Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have made proposals to increase taxes, as members will be aware. I have made a number of such proposals to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, some of which have been taken forward. Actually, one of them was approved by the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday.

My final point is also on capital, but it is on the learning estate investment programme and is for the cabinet secretary. You will be aware of the situation in East Dunbartonshire, where we have five schools that are rated C for their condition, which is poor. One of those schools, Lenzie academy, has LEIP funding, which is great, but we have a real challenge with four primary schools in East Dunbartonshire and particularly Milngavie primary. Because of the urgency of the situation at Milngavie primary and the condition of the buildings, the council has allocated its entire capital budget to its refurbishment. That incurs a risk, because there is massive year-on-year uncertainty on the capital allocation to councils, just as there is on the Scottish Government’s annual allocations from the UK Government. That situation has a massive impact on the full rebuilds that are required at Balmuildy primary and Westerton primary and the refurbishment of Bearsden primary.

Is there any scope to bring more schools into the LEIP by increasing the overall allocation to the investment programme? Alternatively, could there be a direct funding allocation outwith the LEIP to school buildings, given the urgency of the deterioration in condition? Given the local context, is there a way to recognise that? I realise that that is a parochial point, but it is quite an urgent situation, and the council is now carrying a massive level of risk due to circumstances that are outwith its control.

We do not have a date at the moment.

The local authority is asking for additional capital allocation because of the unique circumstances. There were plans for the refurbishment programme to be managed over a number of years but, because of last year’s significant cut to the capital budget and the delays that that created, we have a really urgent situation with the condition at Milngavie primary, which is having a knock-on effect. The children of four schools in the area are now impacted. Milngavie primary kids will be decanted to other schools while the refurbishment takes place. I think that there is a lot of financial risk and uncertainty underpinning that. There is also a knock-on impact, in that there is a delay to the full rebuilds of Westerton primary and Balmuildy primary, and Bearsden primary will not be refurbished to the extent that was originally envisaged.

Is there any scope for allocation of funding for school buildings outwith the LEIP?

I will stick with colleges and go back to the capital budget—I apologise that I cannot remember who asked questions about it earlier. I understand the Government’s position that, if you take out the Dunfermline learning campus, there is a small real-terms increase. That is not an illegitimate way to present it, but do you acknowledge that the reality is that the maintenance backlog for the college estate far outstrips what can be delivered through the current capital allocation? I completely understand that you cannot allocate money that you do not have, but do you understand why there is so much frustration in the sector about how big the gap is between what is being allocated and the current backlog?

Thanks, convener. I am conscious of time, so I have just one question.

Auditor General, you mentioned in opening that there are lots of examples of public sector reform—we will hear some in a moment. However, ultimately, the issue is the lack of coherence and direction from the Government. Are you aware of any examples of effective reform in the Scottish public sector that either have happened or are on-going as a result of ministerial direction? I do not mean those that are off the back of an initiative by an individual organisation or public body; I mean those that are a direct result of Scottish ministers’ involvement in direction setting.

Thanks very much—I appreciate that.

I have a small, specific point, which does not relate directly to the policy to increase ADS. Would the Government consider a potential ADS exemption in situations where a person in receipt of disability living allowance is able to live independently but is not able to own their own home, and a relative, for example, buys it for them?

I have had a couple of pieces of casework where someone has been liable to pay ADS because they have purchased a property on behalf of a disabled family member who can live independently but is not in a position to own the property.

One of the most interesting recent examples of work on public sector reform has been the Scottish Government’s pilot of the reduced working week, which is sometimes called the four-day working week. South of Scotland Enterprise is one of the bodies that have been involved in that, so I will come to Jane Morrison-Ross first. However, I might be unaware that others around the room have been involved, so anyone can come in on this.

What have your experiences of the pilot been so far? Part of the objective is to support the workforce to have a better work-life balance, but with the aim of increasing the organisation’s productivity. What impact has the pilot had in that regard?

I want to touch on the points about transparency that the convener made a moment ago. I would like to ask about availability of public data. Everybody here represents a public body. We had evidence from the David Hume Institute which, a couple of years ago, probably presented the most compelling case that there is a net loss to the Scottish economy of roughly £2 billion a year simply because the majority of public data is not directly available to the public.

I do not want to continue picking on Transport Scotland, because I think that the issue relates partly to the Improvement Service as well, but I will give a small example. MSPs regularly lodge parliamentary questions to get updates on the number of young people who have been issued with concessionary bus passes. Usually, breakdowns by local authority are asked for. That seems to me to be a very unproductive system. There are similar areas in which we have to lodge freedom of information requests, for example. That data exists and the counter is constantly ticking up, but it is not on the front page of freebus.scot. That means that we have to go through a costly administrative process in Parliament—I presume that there is also a process in Transport Scotland and the Improvement Service—to get the data and present it. That is one small example.

Another example is that only a handful of public bodies in Scotland operate an open government licence. To be fair, I note that the Scottish Government is one of them, but most executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies do not—they have copyrighted websites.

I put this question to all the witnesses: what are you doing to make your data more directly available to the public? Rather than having it behind a wall and then giving it to somebody when they come and ask for it, for example via FOI, what are you doing to pre-emptively and proactively make that data available in the first place? There is clear evidence that, if we do that, there will be a net benefit to the economy.

I should start with a note of thanks to the minister, recognising that I put the proposal on ADS to the Government on behalf of the Greens in discussions ahead of the budget, so I am glad to see that it is in the first draft.

I will follow on from Craig Hoy’s line of questioning about the Government’s ultimate policy objective, and take up the point that the minister made to Michelle Thomson about us being quite far left of the inflection point on the Laffer curve, as he put it. Is the Government’s objective to maximise the benefit for first-time buyers and maximise behaviour change in the market and, therefore, reduce the amount of revenue that will be received as a consequence, short of the point at which we start to lose revenue as a result, or is there a point of balance before that that the Government is trying to reach? I am trying to understand to what extent the primary objective is to change behaviour as opposed to raising additional revenue.