Seòmar agus comataidhean

You make a fair point about the probability of occurrence in both scenarios. There will not be huge volumes of cases, but when the situation occurs, it could potentially have quite a big impact on one person. Therefore, I want to follow up on the convener’s comment about the possibility of Revenue Scotland having some kind of discretionary power.

I think that you already concede that there continue to be some scenarios that, because of their nature, will require the introduction of further SSIs in order to be ironed out. I am still a bit unclear as to why you would not grant a discretionary power to Revenue Scotland. I know that you look for certainty in the law, which is eminently sensible, but you concede that there continue to be some anomalies as we get into the detail. Giving a discretionary power to Revenue Scotland would surely allow for the ironing out of such anomalies. If HM Revenue and Customs—which obviously has more resource; I understand that—can do that without there being continuing legal cases, why would Revenue Scotland not be able to do that?

You have highlighted that it is uncertainty cubed, because of the points that you have made. What consideration did you give to other mechanisms? I sense that you are going through the process, which says that you must present an FM in terms of the standing orders of the Parliament, in the face of considerable uncertainty. Did you consider other approaches? I fully accept that there are significant challenges around the cliff edge of UK Government funding, so did you consider going further on in the process before presenting an FM? You will appreciate that, as a committee, we cannot have a great deal of confidence in the FM, as presented, for the reasons that you have set out. For example, did you consider using co-design to get more firmness around the figures?

That goes back to the convener’s earlier point about framework bills. If you are saying that the bill is as good as it can be at this point and that further clarity over numbers will emerge later, that will happen beyond the point where the finance committee has oversight of it, which will necessarily lead to considerably less financial scrutiny from a parliamentary point of view. Therefore, logically, there will be a higher probability of increased costs, because we do not have our fingers all over it from a purely financial perspective. Do you recognise that that might be a concern for us? We are repeatedly noting that we have incredibly constrained public finances, but in the face of that constraint we are building less scrutiny into the processes.

Good morning, minister. I wish to raise a couple of wee points. In general, the changes to ADS in particular are welcome, because there were quite a few anomalies, as we know.

I just wanted to check something relating to a comment by the Chartered Institute of Taxation on situations in which somebody finds themselves in the position of taking inheritance of a property and then seeks to buy their own home. A provision of relief has been made for the period between the property being inherited and the conclusion of missives for the new property—or the purchase of the new property, I should say. The point is that missives are now invariably concluded on the day of purchase. That has been the case since about 2008. The days when people concluded missives and purchase would take place later have gone, because of the lack of availability of finance.

Could you explain your thinking in that regard? It seems like a relief that will get very little take-up altogether. Therefore, people will still continue to be impacted, through no fault of their own and with no choice, in situations in which they inherit a property but still need to buy their own family home. Could you provide a bit more context around that?

You make a fair point about that being a change, but it might be worth considering at some point, along with the idea of a finance bill, which we are having similar discussions about, because there are always unintended consequences with our tax. There is also the complexity of shunting Scottish taxes into a wider UK framework. Such an approach may lend itself to that, but that is probably a separate discussion.

I apologise if this has already been covered. What consideration has been given thus far to a situation in which a young man in secure accommodation should elect to self-identify as being of a different gender? I ask that specifically from a safeguarding perspective. Has the detail of that been worked up? Obviously, that issue has been much discussed by the Criminal Justice Committee.

We appreciate that the round table is an important part of the discussion. Would you look for equitability of representation of victims as well as the accused, rather than simply representation?

Will the minister give way?

I have one further point, to sum up. Minister, you will have gathered that the committee has some concerns. I appreciate the position in which you find yourself with regard to what you are able to control, and I empathise with you in that respect. However, are you able to commit, off the back of this discussion today, to set out specifically, based on your discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, the basis on which the committee can, as individual members, go forward to stage 3?

I cannot speak for every member, but I sense that it is not enough for us to go on to stage 3 knowing only that the matter might be looked at in a further bill or that there will be a round table at some point, given the scale of the concern over the challenge of conflicting rights. Will the minister be able to write back to the committee once she has had a chance to affirm the specifics of the next steps, including dates and so on?

Following up on that point, I accept what the minister is saying about amendment 206, and it might well be that it is a probing amendment and there is still further work to do. However, the principle has been established in terms of the current provisioning in the criminal justice system compared with the new provisioning in very serious cases, where we recognise that there could be an uptick, particularly around rape and serious sexual assault.

Is the minister willing to give further thought to how the voice of victims can be heard in the process, even if she does not accept the amendment? Clearly, there will be a marked difference in the opportunity for people to make their voice heard, which is important. It is even more important, I would argue, than providing a written statement, because, for a victim, it allows their voice to actually be heard. Will the minister give further consideration to that, even though I fully accept that the amendment might not be perfect in relation to the legislation?