Chamber and committees

Other colleagues want to come in on that issue, but I want to touch on one more issue. I am not sure whether you are aware, but the First Minister misheard my question on school ventilation during yesterday’s Covid statement, so I will repeat it. If you do not have the information, I would appreciate it if you could write to the committee.

The deadline for making ventilation improvements in schools is, I believe, next Friday—it is certainly next week. How much of the money that has been allocated has been spent? Will a report be produced and made available to the Parliament breaking down the allocation by local authority and how each local authority spent the money? How will the effectiveness of the ventilation improvements be monitored? How will we know that they are working and making classrooms safer?

Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission announced that it has used its statutory powers to intervene with the Scottish Qualifications Authority. What conversations have you had with the SQA since you became aware of the EHRC’s enforcement actions? What action are you taking to ensure that the public sector equality duty is being met by the agencies that are accountable to you?

Thank you.

Excellent. That is appreciated.

You mentioned the regular requests that are made for additional rates relief. That is absolutely the case, but recently there have been more requests than I have noticed in previous years for additional conditions to be placed on rates relief. For example, in its evidence to the committee, the Scottish Trades Union Congress proposed conditions on fair work and the living wage, and Alcohol Focus Scotland has proposed that a public health condition be levied on licensed premises. Without necessarily commenting on any specific proposals—you are, of course, welcome to do so, if you wish to—will you comment on the principle of additional conditionality on rates relief, particularly given the challenging overall fiscal situation in the coming years?

That is useful.

The Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020 included conditions on awarding Covid relief grants to businesses, specifically in relation to tax avoidance. That is timely this week, given the revelations in the Pandora papers. I accept that it is particularly challenging to review the effectiveness of such a measure because we would hope that the net effect would be that businesses that would be caught by it would not bother trying to apply in the first place. However, has any attempt been made to evaluate the impact of attaching a tax-avoidance condition to Government grants?

When is the Fraser of Allander Institute review due to report?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I was keen to discuss with you the effect of the arbitrary cash-terms limits on the fiscal framework, but you covered that with Mr Mason. Therefore, I will move on to non-domestic rates, which you touched on in your answer to Liz Smith.

The total value of non-domestic rates relief through the various schemes that are on offer in Scotland comes to somewhere in the region of £700 million. That was expanded during the pandemic—for example, to the newspaper industry—for obvious reasons. I think that the decision was twice unanimously supported by Parliament. There is a range of options for non-domestic rates relief; what evaluation has the Government done of the effectiveness of the various schemes?

I appreciate that, and I entirely understand that there is no easy answer to the question. However, given the comments of the children’s commissioner, I would expect you to engage with his office and with others to understand those concerns. I know that Dr Tracy Kirk has engaged with you on those issues.

I would like to explore the functioning of the NQ21 group, and specifically the level of participation of those involved. You will be aware that, on the day that the appeals process was confirmed, Cameron Garrett, who was the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament on the group, said:

“As the only young person who sits on”

the SQA’s NQ21 group

“and the only member representing young people, I have not had an equal input into discussions around the appeals process this year at NQ group meetings.

Young people have been let down and ignored by this process.”

He went on to say that organisations such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the people who are involved in the SQA: Where’s Our Say? campaign, as well as the Scottish Youth Parliament,

“have been calling for a no-detriment policy and exceptional circumstances to be taken into consideration as substantive points. Neither have been considered in this process.”

Subsequent to those comments being made, did you reach out to Mr Garrett to better understand why he felt that way about his experience? Could you talk a bit about what you believe you have learned from those discussions and how subsequent processes to this one can more effectively involve the voices of young people?

I accept that.

I am conscious of the time, and I am probably intruding on the time of other members. If I could come back in at the end, that would be appreciated, but I understand if I cannot.