Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I have a few random questions. David Lonsdale, I want to ask you about your intriguing comment about competitiveness pertaining to the tax strategy or framework, as you described it. Can you give us a bit more flavour of that? For the record, you said that tax strategy should include an additional principle of competitiveness

“to stimulate greater levels of private sector investment and consumer demand, to ensure a strong economic recovery.”

That is an excellent response. In asking that question, I was not making a singular plea for hypothecated taxes—it was merely a question.

Have David Lott and Vikki Manson anything to add on that? I appreciate that it is a bit of a left-field question.

You have touched on the subtle point that I was making, which is less rigid than the one on hypothecated taxes. It is about following the funding of such measures.

You illustrate the complexity of the issue, which can probably go only one way. To counter that complexity—I think that my colleague Ross Greer was getting at this—assumptions should be stated, where that is possible and feasible. The more planning, the better, even though we all accept that the only certainty is that, ultimately, all plans will be wrong. However, from a behavioural perspective, we need to try to track things.

On that point, I note that we will not have a medium-term financial strategy, and we do not anticipate that we will have an updated infrastructure investment plan. That seems to me to be counter to the dawning realisation that everyone has had that we are in the position that we are in because of a failure to plan—or, rather, to scenario plan. Given that pay policy informs the MTFS, what are your thoughts on planning and what we need to do in that respect?

As things stand as regards our understanding of those ifs, we are light years away from being able to definitively state that there will be Barnett consequentials as a result of that UK Government policy. That is what I am trying to get at.

I have a couple of wee questions to finish off. First, on the question that Liz Smith raised earlier about VAT on private schools, I want to make sure that I have all my ifs in a row. If that policy is enacted, if the money is spent on education in England and Wales and if it goes on public sector education spend—in other words, if it is not used to enable private companies to set up education-type bodies—only at that point could it result in Barnett consequentials. I accept that we would not know the detail of that, because of what you said in your earlier commentary. I am trying to flesh out all the ifs. There would be Barnett consequentials only if the money that is raised is spent on publicly tractable public sector funding for education. There could be a scenario in which the money that is raised is nominally spent on education provision or services, but it cannot be Barnett consequentialised, if there is such a word.

The Scottish pubs code adjudicator, Sarah Havlin, has recently been appointed for a three-year term. Will the delay to the regulations have any impact on the operation of her office?

Good morning, convener. Similarly, my entry in the register of members’ interests is up to date, but I note that I am an ambassador for the Westminster all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, and I own a couple of buy-to-let properties. I am not sure that either of those things are relevant, but it is better to be on the safe side.

I have listened to the session with great interest, and there is no denying the power of your advocacy for disabled people. In general terms, I am hearing a lot of arguments to which I would take a slightly counter view, similar to what I said about EqIAs. In all the various forms of government, there are issues with processes not being undertaken because they are time consuming, expensive and often difficult, particularly where there are competing rights. We have seen that before, and it has proven quite difficult.

To what extent have you considered that although you are operating with the best intent, in reality, you are desperately seeking to plug a gap that is there? If that is the case, why cannot we—all of us in the Parliament—plug that gap without a commissioner?

Again, I hear a very powerful argument and advocacy for that. From my perspective as a woman—I am just playing devil’s advocate—I point out that women have been disproportionately discriminated against for thousands of years. With each gain that we make, it feels as though we slip back—if you look at the pay differentials, for example. Even women’s rights has been a matter of discussion and dispute in the past few years. Should I not therefore be thundering out and making an argument for a women’s commissioner? I am saying that about women, and there are a multitude of other groups, so you would end up with a Parliament that is run by commissioners rather than by the democratically elected people.