Chamber and committees

Is there any shift in the Scottish Government’s strategic priorities for capital spend directly from the block grant, as opposed to what goes on regarding borrowing? In other words, what would the Government consider by way of capital projects that are appropriate for borrowing, as opposed to the funding coming straight from the direct capital grant? Is that position essentially unchanged following the agreement?

I will return to the convener’s line of questioning about the changes to capital borrowing limits and apologise if you covered this in your answer to the convener and I missed it. Given the point that was made about the extent to which capital inflation has gone far beyond not only the GDP deflator but also measures of consumer inflation, was there any discussion of backdating for a year or two, in order to apply even the GDP deflator, never mind the level that capital inflation is actually at?

That is really useful to know. It is helpful for us to understand that, from the UK Government’s perspective, the negotiation was not just about the well-trodden constitutional ground of where power lies; it was also about the UK Government’s policies in relation to debt and deficit and the contributions that are made to address them.

On the point that you have just made about the impact of capital borrowing on the resource budget, neither of those budgets is particularly positive for the Scottish Government over the next couple of years. What is the practical effect of the gradual increase in the capital borrowing limit on what the Parliament should expect to see? The expectation is that the capital budget will not offer a particularly rosy picture. Does that fundamentally alter anything? It has already been discussed that the current level is nowhere near where capital inflation is at, and we are already at a point at which we cannot do everything that, a couple of years ago, we thought that we would be able to do. What should the Parliament expect the effect to be on budgets over the remainder of the parliamentary term?

What was the UK Government’s rationale for that approach to capital borrowing? I am not asking you to break any confidences, but it is useful for the committee to understand the extent to which there were competing public policy objectives and to know where the balance of power lies in the context of partisan politics.

Thanks for that. Now that—

I hope that it will be brief, convener.

On the point that a couple of you have made about local authorities top slicing your budgets, I presume that, for local authorities, the theory behind doing so is that they are able to recruit quality improvement officers and others who can provide additional value to you. However, it does not sound like you feel that you are getting a lot of additional value from what authorities are spending that top slicing on. Is it fair to read that into your comments?

Peter, go for it.

Convener, is there time for one more question?

It sounds as though the most important response is that of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the minister, which have been broadly pretty warm. You certainly seem optimistic about that.

What do you detect the response from within the system to be? Part of your report is—entirely fairly—pretty critical of elements of the system and of how they communicate and interact with each other. Part of the discussion with the previous panel of witnesses was about the issue that overrides a lot of education reform at the moment—that might be an unfair way of putting it, but you will get what I mean—which is that the people who have been responsible for a system that has come under a lot of criticism are then responsible for changing that system. If they do not buy into and do not accept the premise of the need for change, we can end up with a rebranding exercise rather than the more fundamental changes that are required. What responses have you picked up from those who are involved in delivering the system as it currently stands?

James, you have said that you are somewhat heartened by the fact that the Government has not just rushed into a response to your recommendations. However, your overarching recommendation is that this should be seen as a coherent package rather than a pick ’n’ mix. How concerned would you be if the Government did not accept your recommendations in full? If the Government takes a more selective approach to what it wants to take forward, how could that be managed?