Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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?

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.

Is that really the case with capital, though? We have a very under-delivered programme that already has huge backlogs, and you are pausing all new developments to try to bring the backlog of programmes in the capital development plan forward.

Mr Doak, I want to bring you back to my original question. That was a bit of a segue and we went back and forward, but it was about the capacity or potential. Do you have a sense of the scale of potential growth in the area?

That is useful. It feels like there is a reasonable amount of consensus. The question seems to be more about classification and use cases rather than price point.

On differentiation, there are lots of different products. Some of the virgin aggregates that we are talking about, whether it be red chips or others that are specific to the geology of Scotland, have a greater export value and it is worth shipping them long distances to neighbouring areas. There is an aggregate that we can export that has a higher price or value. Is there any case for saying that we should intervene more directly to protect those export or long-distance markets versus something that is more localised?

I know that that is partly about the price elasticity in transport. However, should we make the differentiation more pronounced? Should we say that Scottish red chip has a high price point and it is something that we can use, but the bill should differentiate between some of those classifications? Putting aside how difficult that would be, do you think there is a case to say that there should be more direct differentiation in the bill?

So the issue for you is more about demand rather than the supply side of your business.

We saw some excellent sand last week.

There are clear economic effects from people not participating in the workforce. That would be of concern to us because of the impact on the taxation take. I know that you are not in the Cabinet, but do you know whether that is being discussed in the Cabinet? The trend appears to me to be more pronounced in Scotland, although it is significant across the whole of the UK. We also have a higher unit cost in Scotland because of the Government’s decisions and how it is spending money on social security payments. We are more exposed in this country. We already know of the £1.3 billion shortfall in the block grant allocations by 2027-28 against the social security budget. Do you think that the Government is getting a grip of this and understands its exposure? Does it have a plan to do something about it? I know that you are saying that you are aware of it, but what will the Government do to try to deal with it?