Chamber and committees

I have a similar line of questioning on spending on climate and net zero. Specifically, it is on the offshore wind supply chain money that you mentioned, which is £69 million or thereabouts. Towards the end of last year, we had a positive report from the Fraser of Allander Institute that showed 50 per cent job growth in the sector in just one year. I cannot remember the exact number, but there were between 12,000 and 17,000 additional jobs. What do you expect to be the benefit of that £69 million? Has there been an attempt to quantify the jobs that are expected to be created, the return to the public purse in tax revenue and so on? How can we measure the value for money of that £69 million?

As you said, that work is independent analysis by HMRC or the SFC, but does the Scottish Government ever pose questions to them? Knowing that HMRC is about to undertake exercise X, does the Government ever say, “We would particularly value having data point Y? Are you going to collect that data and analyse it?”

I can see that in the number of planning applications in my region for various elements of the renewable energy economy.

I will jump on to tax and behaviour change, to follow up on some of the convener’s questions. I would like to understand a bit better how much in-house analysis the Government does of potential behaviour change versus the work that the SFC does for the Government. For example, concerns have been raised—I think that a lot of instances are overegged, but there you go—around avoidance of the new income tax rate or people simply putting more money into their pension pots.

Does the Government conduct any analysis, even within the public sector, of how many higher-paid public servants have increased their pension contributions, given that we are now five years into income tax divergence? It would be good to get an understanding of how much of that analysis takes place within Government versus SFC work. Where it is SFC work, are there questions that you specifically pose to the SFC or data points that you would like to have?

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?