Seòmar agus comataidhean

That will be in the Official Report.

You have done a great job with your report, Callum Blackburn, particularly in restricting it to only 90 pages, such is the complexity of the issue. There is a backdrop to it, of course. The UK Parliament Public Accounts Committee’s report makes it clear that the UK Government has a plan, without answering the key question of how it will fund the transition to net zero, including how it will deliver policy on replacing income from taxes such as fuel duty. It does not even provide a general direction of travel on levies and taxation, which would kind of nail it.

Few could disagree with the principles that you set out in your report, but it immediately struck me that there must be areas in which, if you adhere to one principle, you will be moving against another. Are there any particular areas that you would want to bring out that have not been brought out thus far? You have given some examples already, but it would be useful to have more examples, because I would not in any way want to underestimate the complexity of what we have to do.

Like everyone else, I could ask a multitude of questions, but we would be here all day.

For the record, I point out that the Scottish Government is recommending refusal of the LCM.

Okay. As I have been invited to do so, I will.

You allude to some of the potential limitations introduced by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill. The Scottish Parliament has refused to pass a legislative consent motion on that bill, and the Economy and Fair Work Committee, of which I am also a member, has written about it in quite stringent terms. Are there any other areas that you want to highlight in that respect? I suppose that there is a timing element to consider, given that, as you have pointed out, initiatives that the Scottish Government might attempt to introduce—and which might be trying to do the right things for the right reasons within a very restricted framework—could fall foul of that bill. You have provided some commentary in your report, but you have not chosen to give any specific examples. Are there any such examples that you would like to highlight now?

I am trying to explain that, from an accountability perspective, money that the UK Government provides to councils has to be bid for. We have already agreed that that process is inefficient, as some public expenditure is lost through days of inefficiency. It is not the same as money being set aside, with assistance on how councils should spend it from the Scottish Government, because that is done on a universal basis. I am just trying to confirm that my understanding is correct.

Yes.

Yes. I accept your point, because until we have the data, we cannot start to make that assessment. I do not know whether Emma Congreve has anything to add in response to my two questions.

Yes—I am trying to make that distinction. It is not like for like in quite the way that was set out.

I turn to my other question. I am interested in the point that you make at paragraph 13 of your submission. Can you give us a bit more flavour on disaggregating data in order to distinguish between employment activities that are in the public sector in Scotland but are not in the public sector in England? From the point of view of comparing apples with apples, that is very interesting, because the picture is quite opaque when we look at that per capita spend.

For what it is worth, I think that it is very good to have that. It is a positive, and I wanted to get the understanding of it on the record, so I thank you for that.