Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will stick with the previous line of questioning about teacher recruitment and numbers.

The £145 million that was announced as part of the budget, which the cabinet secretary mentioned in her opening statement, is the largest single increase for teacher recruitment since 2007. However, I want to drill down into the detail of that. Subsequent to the publication of the budget, that number was subject to some negotiation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—as is normal, because local authorities will deploy the fund. My understanding is that that £145 million, as well as being broken down by 32 local authorities, is broken down into what are essentially five funding streams, which are listed as funding for teachers, primary teaching staff, secondary teaching staff, special schools and teacher pay.

Will the cabinet secretary, in the first instance, explain what the distinction is between funding for teachers and the three streams of primary, secondary and special schools? It appears that funding for teachers is the largest single amount. For example, Aberdeen City Council is first on the list and there is £2.6 million for it in funding for teachers, but there is then £800,000 for primary teaching staff, £900,000 for secondary teaching staff and £240,000 for special schools. What are those three additional columns for if they are separate from that stream of funding for teachers?

Thank you—that is useful. The whole exercise is highly politicised, of course, but given those confines, the report is a relatively technical part of informing what will be a much more politicised review.

David Eiser mentioned forecast error borrowing. Before we get into a debate about how we decide on the limit for that—whether it should be a cash percentage or whatever—which I presume will come with the review, should we ask what the rationale is for having a limit on forecast error borrowing at all? It is less about a divergence in policy choice and more about correcting for a divergence in technical exercises; it is about correcting for error rather than for a divergence in choice. What purpose does a limit serve when the issue is simply to do with forecast error corrections?

Yes, I think that we are a deeply asymmetric unitary state.

I will leave it there, convener.

I will move on to my other question on borrowing—I direct it to David Phillips, as he mentioned this issue earlier in referring to the report that your institutions recently published on discretionary resource spending borrowing powers. The report recommended that the Scottish Government should be given some limited powers for discretionary borrowing, and said that the rationale for those powers being limited is an equity issue, as there is no England-only borrowing regime.

Can you expand a little on that rationale? The UK Government is de facto the English Government when it comes to areas such as health and local government, and it has an unfettered ability to borrow and spend in those areas if it wishes to do so. What is the rationale for granting the Scottish Government a discretionary borrowing power but having it limited for the purposes of equity within the union?

Thank you, convener. I have one question on the process, and then a couple on policy if we have time to get through them.

First, on the process itself, there has been a bit of confusion in the public discourse on the independent report and the review. I say “public discourse”; it is not as though a huge number of people have been engaging in this conversation beyond those of us who are participating in this meeting, but some have. Some folk are mixing up their terms when they reference the independent report rather than the review.

The report itself will not make recommendations. To an extent, it is simply an evidence-gathering exercise. I would be interested to hear the witnesses’ thoughts on exactly what they think the most desirable outcome is for the independent report. What purpose is it trying to serve, given that it is not its purpose to make recommendations?

I direct that to David Bell in the first instance.

You have clarified this morning that various portfolios are contributing to the £200 million that you announced last week for business and self-isolation support. Can you confirm the breakdown in that respect? Is the contribution from portfolios coming from projected underspends, or have other priorities been paused or cancelled so that the money can be redeployed?

My apologies; I did not phrase my question very well. What I am trying to confirm is whether you still intend to use that money for the same purpose as you had planned, but at an earlier date, or whether it will now be deployed differently from how you had previously planned for it to be used in the budget.

Going back to Liz Smith’s questions on the Auditor General’s report on the underspend in 2021 that was carried over into 2021-22, I know that you have explained the reasons behind that and the purpose of doing it, but to what extent do you expect a similar underspend to be carried forward from this year into the 2022-23 budget?

I apologise for the fact that I had to step away from the meeting for a couple of moments to take a call, convener. If any of the questions that I am about to ask have been covered by a colleague, please interject and tell me to check the Official Report later.

Cabinet secretary, in response to John Mason’s question, you clarified that the initial £220 million that was announced last week by the UK Government in response to omicron was money that the Scottish Government had budgeted for in next year’s budget. Was that committed to other priorities, or is it all being used for the same Covid-specific purpose, meaning that it is being spent in exactly the same way as planned, just earlier than intended?

Is a breakdown of where the money is coming from available anywhere, or could it be provided to the committee?