Chamber and committees

Paul O’Kane, do you have any more questions?

We are almost there. I hope that Mike Corbett, who made the comment about teachers’ pay, will not mind me saying that the money for that was found and it did not come from anywhere else. I moved to this committee from the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and I know that the £26 million to pay for the teachers’ pay award in the current financial year came specifically from the colleges budget—the colleges lost £26 million in the current financial year.

I merely leave that sitting there—I do not want to open up a wider debate, but I think that that is relevant to Mr Mason’s line of questioning and to Linda Somerville’s points in relation to how we use wider taxation powers not just in this place but at a UK level, because there are Barnett consequentials coming here.

I absolutely get that the witnesses today have tried to articulate passionately and clearly what the right thing to do is in relation to the safety of workers across Scotland. It is for the politicians to look in a bit more detail at how that could be financed.

I thank you all for your important evidence this morning. That is the end of the evidence session, and I suspend the meeting briefly while we prepare for the next panel of witnesses.

Yes.

Tony Higgins, you were cautious when you came in earlier. You talked about a period of 10 to 20 years. This is an appropriate time to bring yourself in.

Thanks for making that comment. I hope that you will appreciate that it is our job to scrutinise all aspects of the bill, so we make no judgment on any of this; we need to ask the questions to come to an informed decision, as a committee. Your comments are helpful to the committee.

Are you suggesting that the figure in the bill is a starting point but that, depending on what SEIAC looks at, it might have to flex up its membership to get particular expertise?

I welcome Anna Ritchie Allan, executive director of Close the Gap; Tony Higgins, president of the Professional Footballers Association Scotland; Ian Tasker, chief executive of Scottish Hazards; and Professor Andrew Watterson, occupational and environmental health researcher at the University of Stirling. Thank you for helping us with our scrutiny of the bill.

As I said to the first panel, we are not trying to deter anyone from speaking, but if all four of you want to make the same point, you might want to indicate that. We do not always have to hear that, but we appreciate that sometimes you will want to get things on the record, so please do so when you need to.

I will start with a general question, as I did with the first panel. Would the bill give SEIAC, if it is established, the right balance between scientific expertise and other interests that are important when reaching decisions in relation to the benefit? If not, what changes are desirable, and why?

Katy Clark, do you have any more questions?

Time is almost upon us. I forgot to say this to the first panel, but if there is anything burning within you that you feel you have to get into the Official Report before I close this evidence session, you now have the opportunity to raise it now—as long as it is brief, of course.

I am pleased that I nudged you, because I have inspired Mike Corbett to come in.