Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that point, to pick up on what you have all said about fiscal sustainability, and on Mary Senior’s point that we have seen real-terms cuts year on year, how would you suggest that the tension there is resolved?

The Scottish Government’s overall budget has not gone up in real terms—that is outwith the Scottish Government’s control. Both the UCU and the NUS have urged the Government to make better use of devolved taxation powers. That is a legitimate position—and one with which my party would agree—but even by doing that, the Government would not have been able to keep up with inflation in recent years. What does sustainable funding for the sector look like in a situation where the current devolution settlement means that matching inflation—given that inflation is obviously outwith the Scottish Government’s control—is not realistic for the overall Scottish Government budget?

Are you saying that, within the budget overall, a higher proportion should be allocated to higher education? If so, where would you suggest that that comes from? Alternatively, is there something else that you mean when you talk about sustainability, such as a more fundamental reform of the funding model?

I am keen to follow that up, but others might want to come in on the initial question first.

I am sure that both unions have strong positions on the issues that have just been raised.

I would love to get into the details of the disparity in reserves, but I believe that colleagues will deal with some of that.

Should the bill include reporting provisions? I completely agree that having blunt national targets could undermine the more nuanced approach that is needed in different communities, but it is important to ensure that there is still a national focus and that there are requirements for Government to report to Parliament, even if that report is, as you indicated, essentially a consolidation of the efforts and outcomes of a range of other organisations. Would you be open to having reporting requirements? It would be a mistake to put too much specific detail into the bill, but could there be mechanisms or ministerial powers to create reporting frameworks, so that we have something that allows for effective national scrutiny five, 10 or 15 years from now?

My question follows on quite neatly from that point, because I am interested in how we are actually going to measure success and what the outcomes will look like.

You mentioned the census. It was interesting that the census indicated two directions of travel. On one hand, in places such as Glasgow there is significant growth in the number of children being educated through the medium of Gaelic, so there is a growth in the number of people who are speaking Gaelic between 9 and 3 on school days. Some, but not all, of them will speak it when they go home, but they certainly will not speak it when they go to the shops or the youth club or when they are on the bus or are applying for a job.

However, as you pointed out, the last remaining majority Gaelic-speaking communities are now no longer majority Gaelic speaking, which means that how we measure success will be different across the country. What do you see as being the key measures of success from the Government’s perspective?

Before Jackie McAllister answers, could I press on that a bit? Is the disproportionate impact on certain portfolios being discussed in the Cabinet? I assume that that gets discussed in the Cabinet because cabinet secretaries, particularly those who are losing out, will want to represent their own portfolios. At your level in the civil service, is that specific point about the compounding effect of certain portfolios having to bear the brunt of it being raised discussed and assessed ?

I am all good, convener. There is no point in repeating what Michael Marra asked; I had the same line of questioning.

Taking on board what Jackie McAllister has just said about the significant range of external factors that affect us as well, you both agreed that there is some frustration with the delays in making these decisions. What are the internal factors within the organisation that are causing these delays? Ultimately, these are decisions for ministers to make. To what extent are the delays the result of decisions that could be made sitting with ministers perhaps for some time because, for quite understandable reasons, they hope that, if they wait long enough the situation will improve and they will not have to make an unpleasant decision, and to what extent are they delays that are happening elsewhere in the organisation and not at ministerial level?

Finally, I am interested in how you manage portfolio reallocation as part of that in-year process. If we look across the past three years, which is probably the best period to look over, we see that there are certain portfolios where it is easier to make savings in-year than it is in others. It is easier to make in-year savings in education and health than it is in justice. So much of the justice portfolio is very fixed from the start of the year. However, when we have year-on-year compounding uncertainties, particularly over the past three years because of things such as double-digit inflation, that means that we end up with disproportionate in-year savings in certain portfolios happening year after year. The compounding effect of that is quite significant. How does the Government control for that? My worry at the moment is that that is not being sufficiently controlled for and that portfolios such as education in particular have lost out over the past couple of years. When we get to halfway through the year and so much spending is locked up, understandably the only place we can go is areas where there is flexibility, but those are the same areas as in the previous year and the year before.