Seòmar agus comataidhean

In your Scottish report, you touch on a couple of issues—air passenger duty, and the final timing for that, and VAT assignment. To this committee, the latter is a dog that just will not die. The committee has made it clear to the Scottish Government that, although it might have been in the Smith commission report, we do not see any advantage whatsoever to assignment of VAT. We could argue about whether or not it should be devolved. In section 8 of the report, you say:

“The formal methodology for VAT assignment is being developed by HMRC, the Treasury and the Scottish Government.”

Is there any point in progressing any further with that? The committee does not see that there is.

We could be talking about £100 million over three years, which is a very significant amount of money, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is obviously nervous about where those funds will be sourced from. It is looking for a guarantee that local government will not be left carrying the can, which is why I asked you whether you think that the funding should be ring fenced. You might be able to set up a trust, and money might come from PEF, but it does not seem to me that that represents a guaranteed source of funding year in, year out, so to speak.

Other colleagues will want to explore some issues further, including one or two that I have not touched on. However, there is one further thing from me. Today, your Holyrood leader called for tax cuts of £1 billion a year. Your party has also called on the Scottish Government to mitigate a number of things such as the situation on winter fuel payments. If we have £1 billion in tax cuts and we mitigate here, there and everywhere—national insurance, blah, blah, blah—where would the bill fit into the list of priorities in a budget in which there would be less money to spend?

We fully appreciate that and, all else being equal, I do not think there would be any argument at all against it. However, we must look at the budget, at teacher numbers and at the cost of outdoor provision. Where do you sit on that?

I think that the issue is the indefinite nature of that sort of funding. Trusts might or might not come in, but the question is how to sustain that funding year in, year out.

I have one other question about the issue of timescales, which was touched on earlier. You are keen for this to start in 2026, but I have to say that there seems to be no build-up to it. The costings suggest almost full delivery in year 1, and I cannot see how that can possibly happen, given that some facilities will have to be refurbished and additional facilities will surely have to come online. Would it not be better for the provision to be scaled up over, say, three years?

I was thinking exactly the same thing, funnily enough.

The tax collection rate remained at 99 per cent, and the administrative cost of tax collection was £7.8 million, which represents 0.87 per cent of tax collected. In his opening statement, Aidan O’Carroll talked about how keeping those costs below 1 per cent is an important benchmark. I notice that there was quite a significant jump over a year, from £6.9 million—which represents 0.71 per cent of tax collected—to £7.8 million. In terms of tax collected, that is a 22.5 per cent increase. Will you talk us through that a wee bit? I should also say that your capital spend was down 28 per cent, by £200,000 from £700,000.

It is 11.

I agree with that, but does that not mean that we need there to be a capital allocation in the financial memorandum? COSLA and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will say that, because of the current financial challenge, that will be difficult to deliver. ADES has said:

“the financial assumptions within the Bill are well below the finances required and are not detailed enough to give confidence in the ability to deliver on the aspirations of the Bill.”

I certainly agree with your aspirations—I am sure that most people would agree with them—but it is about how they are delivered. Some of the problems that COSLA, ADES and others have raised are about those issues. COSLA has asked where the funds will be sourced from; the subject of capital makes it very nervous, because a lot of local authorities do not have significant capital budgets and, with what they have, they are thinking about using those to build new schools or to fix potholes. They would be very reluctant, I think, to spend half a million or a million pounds, or whatever it would cost, on upgrading an outdoor centre, unless they were given the money.

Paragraph 40 of the financial memorandum says:

“In relation to cover for teachers in their absence from school, for primary schools it is reasonable to assume that teachers and support staff attending the trip may not need to be covered for at the school.”

However, ADES has said:

“Paragraph 40 is incorrect. Any young person requires education, not supervision, this must be with a General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) registered post holder, this is a genuine cost to the excursion.”