Seòmar agus comataidhean

That point about data and where the gaps in the evidence are is interesting. Knowing where there are key gaps in the data that we need in order to measure success has been a running theme not just for the committee but across the board in Parliament. We are gathering huge amounts of data, but not necessarily what we need.

I realise that this is a little bit meta, but how are you reporting on that? The Parliament would be interested to know where you have identified gaps in the evidence that you need before we get to the stage of publishing a report on what the outcomes have been. We would be interested in knowing where you have identified those gaps and how they can be addressed.

Minister, I am interested in going back to the level of engagement that you have had since coming into post. What has been the response to the publication of “Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills” and the framework surrounding that? Do you have an initial sense that colleges and universities were expecting that level of direction? As a former member of the committee, you will be familiar with the evidence that we took from colleges; they were crying out for a sense of direction from Government. They wanted to know what they were supposed to be doing. “Purpose and Principles” was supposed to be the first step towards that. What has the response been since its publication?

How do we measure the outcomes from that? As you set out, it is the golden thread that runs through a lot of other stuff, most obviously the outcome agreements for the colleges and plenty of other strategic documents, including the SFC organisational strategy. What we eventually measure against is relatively clear for the long-term outcomes, but how are we to measure success a year or two from now, at the end of this parliamentary session, when the committee is drafting its legacy report? How are you measuring outcomes on an on-going short and medium-term basis? Is that resulting in a clearer sense of direction and greater clarity around strategic objectives? Will we have to come back to this in 10 years to see whether it worked?

I would like to go back to the convener’s original line of questioning. Collectively, what we have heard so far this morning are arguments that the budget does not prioritise economic growth enough, it does not prioritise tackling poverty enough and it does not prioritise reaching our net zero targets enough. There is specific criticism of the lack of funding for skills and training, university places, affordable housing, the Scottish child payment, enterprise agencies, the Scottish National Investment Bank and so on. There is also scepticism about tax rises to raise additional revenue.

However, is that not the problem? It is easy to identify what the budget does not do, but there is little in the way of solutions to that. To be fair, Chris Birt identified almost straight away that the money for the council tax freeze could instead have been spent on increasing the Scottish child payment. My criticism of the council tax freeze is on the record, and I would agree with him on that.

However, cumulatively, the Government went into this with a £1.5 billion gap, and what I have not yet heard this morning is a clear identification of where the Government is spending money on the wrong things and what could be reprioritised to fill all the gaps that you have all quite fairly identified. I think that there is a consensus that we should spend more money on all those areas, but the point is that there is not more money. What I have not yet heard this morning is an identification of where that money could come from, especially if it is not going to come from pretty swingeing tax rises.

To make the numbers add up.

I have taken up quite a lot of time, convener. Do I have time for one more question?

Yes.

On the point about other options, there is a lot of other money out there. The most obvious example, in my view, would be public sector pension funds, which invest billions of pounds in all sorts of stuff all the time, but very little in public infrastructure such as affordable housing. That is not a criticism—there is no set-up to connect those funds with that area, despite the fact that they have billions of pounds to put in—but it shows that there probably are other options that we could explore to get more money into areas such as affordable housing. Pension funds are just one example.

I go back to David Bell’s point about attracting investment and the cuts to the enterprise agencies, although this question might be too specific. Are the enterprise agencies necessarily the best place for us to put money in order to attract investment? I am thinking of the coverage, over the past couple of days, of the incredible success of our film and TV sector, which, I would argue, is driven largely by the fact that responsibility for state support for that sector has been taken away from the enterprise agencies and given to a bespoke unit in Creative Scotland: the new, or new-ish, Screen Scotland.

Has Scottish Enterprise, in particular—given that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and South of Scotland Enterprise are different, and have a justifiable return—really been able to demonstrate that the spend that we put into it has resulted in increased investment?

David Bell pointed out that spend on Scottish Enterprise has actually gone down at the same time as foreign direct investment in Scotland has gone up.

I am jumping around somewhat, but I want to go back to Chris Birt’s earlier points about capital funding for affordable housing and his highlighting of the roads budget as an area that could be reprioritised. If you listen to my Conservative colleagues, apparently my party has already done that, because the roads budget has gone down significantly. In fact, it is up this year, but that is due to the exception of an amount of money for the A9. I am not enthusiastic about that, but it is a small amount and it is mostly for safety-critical infrastructure.

Does that, though, not raise a wider point with regard to affordable housing? Nobody would defend the budget going down by £196 million or thereabouts as a good outcome of the process. However, affordable housing is an area of capital spend where other policy levers are available. For example, there has been an emergency rent freeze and cap; there are eviction protections; there are permanent rent controls coming in; and there is regulation of short-term lets—which should, it is hoped, free up more housing—and the doubling of council tax on holiday homes.

In other areas of capital spend, however, there is no legislative policy alternative to reach the same eventual outcomes. As David Bell pointed out, net zero targets cannot really be achieved in any way other than hitting capital spend. As much as the decision on affordable housing is unpleasant, therefore, and nobody is saying that it is a good outcome, there are, in the limited context of devolution, other levers that the Government can pull, and other options to meet our ambitions for housing, excluding capital spend. Is that correct?