Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will start where you finished, convener. A senior civil servant described to me how they spend approximately 60 per cent of their time fighting for the budget that was set in the previous December and the other 40 per cent answering freedom of information requests. That 60 per cent is an opportunity cost of not having long-term security about budgets, is it not?

A lot of this is about the local politics. As the convener described, we are getting another programme for government in a couple of weeks, which has been brought forward by a period of months. You have given evidence about the interaction between the MTFS, the programme for government and the national performance framework—I think that that was in David Bell’s submission—and the lack of coherence across any of those documents and how they hang together. The First Minister has set out no reason other than politics for what he wants to do. It is not about good governance.

It is quite a strange interaction, is it not? In essence, you are modelling the policies beneath the metapolicy, but you are unable to comment on the top level, from which all the consequences flow through.

Did you look at just that one scenario rather than at multiple scenarios or potential other rules? There were—

We have asked, but we got a kind of blancmange of a non-answer: “We are talking about what we might do about such and such around this.”

Is it not the case that the review will get pushed back until after the next election, when we will have a variation on this conversation? I think that you are being slightly generous in saying that external factors led to the cancellation of the resource spending review. It happened because there was chaos within the Government: we lost one First Minister due to horrific performance and got another one who decided to ditch the resource spending review. This committee asked the permanent secretary about the status of the resource spending review, but he had not been told, did not know and bemoaned that fact months later. It is just a mess in policy-making terms. The issue is not just about externality; it is about putting politics first, is it not?

But the Government’s decision not to publish clearly devalues it, too, does it not?

Surely, the means by which we, as a country, deal with the volatile external environment involves having a stronger north star direction and looking to find variations to help us to cope with that. Do you have any ideas for how we might strengthen the long-term process?

It has become not even annual. In the past three years, we have had emergency in-year budget statements halfway through the year, or less than halfway through the year, when the budget has had to be reset.

I am struck by the evidence that you have both presented that, despite the external environment—including the OBR, which we have just heard from, and the SFC—producing more material about the long term and long-term trajectories, the Scottish Government’s process is becoming increasingly short term. It is month to month or week to week, rather than decade to decade. Is that a fair critique, based on the evidence that you have given us?

I begin by thanking the committee for its continued interest in the petition. Having spoken to MSPs across the Parliament, I know that many members from right across Scotland have constituents who are affected by the issue. There is considerable interest in it across all political parties.

Today, we are joined by David Cornock and his wife, Margaret. I pay tribute to Davy, as he is known to me, for his campaigning work. Convener, you have outlined some of the changes that he has managed to obtain, but we should recognise that it is a time of continuing grief and great challenge for his family. I pay tribute to them for their work.

Since I spoke in support of the petition at the committee on 15 May 2024, you have received, as you have outlined, a considerable amount of correspondence from key stakeholders. Police Scotland highlighted that the decision to hold a fatal accident inquiry into a death abroad lies solely with the Lord Advocate. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service stated that, although it is correct that the COPFS can conduct inquiries short of a fatal accident inquiry in relation to deaths abroad, it relies on the person being ordinarily resident in Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland stated its view that the concept of ordinary residence is widely recognised and accepted. The First Minister confirmed the Scottish Government’s position is that it is not necessary to change the law at present.

The UK Government’s Minister for Victims and Violence Against Women and Girls supplied statistics that showed that around 1,500 deaths of people from England and Wales abroad were reported to the coroner annually, and between 200 and 400 inquests have been concluded on deaths abroad in each year since 2016. Meanwhile, in Scotland, since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed, not a single fatal accident inquiry has taken place into the death of a Scot abroad. Given that 200 to 400 inquiries have concluded in England and Wales each year, it is simply not credible to suggest that, in the past nine years, there have been no such cases that involve Scots or relate to Scotland.

The evidence suggests that Scottish families are being denied justice. Convener, you outlined some of the key differences in the system in your opening remarks. We recognise that the system has differences, but the outcomes for people are the key issue for the committee to consider in its work.

We have reached the point at which, as your committee’s inquiries and correspondence have made clear, the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 is not meeting the needs of Scottish families. Whether or not the legislation has met the Scottish Government’s intentions is another question. At this stage, it is only right that the committee considers asking the Lord Advocate and the appropriate Scottish Government minister to come and tell the committee and bereaved families across the country why they believe that the current situation is satisfactory. I believe that it is entirely unsatisfactory, and many grieving families agree with me.

It is meant to be published alongside the MTFS, and your deadline for Scottish income tax is this week. Is that correct? In your letter to the committee of 24 March, you say that the deadline for providing forecasts is

“Thursday 3 April with Scottish Income Tax at midday on Friday 4 April”.

You will have the information for the MTFS this week to allow you to produce some of those models, but you do not have any indication of the content of the fiscal sustainability delivery plan.