Chamber and committees

Wow.

Okay, but you have said that, back in 2020, the hourly rate of pay for your officers—throughout today’s proceedings, you have called them “officers”, which conveys a certain level of status to them—was less than £10. You might be surprised, but I am not surprised, that people would leave in droves if they were given opportunities to find work that paid more than that, given the kind of job that this is.

I presume that, when you put in your tender document, it was based on a forecasted hourly rate of pay, which, at the time, I can only assume, was also less than £10 an hour.

It has been a bone of contention, certainly in the past, that your rates of pay on the contract in England were more than your rates of pay on the contract in Scotland. Is that correct?

Okay. That is fine.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting in 2024 of the Public Audit Committee.

The first item of business is a decision on taking agenda items 4 and 5 in private. Is the committee agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I will turn to one of the issues that are of particular concern for us, as elected members of the Scottish Parliament. Can you tell us why the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights has proposed revised timelines for new regulations on heat in homes that are simply not compatible with the Scottish Government’s existing 2030 targets?

And by members of the Scottish Parliament, I presume.

Thank you for that very clear opening statement. I will turn straight to the deputy convener, Jamie Greene, to ask the first questions.

Before I turn to Graham Simpson, I reflect on something that Gavin Redmond mentioned: the unforecast rise in the number of medical appointments and the strain that that brings. In opening, Mr Jones, you mentioned that you had watched—or read, anyway—the evidence that was given to the committee a couple of weeks ago by His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. She told us about potential risks through human rights-based challenges, because of the denial of people’s basic human rights, including to things such as access to medical services. Have you as a company considered that? For example, do you consider that you as a corporation could be at risk as a co-nominee in any challenge that is based on human rights?

Okay. We are not going to rehearse a court case here, so I will move on.