���˿���

Thank you for that. There is so much to ask about. Perhaps I can ask a quick question about the inquiry. As I understand it, the inquiry will go up to 31 December 2022. Why was that date, which is obviously in the future, chosen?

That is helpful.

My next question is for John Swinney. Finance is an issue because we do not have the money to compensate businesses if we close them. Can we do more with other measures?

For example, we previously talked about rolling out the vaccination certification scheme more widely. I mentioned the other day that I was at the theatre on Saturday night. There were only 1,500 people there, so it was not covered by the certification scheme, but the theatre group insisted on people providing proof of a negative test or of vaccinations, which I thought was great. The whole thing went very smoothly. We were checked in the line, and people had time to then get their tickets on their phones so that they could get in the door. I saw no negative reaction to that. Would a useful measure be to roll out the certification scheme more widely?

The second measure relates to mask wearing. Whether people wear masks has varied a lot. Some places have been good on that. At the theatre, virtually everybody wore a mask, but train companies have been poor at asking people—not telling people—to wear masks. The railway companies just say that it is up to the British Transport Police and they cannot do anything. Are there other companies that could be encouraged to push mask wearing a bit more?

I am certainly convinced by that argument, and I think that the committee probably is, too. However, does that mean that the 2008 act is not entirely fit for purpose? Do we need to revisit that legislation?

We received evidence that women especially were not aware of how or when to get hold of the grant. As more people might have to self-isolate over the next two or three months, might the Government make an effort to re-emphasise and reiterate the grant’s availability?

I will move to a slightly different point. In paragraph 39 on page 14 of your report, you say that we are heading towards a £469 million reconciliation for 2024-25. You make the point—it seems to be common sense—that any Government that knew that it was doing that would slightly underspend each year. However, you highlight that there is a problem, in that we cannot save up that money in preparation, because of the rules around the Scotland reserve. Could somebody expand on that and explain it to me and others?

It all gets quite complex, and I presume that that will be one of the issues that will be discussed in the review of the fiscal framework.

My final question is linked to that. In paragraph 2.35 on page 29 of the report, you talk about “average underspend” with regard to the Scotland reserve, and you say that

“the utility of the Reserve”

has been reduced from 2.1 per cent to 1.5 per cent of the budget. Can you explain why that is happening, Professor Breedon?

I realise that you work at a university and that you said earlier that there was an assumption that, if people went to university, they would get a good job and that would be them for life—that was absolutely the case when I was younger.

I will follow up on that point. I will not ask you whether we are sending too many young people to university, but am I right in saying that, if we sent fewer of them to university and had more working, and maybe doing apprenticeships, that would—although it might have a more damaging effect in the long term—boost the economy in the short term?

I take that point, but it seems to me that the issue is having an effect on our budget in the short term, although I accept that it will all come out in the wash in the long term. Previously, we had the Scottish-specific economic shock—I hope that I have got those words right—which was really a timing issue between your forecasts and those of the OBR. I simply wonder whether we are seeing the situation in reverse at the moment, with the OBR having made, in October, an optimistic forecast for the UK of 6 per cent, and you predicting, in December, growth of 3.8 per cent. Is this just a timing thing, or is it a mixture of timing and reality?

I have a question for David Eiser that follows on from some of the issues that have already been touched on. I do not know whether you heard the previous session, but I quoted a SPICe report about GDP growth rates in the calendar years that are coming up. The Fraser of Allander Institute’s prediction, which I think it made in September, is that growth will be 4.8 per cent, whereas, in December, the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicted growth of 3.8 per cent. Those figures are just within Scotland. The OBR has predicted growth of 6 per cent, which appears to be at the highest end at the UK level. It is higher than the Bank of England’s prediction, for example. Do you have any further thoughts on that?