Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not disagree but my issue on that point is that it is less about the specific operation of the regulation as it applies to different tax rates and more about the fact that we can interrogate this only on the level of principle with regard to how these things might be appropriate, where the human checks and balances are in the systems and what would happen if we did not do that comprehensively. However, I am probably ranging off topic.

The committee has taken a bit of an interest in this area, and we have been addressed by different experts about it. I wonder whether it feels a bit like the piecemeal approach that people are warning against and whether it would be better to have an all-governing AI approach strategy around publication of algorithms, the way in which AI will be applied in different areas and how those things are tested so that the Government takes a more proactive overarching approach, which might be done through legislation, in order to govern the operation of public service in this area.

I suppose that I am just asking for reflections, minister. It is not a criticism necessarily.

The objectives are your own, and they relate to the Scottish Government’s circular economy objectives, which are broad and far reaching. The frustration around the earlier questioning is that, other than the rate, which is not specified in the bill, we cannot really see how they might be achieved. During the development of the bill, did you consider any other mechanisms that might be introduced to help you pursue those objectives?

It would seem that one of the significant limitations on the ability to do more recycling is whether there is enough feedstock, given the amount of demolition that is on-going. There are other limitations concerning capital investment, noting the significant amounts of money that companies must spend to buy or build the machinery that makes the recycling happen. Did you consider any possibility of tax credits in the system to support that kind of capital investment?

It is proposed primary legislation. I take the minister’s point, in that the bill is reasonably constrained by the terms of the Scotland Act 2016. However, a recycling company has to pay the landfill tax at full rate against the last residual waste that comes through the recycling process. Given that it will have highly processed that material and will have done everything that it could to take as much out of it as possible, could a tax credit system not be applied that would allow people to invest in the kind of capital infrastructure that would help them to make the process more efficient and to increase capacity?

Thank you, minister. Was it a power that Revenue Scotland asked you for?

Most of my questions have been asked. Following Ms d’Inverno’s comment, I have been enjoying the idea of a “River City” storyline about the reeling in of miscreants who are running an illicit quarry.

I would like to discuss section 55 and automation, which John Mason raised. The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concerns about the fact that the bill contains quite wide-ranging powers around automation and said that such provisions should be dealt with in dedicated primary legislation, rather than being implemented by regulations. Would you comment further on that, Mr Brown?

Have your organisations looked into the application of artificial intelligence or algorithmic approaches to calculation of elements of people’s interaction with the taxation system?

Does section 55 deal with that, or does it not encompass what you are suggesting?

I thank the committee and the clerks for the support that they have given me in pursuing this petition. I have to say that the evidence that has been supplied, particularly by the individual universities, has added to the understanding of the issue in specific contexts. The work that the committee has undertaken so far is greatly appreciated. I hope that there is further work that can be done to open this up and I will set out some of that if I can.

I have reflected on the submissions that have come back from the various consultees and, as I say, I think that the individual universities’ context is useful. I would say that, in their submissions, both the Commissioner for Fair Access and Universities Scotland reference data but do not provide it. I have found some of that data difficult to find, particularly in relation to the assertion by the Commissioner for Fair Access on the question of whether too many Scottish-domiciled students are having to pursue higher education at personal financial cost elsewhere in the UK. He believes that there is no evidence of that and references data but does not provide the data. It would be useful for my constituent and for the general discussion of the policy if he were to do that. I would appreciate it if the committee might consider asking him to provide that data, as well asking Universities Scotland to provide the data that it references in its submission.

It is fair to say that I do not believe that the general issue of the funding model that is imposed on universities in Scotland will be resolved by the petition. I think that that is a political decision and the submissions set out some of the general issues around it, such as the 27 per cent decrease in funding per student, which I know will be deeply concerning to many people.

The issue is what other data we can obtain that can help applicants to better inform the decisions that they might make. That is particularly pertinent in the coming year. A significant budget cut of £28.5 million is being made to higher education institutions, which may further decrease the number of Scottish-domiciled students who can gain access. It makes the competition ever tighter. It is key and the relevance of this has increased since the budget process has come through. I hope that the committee would take that into consideration as well.

I support my constituent’s view on this. Universities should be publishing more data about the make-up of the students on courses, whether it be international students or Scottish-domiciled students. There is one reason for that in particular. A Scottish student applying to universities has five options when they fill in their Universities and Colleges Admission Service form; that has been the case for a very long time, certainly since I applied to university in the mid-1990s. What we have heard in the evidence so far is that, on some courses, the person making that application had zero chance of accessing that course, on the basis of the evidence from the previous years. Some of those cases are very isolated, and the universities are keen to express that point; it is a rare occurrence in their view. I think that there is a solid case for that information to be published proactively to best inform applicants as to whether they are using one of their five bullets—the five chances that they have—properly. Do they have a real chance of gaining access to the course that they want at the institution they want, or do they not? To me, that is an element of fair access.

Perhaps that is something on which the committee might consider asking for the views of Universities Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Fair Access. That is not to say that the committee should endorse that position, but it might be something that could be explored. I think that having that information makes it a fairer system all over for everyone concerned, whether it be Scottish-domiciled students, international students or widening access students, so that they can best understand where they should engage with the process and how they will be supported in what they do. Opening up the data so that there is greater transparency is probably the next logical step on the petition. If the committee was of a view to support that, that would be most welcome.