Chamber and committees

But why should tips be included? Workers receive tips directly at the discretion of customers; it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that staff are, in this case, directly paid a wage that they can at least live on. Administratively speaking, I cannot see how you can bring tips into this, but regardless of that, I cannot see why you would do so as a matter of principle, either. Surely if a business is going to pay its staff at least a liveable wage, it is on that business to do so without relying on the discretion of customers.

Thank you very much.

Yes, I did not want Sandy to feel left out.

Sandy, I am interested in your thoughts on whether the Scottish Government is getting best value for money from things such as grants and public procurement. Quite a lot of money goes out the door to the private sector every year, entirely necessarily, but is the Government doing enough to ensure that the benefits of that stay in the Scottish economy? Naturally, some of that goes towards larger companies, including multinationals—again, unavoidably—but is the Government doing enough through, for example, public procurement mechanisms, to ensure that it is maximising the benefits of that to the Scottish economy?

You mentioned the impact on SMEs, and I am conscious that Rachel Cook might have something to contribute on that.

We could do with more 25-year-olds in Parliament as well.

In the first instance, I am interested in some of the questions around the small business bonus scheme. Rachel Cook, I am interested in your point of view on that. Is there not a credibility issue with the small business bonus scheme, in so far as it is not just small businesses that get it? Shooting estates, which are owned in tax havens and by billionaires, are receiving a tax relief that is, at least in terms of its name, supposed to be for small businesses. Every year, £5 million to £10 million of small business bonus scheme relief goes to shooting estates. Surely the FSB agrees that there needs to be some reform of the system, so that a tax relief that is designed for small businesses goes only to small businesses.

On the point about looking at the wider picture and not seeing this as a trade-off between the two things that you mentioned, I take it that you will accept that low wages—or wages below the real living wage—have a cost not just to the public purse but to the wider economy, given that a worker earning below the living wage is not going to have much discretionary spending power. They will not have much to spend on fish and chips on a Friday night.

I have a couple of questions about additional support needs, but, as a precursor—this is relevant—I go back to Michelle Thomson’s and Ben Macpherson’s line of questioning on the Verity house agreement. What flexibilities, such as the removal of ring fencing, from Verity house will be in place for the coming financial year for education? Is it your expectation that there will be no ring-fenced pots in the coming year? I cannot remember exactly how it is phrased, but will there be the equivalent agreements between local government and national Government rather than ring-fenced pots, and will that take place from 2024-25?

On additional support needs, I am interested, in the first instance, in the guidance that is provided to local authorities on completing their local financial returns. It is quite interesting that some local authorities are able to detail their spend on ASN across primary, secondary and special schools. They can break it down and disaggregate it. Some local authorities record an ASN spend of zero outside of special schools either because they feel that they can or because the guidance is not clear enough for them—I am not sure. Whatever the reason is, their return states that ASN spend is zero, certainly for primary and secondary schools. They have integrated it into their wider spend. Is the guidance on what is expected of local authorities in a local financial return clear enough? I ask that specifically about ASN, but, if you want to speak more generally about the expectation of a local financial return on education spend, that would be helpful as well.

I can ask the question in more general terms, because I recognise that that was a very specific technical question. Do you, in your local authorities, feel confident that you are directing spend as appropriate for children with additional support needs? There are a number of points of tension here. In the first instance, the Morgan review tells us that we need to see all education as ASN education and that it needs to be mainstream. That leads you towards a position where it is very hard to disaggregate the data, but we all recognise that the outcomes for children with additional support needs are not nearly as good as they should be and are not nearly as good as they often are for children without additional support needs. We need to be confident that we are putting in the right resources. There is obviously a tension here. How do you manage that in your local authorities so that you are confident that the resources are going to the individual children who need them and that you are directing resources at class and school level towards those where there is a higher prevalence of ASN in general and of specific, more complex needs that require additional resource?

I have one final question if we have time, convener.