Chamber and committees

Okay. Fair enough.

No. People who are working pay taxes, so that reduces the share of the Scottish budget that is going on welfare even if the welfare budget does not decrease. If you increase the Scottish budget by 10 per cent, 5 per cent or whatever, because more people are working, we can afford those welfare payments. The issue is that the economy is not growing but the welfare share of it is growing and it is squeezing every other aspect of the Scottish budget. That is causing real difficulties for universities, colleges, the justice sector, local government and everywhere else. That is the issue.

Oh! That is the opening that I never got invited to even though it is in my constituency.

Kleine.

One could argue that continuing to pay the benefit disincentivises someone to move out of a three or four-bedroom house to a one or two-bedroom house when a family actually needs that bigger house. However, I do not want to go into that specifically.

There are plenty of other things that you could spend that money on. For example, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that each £1 spent on colleges would see a £6 return to the economy.

You are right—when I said, “Absolutely,” earlier, I meant, “Yes.” The Scottish Government seems to look at things from a 12-month perspective, and Michelle Thomson is right to say that there is no long-term strategic vision. If you are investing for the future, you will be investing more in universities, research and development, colleges and so on, rather than just putting sticky tape over the budget every year. That is a big frustration for the committee.

In response to Ross Greer’s questions, you mentioned research on whether the Scottish child payment disincentivises people to work. I have to say that the Scottish Government pledged that SCP would be £20 per week by 2026. It is now £27.15 per week, so it has gone above and beyond the manifesto commitment. But let us consider someone who is on housing benefit and is getting the bedroom tax mitigated, the Scottish child payment, the two-child benefit cap mitigated, free childcare and free school meals. Together, that is a pretty big disincentive to return to employment. Potentially, their children will grow up in household with a culture of worklessness. How do you address something like that?

Despite what Scottish ministers might think, there is real resentment in communities, particularly in working-class communities, where people go out at 6 or 7 in the morning to put in a shift for the living wage only to see people across the road appearing to get a lot of benefits while not contributing to society in the same way nor encouraging their children to do so. How do you look not at one particular benefit but at benefits in the round and their impact on wider society?

Yes, that is important. The issue is about striking a balance and how we can get the best for the individuals concerned and for the public pound. A lot of the employability courses seem to be getting cut, which is of real concern to the committee.

We will leave it there. Are there are any other points that have not been raised that you wish to make to the committee before we wind up?

Good morning and welcome to the 25th meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in 2025. The first item on our agenda is evidence from two panels of witnesses on responding to long-term fiscal pressures as part of our pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27. Our first evidence-taking session is a round-table discussion.

I welcome Andy Witty, director of strategic policy and corporate governance at Colleges Scotland; Stacey Dingwall, head of policy and external affairs for Scotland at the Federation of Small Businesses; Elaine Morrison, director of boosting capital investment at Scottish Enterprise; Tom Ockendon, external affairs co-ordinator at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; and Lesley Jackson, deputy director of Universities Scotland. Thank you all for your written submissions.

We have around 90 minutes for this evidence session. I will kick off by putting a question to Andy Witty. If anyone wants to come in on the back of that, let me know: put your hand up or nod as if you are at an auction—you will not end up buying any candlesticks or obscure paintings, so do not worry. Let me know if you want to come in, and we will have as free flowing a discussion as possible.

If we get stuck at any point, I have questions arising from each of your papers, which I might come in on—and I might come in on those anyway to move things forward. Please feel free to say whatever you wish, when you wish, and to make as many contributions as possible. It is the same for members.

Andy Witty, at the very start of the Colleges Scotland submission, on the subject of specific fiscal sustainability challenges, you wrote:

“it is vital that Scotland maximises the participation and contribution of its population … Gaining the participation in the labour market of those who are currently not in work, education or training, and with support for people who face barriers to work such as neurodiversity or disability”.

You went on to say that it is important to

“Ensure access to appropriate training, qualifications and upskilling which are aligned to Scotland’s economic needs.”

Could you expand on that for us, please? Where does Colleges Scotland fit in with that objective?

Lesley, you will have heard what John Mason said, but I note that your submission says that

“86% of new jobs in Scotland by 2035 will be at graduate level”,

which I found really astonishing, given that, as we have just heard, we need welders, plumbers, bricklayers and people to work in retail and hospitality and God knows where else. Surely that 86 per cent figure cannae be right.

When you say “considerable impact”, do you mean a positive or negative impact?