Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 18 October 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3805 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

I thank the minister for his evidence today. We will publish a short report to the Parliament, setting out our decision on the instruments.

I suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow our witnesses to leave.

09:06 Meeting suspended.  

09:10 On resuming—  

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

In your submission, you say that

“the costs of remediating dangerous cladding and other defects in and on residential buildings”

should not

“fall on leaseholders, occupiers or taxpayers. This is consistent with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

However, the bill intends to raise only around 15 per cent of the cost of remediation, or about £30 million a year. The rest will come from the central capital programme, which obviously—and understandably—means that it cannot be spent on other things. Is the Government pitching this at the right level, or should the levy be higher, or, indeed, lower?

09:15  

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Mr Drummond, will that not be very difficult? For argument’s sake, let us say that 10,000 houses have been built that would qualify under the scheme, if and when the scheme is eventually agreed. If there is a £30 million levy, that would amount to £3,000 a house. Is there any way in which the burden is not going to be passed on to house buyers?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Should that have been led by a judge? One might argue for having a judge if there are victims involved, but is it necessary for a bricks-and-mortar inquiry?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

I know that this is a hard question, but is there an optimum number of core participants?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

So, some might have only five, and others might have 50.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Do you have any other suggestions? Given your detailed involvement in some very high-profile public inquiries, have there been any areas where you thought, “Do you know what? We could have done that more efficiently, more effectively and more timeously”?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

Sure.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Scottish Public Inquiries (Cost-effectiveness)

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

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?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 October 2025

Kenneth Gibson

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.