���˿���

That point about data and where the gaps in the evidence are is interesting. Knowing where there are key gaps in the data that we need in order to measure success has been a running theme not just for the committee but across the board in Parliament. We are gathering huge amounts of data, but not necessarily what we need.

I realise that this is a little bit meta, but how are you reporting on that? The Parliament would be interested to know where you have identified gaps in the evidence that you need before we get to the stage of publishing a report on what the outcomes have been. We would be interested in knowing where you have identified those gaps and how they can be addressed.

Minister, I am interested in going back to the level of engagement that you have had since coming into post. What has been the response to the publication of “Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills” and the framework surrounding that? Do you have an initial sense that colleges and universities were expecting that level of direction? As a former member of the committee, you will be familiar with the evidence that we took from colleges; they were crying out for a sense of direction from Government. They wanted to know what they were supposed to be doing. “Purpose and Principles” was supposed to be the first step towards that. What has the response been since its publication?

How do we measure the outcomes from that? As you set out, it is the golden thread that runs through a lot of other stuff, most obviously the outcome agreements for the colleges and plenty of other strategic documents, including the SFC organisational strategy. What we eventually measure against is relatively clear for the long-term outcomes, but how are we to measure success a year or two from now, at the end of this parliamentary session, when the committee is drafting its legacy report? How are you measuring outcomes on an on-going short and medium-term basis? Is that resulting in a clearer sense of direction and greater clarity around strategic objectives? Will we have to come back to this in 10 years to see whether it worked?

Minister, I think that you have previously mentioned—James Withers certainly has—the potential for a greater role for the private sector in funding courses to meet the skills demand in various areas. You outlined to Michelle Thomson the extent of your engagement in recent months and the broad appetite for greater engagement. How much have those conversations gone into the realm of direct private sector funding for courses that will address skills shortages in sectors?

How will businesses that need workers with particular skill sets go about doing that? Do you envisage a direct relationship between them and their local college, or would it involve the Scottish Funding Council? Some businesses will not know where to start or who to speak to. Should they speak to their local college, or should they write to you?

Has there been much response from employers, trade associations, trade unions and so on since publication? I know that the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association and the University and College Union and so on were all engaged in the process.

I am jumping around somewhat, but I want to go back to Chris Birt’s earlier points about capital funding for affordable housing and his highlighting of the roads budget as an area that could be reprioritised. If you listen to my Conservative colleagues, apparently my party has already done that, because the roads budget has gone down significantly. In fact, it is up this year, but that is due to the exception of an amount of money for the A9. I am not enthusiastic about that, but it is a small amount and it is mostly for safety-critical infrastructure.

Does that, though, not raise a wider point with regard to affordable housing? Nobody would defend the budget going down by £196 million or thereabouts as a good outcome of the process. However, affordable housing is an area of capital spend where other policy levers are available. For example, there has been an emergency rent freeze and cap; there are eviction protections; there are permanent rent controls coming in; and there is regulation of short-term lets—which should, it is hoped, free up more housing—and the doubling of council tax on holiday homes.

In other areas of capital spend, however, there is no legislative policy alternative to reach the same eventual outcomes. As David Bell pointed out, net zero targets cannot really be achieved in any way other than hitting capital spend. As much as the decision on affordable housing is unpleasant, therefore, and nobody is saying that it is a good outcome, there are, in the limited context of devolution, other levers that the Government can pull, and other options to meet our ambitions for housing, excluding capital spend. Is that correct?

That goes back to the point that João Sousa made about affordable housing. If we had made decisions in every portfolio area purely on the basis of what would generate the best long-term return in that area, we would almost certainly have ended up with a budget that did not add up. Ultimately, the budget had to add up one way or another.

That was a very pertinent point. The challenge, perhaps, is that, although it is well within the Parliament’s power to legislate for targets, we are limited in the range of powers that we have to reach them. You are right, though, that we have not fully utilised those things.

I just want to touch on a couple of specifics and, first of all, go back to the discussion that we had early on about income tax changes and the splitting of the higher rate. My first question is for David Bell. Is it not somewhat strange to have a higher rate that applies between £45,000 and £125,000? Is that not a massive range to be taxing at the same rate? I acknowledge that the withdrawal of the personal allowance from £100,000 obviously has an effect, but even in European terms, is it not somewhat unusual to have such a big range covered by one rate?

I have sat in on some public sector pay negotiations and union reps quite reasonably say, “Well, hold on, the newspapers this morning say that you have £2 billion, but you will not give us £200 million to settle this,” but, actually, there is not £2 billion.