Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ms Henderson, you said in your opening remarks that there were people on the Leaders Forum who operate the national performance framework and who felt that that was a good thing to do, even if nobody asked them about it. If people are not being asked about it, does something need to happen to ensure that the public are more aware of the framework and what it means? If so, how would you do that? I do not think that people in the street would have a clue what the national performance framework was if you asked them.

I have a final point on the structures of the Parliament and enhancing scrutiny. Is there a case to be made, as has been made in several years past in the Parliament, that a finance bill accompanying the budget process would be helpful? That would give more and enhanced opportunities to scrutinise exactly where money has gone and how well it has been spent?

Ms Henderson, it is not just about how the system is working; it is also about the scrutiny of the system. Given what you and Ms Fowlie have said this morning, do you think that there are processes within the Parliament that could be changed to assist additional scrutiny? I agree with Mr Mason, in that I do not think that the issue has been mentioned at all in the committees that I have sat on in my 16 years in the Parliament. That suggests to me either that it is irrelevant or that it is too complex and people do not understand it.

To follow up Mr Mason’s question, do you think that there are procedures within the Parliament, and in the committee structure in particular, that could change to enhance scrutiny?

Certainly—again, in my experience in the Parliament—committees sometimes feel that they do not have an extensive opportunity to scrutinise what has happened with a particular policy. We think that we just do not have the time to do that. The committees are so busy that it would be quite helpful if there was a finance bill to help the process. Thank you for that.

That is a very interesting point. Would any move towards longer-term spending—moving from a one-year budget to, potentially, a three-year budget—enhance our ability to scrutinise a bit better the effectiveness of spending in different areas? Let us be honest: this is all about money. Would that help?

Professor Smith argued that, if there is a downturn in the oil and gas industry and if the projected downturn continues on the same basis as when revenues started to decline in 2014, revenues that accrue from employment in other industries will have to take the place of oil and gas revenues.

How well are we likely to do when it comes to the economic growth from other industries—that is, not oil and gas in somewhere such as the north-east—that can replace those revenues? I am interested in those statistics because they will obviously inform us about what is available in future years.

Minister, you said earlier that an effective tax structure is one that delivers what it says on the tin, and you cited the four principles of Adam Smith in relation to what is good about the Scottish tin.

An effective tax structure must also deliver the effective revenue that we need, specifically when it comes to addressing productivity and economic growth. As you know, that has been flagged up by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Fraser of Allander Institute and Scottish Chambers of Commerce as being a serious concern for the Scottish economy.

Both the convener and Mr Johnson made the point that, although income tax revenue is just one part of the revenues that we can hope to receive, it is a major part. I would like to ask about some of the concerns about those returns that were raised by the Scottish Fiscal Commission and, in particular, Professor Alasdair Smith. Professor Smith said to us, very clearly, that, when it comes to some of the regional aspects of income tax returns, there are areas such as the north-east that have been relatively productive in income tax revenue, whereas other areas have not.

What statistical analysis is the Scottish Government doing to consider the projected changes in industrial policy in each of the regions of Scotland, which will affect employment, and to look at which revenue returns might be better in the future? What data is being used for that?

Precisely. We surely need that important data, particularly in the next four or five years, for which the projections from the Scottish Fiscal Commission on income tax revenue are very weak. Do we not need strong data about which other industries people who are displaced from oil and gas would go to and, in particular, about those people who would be able to earn equally high sums of money outside oil and gas, as that would obviously lead to increased revenues? I am not saying that it would be easy, but is some analysis being done to work out where the high-level industries of the future will be, in order to improve income tax revenue and therefore productivity and growth?

It is a crucial area, minister. We all hope that the Scottish economy will improve and do really well because, let us be honest, it has a lot of potential. However, the fundamental point, which just about every member has mentioned so far, is that we are not doing as well as we could be, because our income tax revenues are depressed and not growing strongly enough in relation to the block grant adjustments. That has repeatedly been the central point when the committee has taken evidence from economic specialists and official forecasters.

What I am driving at is the importance of getting the data that we need to inform the policy that the Scottish Government will have to engage with to ensure that revenues increase so that we are much more fiscally sustainable for the future, because Scotland is lagging behind at the moment.

But not as fast as the block grant adjustment.