Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Over what period could that be implemented? A lot of people have said to us, including in last week’s evidence and in the submissions for this week, “If you give us money to invest in X, Y or Z, we’ll be able to deliver such-and-such savings in five or 10 years.” Although we would be keen on that sort of preventative agenda—indeed, John Mason and I were discussing all of this on the finance committee 10 years ago—the problem is how we deliver in the financial year 2023-24, which is staring us in the face and is only a few months away. We want to invest more, but there are real issues about what we disinvest from in the meantime in order to free up those resources.

Catherine, I know that you are dying to come back in, but Daniel Johnson and Clare Reid also want to comment. After they have done so, I will let you round up on the three contributions.

Thank you. That was very clear.

Thank you. That, too, was very clear.

I wind up the session by thanking all our witnesses for their helpful contributions, which we shall include in our report. We will be questioning the Deputy First Minister, who is also finance secretary at the moment, on the issues that have been raised when he appears before the committee.

I will bring in Alison Douglas in a few minutes, but I should let you know that the time is 11 o’clock and I do not want this meeting to continue for much longer. I am therefore going to let Polly Tolley and Catherine Murphy answer and then I will let Alison Douglas respond to David Lonsdale. We will then wind up this section of questioning, after which I will ask a brief question about transparency.

I do not want to put witnesses on the spot, so I give all of you due notice that I will be asking you what you would prioritise if there was one thing that the Scottish Government could do in the 2023-24 budget. What one thing—not two, three or four things—would you prioritise above all else in the forthcoming Scottish budget? Please think about what that would be and be ready to articulate it after we have a brief discussion about transparency.

Why do you not support that notion?

Thank you.

So you mean that we should reduce the number of rates assessment bodies, rather than rates assessors as it says in your submission?

Okay, so it is an error in your submission.