���˿���

That would be helpful. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions about the tracking of spending on additional support needs. The context is probably the Verity house agreement, so I would like to briefly return to that. You described the process as an iterative one—in other words, the fiscal framework will not be fully brought in for the coming budget, which makes sense. However, I want to probe further on that. Is it expected that all those arrangements will be in place by the end of the parliamentary session or by the time of the next council elections in 2027, or is there not a fixed timescale for that because the process will evolve on the basis of the relationship?

I completely appreciate the difficulties that the sector is under and that it is a question of survival for some businesses, but this is very literally a question of survival for those workers who are being paid a poverty wage.

Part of the challenge for us as a committee and for the Parliament overall is that really compelling asks are made of us for further expansion of the social security system. There is no reason why, in a country as rich as this, one in five children should be in poverty; we have spent £450 million-ish on the Scottish child payment to lift 90,000 children out of poverty, but there are hundreds of thousands more children whom we could lift out of poverty if we spent more money on that.

That money needs to come from somewhere, and it comes largely from tax. Income tax is the biggest tax lever that we have, but the fact is that, relative to the UK as a whole—and certainly to London and the south-east—Scotland is a low-wage economy. As a result, one of the ways in which we can tackle poverty directly at source while raising additional tax revenue that we can spend on direct interventions is by boosting wages.

However, what I am seeing are challenges when I look at, say, the media coverage the Government floating the idea of potential additional conditionality to existing non-domestic rates relief with regard to the living wage—I believe that that was off the back of a question asked by Liz Smith and answered by Tom Arthur. I saw comments in the press yesterday and today from the Scottish Hospitality Group objecting to such a move, and I am really struggling to square the circle of business sectors coming to Parliament and making a perfectly compelling and legitimate case for more spending or tax relief in their areas without being willing to accept the conditions that I think could be reasonably associated with that, not just to tackle the wider structural issues in our economy but to have a very direct impact on people’s lives. Should it not be a straightforward case of saying, “Yeah, you know what—we do want additional tax relief but we are willing to take additional conditions alongside that to play our parts in driving up wages”?

You have made a very compelling case, for the benefit of the Signature Group’s vacancies page, to anybody who is watching and considering a role in hospitality.

I have a couple of other questions, convener, but I am conscious of the time.

Just so I am completely clear, is the issue at the moment that we are not clear exactly what the barriers in the procurement system are to SMEs—although we can all probably guess and we have plenty of anecdotal evidence—and that, therefore, we need to do that basic data collection first before we come up with policy proposals?

Louise Maclean, you mentioned that the Signature Group’s minimum wage is about £13 or £15 an hour, which sounds really positive. I assume that that is a starting salary, whatever the age of the worker. As I think you mentioned in your evidence just a moment ago, your written submission includes an argument that additional non-domestic rates relief for the sector would be effective in terms of tackling poverty and low pay. I assume that the Scottish Hospitality Group would be relaxed if an additional relief was brought in, which was conditional on businesses paying at least the real living wage, regardless of age.

Thank you—that was useful. You also mentioned the visitor levy as an example of additional regulation. Is your issue about how it is implemented rather than the principle of the levy, or is the FSB opposed to any visitor levy at all?

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?