Chamber and committees

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 understand exactly what you are saying, and I certainly would not argue against that. However, you are talking about prioritisation in portfolios, but there are issues across portfolios. For example, you will be well aware of the issues that are facing the college sector, which have been pointed out to us directly. We know that there is a chronic skills shortage in Scotland and colleges are intrinsic to ensuring that we have the skills that we require. Colleges have suffered a 17 per cent reduction in real terms over the past five years, they have cut staff numbers by 8.7 per cent and they have cut student numbers by 12 per cent. Is reversing some of that not considered to be a priority? If we are genuinely trying to lift people out of poverty, we will not be able to do that simply by increasing their benefits; surely, we have to give them the skills that they need so that they can earn for themselves and their families. Colleges are part of that.

Although I take on board all that you have said about efficiencies in portfolios, will there be any light at the end of the tunnel for the portfolios that have already been squeezed over the past few years? Could they get a settlement that is at least in line with inflation? I would hope that the college sector would get an above-inflation increase if it is to try to deliver on the Scottish Government’s poverty and skills agendas.

A 20 per cent reduction to improve efficiency might reduce the workforce by 20 per cent over five years, which would be 4 per cent a year.

Okay.

Lastly from me, when we met Lithuanian colleagues—parliamentarians and officials—we talked about Lithuania 2050, which is the vision that they are looking to produce. They have a committee of the future, and the questions that they are looking at are: “Where do we want to be our country to be in 2050?”, “How do we ensure that the vision is accepted across the board?”—which, to a large extent, it has been—and “How do we deliver that vision?” Incidentally, Finland has a Committee for the Future, too; in fact, it is the leading European country when it comes to long-term strategic planning and thinking.

I know that, partly because of the way in which the UK budget works et cetera, the Scottish Government tends to have to find its way year on year, but would it look to have a long-term strategic vision for the future? It is certainly important. The way in which they have structured it in Lithuania ensures that civic society, the Government and everyone else are all pulling towards a long-term goal and vision for the country.

We are, of course, a substate, and they are not.

The Fiscal Commission produced a report in 2023 on the cost of climate mitigation and prevention and—if my memory serves me right—I think that the figure for Scotland alone was £188 billion across the public and private sectors. That is a good £35,000 a head, which is a lot of money. I think that we have been almost blinded by the headlights when it comes to the sheer scale of things, which is probably why the matter has not been tackled as well as it should have been.