���˿���

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

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”?

Sure.

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?

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.