Chamber and committees

I must admit that I am not entirely sure. We understand the meaning of the term “accountability” and how it is differentiated from “responsibility”, but I would ask the Lord President about the active interest that he takes in the multitude of situations that we as MSPs have all come across as well as the situation that I have described.

This is not really about process; it is about power and the lack of independence. Undue power is given to the legal profession, while far too little is given to our fellow citizens who have genuine complaints. Like most people, I am not trained in the process of weighing evidence or in being able to assess the bar for the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard required for the SSDT or the “balance of probabilities” standard required for the SLCC. The lawyer about whom I made my complaints held many of the cards, not least of which was the fact that this was not the first time that he had been through the process. Meanwhile, the lawyers who assessed my complaints held the rest.

I have thought a great deal about the original situation. The only way in which I could have protected myself from the original solicitor would have been to record every meeting, ask for everything in writing and seek independent verification of any claim that they had made or advice that they had proffered. The only way in which I could have protected myself from the complaints process would have been not to bother, and to go straight to legal action. However, as somebody who holds her society dear, I thought that I would do the right thing—and I thought that the legal profession would do the right thing, too. What I actually experienced is hardly a ringing endorsement.

The experience led me to recognise the need for independent regulation. If it is good enough for multiple other professions, such as architects, dentists, doctors and teachers, why is it not good enough for the legal profession? Other countries recognise its benefits—why not Scotland? Why should our consumers be expected to settle for second best?

Despite recognising the minister’s efforts, which we have discussed, I have to say that I believe the proposed legislation to be inadequate. I agree with the comments of Professor Stephen Mayson, who noted:

“The Government has boxed itself into a corner. It has said that we cannot have independent regulation and can no longer sustain self-regulation. We have to fudge something in whatever the mix is and I am afraid that the fudge will not work.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 November; c 17.]

Given that the bill’s principles do not place our citizens at the heart of the complaints process, I urge the minister to be bold, but today, for the reasons that I have set out, I shall be abstaining.

I note that, in the debate thus far, with the exception of Mr Swinney’s speech, all the airtime seems to have been given to complaints of the Law Society of Scotland, rather than to recognising the real voice of consumers. Does Mr Swinney agree?

I want to kick off the session with a bit of framing out, because the feedback that you have provided to the call for evidence is very content rich. First, at a summary level, what do you see as being the expected benefits of the presumption of mainstreaming? I ask that question because anticipated benefits were identified when the policy was put in place, and we now have a lot of data to draw on. That is my first question, which is an open, framing question.

Secondly, what do you see as being the main impacts of implementation of the policy on children with complex needs? I suspect that we will want to get into a lot of detail, so you can keep your answers at a summary level. What do you see as being the expected benefits, and what have the impacts been of implementation of the policy? I invite everyone on the panel to respond.

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for attending—[Interruption.] I hope that you can hear me now—can you?

Exactly. Having such a discussion and fleshing out the position of all the political parties could be helpful.

My next question comes on the back of the convener’s comments about single-year versus multiyear funding and what the Scottish Fiscal Commission had to say about that in its fiscal sustainability report. Does the Scottish Government collect any statistics on the sunk costs of doing all the monitoring and assessment on a year-by-year basis? It strikes me that that is not only inefficient but extremely expensive. Do you collect any stats on that? In effect, it is money lost.

Thank you.

It strikes me that it would be helpful to look at that in a quantitative as well as a qualitative way, because it exemplifies the inefficiency that plays into some of our other costs.

I have previously asked about the ScotWind funding. To be honest, I was a wee bit disappointed when I read the Scottish Government’s response to the relevant part of our report. It said:

“Consideration will be given to how future revenues will be deployed.”

The point that I was trying to make was that I do not want consideration to be given to how future revenues will be deployed. First, I want there to be recognition of the importance of setting up a sovereign wealth fund. Secondly, I want consideration to be given to costs, implications and process. Thirdly, I want a specific commitment to be made that fiscal rules will be set.

Although I accept that you cannot bind your successors, I would like to hear a commitment that, this session, you will set aside, say, 5 per cent of all moneys. That would recognise the revenue challenges that you face today and also look to the longer term to provide the building blocks for fiscal sustainability. Will you comment on the response that I highlighted, as it strikes me that it misses the point altogether?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for joining us.

Before I move on to my more substantive questions, I want to raise a couple of wee quick points, the first of which is about capital expenditure. Given the significant cuts that we face—it is anticipated that capital expenditure could be cut by 20 per cent, in real terms, by 2028-29—will you consider scheduling a debate on the issue? Ironically, people outside the Parliament have, for the first time, become alive to the implications of the capex cut, because of what it means for treatment centres. As you know, the subject is of great interest to me and one that I have consistently asked about. Will you consider scheduling such a debate? I think that it would be valuable.

If one had to put a wee bet on it, the evidence suggests that the constrained environment for public services will continue. To me, that suggests that there is a greater need to do something like that, because it is about fiscal sustainability.

My next question is on social security spend, which is another area where there are concerns about long-term affordability and sustainability. Ironically enough, having raised the point about the longer-term picture, I saw when I read through the response that it deliberately referenced

“monitoring all areas of expenditure during the year”.

That is exactly not what the point is; the point is that, when we extrapolate the numbers, we see that it is not sustainable, particularly given that it is a demand-led area. Therefore, regardless of whether the approach is responsible and capable, the point is that you are looking at expenditure only in-year. As a result, I was surprised by that response.

This ties in with earlier comments about the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report on sustainability, but do you recognise the very real concern that, when we ask about the long term, your answer that you will take a responsible approach in-year does not provide confidence? That is the issue. Arguably, we have been taking a responsible approach in-year, every single year, but that is not the issue—the issue is the projection that has concerned the committee so much.