Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Royal College of Nursing suggests that

“The financial memorandum is largely silent on the resourcing implications for nursing, despite the Bill establishing a key role for registered nurses in the process”,

and it goes on to argue for a “dedicated assisted dying service”. Is that something that you looked at? If so, why was it dismissed, and what might it cost if it were the direction of travel?

Finally, a number of submissions suggest that you have underestimated the overall numbers who will come forward, as others have alluded to, in the early phase. With regard to the 33 per cent in Oregon who came forward but did not ultimately proceed with an assisted death, the Anscombe Bioethics Centre says:

“This figure of 33% does not represent all those who ‘entered the process’, it represents all those who, having entered the process and been assessed and approved have received a lethal prescription.”

Can you clarify the distinction between the sense that we had that one third did not proceed with the process with the fact that many more could be involved in the early phase of assessment but, having received a prescription, might not proceed with taking it?

That is why I was seeking clarification. I think that they are saying that, in Oregon, that 33 per cent figure is for those who receive a lethal prescription then do not proceed with it, whereas in New Zealand and Australian states, for example, all stages of the process are documented, so people are shown as not proceeding in a more gradual way. If this story features quite heavily in the news and if we are in advance of the rest of the UK on this, it might be that far more people than might otherwise be the case will come forward—not in a speculative way—then back out or not proceed. There could be a significant early-stage demand.

Gordon McGuinness, the Public Audit Committee took evidence from the Auditor General for Scotland in 2022, at a time when he had raised serious concerns about skills alignment between the various bodies, including Colleges Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and the Scottish Government. At the time, he said that the arrangements that were in place were unlikely to deliver on the Scottish Government’s ambitions. In your submission, you say:

“Policy priorities need to drive out simplified and demand-led provision which better balances the needs of the learners, workers and the economy.”

Again, in effect, that is about skills alignment. What has changed in the past two years since the Auditor General first flagged that concern, and specifically what could be done to accelerate the process of skills alignment? That seems quite fundamental because, regardless of how much we are spending, the spending needs to be effective.

Yes—this is not rehearsed in any way. Earlier, we were talking about internationalisation. The fourth bullet point in Alastair McInroy’s submission was about attracting international talent into the UK. However, we do not compete only with California or Cork; we also compete with Cambridge—for example, in life sciences.

I am interested to get a view, including from Sandy Begbie, on this. The Government set out a plan in its tax strategy to support a “more productive and competitive” economy and, as a result, is taking action to grow Scotland’s tax base—that is what the strategy says. Is that borne out by recent experience in relation to the Scottish tax system?

Corporation tax has been referred to in relation to the Republic of Ireland, which has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent. I think that it ranks ahead of the Bahamas on Tax Justice Network’s global league table of tax havens, but that is obviously a reserved matter. However, is the tax situation in Scotland and the differential with the rest of the UK one of the issues that might be holding your sector back, Andy Witty, or perhaps holding back the UK financial sector in relation to Scotland, Sandy Begbie?

In relation to the broader language around the long-term sustainability of benefits, which the convener alluded to earlier, the Government characterises that as investment. Are you content with using language about investment in relation to social security? Normally, you would think of investment as something that gives you profit or advantage. Are you comfortable with that language?

I presume that that is a significant risk to the sustainability of the benefit.

I will turn to tax. Pages 148 and 149 of the SFC’s briefing show the forecasts for freezing the higher rate and advanced rate tax thresholds. Prior to your coming in to the meeting, we were advised that in 2025-26 the tax take for the higher rate would increase to £78 million and in 2026-27 to £215 million. After that, the figure in effect plateaus and grows in real terms. I presume that that is because we would expect the tax thresholds to rise at that point. Is that right?

It seems that you get the proof only after the problem has arisen, so you have lost that tax and that taxpayer, and you are unlikely to get them back.

I turn to the ScotWind moneys. The Government plans to use £300 million of that for capital expenditure on renewables next year, but there is nothing planned for 2026-27. Given the Government’s push for net zero and expanding Scotland’s renewables base, is there a particular reason for using £300 million one year and nothing the next?