���˿���

Yes, it does. However, there are issues to do with the fact that the Scottish budget is more or less fixed, and concerns have been raised about the fact that, in Scotland, almost £1 billion more is paid out in social security than would have been the case if we had retained the same social security levels as the rest of the UK. That £1 billion has to come out of other areas of spending in the Scottish budget.

Another thing that you said in your submission is that you want to make use of

“national level taxes, including income tax, to the fullest extent possible.”

This morning, Mairi Spowage, who is the committee’s budget adviser, said on behalf of the Fraser of Allander Institute that the perception exists—I believe that it is a perception, rather than the reality—that Scotland’s taxation level is already potentially deterring investment, and that one in six businesses has argued that. What is your view on that? Would using taxation in the way that you suggest not be counterproductive?

I will make one other point on that before I widen out the discussion. In the evidence that we took last week from Professor Heald, an eminent economist at the University of Glasgow, he referred to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s belief that the behavioural impact of last year’s increase in the top rate of tax is that 85 per cent of that revenue has been lost. We will come on to discuss that later. How can we get the balance right in that respect?

Lukas Bunse, you also seem to feel that the Scottish Government paid lip service to the consultation. Your submission said that you were

“very disappointed with the Scottish Government’s lack of investment into a meaningful consultation process”.

With regard to policy priorities, in your submission, you said that there should be

“an emphasis to include the voices of those that are seldom heard”

and

“a recognition that a thriving democracy requires opportunities for participation to be accompanied with the sharing of power”.

Can you expand on that a wee bit for us?

There has been reallocation of funding because of pay rises, as we know.

We will move on to public service reform, because we are more or less halfway through our time and that is an important issue to address.

Michael Kellet, you talk about prevention a lot in your submission. Between 2011 and 2016, the Finance and Constitution Committee discussed that in great depth following the Christie commission report, which we still refer back to. In the first three years of that parliamentary session, the finance secretary provided £500 million for prevention, and a number of initiatives such as family nurse partnerships were very successful in the NHS. The difficulty—if John Mason was here, he would certainly talk about this—was that organisations persistently said, “We are keen on prevention if you give us extra money,” but they would not disinvest in projects that were not providing value for money in order to invest in prevention. How do we address that issue at a time of great financial challenge?

Hold on a second. Are you arguing that the NHS budget should be divided into those three areas, or are you arguing that it should be divided into those three areas with additional money for prevention? That is not really what we are saying. If we are spending on prevention, we have to look at disinvestment.

I will give an example. In a previous parliamentary session, we took evidence from Birmingham City Council, which had done a lot of work on prevention. It said that it was very difficult because it had to speak to social workers who had done a job for 35 years that had been, frankly, completely useless. Those were its words, not mine—I do not know what was done in that social work department. The council said that it had to get those people to do things in a completely different way, with a different mindset, because the amount of money that that non-service was costing was immense.

I am not saying that any area of the NHS is equivalent to that, but the Scottish Government has, in effect, a fixed budget, and we are not in the days when a cabinet secretary could stand up and say, “By the way, I’m going to allocate £500 million for preventative spend over the next three years, although it didnae work last time because folk just wouldnae disinvest.” Are you saying that preventative spending should come from the money that is allocated to the NHS, with a section hived off?

Indeed.

I have three people who want to come in. I will go to Heather Williams first, to be followed by David Melhuish.

However, investing in retrofitting houses is, really, capital, which in effect the UK Government dictates. With a limited amount of capital, which might or might not increase after the budget, should the Scottish Government invest more in retrofitting houses to reduce heating costs, for example—which might have an on-going health prevention benefit—or more in more affordable houses? I know what Euan’s answer would be, but I am just asking you, Lewis.

When I was a councillor, I remember that my local repair team was aghast when I said that I wanted the windows in 1,500 houses to be—I do not know what the word is, but you rethingummy them—

Heather Williams, on participation, productivity, Scotland’s economic growth and growing tax, you say in your submission:

“There is an urgent need to invest in disabled people’s employment and to address the systemic barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing employment.”

You have already touched on that. Can you expand a bit more on it?

I am not getting any volunteers, although a guy called Euan has just caught my eye.

How much additional money would you raise? That is the issue.