Seòmar agus comataidhean

My reason for asking is that I am sure that, when we get the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report this afternoon, it will show that we are in very difficult fiscal circumstances again. If there are choices to be made about which policies are working, and if it is the case that free school meal take-up is not as strong as it could be—that there are people not wanting to take free school meals—perhaps that is an area in which the Government could be more targeting? Do you agree with that?

The corollary is that, if there is a large cohort of youngsters whose parents are a bit better off and who do not particularly want the free school meals in the way that we might expect, they are not part of the Scottish Government’s child poverty target. We want the uptake to be in the right place and to benefit those who are most in need. In my opinion, the Scottish Government would be well advised to look at that, because it is important to the very difficult choices that you, as cabinet secretary, will have to make.

Are you discussing that with local authorities? One of the people who was presenting to the NFUS in the Perth and Kinross area said that one of the procurement problems was that meals were being brought in from Dundee and costed more as a result. Many people, particularly those in farming communities, felt that some of the food in Perth and Kinross would have been better and cost less. Perth and Kinross Council allegedly did not have particularly good engagement with the NFUS on that. As I said, it is important to make the right choices about what is and is not working, and to ensure that the local authorities have bought into that.

I completely understand some of that, cabinet secretary. We can debate the politics in the chamber and in other areas of the Parliament although, factually, we have to accept the current circumstances. Based on the statistics that the SFC has published today, let us be honest that there is a big black hole in the amount of money that the Scottish Government is predicted to take in set against its projected spend. Will the Scottish Government pursue progressively higher tax rates to get extra revenue in, or is it open to looking at greater targeting for the policies that we have just been talking about, so that we are not spending quite so much in some areas? Is that the economic crux of the matter? Yesterday, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, David Phillips spoke about behavioural changes because of changes to the tax policy.

My point is that the principle is one thing, but the workability and the delivery of whatever is going to take place are a different issue. As I understand it, having read the Official Reports of the various committees that were involved at the time, the principle was generally pretty well accepted, but how workable the Government’s proposals were was a completely different issue. That is where the opposition came from.

We started with one bill, which no longer exists, and we now have a second attempt at a bill that is based on what is seen to be more acceptable. Why are you confident that, when it comes to stage 2 amendments and possible stage 3 amendments, the on-going co-design will make the new bill much more acceptable to people?

The convener was asking about the possible costs. Do you predict that the stage 3 amendments may push up costs?

Before I ask my next question, I put on the record that I am involved in the Eljamel inquiry through my casework.

If it transpires during the inquiry that other jurisdictions might have some influence on determining what evidence is relevant and what might apply, how would the chair of the inquiry in Scotland take that on board in their discussions with the Scottish Government?

I would like to ask two questions, if I may. First, in some situations, the terms of reference of public inquiries have changed—I think that that has happened in three out of 10 inquiries since 2007—and, therefore, there has been a potential for costs to increase. Is it your understanding that those terms of reference changed because the chair of the inquiry found unforeseen evidence that led them somewhere else and, therefore, they had to go back to the Scottish Government to ask for an amendment to the terms of reference?

Minister, you are correct in saying that, at the time, there was substantial stakeholder engagement—obviously, the bill has a substantial impact for the country. However, by and large, those stakeholders were telling you that what was proposed in the initial bill was not at all satisfactory and that, on a cost basis, it was going to be unaffordable. That is what was coming back and, as you know, four committees of the Parliament had considerable concerns about the original bill.

My question is about the co-design principle. If co-design is to work well, surely the stakeholders with whom the Scottish Government is engaging must be able to flag up those concerns early doors, so that we do not get into this kind of situation, in which there has been a very substantial change—part 1 of the bill has completely gone—and we are repurposing four attempts at a financial memorandum. Do you accept that the principle of co-design has not worked in this instance?

But that did not happen with the first iteration.