Chamber and committees

I can understand the reluctance to say where in the Scottish budget the money should come from; after all, you probably do not have the same understanding of the budget as we do, and why would you? It is not your job to have that level of understanding.

As for the Scottish Government’s philosophy, should it consider holding, reducing or increasing spending? If the latter, should we think about increasing taxation to provide that additional funding?

Sandy Begbie could argue that more money being spent in his sector would produce greater growth and therefore more taxation and more money for public services. You have heard the figures already. As I said earlier, the financial services sector accounts for 13 per cent of Edinburgh’s workforce but contributes 30 per cent of the economy, which is money available for public services. You mentioned that a lot of people—200,000—work in fragile communities where there is no other employment. They help to bind such communities, particularly those in rural areas in my constituency and many others.

Where would you want to pitch to the Scottish Government that additional funding is needed and where it should come from? In broad terms, should it come from taxation or from lower spending elsewhere?

There is a cut of about 10 per cent for the coming financial year.

I am going to conclude by allowing witnesses to make one final comment on any issue that they feel we have not touched on but should have, or on something else that they want to reinforce with regard to what has been said.

Ruth Boyle, John Mason is saying that we should cut back on some areas of expenditure. What areas would you suggest?

Parity of esteem is really important and I certainly endorse your comments on that. When you gave evidence two years ago, John Mason pointed out that Glasgow University had cash assets of, I think, £770 million. Of course, you pointed out that not all universities were as well off as Glasgow was at that time. I do not know whether it is still as well off—John Mason has probably got a better grip on those accounts than I have. Surely, the university sector, at least in Glasgow, has plenty of money to invest, without seeking additional resources from a public sector, which, as we have heard, is already constrained.

That was a nice cheery comment. [Laughter.]

I am not sure that it is on the immediate horizon, but it is something that I wanted to throw into the mix. Stuart Hay wants to come in, but Michael Marra wants to make a comment on universities first.

Okay. There is no comment on that.

Adam Stachura, I will ask you a question and put the same question to the IPPR and the Poverty Alliance. Age Scotland’s submission talks about

“fair and multi-year funding for third sector organisations”,

and says that

“comprehensive investment in the support provided by these organisations is needed.”

The submission goes on to say that

“The continued delivery of significant funding programmes and activities which connect people, such as older people’s groups, is crucial”

and that

“We would like to see appropriate resourcing to address and reduce excessive waits for healthcare”.

How much are we talking about? It is one thing to say “appropriate resourcing,” or that we need to spend more, or that we need to make a significant investment, but the committee is taking evidence on the 2024-25 budget to make an impact on the Scottish Government’s decision-making processes. What additional resources are we talking about? How, specifically, will that be funded?

Is there anything that you want to add, Philip?

Professor Heald, you said that you

“do not accept that the Scottish Government has prioritised economic growth or has demonstrated a strategic approach to tax.”

Given your expertise in the area, what do you think the Government should or could do differently?