Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for that response, but it is not just the Roberton review that concluded that the optimum regulatory model must be independent of regulatory bodies. The Competition and Markets Authority, Consumer Scotland and leading lawyers such as Brian Inkster and others also hold that view and have made that clear in evidence.

There is a clear and fundamental conflict of interest in having consumer complaints processed by bodies that exist to protect the interests of their profession. The better regulation principles would suggest that the model that is being proposed, although with some revisions, simply cannot square off that conflict of interest. The proposed new processes still have the same complexities and are extraordinarily difficult to navigate as a consumer.

Thank you for that helpful clarification.

On the point about the baking in of some of the things that we have been discussing today and the nature of the fiscal transfer system, how does what we have now compare with other fiscal transfer systems elsewhere in the world? We have previously talked about how complex the system is. Are we simply baking in complexities that will need to be managed in future—we talked about some of those earlier—or are we starting to move towards more comparable methods that are used elsewhere? I do not think that that is the case, but you are the experts.

That is very helpful. Do you want to come in on that point, Professor Spowage?

I have one last question, which picks up on what John Mason was talking about earlier. To what extent are we baking in recognition of the tremendous pull of London and the south-east, which I think Vince Cable described as the vortex that sucks everything in? Are we not simply recognising that that will continue to be the case—indeed, will always be the case—even allowing for a technical mechanism, which would mean that, if there was a cataclysmic event, regardless of whether we are talking about Scotland or anywhere else, we would have very little capacity to do anything about it under the system that has now been devised?

Good morning. I want to go back to a comment that David Phillips made earlier about capex and the accommodation that was made by the UK Government. In some respects, I am surprised. I appreciate why the Scottish Government wanted to fix on the IPC, for all the reasons that we have discussed. However, in relation to the current fiscal challenges, I am surprised that it did not push more around capex thresholds, given that there is a very real need for capital projects and given what those could have brought to the economy in the complete absence of any of the meaningful levers to grow the economy that it might ordinarily expect to have. A lot of what we are discussing is really dancing on the head of a pin in terms of the nature of the fiscal transfer and the way that things are happening in the UK.

Do you agree with my assessment? If you had been doing that, would you also have been pushing hard for increased capital borrowing powers, with the intent of using them because there is a good reason to do so in the current economic climate?

To ask the Scottish Government how it will balance the rights of victims with the rights of the accused in the processes developed by the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-02705)

I concede that the evidence tells us that it can be difficult for Government to juggle the rights of distinct groups. As the minister suggests, the Education, Children and Young People Committee has raised a number of concerns about the lack of consideration thus far of the needs of child victims within the children’s hearings process.

Just yesterday, Victim Support Scotland highlighted a father’s concerns about the lack of information and support and challenges with regard to safety planning for victims. Ian said:

“I would not wish on my worst enemy what we had to go through as a family.”

I appreciate that the minister cannot yet disclose the planned amendments to the bill, but will she reiterate that she takes seriously the significant concerns expressed by multiple agencies and by the ECYP Committee, and will she ensure that the rights of child victims are given the same focus as those of child perpetrators?

I will pick up that thread. Let us carry on with the same theme for a minute, and then I will bring in some other areas.

I must admit that I read your submission and have listened to your comments with great interest, Professor Humes. On the basis of what you have said, I think that we have a good sense of the role that culture plays in delivery by national Government and the agencies; you have already put that on the record. How would you go about changing that? I ask that because changing culture is extraordinarily difficult to do and very time consuming, and for that very reason, agencies—at whatever level—often get rather tired of it and move on to something else. How would you go about changing the scenario that you have depicted in your comments?

Marina, I will bring you in.

Following on from that, the view of the international council of education advisers is that Scotland should aim for an “egalitarian culture” in education. What does an “egalitarian culture” mean to you? Do you agree?

Perhaps Marina Shapira might like to answer that.