Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is interesting. Does that not demonstrate, though, that the potential tax income that could have been achieved through divergence is £3.367 billion? That is what the table is sort of saying; it is not saying what was actually paid but what the maximum potential was. The bottom line is that we actually get £0.6 billion in extra revenue from the divergence, which is only 20 per cent of the overall £3.3 billion. I am trying to get my head around where the 80 per cent loss is happening.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about a race to the bottom. I do not want other parts of the UK to perform poorly relative to Scotland just so that we can say we are doing better. I am sure that we all want it to be true that every extra penny that is spent on additional taxes in Scotland creates more opportunity for the Scottish Government to spend money on public services. Surely that has to be a shared ambition.

What we are trying to unearth through these sessions is what is causing that difference. What percentage of every pound of additional tax that is spent achieves a net benefit to the Government? We are trying to unearth some of that.

For example, if we compare Scottish gross domestic product per capita to that in the rest of the UK, we can see that it was consistently lower for a long period of time. Levels of economic inactivity in the working-age population have been higher in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, and the SFC’s analysis from last year shows that Scotland’s working-age population is growing more slowly than that in the rest of the UK. There are therefore a number of factors. You have picked out a couple in which there have been some improvements and I am happy to hear that, but there are other areas in which there are major factors that mean that we are not achieving the sort of economic performance that we need to make sure that all that tax money comes back to the Scottish Government.

In the interests of time, this will be my last question. It is for HMRC, which cannot get away lightly from this evidence session.

I turn to page 23 of the Audit General’s report. I was struck by a piece of commentary about migration trends and tax policy, and I wonder whether you could comment on it. Paragraph 80 states:

“HMRC says it cannot draw conclusions about whether migration trends were affected by income tax policy as it does not know what level of migration would have been expected without any divergence in tax policy.”

Surely that is a fundamental flaw in the analysis of tax divergence. How can the Scottish Government make appropriate decisions about tax divergence if it does not know what effect it is having on inward or outward migration?

Thank you very much for that answer.

Exhibit 3 says that the additional tax paid due to tax policy differences came to £3.367 billion. However, you are saying that that is not additional tax paid due to tax differences. Either you are correct or the Auditor General is correct—I am not sure which.

There is a slight conflict here, cabinet secretary. At the beginning of your comments, you said that remorse is, of course, a factor that the Parole Board may take into account. However, you have just highlighted exactly the problem in saying that you do not see how the board can do that, because of the nature of remorse. Either it does take remorse into account, or it does not—I am not quite sure which.

We have not spoken to that amendment yet.

I thank my colleagues. It is interesting to see members from three different political parties expressing the same thoughts about access to court transcripts. That is really positive and it is good to see the convener speaking on the subject.

The previous two speakers have said that their amendments are probing amendments, but my amendment 263 is not: it is a substantive amendment that I hope the Government will give some thought to. The reason for that is that, over the years, I have listened to the arguments about access to court transcripts. We have all heard the same evidence on that and have heard the same points of view being expressed regarding how ridiculously expensive and difficult that is.

As a result of those conversations, many of which happened a number of years ago, there is an element of pressure both within and outside the Parliament for the Government to do something about that. The pilot, which was specifically in relation to access to transcripts for victims of rape and sexual offences, was a welcome one and the extension of that pilot is also welcome. I understand that those things come at a cost, both monetary and in resourcing.

I have gone about things in a slightly different way with amendment 263. I understand that it would probably be quite impractical, unfeasible and expensive to make all court transcripts accessible for free to everyone, all the time. I would like to think that we can get to a position in the future where that is possible and do not really understand why that is not currently the case in a digital age. We have been here for three hours and four minutes so far today and every single word that has been said in this meeting will be made available to the public, within 24 hours, for people to scrutinise and interrogate and will form the future content of the riveting memoirs that I will no doubt publish.

My point is that, in the modern landscape it is possible and doable to make what is said in public available to the public when they need it. That is the key to the argument about court transcripts, which can offer a vital resource to victims in their future interactions with the justice system.

If passed, my amendment 263 would establish a permanent fund that would allow people to access court transcripts. I appreciate that producing those transcripts comes at a cost. I hope that that will come down, but we are where we are so, in the meantime, I have created something that is almost parallel to the legal aid system and that would allow people to apply for access to a fund to pay for court transcripts. That would be a more permanent solution than simply having trial after trial of free access to transcripts without any long-term solution. I believe that we could amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to create permanent access to transcripts via a dedicated fund for that purpose, and that purpose alone.

My amendment 263 would enable the Scottish Government, to determine—perhaps through secondary legislation or regulation-making powers; I am willing to look at that—how applications would be made, the eligibility criteria and the process to be followed. In coming up with that process ministers would have to consult the relevant parties, all of whom are those that members would expect to have to be consulted.

I consider the pilot scheme to be a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Although the Government’s willingness to proceed is welcome, I note, from a letter that the cabinet secretary sent two days ago to the three members who have an amendment on this aspect, her view that

“further thought is required regarding how we deliver the principle of free access in a way that is deliverable, sustainable, fair, and cost effective”.

I do not disagree with that, but about three years ago, I was sitting just over there, on the other side of the table, when we had a similar conversation. There has been plenty of time for further thought as to how we might deliver a long-term solution. Through my amendment I have tried to come up with a practical solution.

I, too, believe that access to transcripts should not be restricted to rape and sexual offences cases. That is why I believe that we should approach the issue in a slightly different way. By creating a fund that sets criteria about who can apply and in which cases, we could widen access outside the scope of those particular areas. People might require access to transcripts in other cases, such as those involving domestic abuse, so I would like to extend the franchise, as it were, to include a whole range of factors.

I accept that there is not an unlimited pot of cash for doing that. However, I hope that members would understand that, by putting aside money for that purpose and setting ground rules about who could apply, fairness and rationale would be involved. I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on that.

It is good to see members addressing the issue and trying to get something on the face of the bill. If we could bring the matter back and work together on it at stage 3, I would be happy to be part of that discussion. I hope that we could have something in the bill by stage 3.

On the basis of what we have heard, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 263 not moved.

Rona Mackay is right to raise the issue. We all know the nature of the demographic of our prison population and some of the challenges presented in many offenders groups and sub-categories—those are common themes that run through all of this. Some people in prison might struggle to demonstrate remorse verbally, even if they want to. I just think that that is part of that process.

However, we also have to put some faith in the parole process and those involved making an informed decision, based on their experience of listening to offenders in those scenarios and using their gut feelings—a huge amount of that is probably involved in such decisions. My amendment is quite simple in that respect; it simply says that any provision must include

“provision that the Board must take into account any remorse shown by the prisoner in relation to the impact of the prisoner’s offence on any victim of that offence.”

Remorse, therefore, is taken into account; it is not the deciding factor. I just want to make that clear.