Seòmar agus comataidhean

How do we measure the outcomes from that? As you set out, it is the golden thread that runs through a lot of other stuff, most obviously the outcome agreements for the colleges and plenty of other strategic documents, including the SFC organisational strategy. What we eventually measure against is relatively clear for the long-term outcomes, but how are we to measure success a year or two from now, at the end of this parliamentary session, when the committee is drafting its legacy report? How are you measuring outcomes on an on-going short and medium-term basis? Is that resulting in a clearer sense of direction and greater clarity around strategic objectives? Will we have to come back to this in 10 years to see whether it worked?

Minister, I think that you have previously mentioned—James Withers certainly has—the potential for a greater role for the private sector in funding courses to meet the skills demand in various areas. You outlined to Michelle Thomson the extent of your engagement in recent months and the broad appetite for greater engagement. How much have those conversations gone into the realm of direct private sector funding for courses that will address skills shortages in sectors?

How will businesses that need workers with particular skill sets go about doing that? Do you envisage a direct relationship between them and their local college, or would it involve the Scottish Funding Council? Some businesses will not know where to start or who to speak to. Should they speak to their local college, or should they write to you?

Has there been much response from employers, trade associations, trade unions and so on since publication? I know that the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association and the University and College Union and so on were all engaged in the process.

I am jumping around somewhat, but I want to go back to Chris Birt’s earlier points about capital funding for affordable housing and his highlighting of the roads budget as an area that could be reprioritised. If you listen to my Conservative colleagues, apparently my party has already done that, because the roads budget has gone down significantly. In fact, it is up this year, but that is due to the exception of an amount of money for the A9. I am not enthusiastic about that, but it is a small amount and it is mostly for safety-critical infrastructure.

Does that, though, not raise a wider point with regard to affordable housing? Nobody would defend the budget going down by £196 million or thereabouts as a good outcome of the process. However, affordable housing is an area of capital spend where other policy levers are available. For example, there has been an emergency rent freeze and cap; there are eviction protections; there are permanent rent controls coming in; and there is regulation of short-term lets—which should, it is hoped, free up more housing—and the doubling of council tax on holiday homes.

In other areas of capital spend, however, there is no legislative policy alternative to reach the same eventual outcomes. As David Bell pointed out, net zero targets cannot really be achieved in any way other than hitting capital spend. As much as the decision on affordable housing is unpleasant, therefore, and nobody is saying that it is a good outcome, there are, in the limited context of devolution, other levers that the Government can pull, and other options to meet our ambitions for housing, excluding capital spend. Is that correct?

That goes back to the point that João Sousa made about affordable housing. If we had made decisions in every portfolio area purely on the basis of what would generate the best long-term return in that area, we would almost certainly have ended up with a budget that did not add up. Ultimately, the budget had to add up one way or another.

That was a very pertinent point. The challenge, perhaps, is that, although it is well within the Parliament’s power to legislate for targets, we are limited in the range of powers that we have to reach them. You are right, though, that we have not fully utilised those things.

I just want to touch on a couple of specifics and, first of all, go back to the discussion that we had early on about income tax changes and the splitting of the higher rate. My first question is for David Bell. Is it not somewhat strange to have a higher rate that applies between £45,000 and £125,000? Is that not a massive range to be taxing at the same rate? I acknowledge that the withdrawal of the personal allowance from £100,000 obviously has an effect, but even in European terms, is it not somewhat unusual to have such a big range covered by one rate?

I have sat in on some public sector pay negotiations and union reps quite reasonably say, “Well, hold on, the newspapers this morning say that you have £2 billion, but you will not give us £200 million to settle this,” but, actually, there is not £2 billion.

I am aware that every year—concurrent to the budget process for the following year, roughly—we start to get reports of the Government underspend in the current financial year, so I have a question for Audit Scotland on transparency and public understanding. Do we need to have a different kind of discussion, use different language and present things differently when we are talking about underspend?

Two or three years ago, there was a £2 billion headline figure for the underspend, the vast majority of which was just a change in how student loans were accounted for. No cash remained unspent at the end of the year.

If we are talking about public understanding and expectations, we constantly have this issue, every spring, when people think that a big pot of money has not been spent, for no particular reason. However, it is much more complicated than that. Do we need to have a discussion about how we talk about the underspend from each financial year going into the next?

On the point about other options, there is a lot of other money out there. The most obvious example, in my view, would be public sector pension funds, which invest billions of pounds in all sorts of stuff all the time, but very little in public infrastructure such as affordable housing. That is not a criticism—there is no set-up to connect those funds with that area, despite the fact that they have billions of pounds to put in—but it shows that there probably are other options that we could explore to get more money into areas such as affordable housing. Pension funds are just one example.