Chamber and committees

That is the point for this committee. I absolutely understand why co-design could be beneficial—particularly from the point of view of getting the input of many who feel that the existing system is not satisfactory—and I understood it when Kevin Stewart spoke to us, too. My concern is that the process of engagement is still going on, and we know from our previous consideration that, although many on the front line of the service were concerned about the change, lots of others involved in the delivery of the service were also quite critical—in fact, very critical, in a few cases—of what the Scottish Government proposed.

My point is that it is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. If the co-design continues—for good reasons—should we not finish that process before we come back with the detail of the bill and, therefore, the forecast of the costs? Would that not be an easier way of doing it?

Will you tell us what those themes are?

That is why I asked that question; John Swinney impressed me with what he said about that. Those are people whose skills we desperately need—as Louise Maclean rightly flagged—and who have a wealth of experience, so trying to ensure that they come back into the workforce is critical. There is a productivity angle as well.

Thank you.

I want to ask about UK tax and global tax debates. In the first instance, there is a huge issue about the UK tax structure being far too complex, having far too many loopholes and not delivering the revenue that it should. People are avoiding tax too much, and there is a big debate about inheritance tax. On the global scene, there are lots of debates about whether we should move towards environmental taxation to stop some of the big multinationals depositing their money in safe havens. Those are all academic debates that take up lots of column space in The Economist, Financial Times, The Spectator, New Statesman and so on. To what extent does a Government in Scotland have to try to second-guess what will happen with those debates, because, technically, they could mean important changes in the future?

I am interested in this because, although I hear what you say about the fact that we should do a lot better with what we already have, I feel that, in the context of our being part of the UK and of the global community, we have to be careful that our strategic objectives are in line with what is coming down the line on UK and global taxation. If we go off at a tangent and suddenly find that something slightly conflicts with that, we will have a problem. I know that it is a very complex area, but it is about trying to get a grip on that.

What do you think the strategic tax objectives should be if we are to create more economic growth?

Professor Bell, do you have any thoughts on the global and UK tax structures that would have an impact on what we do in Scotland?

Mr Sousa, do you have any views on how we have a strategic objective that will allow us to create more economic growth, not necessarily related to tax? What do we have to do to get more economic growth?

Can I ask for a little detail on that? When ports make their application, is that a key part of what their application must contain?