Sure.

I understand what you are saying about that particular issue, but I do not think that he meant to say it with that level of insensitivity. Although it is not said, people still think it—it is still in the background, and there is an element of reality to it.

One of the frustrations is that a Government—whether it be the UK Government, the Scottish Government or whatever—sets up a public inquiry because, frankly, it is politically expedient to do so. It gets the matter off the minister’s desk and kicks it into touch, and the minister will not be in office in five or 10 years, when the inquiry is concluded. Then we get the recommendations, which the Government says it will look at, and another year or two elapses, so there is surely still an element of frustration for the people who have been victims of the wrong that the public inquiry was set up to right. Could there be a situation in which the recommendations would have to be implemented? It would be difficult, because some recommendations might take time and would not be implemented overnight. What should the mechanism be to ensure that the recommendations are implemented rather than just left to the Government?

I recall that the Plotnikov inquiry, which took place about 24 or 25 years ago, made 42 recommendations but, two years after it concluded, only one recommendation had been implemented. After all the evidence that has been given, all the emotion for the people who were the victims, all the money that has been spent and all the time that has elapsed, we get recommendations and then nothing happens. What can we do to enhance the delivery of those recommendations?

Earlier, Mr Drummond spoke about some of the appalling defects in modern buildings. Although the Scottish Government plans for the tax to have a 15-year lifespan, your submission says that

“the levy can never be retired”,

because there will always be a need for that kind of funding.

That is very helpful, thank you. To switch between witnesses a bit, I will address Mr Henderson. In your submission, you said that you

“do not agree that major refurbishments should be excluded from the levy”

and that

“Excluding them may create loopholes, particularly where extensive retrofit or upgrade work is carried out.”

Mr Drummond, do you agree?

Earlier, we talked about the fact that there is no formal mechanism to ensure that public inquiry recommendations are implemented promptly or at all, whereas the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out a requirement that those to whom fatal accident inquiry recommendations are directed must provide a response to an FAI determination within eight weeks.

Does such a time period sound reasonably sensible for public inquiries? Advocates said that it would take several months, but they did not specifically define the period length.

We are really looking at justice for victims, but, at the same time, we should ask what we can do better next time for everyone else.

Police Scotland has also suggested that “Rapid independent reviews” are done six to 12 weeks into an inquiry

“to deliver urgent lessons where speed matters most.”

We have talked about having interim reports, but Police Scotland is asking how we can restore public confidence sooner than waiting five years for something to come out. I do not know how long the Emma Caldwell inquiry will take, but, as I said earlier, the Sheku Bayoh inquiry has taken six years already and does not seem to be near a conclusion, as far as I am aware. Is Police Scotland’s suggestion reasonable?

I have only a couple more questions, because colleagues are keen to come in, as they always are. They are not quite champing at the bit, I must say—they are all very relaxed this morning—but they are keen to come in.

I understand that the Government is quite ambitious about reducing the number of civil servants. What will the annual reduction target be over the next five years?

I just assumed that we were all going to have to work over the festive period to a large extent. Sadly, some of us do that anyway.

That was greatly appreciated, cabinet secretary.

Some of the more starry-eyed and excitable members of the Labour Party told us last year that, after the UK general election, Scotland would be at the heart of the UK Government. The fact that the Scottish Government was not even consulted on the date of the autumn statement gives the lie to that—as have many other developments over the past 14 or 15 months.

It is really disappointing that the autumn statement will be on 26 November, which is four weeks later than the date of last year’s statement. I can understand the difficulties that that presents to the Scottish Government. It also presents the committee with difficulties in its scrutiny, as you can imagine. Having the budget on 15 January means that it will be 50 days after the autumn statement, and we are all aware that that includes a fortnight over Christmas. If we exclude that, it is the same length of time as was available last year. Even so, the 15th is very late, and it is a Thursday. That would give the committee only the following Tuesday to cobble together some kind of scrutiny. I realise that it will be difficult for officials, the Scottish Fiscal Commission and others, but if we were to get the draft budget on Wednesday 7 January, which would be a week and a day earlier than is being suggested, that would at least allow for more effective scrutiny and would give some breathing space for consideration following the presentation of the draft budget.

I am not asking you to give us a definite answer on that today—although it would be great if you could. I hope that you can consider that idea, as the truncating of scrutiny would be very disappointing for the committee and for the whole management of the draft budget.

Do you wish to comment on any of those points before we turn to specific questions?