���˿���

It is a challenge. The teams know that it is a challenge, but they stand ready, once they have the financial envelopes, to rapidly run the numbers through to make sure that we can produce that information for 25 June. The only other option would have been to go to September, and I felt that, given the committee’s strong views, that would have been even more challenging. I am keen to get that information out.

It will require a big effort, but some pillars of the work on the delivery plan and parts of the MTFS are being constructed now. The figures for the spending outlook will be slotted in.

I think so. That was one of the live areas in the tax advisory group’s discussions. Research shows a low understanding of the different systems. Not everybody knows that we have devolved taxes or that income tax is devolved. That is not unique to Scotland, as people’s understanding of the tax system generally is probably quite low, but we have a more complex system.

We have commissioned external research by Ernst & Young on international best practice in tax communications, and we will publish that at the end of May. It has helped to inform us on topics such as tax literacy. We know that the higher tax literacy is, the better the compliance level. If people understand tax and are brought into the system, if you like, they have better levels of compliance.

We want to continue to look at how we can raise awareness. The guide “Your Scotland, Your Finances” is quite a good explainer, but we want that information to reach a wider audience. There is more work to be done.

It might not be everybody’s bag, but we are hoping to have the first tax conference in autumn. We do not want it to be attended by just the great and the good of tax experts and everybody who likes to talk about tax.

I think that there is something about financial literacy generally. It is important that young people are financially literate, not just about tax but about basic protections, given the amount of scams and people’s level of vulnerability in the digital world. It is really important that young people have those tools so that they can understand and navigate through a complex system and the risks. Anything that can be done to improve that would be good.

I could not possibly say. I would hope so—I would be disappointed if they were not.

The spending review might provide an opportunity to look a bit more broadly at the current position and also into the future around whether, for example, digital investment could help with reform and transformation. We could look at how we are embedding that and whether that means that things might be delivered a bit differently. It is not that I am against attempting it at all; it is just that, given the limited room for manoeuvre of large chunks of money, it would quickly become quite challenging.

Well, as I say—

Let me be helpful and say that I am very keen to work with the committee further on those areas. We might be able to make a distinction between the areas that are settled and those that are more prone to policy shifts, which might, in turn, shift the funding level. We could have a look at that.

I recognise the frustration that you reflected in relation to PPP, and we can discuss that further with the committee.

The fiscal sustainability delivery plan will have quite a sharp focus on workforce and you will be able to see some of the detail of those projections when it is published. Pay is clearly a huge element of the budget and I am very open to looking at ways of being more transparent about those costs and budgeting for them.

I am not shutting the door on any of the ideas, convener. If the committee wants to make more specific suggestions on those areas or others, I am happy to look at them in advance of 2026-27.

The NPF is obviously under review at the moment. It is important that all those elements are coherent. That is an important point about reform and tangible timeframes and outcomes. That will be a key pillar of the fiscal sustainability plan, which will show what needs to happen to ensure that we can reduce our fiscal pressures and extract benefit from doing things differently.

The point about outcomes is a good one. There are many documents that are much more granular in detail and focused on outcomes. For example, the Verity house agreement or health board plans have more detail on outcomes at that level. However, I take your point that we can and should be able to more readily describe the outcomes that we expect from investments. We have kept children out of poverty by investing in the Scottish child payment. We have put figures on that over the years by analysing how many children that will impact. As I described in a previous evidence session, we did the same with the lifting of the two-child cap, by working out how many children we expected to be kept out of poverty by that investment. So, in some areas, we have an analysis that is able to focus more on outcomes. However, I take your point more generally that we could make improvements.

I have just been reminded that I am chairing a meeting of the tax advisory group in late August.

I have a lot of engagement, with COSLA in particular. We engage regularly on pay and many other matters pertaining to the funding of local government. This year, there was far deeper pre-budget engagement, and I think that even COSLA recognised that it was better—maybe not perfect, but better. Similarly, I had meetings with the STUC and individual unions to set some expectations around pay, given the constraints that exist.

On what has changed, I would like to think that there are iterations during every budget process based on what we have heard. The local government budget is a good example. Hearing COSLA’s experiences of what did not work has led to a far more open-book approach for 2025-26. I would cite that as a strong example of where we listened and changed our approach. It was a much better way of getting to a place that COSLA was more comfortable and content with—it was perhaps not entirely happy with absolutely everything, but we got to a far better place.