Culture change is always a difficult challenge.

This will be my final question, as I want to let colleagues in. Ray Perman, you say in your submission:

“The RSE is concerned that new initiatives from the UK Government, including the Shared Prosperity Fund, Levelling Up Fund, and Community Renewal Fund will bypass the devolved administrations.”

Can you elaborate on those concerns?

I will move on to something that we have discussed. I am looking to find out from Gail Macgregor where the balance should be struck on local flexibility. In 2007 the Scottish Government abolished some 60 ring-fenced funds from the previous Labour-Lib Dem Administration and signed what is now fondly looked back on as the historic concordat of November 2007. The idea was that local flexibility would be restored across local government.

However, an issue arose, of course, for the Scottish ministers when they allocated funding for specific pots—for teacher numbers, for example. Local authorities would then decide that, as they had local flexibility, they would not spend the money on teacher numbers. The parliamentary party colleagues of those who had decided not to increase teacher numbers in specific areas would then attack the Scottish Government for failing to deliver on its manifesto commitment to increase teacher numbers. The Scottish ministers obviously thought, “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.”

How do we balance that? The Scottish ministers do not want to be in the position of providing additional funding for specific areas of manifesto commitment policy yet being criticised for not delivering it. On the other hand, if they do not provide local authorities with flexibility, they will be criticised for that. Is there a way in which that can be balanced?

How can the Scottish Government fully fund local government, for example, if it is not fully funded through the block grant?

Joanne, you can have the last word.

Is LBTT or house price inflation more likely to inhibit people’s ability to move to larger properties? That is in places such as Edinburgh. I am not talking about North Ayrshire, which I represent and where, for £0.5 million, you can buy a palace, never mind a house. I have a five-bedroom detached house with a garage, which cost me £145,000. There is a big difference between house prices across the country. What is your view on that?

We are straying a wee bit from budget scrutiny here, Douglas.

In your submission, you suggest that the tax system should include

“simplicity ... certainty”

and

“A fair balance”.

You go on to talk about the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group’s

“seven principles for the tax system”,

which are that it should be

“Clear and up to date ... Simple ... Equitable ... Just ... Accessible and responsive ... Joined up”

and

“Inclusive”.

Given the current on-going discussions about national insurance, is that a tax that you feel meets those seven principles?

I have further questions that I will leave to the end if there is time. I am keen to let other members in.

Sorry, can I just interrupt you there? Age Scotland did not make that suggestion in a vacuum—the point was that the money could be reinvested in aids and adaptations for older people. The money would still remain with older people, but it would be spent on something different as part of the preventative spend.

Age Scotland was saying that, if we did not spend money on concessionary travel for those aged between 60 and 65, we could invest it on improvements for them. The organisation got a bit of a win, in fact, because, although Mr Swinney did not remove the concessionary fare, he increased investment in that area by 25 per cent in that particular financial year. Suggesting something to disinvest in and something better to invest in gave him food for thought.

That was the background, just in case you think that your predecessor was suggesting that older people should be disadvantaged in some way. I apologise—I should have said that initially.

Assuming that we all accept that—I think that you made a very good argument for that in your paper—how do we do it if we have a very tight financial situation? Everyone will suggest, and has suggested in all their submissions, that additional money should be spent in their particular area. Where can we disinvest? Where is money being spent in the Scottish budget? CPAG has said that money could perhaps be moved into that area. I understand that doubling the child payment would cost about £163 million, which would have to come directly from Scottish resources. It will not come from Barnett consequentials or anything of that nature.

That has always been the difficulty. Where do we disinvest in order to invest more effectively in the areas that you and others are suggesting today? Should we increase taxation? If so, who would pay the additional tax, and how much would it be? We are trying to present a report to ministers with strong arguments, rather than just an argument that says, “This is really important. More money should be spent.” Everyone is going to say that.