Chamber and committees

Thank you, minister. Was it a power that Revenue Scotland asked you for?

Most of my questions have been asked. Following Ms d’Inverno’s comment, I have been enjoying the idea of a “River City” storyline about the reeling in of miscreants who are running an illicit quarry.

I would like to discuss section 55 and automation, which John Mason raised. The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concerns about the fact that the bill contains quite wide-ranging powers around automation and said that such provisions should be dealt with in dedicated primary legislation, rather than being implemented by regulations. Would you comment further on that, Mr Brown?

Have your organisations looked into the application of artificial intelligence or algorithmic approaches to calculation of elements of people’s interaction with the taxation system?

Does section 55 deal with that, or does it not encompass what you are suggesting?

I thank the committee and the clerks for the support that they have given me in pursuing this petition. I have to say that the evidence that has been supplied, particularly by the individual universities, has added to the understanding of the issue in specific contexts. The work that the committee has undertaken so far is greatly appreciated. I hope that there is further work that can be done to open this up and I will set out some of that if I can.

I have reflected on the submissions that have come back from the various consultees and, as I say, I think that the individual universities’ context is useful. I would say that, in their submissions, both the Commissioner for Fair Access and Universities Scotland reference data but do not provide it. I have found some of that data difficult to find, particularly in relation to the assertion by the Commissioner for Fair Access on the question of whether too many Scottish-domiciled students are having to pursue higher education at personal financial cost elsewhere in the UK. He believes that there is no evidence of that and references data but does not provide the data. It would be useful for my constituent and for the general discussion of the policy if he were to do that. I would appreciate it if the committee might consider asking him to provide that data, as well asking Universities Scotland to provide the data that it references in its submission.

It is fair to say that I do not believe that the general issue of the funding model that is imposed on universities in Scotland will be resolved by the petition. I think that that is a political decision and the submissions set out some of the general issues around it, such as the 27 per cent decrease in funding per student, which I know will be deeply concerning to many people.

The issue is what other data we can obtain that can help applicants to better inform the decisions that they might make. That is particularly pertinent in the coming year. A significant budget cut of £28.5 million is being made to higher education institutions, which may further decrease the number of Scottish-domiciled students who can gain access. It makes the competition ever tighter. It is key and the relevance of this has increased since the budget process has come through. I hope that the committee would take that into consideration as well.

I support my constituent’s view on this. Universities should be publishing more data about the make-up of the students on courses, whether it be international students or Scottish-domiciled students. There is one reason for that in particular. A Scottish student applying to universities has five options when they fill in their Universities and Colleges Admission Service form; that has been the case for a very long time, certainly since I applied to university in the mid-1990s. What we have heard in the evidence so far is that, on some courses, the person making that application had zero chance of accessing that course, on the basis of the evidence from the previous years. Some of those cases are very isolated, and the universities are keen to express that point; it is a rare occurrence in their view. I think that there is a solid case for that information to be published proactively to best inform applicants as to whether they are using one of their five bullets—the five chances that they have—properly. Do they have a real chance of gaining access to the course that they want at the institution they want, or do they not? To me, that is an element of fair access.

Perhaps that is something on which the committee might consider asking for the views of Universities Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Commissioner for Fair Access. That is not to say that the committee should endorse that position, but it might be something that could be explored. I think that having that information makes it a fairer system all over for everyone concerned, whether it be Scottish-domiciled students, international students or widening access students, so that they can best understand where they should engage with the process and how they will be supported in what they do. Opening up the data so that there is greater transparency is probably the next logical step on the petition. If the committee was of a view to support that, that would be most welcome.

I have a final question on the education side of things. I note a £29.8 million increase for the Scottish Qualifications Authority to support its on-going activities. Could you tell us what that money is for? After all, this is an organisation that, in 2021, we were told was not fit for purpose and had to be scrapped, because the leadership was failing. Should we be giving these people £29.8 million to spend when ministers have already decided that they are not capable of running their own organisation properly?

I will finish on the social security side. You have touched on some of this already. There is a £284.2 million increase for demand-led expenditure, with a net impact of £50 million, given that there are areas where forecasts have decreased—I understand that. There has been an extraordinary rise in out-of-work benefits since the pandemic, which is a huge challenge across the UK and internationally. Is that something that ministers discuss when they talk about a demand-led budget? If that trend continues, our ability to cope with it within our resources must be a real concern for ministers.

This is just an opportunity to put these things to the Government and ask it what its thinking is about how we can make sure that the acceleration is there. I take on board colleagues’ points about my predilection within this issue, but we need to make sure that the system is as simple as possible and that it can be cross-border and clean while thinking about what we can do to accelerate it.

There are clear economic effects from people not participating in the workforce. That would be of concern to us because of the impact on the taxation take. I know that you are not in the Cabinet, but do you know whether that is being discussed in the Cabinet? The trend appears to me to be more pronounced in Scotland, although it is significant across the whole of the UK. We also have a higher unit cost in Scotland because of the Government’s decisions and how it is spending money on social security payments. We are more exposed in this country. We already know of the £1.3 billion shortfall in the block grant allocations by 2027-28 against the social security budget. Do you think that the Government is getting a grip of this and understands its exposure? Does it have a plan to do something about it? I know that you are saying that you are aware of it, but what will the Government do to try to deal with it?

Coming back to the NHS capital budget, I look forward to seeing the detail that you can provide on the list of projects. You mentioned this in one of your earlier answers, but do you have any indication of how much of the £235 million has been taken up by inflation? Will that amount cope with construction inflation, and do you have an idea of the proportions in that respect?