Chamber and committees

I do not know the names of the companies concerned, but I asked the question because I am aware that there has been increasing activity in landlord-to-landlord sales, which keeps tenants in place. Of course, at that point, the landlord is knowingly and deliberately taking a cut in what they might be able to achieve on the open market, to allow the tenant to stay in situ, and rightly so. However, this measure could discourage investors from coming to the table. Therefore, it would be worth while to look into that.

Yes, although the evidence of the impact of the previous increase from 4 per cent to 6 per cent does not necessarily follow with regard to the increase from 6 per cent to 8 per cent. It is your view that that might be the case, but we do not actually know that and the only thing that we could be certain of, if we did projections, is that they would be inaccurate. I ask about that because I want to know how you can evidence your assertion that the increase will support first-time buyers rather than merely fulfil the intention to increase the tax take? I am not against that per se, but is it not quite a bold statement that the increase in the rate of ADS will necessarily lead to more first-time buyers being able to access property?

Correct.

If you do not mind me saying so, you are almost making my argument for me. My argument is that such a cultural shift will take place. Of course that is happening, but there is a financial cost to it. This is not your bog-standard bill. I am glad to hear that that is happening because it is extremely important but, given that it is happening, the work that will require to be done across the whole range of things that we have covered today will probably be more expensive, because it goes into areas that people might not necessarily have thought about previously. It is quite a big shift.

I am intrigued by your comment, Sandy, and I have to say that I do not disagree with you. However, to what extent do you think that the complexity around public sector reform is understood? My perception is that the conversation has coalesced around the need for it, but that is arguably the easy bit, and, as soon as you start talking about the how of it, the issue suddenly gets complicated and will bring up the question of priorities, which is what John Mason was alluding to. As someone who is across a lot of this stuff, to what extent do you think the discussion is starting to mature in a way that involves the consideration of complex issues as well as issues of cost?

I will probably be quite quick. I have been listening with interest to all the questions thus far, and I have just a couple of questions. First, I want to explore a bit more the extent to which you have considered such a significant culture shift and how risk is managed within it. Earlier, you mentioned a level of peer support for people who are administering it. When people think about being involved in such events, they often say, “If I was to do that, this is how I would behave”, but the truth is that people do not really know. When it is the antithesis of the Hippocratic oath that medical professionals undertake, how they will react remains uncertain. My first question is therefore about trying to put a number on such a significant culture shift, given that antithesis to the Hippocratic oath.

Secondly, on risk, we have talked about safeguarding, but we have not looked at it from the point of view that any organisation that is worth its salt would make sure that it buttoned down its processes to protect itself from any kind of legal challenge.

To get both of those areas right could introduce extra costs. We are talking about this as though all things are equal, when it is a dramatic shift for what is quite a small-c conservative country—Scotland. I want your reflections on how actively you have considered both of those elements as part of the financial memorandum.

I still think that you are making my point for me. It perhaps goes back to Michael Marra’s observation about a range of numbers.

There is no denying the amount of work that you have put into the bill. We listen to a lot of people presenting financial memorandums, and the only thing that we can be certain of is that they are always wrong, because that is their nature. [Laughter.] What is your best guess—I suspect that your laughter means that you agree with that—as to where your FM is probably wrong, on balance and all things considered? It is okay to tell the committee, because we like that—

Let me play that back for the record, so that I am clear. The projects that were specifically for Grangemouth were already in train, and the Scottish Government’s £10 million is going to them. The remaining £10 million of the £20 million in extra funds arising from the closure of the refinery is in the hands of the UK Government for future energy-related projects, and we do not yet know what those are.

It follows on from a point that my colleague Kevin Stewart made in noting a term that was used. I think that it was a bag full of—

However, PetroChina, with Ineos being at the heart of that, wants to move away now. The Scottish Government has called for a pause in the company’s plans to move to an import-only facility. The company is at the very heart of the growth, and its wish is to close the refinery. That is clearly quite a conflict of interests. In other words, the company is at the very heart of devising the programme that is in its own interests, and I was asking you how you are consciously dealing with that. It sounds to me as if you have not reflected on the idea that there could be, at least, the potential for a conflict of interests, even if one is not currently occurring.