Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in 2025. We have received apologies from Michael Marra.

Before we start, I put on record our thanks to the Lithuanian MPs, organisations and officials who met us during our short fact-finding visit to the beautiful and extremely clean city of Vilnius last week. I have never been anywhere so immaculate.

Lithuania’s challenges are similar to those of Scotland in relation to demographics and public sector reform. We had fruitful discussions with our counterparts on long-term strategic thinking and growing the economy. We will draw on those discussions as we continue our pre-budget scrutiny, and we will publish a summary note of the visit very soon.

We have one item on today’s agenda, which is to take evidence from the Scottish Government on responding to long-term fiscal pressures. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison. The cabinet secretary is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Richard McCallum, director of public spending; Lucy O’Carroll, director of tax; and Alasdair Black, deputy director of budget and fiscal co-ordination.

I wish the cabinet secretary good morning and invite her to make a short opening statement.

Even 14 January would be better. A Thursday is a terrible day.

During my lifetime, we have had inventions such as the internet, email and the telephone—actually, that was before my lifetime, but it was in Liz Smith’s lifetime. I therefore do not think that it is impossible. Certainly, any step forward in progress that you could make on that would be helpful for our scrutiny.

I commend the Government for the fact that all four plans will be together. That is really important. I was going to ask you specifically about that, but you have answered the point. It will be very helpful to have all those documents together. I realise that that is also a lot of work for the Government, but it is certainly what we have been looking for.

I will get into the meat of other things that we want to discuss today. We have taken evidence on pre-budget scrutiny for a number of weeks, and one issue is prioritisation. The Government has talked about that, and you have talked today about areas of need. Again, we have found that, although it is always easy to talk about what is being prioritised, the quid pro quo is that, if you prioritise one thing, you must be deprioritising another. What is going to be deprioritised as we go forward?

It was below inflation, though.