Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have no further questions, convener, but given Liz Smith’s earlier line of questioning about the financial impact of Scotland’s budget on Scotland responding to changes at the UK level, does the committee wish to pursue in the future how Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can have input into those discussions?

Before I move on to the next theme, convener, I want, if we have time, to ask the briefest of supplementaries to Jeremy Balfour’s question.

My understanding is that, if the budget passes, the pilots will be incredibly important. There is a budget line for them, but I know that there have been some really positive pilots elsewhere in the UK. Indeed, Crisis has told me about a pilot between the Department for Work and Pensions—mainly Jobcentre Plus—and local authorities in the Newcastle area, but despite really positive outcomes, everything dissipated when the money came to an end, and best practice was shared neither in that area nor anywhere else in the UK.

From a budget scrutiny point of view, then, are there any assurances that you can give us that, as part of these pilots, we will be thinking about how we mainstream, embed and sustain any success that might come from them? Having a budget line for pilots might allow them to flourish, but it does not necessarily mean that a budget line has been identified to allow them to be embedded and to endure over the longer term.

That is helpful. I would not want the committee to be here this time next year—when we start to get initial emerging outcomes from what will still be fairly early pilots—discussing whether the next year’s budget will sustain those pilots for the longer term. I am saying that so that, next year, we can get assurances that this will be enduring and that it will be embedded in future financial years.

I will move on to talk about the third sector and voluntary sectors. Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector has stated that Labour’s NI increases could lead to job losses, fewer hours for staff and a reduction of services for Glaswegians. Of course, the third sector and the voluntary sector stretch right across Scotland. The cabinet secretary and the First Minister are in discussions with the UK Government to get full cost recovery in relation to the impact, not just for Government and Government bodies, but for the third and voluntary sectors.

What data does the Government have on the impact on the third and voluntary sectors? If we get money from the UK Government, we need to ensure that we know how to pass that money on to the relevant organisations that are planning for future financial years. Is the Scottish Government well sighted on the organisations that will need additional support to meet the further NI burdens?

I would like to ask about fair funding from the Scottish Government. Has the Government accepted that we must do far more in relation to fair funding for the third sector? The cabinet secretary will know that we are looking for longer-term multiyear awards for more organisations across the third sector. The Government always says, very sincerely, that it is keen to do more of that, not just directly, but through its funding bodies. However, we are never quite sure how many further multiyear awards are likely to be made. We are not very good at monitoring that kind of thing, so what reassurances could you give that, should the budget pass, there will be more multiyear awards? How will that be monitored? We are talking about a long-game initiative, so how can the committee and successor committees scrutinise that for the longer term?

I will roll my second question into my first. In those future awards, will any account be taken of national insurance increases, despite the lack of clarity from the UK Government? Will there be any cognisance of cost of living increases that those organisations will have to make more generally because of inflation?

I will give the briefest preamble to my final question. I do not doubt the good will and common cause in relation to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Government or the CEO. I am not trying to be a fly in the ointment either; I am just trying to do my due diligence in relation to scrutiny. However, of course, secretaries of state come and go, cabinet secretaries come and go—

Is that on the basis of the routes that the ship is intended to operate on?

I have some very brief questions on the same front. The dead weight of 791 tonnes was the target in the contract. Is that correct?

You are just going to check whether that was within the flexibility in the margins.

I would like to know where the restrictions are and where the ship can now be used. Are there more limitations on those vessels because of the current specifications, rather than the specifications that were set in the original contract? I am happy to get those details in writing but, ultimately, that is just numbers, and numbers alone are meaningless. What is meaningful is whether or not those two vessels can now technically do less if, at some point in the future, they were to be redeployed elsewhere to do other tasks.

That is helpful, but I ask you to reflect on the basic point that I am making. Unless this is their bread and butter or their business, anyone listening to this meeting just wants to know whether the two vessels will be less effective on their current routes. We have a clear expectation that that will not be the case and that they will do exactly as was always intended, but they could be redeployed for other purposes within the fleet at some point in the future. Are there more restrictions on what they can or cannot do because of the variation in specifications?

Mr Hobbs said that there will technically be two fewer articulated lorries. That explanation becomes meaningful to someone, rather than the numbers that are flying about. It would be helpful if, either here this morning or in writing, we could get a meaningful explanation on that because, quite frankly, most people are just hearing gobbledygook. That would be helpful.