Chamber and committees

My point was not so much about a comparison, although it is interesting to hear about the different services, and it was not so much about, as Liam Sinclair said, a global economic situation. It was simply that, in Scotland, the budget is driven by what the Government in Westminster wants to spend on its services, and we get what we get as a consequence of that. What we need is not thought about; it is just about what we get as a consequence. There is vital difference between ourselves and Ireland and Australia, which is pretty obvious.

I will raise a question, although I am not looking for an answer to this, because I am aware that we are pressed for time. I was interested in the Van Gogh exhibition that happened last year in Edinburgh and which I think is going to other places now. I know that one of the issues was the cost, as a lot of people would not have been able to pay to get in. However, I wonder whether there is anything in that kind of initiative—a bespoke exhibition that travels around—that might be helpful to museums, given the treasures that they have.

I am not looking for an answer now, because I know that we have to move on, convener.

Perhaps if anybody has any thoughts on the following, they can write back to us.

Going back to Donald Cameron’s point and the Van Gogh exhibition that I mentioned earlier, I do not know enough about it—after all, it is probably the only art exhibition that I have been to—but it seems to have raised an awful lot of money, although I do not know who it raised money for. Can we learn anything from that approach? The exhibition probably used pieces of art from public collections. I wonder whether any thought can be given to that, as I think that it made a huge amount of money in Edinburgh alone, and it has now gone on to London and Manchester.

I also mentioned that I was in Edinburgh’s central library yesterday. It is holding an exhibition on witches—indeed, it sits right next to where most of the witches were killed in Edinburgh—but there was almost nobody in the building. Even post-festival, the streets are packed with tourists from everywhere, and I think that, with a little bit of advertising, you could get folk going in. Even the library part was almost empty. I think that you could have brought in folk who might also have been going to the library, and it could have been monetised, too. That might be anathema to some people, but any entrepreneurial ideas that might help the funding situation would be worth hearing, and I think that it would help the work of the committee—and would certainly help me—if anyone who had any such ideas were to send them in.

I am not aware of any relevant interests, although, in the interests of transparency, I should say that my partner is the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development.

I think that you are right—that would probably not come under divergence. However, I think that it would come under the efficient operation of an internal market.

I want to follow up on the question that Donald Cameron asked about the figures on Scottish exports. There are huge numbers of key figures relating to the economy that rely on pretty ropey survey data. That is true across the UK. In Scotland’s case, we often have to rely on the Department of Trade and Industry, or whatever it is now called, and HM Revenue and Customs for some of the figures.

It is true that, as Donald Cameron said, the figures are very woolly, which is really surprising for a so-called advanced economy in the 21st century. Is it your intention to see whether you can start to nail down those figures, not just in Scotland but across the UK?

I am new to this, but from listening to what has been said and in response to your point that we started off with a more unified situation, I suppose that the implication is that we are about to become less unified or experience more divergence. It seems a bit absurd to have started off in a single market and to now be moving to what appears, even in name, to be the more insular approach of an internal market. If it was a single market previously, surely the benefits were there in the first place. Do we need bureaucratic superstructures to regulate or monitor a situation where we previously had a single market? It seems odd that we would have to do that.

On that and in an attempt to be helpful, you have mentioned meaningful data, so one way that you could build that—whether you do that by your own hand or whether others do it—is through an examination of public bodies’ approved lists of contractors. It is probably easier to gain that information from them than from elsewhere. The purpose of that would be to say that, in a perfect market where innovation and efficiency are rewarded, we would see huge numbers of Scottish companies servicing Welsh local authorities or English companies servicing Northern Ireland authorities. That might give you a better indication, especially over time, of whether the internal market is working more efficiently. Would it be possible, either through your organisation or the Office for National Statistics, to get that kind of data and to monitor it over time to see whether it improves or otherwise?

I have one last point, which is counter to the point that I just made, but that is the way that I think of these things.

There is also a fairly developed movement—I forget the term for it; it is not quite a circular economy. The north of England area, perhaps Sheffield, does this very effectively: it tries to ensure that the money spent by public bodies is spent in the local area—it is recycled, if you like. I do not know whether that would be termed as divergence, but have you come across that or would you take it into account in the figures?

There has been a movement away from compulsory competitive tendering, decades ago, to best value and, in the past 10 years, a more liberal regime. For example, local authorities could place a contract with somebody who was not giving them the cheapest price because there would be wider benefits from placing the contract with them. I suppose that that works against the idea of an internal market, but I just wonder whether that has appeared on your radar yet.

Good morning. Some of the questions that I was going to ask have been asked by Michelle Thomson and others. However, I will revisit, first, the fiscal framework. From what you have said, deputy first minister, the negotiations—about which, I know, you cannot go into detail—seem to be in the undergrowth and on the detail of the framework.

I wonder whether there are more fundamental issues. My view is that the fiscal framework has failed over time. Michelle Thomson talked about its impenetrability: people cannot possibly understand it. It is a bit like the UK tax code in that it is so complex. That cannot be good for transparency and accountability. Is that being looked at?

Secondly, the very basis of the framework, whereby expenditure in England is decided and then—literally consequentially—Scotland gets a share of that, seems to me to be totally counterintuitive to what devolution is meant to be about, which is recognising the differences in different parts of the UK.

Are those more fundamental issues being examined, or is the review really only about how the detail of the framework is working?

Thanks for that. However, there is obviously a relationship between private and public sector wage growth and the economy.

My final question goes back to the point that Michelle Thomson raised in relation to the 14 per cent cut in the capital budget that we will see by 2028. I have been a critic of the £2.5 trillion of debt that the UK Government has accumulated, but most economists agree that debt that is incurred as part of capital expenditure is beneficial for an economy. That being the case—you may have answered this when responding to Michelle Thomson’s point—is an argument being put to the UK Government that the current capital constraints are not serving the UK and certainly not Scotland? Beyond making the general point to it about how damaging an austerity budget is, on the capital side, is there any sign that the UK Government would be willing to move on that?