Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is just about additional support needs support staff or ASN assistants—the job title varies massively, and that is the point of my question. A couple of years ago, the Government statisticians who compiled the school staff census merged the categories of “classroom assistant” and “ASN assistant” into “pupil support assistant”. Our predecessor committee in that session brought them in to give evidence on that. Essentially, they said that there was no longer enough distinction in many settings between a general classroom assistant and somebody assigned to work specifically with kids with additional support needs, so they were unable to give us numbers on how many ASN assistants there were. Does it present a challenge for you that we are unable to count how many support staff work directly with children with additional needs rather than providing general support to the whole class?

On that last issue, there is an important point about whether we support kids with ASN either in mainstream or special education. Do you feel that, at the moment, in some cases at least, that is coming down to a question of resource and that there are children in mainstream education because of the lack of capacity in special educational settings? I recognise that there are two points here. The first is where the judgment is made that the child with additional support needs would thrive more in a mainstream setting. However, secondly, on the basis of what we get in our inboxes, there is the implication that local authorities are putting kids with more complex additional needs who would be better off in special educational settings into mainstream settings due to a lack of resource.

I have a couple of questions about additional support needs, but, as a precursor—this is relevant—I go back to Michelle Thomson’s and Ben Macpherson’s line of questioning on the Verity house agreement. What flexibilities, such as the removal of ring fencing, from Verity house will be in place for the coming financial year for education? Is it your expectation that there will be no ring-fenced pots in the coming year? I cannot remember exactly how it is phrased, but will there be the equivalent agreements between local government and national Government rather than ring-fenced pots, and will that take place from 2024-25?

Thank you.

Can I jump in? Would the aligned and progressive tax model that you talk about be possible purely with currently devolved levers if the UK Government were not to work in lockstep, for example, on the child benefit policy that you identified? Is it possible for us to do that just with what is currently available under the devolution settlement?

I want to pick up on what Mr Sousa said about public opinion and challenge the idea that there is wide public opposition to increasing tax. I am looking at two polls from roughly this time last year. The Scottish poll is from last December, and it showed that a majority of people—by a margin of more than two to one—are supportive of rather than opposed to the Scottish Government’s increase in the higher rate of income tax. There was a UK-wide poll just before the Liz Truss mini-budget that showed that a majority of people are in favour of increasing taxes to increase spending on, among other things, social security, which is interesting, given the attempts to demonise that. The most recent British election study shows that the vast majority of the UK electorate have left-of-centre economic values, even if they would not use a label like that, including a majority of Conservative voters.

I recognise that there is a difference between public opinion and the actual effect of public policy changes. If every general practitioner in the country was in the minority of people opposed to tax rises and half of them moved to Australia as a result of tax rises, that would clearly have an impact. Is there an issue that, when we are talking about the public discussion of taxation, as John Mason touched on, the public discourse as defined by politicians and experts is quite far removed from the majority of public opinion on core economic values?

Sticking with you first, Professor Heald—although I am interested in others’ views—it is easy for us to get stuck in a chorus of despair about this. We all acknowledge that we face the greatest financial challenge so far in devolution’s short history but, at the same time, as you have all mentioned, particularly Professor Bell, we have really ambitious targets for hitting net zero, lifting children out of poverty and so on. Inevitably, substantial increases in spending will be required if we are to stand any chance of hitting those targets, whether for net zero or child poverty. Even if we were very committed to a laissez-faire free-market economic model, we do not have enough time left, on net zero in particular, to find out whether that would work, because we have such a limited period.

You have all identified serious challenges to raising additional revenue through taxation, and the opportunities for us to cut spending elsewhere are extremely limited in the context of the Scottish budget. It is therefore hard not to feel as though you are edging us towards acknowledging that the targets and objectives that the Government has set are not realistic with the financial resources available to us. Is that fair?

I want to follow up on the point that Ruth Boyle just made—this is probably another question for Philip Whyte, and is on a point of clarification. I am broadly sympathetic to the tax proposals that you have laid out. However, on the question of local inheritance tax, my understanding of the current settlement is that we are allowed to create new local taxes but not if they replicate an existing national tax. Something like local inheritance tax or local capital gains tax would be outwith the current devolution settlement—the UK Government would not allow that because it replicates something that already operates UK wide. Obviously, that is in your proposals. Do you have a different understanding of what is currently within scope?

Does anybody else want to come in on that?

Professor Bell, do you have any thoughts on that? If I remember correctly, the citizens assembly that you mentioned came up with a pretty long list of potential new tax and revenue-raising powers. In that assembly, which was supposed to be broadly representative, there was a pretty broad consensus on the need not just to raise additional revenue but to broaden the sources of it. I am interested in your thoughts on where public opinion sits on these questions.