Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry to cut across you, Deputy First Minister, but I am conscious of time. I am asking specifically about the organisations that made it clear that they would not contribute unless a waiver was in place. The organisations that were most vocal and were prepared to come to the committee and put their views on record were generally the organisations that were not intent on the waiver being necessary. In a way that was significantly problematic for parliamentary scrutiny, the organisations that did not appear in front of the committee and did not put their views on the record were quite clear, off the record, that they would not contribute without the waiver being in place. Have those organisations contributed?

My last point on that is to ask you, as part of that review process, to ensure that the views of survivors who have chosen not even to begin the application process are taken into account. We can assume, based on the evidence that we took in the first place, that a number of those who decide not even to embark on the process may well do so because the waiver is in place.

Yes, that is a very welcome invitation. Thank you.

You will remember that by far the most controversial element of the proposals in the bill and what is operating in the scheme was the waiver. We all struggled with that, and a number of us came to very different positions on it, despite complete consensus about the broad principles of the bill. Could you talk a bit about the specific arrangements that are in place to ensure that the review will be able to report on the impact the waiver has had? The primary purpose of my amendment was to ensure that we could assess the impact of the waiver.

The core purpose of the waiver, and the argument that was put to us about why the waiver was necessary in the first place, was that it would ensure that certain organisations made a contribution to the scheme and were willing to participate. Have those organisations done so to a satisfactory extent?

Deputy First Minister, you will remember that, during the stage 3 proceedings on the bill, Parliament agreed to my amendment asking for an 18-month review during the scheme’s initial period of operation. Please talk us through the processes that are in place to gather the evidence that that review will require.

I appreciate that answer, but if I was working in local government or the university sector, which, like local government, will be somewhat better off than it would have been under the plans in the RSR—although I acknowledge that those sectors will continue to feel that they need to ask for more money—on what basis should I use the RSR for forward planning, given that the specific numbers in it are no longer valid? Should I presume that the broad trajectory will continue—for example, the flat-cash trajectory for sectors such as the university sector? Should I assume that there will be flat cash in 2024-25 and 2025-26, based on what is in the 2023-24 budget?

Yes. It is usually at the end of January or the start of February, but I presume that it might be somewhat later than that this year.

Thanks. I acknowledge that it will be hard to disaggregate behaviour changes that are specifically the result of a change in tax policy as opposed to wider factors in the economy. However, such disaggregation would be valuable, if it is at all possible, as we scrutinise the future direction of tax policy.

I have a brief question about the current year’s budget before I ask about next year’s draft budget. Given the current uncertainties around public sector pay settlements, for example, at what point should we expect the spring budget revision?

That will be useful.

I turn to next year’s draft budget. What status should we now give the resource spending review? When it was developed and published, there was an acknowledgment that, as each year that is covered by the RSR passed, there would almost certainly be gradual divergence. However, we are now in a position in which there is immediate and significant divergence in year 1. For local government, there is £550 million more than was laid out in the RSR. If I was working in local government and trying to plan ahead for budgets, should I presume that the 2024-25 budget will provide flat cash relative to what is proposed for next year, or should I look back at the numbers for that year that are contained in the RSR?