Chamber and committees

I think that Liz Smith’s feed has frozen.

I do not know whether you have seen the submission from the witnesses on our next panel, which compares the arrangements in Wales with those in Scotland, but it seems that, on the whole, the Welsh are looking positively at their financial outputs, whereas we are looking negatively at ours. It seems that, under all the scenarios that our next witnesses look at, regardless of whether the comparable method or the IPC method is used, our budget will go down relative to that of Wales in the coming years.

Does there need to be a change in the current arrangements so that the Scottish budget does not continue to suffer? Specifically, should we look at some of the things that the Welsh have done, such as splitting different tax rates for different block grant adjustments? The Welsh also have a 5 per cent bonus on the Barnett formula because, as I understand it, the formula is designed to cut the needs-based Welsh and Scottish spending over time. Should we be following the Welsh model? I do not mind who answers that, but perhaps we can start with David Phillips.

I was interested to read in our papers about the extra 5 per cent that Wales gets if there are changes because of the Barnett formula. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Barnett formula reduces the needs-based element when extra funding comes up, but Wales has managed to counter that with the mechanism of having an extra 5 per cent. Can you explain a little of the history of that? I think that suggestion was that the figure should be 15 per cent, so can you tell me how you ended up at 5 per cent?

I was going to say that it was for Professor Bell, but maybe David Phillips wants to come in.

That is great—thank you.

I will move on to a slightly different area. In the previous evidence session, there was quite a lot of discussion about the amount that we can put into and take out of reserves, and how much flexibility we have at year end. In Scotland, we are certainly feeling constrained by all those things. During Covid, we were not allowed to switch any capital spending into resource, even though that might have made sense. Are those issues relevant in Wales, too?

Thank you. I accept that.

Still on the sports theme, I have a question about compensation. Murdo Fraser pressed you on that issue, and you were clear that decisions will be made fairly soon and that we will get an announcement. Can you say that you do not rule out providing support for sports organisations such as Glasgow Rocks basketball team in my constituency? I had bought tickets for next Wednesday, but there will now not be any crowd at all for that match. That puts Glasgow Rocks in a particularly difficult position, because it is competing with English teams that are allowed to have large crowds.

Sports organisations such as Glasgow Rocks, the carnival in Glasgow and taxi drivers, for example, are all losing out because of their links to events. Are they at least in the running for getting some compensation?

I will move on to a different area. I saw in media coverage that the UK is buying two different kinds of drug for treating Covid—I do not know what they are. Where are we with that? Are the drugs and treatments still being developed? Some people ask me why they should bother getting the vaccine if they can get a drug later on. I tend to say that prevention is better than cure, but that is perhaps a slightly simplistic answer. Can you give an update on where we are with drugs and treatments? That might be a question for Professor Leitch.

A friend of mine with long Covid said that, when they got their jag, they felt that their condition improved. That is just anecdotal, but is there any evidence for that?

I have one final, brief question. There have been media reports that the number of lateral flow tests being used is increasing, which is good news, but there has also been coverage that the use of check-in apps and test and protect is decreasing. I have noticed that in Parliament—people are meant to check in at the coffee bar, but I do not think that many are doing so. Is the check-in side of things still important?

Previously, we had no crowds at all at sports events, including football. I am not arguing for that, but I wonder why, by that logic, you do not stop crowds altogether.

I start in the realm of sport. I was on Twitter last night, which may or may not have been a good idea. However, some useful points came up, one of which was around why the figures of 500 for outdoor events and 200 for indoor events have been chosen, and why those are such blanket restrictions.

For the larger clubs, such as Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts, it does not really matter too much whether the figure is 500 or 1,000—in effect, it is nothing—but for some of the smaller clubs, such as Clyde and Airdrie, the jump from 500 to 1,000 is a big one. If the limit was 1,000, they could have their whole crowd in, whereas with a limit of 500 it will have to be very limited. Those who know their football stadiums will know that Airdrie and Clyde’s stadiums are quite modern and spread out, so you could easily get 1,000 people in. Albion Rovers, on the other hand, can hardly get 500 into its ground. Why are the figures 500 for outdoor events and 200 for indoor events, with no variation depending on the size of the stadium?

I accept that indices are important and that it is good that a totally subjective view of the matter is not taken every year, but would it not set a good example if we just said that we were going to take a 1 per cent increase, like a lot of the public sector?