Seòmar agus comataidhean

Like Mr Mason and the convener, I understand the logic of keeping the tax in line with the aggregates levy in the first year because of the complexity of the BGA adjustment. I get that. However, if it is the case that people in the sector are arguing, for the reasons that the convener set out, that they might want the tax to increase in years to come, is that not also a reason for considering different rates in different parts of Scotland? The logic is that, if there are different elasticities of demand between England and Scotland, there will also be different elasticities of demand between different parts of Scotland. Will the Government examine that?

On that point, it would be helpful if the Government considered that, because it strikes me that the fund is being closed largely for economic reasons, whereas those who have expressed their concerns to the committee are looking at the social impact—particularly if, as the convener said, their projects relate to youth engagement in the local community and so on. Those projects have a very important impact when it comes to stimulating community engagement, particularly if they are in a disadvantaged area. Losing them is a potential problem, so it would be very helpful if the Government was to consider introducing a replacement fund in order to ensure that infrastructure provision is not lost altogether.

I am not sure that I will watch them online.

Good morning. When it comes to making difficult policy choices in the very tight fiscal circumstances that we all face, do you agree that the emphasis should be on the policies that deliver the best outcomes and that there should be less emphasis on the policies that do not?

I do not doubt that, cabinet secretary. I am sure that it is a difficult job, particularly just now. However, the Scottish Fiscal Commission—which is clearly being very diplomatic about this, as it usually is—is not confident that some of the statistics that the Scottish Government has presented to it match up with its own analysis. Mairi Spowage told us that, when it came to college funding, she was not at all clear about where the specific lines were in that portfolio. We had David Bell saying that he was “completely confused” about how the fiscal sustainability delivery plan closes the fiscal gap. Is it not an embarrassment to the Scottish Government that there are experts in their field who do not feel that there is sufficient transparency in the Scottish budget?

I am just putting it to you that, despite what you say about the ABR and so on, our experts who are scrutinising the budget are being very clear in all their comments. It is not just one person saying this; our senior economic analysts are all saying the same thing—that, as we scrutinise the budget, there is confusion over where the budget spend is and, therefore, over where the best results are. Also, let us be honest, cabinet secretary: your budget speech had to have two corrections made to it, which were welcome and made quickly. There was an issue about the A96 and an issue about the provision for school swimming.

The on-going lack of transparency makes it difficult not only for the committee but for the public to understand which lines of spending will best deliver the results that the Government is seeking to achieve.

I am interested in that because, as you will recall, in paragraph 73 of this committee’s report on the budget we expressed our disappointment that there was not more detail about this very issue, particularly when it came to measuring the value of universal payments. In replying to that criticism, the Government said:

“the Scottish Government is developing its approach to public value”,

which

“will embed a framework for understanding spending proposals”.

That was the Scottish Government’s response.

This time last week, I asked Professor Graeme Roy whether he was aware of what that framework was. He said:

“I am not aware of it.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 20 January 2026; c 25.]

Can you provide us with some detail on what that framework is?

I am interested in the Scottish one. Let us not forget that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has had to come up with some of its own figures in contrast to what the Scottish Government has been saying. The Scottish Government has said that there is a 6.6 per cent real-terms increase in the education budget, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that it is a 0.8 per cent real-terms increase. The Scottish Government has said that there is an 8.9 per cent real-terms increase in the housing budget, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that it is a 3.9 per cent real-terms increase.

You will be starring in it.

During the past two years, you have very successfully worked to simplify the explanation of the budget through blogs, better diagrams and so on. Have you had a good response to that? Is there positive feedback that it is helping?