot be completely transparent without beginning to undermine its negotiating position with the unions, which is perfectly understandable—the more transparent the Government is, the more the unions will see whatever figure is there as the floor from which to work up, which just takes the Government back into that space of having to find money from elsewhere.

You mentioned, though, the benefit of illustrative scenarios. Could you detail what you mean by that? Is it essentially to say that the Government can put one sum up front and say, “This is what we are looking at in terms of the cost of public sector pay,” or, “In terms of the pay strategy, we are looking at 3 per cent, plus 1.5 per cent for pay progression, but if it were to be more than that, here are the areas where that money would have to come from?” Are you talking about that kind of scenario, where there is a list of other areas of public spending that would be the first up for announcements like this afternoon’s?

On that point, what was the last thing that the Government told you in answer to that question, and when was that?

Thank you, convener. Apologies for the delay in getting here—my train was so delayed that I just gave up and found a different way to get to Edinburgh.

To follow up on the point about deferring the block grant adjustment, that is presumably a lever that can be pulled only once—you cannot keep delaying it in perpetuity.