Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a bit technical.

All of this links not just to economic growth but to fiscal sustainability, which, as you will know, the committee has referred to quite a few times. I am surprised that the Government has not committed to responding to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s fiscal sustainability report. Why is that? Given what you have said about the constraints of the fiscal framework, I am sure that you understand and agree with the importance of fiscal sustainability. Why is the Government not planning to respond to the Scottish Fiscal Commission?

If the target for public sector reform is £1 billion, I am surprised that the investment available for invest to save is only about 3 per cent of that. Traditionally, it is quite expensive to save money. It costs money to save, so I thought that a figure of about 3 per cent was very low, and it makes me question how realistic the £1 billion figure is—although I know that that is a separate discussion.

It will need an exponential increase in speed, I think.

I will leave it there, because I appreciate that everyone else on the committee wants to come in.

That is the whole point. Only 20 per cent can be netted off because of section 24 of the 2015 act. For the sake of argument, if you have a rent of £100 and a mortgage of £80, HMRC judges you to have an income of £100, but, of course, the net after expenses is not that at all and, if there is a tax increase of 2p, it could have a skewed impact if they are geared quite highly.

Good morning. I will pick up on a few points.

The convener asked about the NPCs, whose concerns and disappointment were greatly exacerbated by the fact that they have done what I would regard as the right thing. That is particularly the case for the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, which set out in its economic impact report its contribution in gross value added—it gets a £6 return for every £1 invested, which roughly equates to the figures for the college sector. If the focus is on organisations that provide a tangible, specific and measured return through economic growth, as the work of Biggar Economics shows, the question why those organisations have not had any increase in funding since 2009 becomes even more relevant.

I accept that, as you said, the creative sector has been struggling. However, the RSNO—and the other NPCs, although led by the RSNO in particular—did what they and I would regard as the right thing, by proving economic value in the form of gross value added. Yet, here it is, still with the same funding as in 2009 and the chief executive expressing concerns that it might need to move to a freelance model rather than jobs, which of course support the fundamental ecosystem. Do you not think that getting work done to prove its GVA and, therefore, its economic value, was the right thing to do? Should it not be rewarded for that?

What I am trying to convey is that, to me, there is a difference. Nobody is disputing that a whole variety of creative organisations bring about wellbeing benefits in communities. However, the RSNO provides clearly demonstrable wellbeing benefits, as well as economic benefits that have been published. It is known: it can take the Scotland brand to the world and bring money back in. If there is an emphasis on providing economic growth—that is one of the priorities—surely, where that is demonstrably the case for a creative organisation, it should at least have got some uplift instead of staying at the same flat cash since 2009. In other words, not every creative organisation is as good as the next one. I am not saying that economic growth is the only measure, because I realise that creative organisations bring wellbeing benefits, too.

You do not necessarily need to answer that specifically. The brief question is, have you set any direction for the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture to be mindful of not only wellbeing but economic contribution?

That simply does not seem to be the case here. I will not labour the point, because I want to go on to other things, but I think that what has been encouraged and what has been done has not been followed through. One of the reasons why the NPCs are so disappointed is that they felt that they were doing the right thing. For what it is worth, I felt that they were doing the right thing.

I want to move on, though, to a point about the Scottish National Investment Bank. I think that what you meant about the year end and the flexibilities was to do with the budget and allowing the SNIB to carry over investment allocations into the next year, which is a good thing. Having the bank on single-year funding was ridiculous, especially when we look at what it is trying to do. Nevertheless, if one of the priorities is economic growth, I would still have expected the SNIB to see an increase in its budget because of its real economic value.

09:15

Why did that not happen? The flexibilities are eminently sensible and probably long overdue, but I would have liked to see more money. When the SNIB has such a clear link with things that bring economic value and therefore meets one of the missions, why have we not seen it getting more money?

That is a good thing. I will keep on with the theme of economic growth. You will not be surprised to hear me asking about ScotWind. I still believe that there is something wrong with ScotWind money—a one-off payment that you will not get back, as Graeme Roy has commented—being used for revenue. From a fiscal rule point of view, that is just a big no-no.

I accept what you say about a fixed budget, lack of flexibility in the fiscal framework and so on, but it is not a good idea to use that money for revenue, even if you manage to protect some of it, because when it is gone, it is gone. It begs the question of what happens when you do not have ScotWind money for revenue.

It is going to have to go some, if it is to go from 3 per cent to £1 billion.