���˿���

That is very helpful. It is encouraging to hear that there is some good news among the gloom.

Notwithstanding the points that you have just made, I will come back to two of the challenges that you cited, namely those in relation to the workforce and housing. In making Scotland a much more attractive place to live, work and invest, is it the Scottish Government’s intention to ensure that the tax system—the levers that you have with the Scottish Parliament—drives down tax to ensure that we are not seen as uncompetitive when compared to the rest of the UK? That is an issue that is coming through a lot of forecasts. If the current fiscal arrangements in the UK stay in place, there is no question but that there will be difficulties for the Scottish Government unless it can match some of the tax changes. Do you accept that point?

However, on the back of that, when the initial announcement came from the UK Government, a large proportion of the Scottish business sector was very supportive of a large part of the fiscal statement, because it was very focused on high growth and a low tax agenda, in contrast to many of the forecasts for Scotland, which has seen fairly high tax—not necessarily with the benefits of good-quality public services in the way that we would like—and low growth.

I come back to the question that some of our very senior businessmen and women who want Scotland to have the same focus as the United Kingdom when it comes to that low-tax, high-growth agenda, are asking. In the forecast that you will make for the Scottish budget, will you apply that same policy so that people feel that Scotland is not only somewhere they want to stay, but somewhere they want to come? As you said in the debate on the programme for government, there are serious issues about the size of our working population.

I do not disagree with you on some aspects of the workers issue. I think that you and I share the same views on the Brexit scenario, but the issue is not all about that, by any means; it is about differential tax rates. You mentioned housing. The changes in stamp duty down south will benefit someone who is buying a house to the tune of about £20,000. If we do not make similar changes to the land and buildings transaction tax, things will be made more difficult here. I am concerned that there are other issues at play in Scotland that do not necessarily make it a particularly attractive place in which to live and work.

This is not just about the current budget scenario, although I agree that there are many issues with that, particularly the lack of adequate forecasts, which you rightly cited. This is not a new problem; it has been going on for quite some time, which you will see if you look back at what the Scottish Fiscal Commission and other forecasters have been saying. That is why I am really interested in what direction of travel the Scottish Government will set out to address the significant issues of growth and productivity in our economy. This is not just a Brexit issue.

I have one question, Ms Flanagan, which is on the back of Michelle Thomson’s first question to you.

I know what you are saying about the fact that some councils are not terribly keen on sharing services because they feel that that would dilute their best interests when it comes to delivering services. In the areas and councils that have delivered shared services, has there been an audit of how much money has been saved by having joint services? It would be helpful to know whether it is good practice, and having the information that Michelle Thomson asked about would be helpful to the committee.

Again, that is an interesting answer. Audit Scotland has quite rightly suggested that we need to improve scrutiny in this Parliament and to have greater transparency around a whole lot of things, but particularly tax and spend. If the devolved taxes group did its job properly and its report came—let us say—to this committee and then went to the Scottish Government, that would not necessarily compel it to be part of a chamber process with stages 1, 2 and 3, whereas a finance bill would compel that. I am interested to hear whether you think that we need to have both of those together or whether we could operate with them being separate.

Thank you.

Thank you. It would be very helpful to have that information.

Continuing on the point that Ms Barbour made about public understanding of tax and willingness to pay, nobody likes paying tax, but I think that economists call it a “good tax” when people understand it, recognise what benefits it will produce and know how it is being spent.

That follows on from the question that the convener asked. If the devolved taxes working group was to be re-established, would you advise that we keep the remit of that group the same as it was the last time, or would you like the remit to be expanded to help with the business of understanding tax?

That is interesting. You mentioned in your submission that you had noted the cross-party suggestions that we might have a finance bill. If we were to have a finance bill process, how would that articulate with the devolved taxes group? Do you see them working together or as being entirely separate?

Thank you—that was extremely helpful. I am persuaded of the need for a finance bill, which I think would enhance scrutiny and help people to understand a bit more about where their money is going to be spent, which is crucial.

Audit Scotland has said a lot about enhancing transparency and scrutiny. Auditor General, is it your opinion that we should look at introducing a finance bill?