Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you. I assume that we are not getting 34 minutes each, so I shall finish there.

We have concentrated on how we can raise more tax for existing expenditure, and I am sympathetic to that but, to be a little bit of a devil’s advocate, are there areas of expenditure where we could make cuts? For example, compared to the UK, is the Scottish social security system too generous? The previous panel told us that making up the difference is having an effect on other services. Linked to that, has the Scottish Government got too many priorities? Should we be trying to simplify things and just have fewer of them? What about the idea that we are being too generous in, say, giving the bus pass to everyone? Should we means-test and target some of that expenditure?

I note that your paper states that the index per capita method is better than the comparable model, but are we not still left competing with England—specifically, with London and the south-east of England, which dominates the English economy—and, therefore, are we not permanently at a disadvantage?

We have heard from various places that we need a better public understanding of how budgets work. We have discussed whether, in the longer term, we should have more taxes and more spend or fewer taxes and less spend. We get the impression that in other countries—correct me if I am wrong, but I am thinking about the Nordic countries—there is a public debate on that and public agreement that they want higher taxes and better public services. Do you think that it is possible to have that debate in Scotland or the UK, Professor Bell?

The convener asked about whether things might be displaced. If a business goes to one of the green freeport sites instead of, say, Glasgow, that would mean less money coming into the Government.

That is helpful; thank you.

Right. Could “Partial relief” mean a variety of levels?

I can understand if it is a piece of brownfield where something has been demolished and the land has just been sitting there—we certainly have that in Glasgow. From the Treasury’s point of view, is it quite black and white what is undeveloped and what is underdeveloped?

That is helpful—thank you. The proposed new schedule talks about “Full relief” and says:

“This paragraph applies to a land transaction if ... at least 90% of the chargeable consideration for the transaction is attributable to qualifying green freeport land”.

I wonder why it is 90 per cent. Why is it not 80 per cent or some other figure?

Thanks. That is helpful. I have a final question about point 5 in your submission. You refer to the 3.5 per cent pay increase that the convener mentioned and say that, if the Scottish Government does not reconsider that figure,

“real wages in Scotland are likely to fall further behind the UK.”

Is it your suggestion that, in Scotland, wages across the public sector or elsewhere are behind those in the UK?