Chamber and committees

Murdo Fraser has touched on a point that has not come up in the debate thus far. In our report, we had commentary on whom the NPF belongs to—the Scottish Government or all of Scotland. There is merit in both of those arguments. If all public sector agencies are aligned to the higher mission and values, that could work; however, that leaves a gap. Our report expressed that those agencies felt as though they were doing everything, and they were asking where the Government fits in. I would be interested in Murdo Fraser’s views on that.

First, let me put on the record how much I value the potential of a national performance framework. If done right, it should be a bold, audacious, visionary and ambitious document, to which all our efforts aspire, even though we should be in the full knowledge that perfection can never be attained. However, it is fair to say that that is not where we are.

The convener and others have talked about purpose. The proposed wording has moved from including

“sustainable and inclusive economic growth”

to the somewhat bland

“To improve the wellbeing of people living in Scotland now and in the future”.

If we were to put that wording to the test with a multitude of stakeholders, we would get a multitude of answers. There is perhaps merit in being all things to all people, but it does not exactly fill me with confidence.

I also share the concerns about the language and ambition around poverty. Making reducing poverty an objective might well be politically pragmatic, but it stops well short of the ambition that I believe that we should be showing—as encapsulated by the First Minister—to eradicate poverty.

We have heard a huge range of the committee’s views in the debate thus far, so I will limit my remarks to some points that intrigued me and which are, I hope, different from those that have already been made.

I will move on to my next question. I have not seen culture mentioned specifically in your report. It is a very good report, but the reference to culture is implicit, rather than explicit, in some of the commentary, such as that on transparency and leadership, for example.

Considering your understanding of the culture that prevails and that you have seen, how confident are you that changes can be made, given that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour?

I do not know the names of the companies concerned, but I asked the question because I am aware that there has been increasing activity in landlord-to-landlord sales, which keeps tenants in place. Of course, at that point, the landlord is knowingly and deliberately taking a cut in what they might be able to achieve on the open market, to allow the tenant to stay in situ, and rightly so. However, this measure could discourage investors from coming to the table. Therefore, it would be worth while to look into that.

Yes, although the evidence of the impact of the previous increase from 4 per cent to 6 per cent does not necessarily follow with regard to the increase from 6 per cent to 8 per cent. It is your view that that might be the case, but we do not actually know that and the only thing that we could be certain of, if we did projections, is that they would be inaccurate. I ask about that because I want to know how you can evidence your assertion that the increase will support first-time buyers rather than merely fulfil the intention to increase the tax take? I am not against that per se, but is it not quite a bold statement that the increase in the rate of ADS will necessarily lead to more first-time buyers being able to access property?

Good morning, Auditor General, and thank you for joining us. I just have a couple of questions, as I am mindful of the time. The first is a slightly technical question that follows on from Mr Hoy’s questions. In the update that it gave in December 2024, the Government stated that it was taking

“a cascade approach to savings”.

What is your understanding of the implications of that, in the light of the fact that all change programmes that are under way anywhere in Government are arguably now part of public service reform?

I accept what you are saying. In future reports, would you be prepared to actively consider culture as specific and measurable, for the reasons that we have outlined?

In your evidence thus far, it sounds as though the position is very complex, and the data that you have cited probably confirms that we are not entirely certain of the impact of the rise. Therefore, to pick up on the issue that the convener was probing earlier, is it reasonable and accurate to say that we do not have complete transparency—probably for a very good reason—about the impact of the original rise in ADS and that you therefore have not been able to model the potential impact of a subsequent rise from 6 per cent to 8 per cent?

Okay. Convener, I should have drawn committee members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

If I may, I will follow up one area in relation intra-landlord activity. There is evidence that, over time, quite a number of landlords have exited the market across the whole of the United Kingdom. That was triggered by the UK Government’s withdrawal, some years back, of mortgage interest tax relief. More recently, some landlords have been choosing to exit the market but to sell with the tenant in situ, so that another landlord buys the property. That is done for the very good reason that the property is somebody’s home. Surely a by-product of the increase in the rate of ADS will be more tenants being evicted, because a landlord will be less likely to buy properties. To what extent have you factored that consideration into any scenario planning that you have done?

Correct.