Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

That takes me on to section 56, in part 2 of the bill, which is on the power to offset credits and debits. We have received some evidence on that section, which we have touched on briefly today.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland both have concerns about the lack of safeguards for a situation in which there is a dispute between the taxpayer and Revenue Scotland about whether an amount of tax is outstanding. Revenue Scotland has confirmed in writing and in oral evidence that that power would be used only when there is no dispute regarding the amount payable. However, that approach is not explicitly set out in the bill, so there is still concern from those who are charged with operating the system on behalf of clients. Does the Scottish Government intend to amend the bill at stage 2 to make that explicit?

My recollection is that that was recognised in the evidence. I would say that the set-off power was well established and reasonable, given the requirement that there is no dispute, which we have already covered.

Revenue Scotland is an organisation that currently runs two taxes and is about to run a third, if Parliament agrees to that. Is it not disproportionate—at this moment in time, in particular—to bring in a fairly wide-ranging power across those areas, given the caveats that I have talked about? We are putting this power in primary legislation. Is there a good reason for that? Should we not be looking at the matter more in the round, as Liz Smith suggested, in terms of a broader issue around tax?

It just feels a little bit like it is something on a shopping list—it is about wanting parity with HMRC over what is a very limited number of taxes. That does not feel to me to be very sensible.

As part of that, I will come on to section 55, which is about automation. We received concerns from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which made a specific comparison to the Horizon scandal. Obviously, that attracted the attention of the committee, and rightly so. Does the minister want to make comments on that area?

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?