Chamber and committees

That is a good thing. I will keep on with the theme of economic growth. You will not be surprised to hear me asking about ScotWind. I still believe that there is something wrong with ScotWind money—a one-off payment that you will not get back, as Graeme Roy has commented—being used for revenue. From a fiscal rule point of view, that is just a big no-no.

I accept what you say about a fixed budget, lack of flexibility in the fiscal framework and so on, but it is not a good idea to use that money for revenue, even if you manage to protect some of it, because when it is gone, it is gone. It begs the question of what happens when you do not have ScotWind money for revenue.

It is going to have to go some, if it is to go from 3 per cent to £1 billion.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I will pick up on the first theme that the convener opened up. As you probably know, I try to do as much as I can to support the Scottish Fiscal Commission on the likes of LinkedIn by adding what I hope are helpful comments that will direct some traffic to you. However, while I recognise the work that you have clearly done to big up your messages and get them out there—the wee graphs that you have put up are super—the numbers are still relatively low. You still have only 835 followers on LinkedIn.

Looking at the posts, I see that there has been a bit of a burst of activity, with roughly one post per week over the past few months, but there was nothing for five months before that—there were no articles or documents. You could easily get one of your young people to write about their impressions—something along the lines of, “You may think the Fiscal Commission is about this, but this is what I’ve found.” Your documents could easily be put on there, too. If you know how to use it, LinkedIn is a very effective tool for driving traffic.

We have talked about this before; I appreciate that you have a limited budget, but if you were a business organisation, you would be doing proper work on branding and marketing. I watched the videos and it occurred to me that, although I strongly approve of your new commissioners, who are clearly already adding a great deal of value, it does not necessarily follow that the presentation style of the videos will bring people in. The challenge is how to make people care about the importance of your work.

Have you thought about that? With the young people you are getting in, there are bound to be some very creative individuals who just know this stuff because they are in a different generation. Obviously, oversight will be needed, but have you thought about how you might be able to cheaply and effectively get down with da yoof, if you like? [Laughter.]

The other area that I want to ask about is your report “Fiscal Sustainability Perspectives: Climate Change”. As you will know, I have consistently asked people how well they are across that, because it seems to me to be utterly fundamental to read it and understand the real challenges ahead. I was shocked to find that the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee did not know about it. The Economy and Fair Work Committee, of which I am the deputy convener, is looking at the forthcoming climate change plan, and I have been asking all our witnesses about your report. I am disappointed to say that, so far, nobody has admitted to either being aware of the report or having read it. I have said to them, “You need to look at this.” Okay, it was published in March 2024, but the fundamental principles absolutely apply.

I know that you did a session straight after publishing that report, but there would be great merit in finding ways to keep reminding people about it. I have been surprised by how few people know about it. I do not see the point in our developing plans if we do not understand structurally what the challenges are, and I think that your report points out those challenges.

As we come up to a new parliamentary session, we should think about how we can get the information in that report—and whatever variants you issue, because you may choose to update it—to people, because it is so fundamental. I am playing my part, but it is probably not enough to tell people only once.

I have a slightly technical question that, arguably, follows on from that. I appreciate that you have not had a chance to think about how it will affect investment or supply or rents, and you will have to look at that. However, for private landlords who are subject to section 24 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2015, all rent is assumed to be income and only 20 per cent of any mortgage is netted off. That is going to skew the issue even further. Could they potentially be paying the additional rate, which is deemed to be on all the income, even though it is not actually all income, if that makes sense? Have you had a chance to consider that yet? Depending on the level of gearing, it could have a big impact. In other words, people could be put into a loss-making position if it is deemed to be all income and it is not at all, and that will lead to exit from the market and impact on wider housing supply.

12:30

There is also that complexity that my colleague John Mason talked about around working out what you will actually get, because there are also behavioural impacts that will take a bit of working through.

Good morning. The rest of my colleagues will want to get into specific detail on your portfolio, but I have an open question. Productivity growth is one of the challenges of our times—that has arguably never been more the case—given geopolitical challenges and budget shortages, particularly around lumpy capital.

For the record, I would like you to walk us through how the key elements of the budget will improve productivity growth. It could well be that the trees that you have planted will grow to be big oaks in future years. I would also like you to reflect on the challenges of ensuring a focus on productivity growth across Government, not only in your portfolio. Take it away, cabinet secretary.

Thank you for that textbook answer—it was exactly as I would have expected it to be. I would like to hear more about the second part of my question, which was on how you have been able to ensure that there has been a similar focus across portfolios. Obviously, that is a matter of influencing. You mentioned areas that are clearly in your domain, where you have been able to influence that focus. However, skills, infrastructure investment and so on all contribute. How have you managed to ensure that there is that focus, particularly in the light of what we all recognise are challenging times for public sector funding, with the limitations and challenges in being able to crowd in private capital?

You might recall the question that I asked about the Scottish National Investment Bank when the budget came out. How do you feel that that is going? In other words, do all your colleagues have a similar focus on growth?

I know that other members want to come in, but I have a couple of wee observations. First, my understanding was that it is not £70 million for colleges; it is more like £40 million, because the numbers for the Dunfermline campus of Fife College had already been included in the previous year’s funding. I suspect that that will come up at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and it is not in your domain. I also suspect that the infrastructure delivery pipeline will come in for a bit of questioning. It is a very good wish list but, in my opinion, it is some way off being a plan.