Finance, Constitution and Economy
Economy (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has introduced to boost the economy in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. (S4O-04184)
“Scotland’s Economic Strategy” reaffirms our commitment to increasing sustainable economic growth for all of Scotland, which is essential to achieving a more productive, more cohesive and fairer country. Our continued investment in infrastructure, regeneration and business support helps to boost the economy in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the dairy industry is an important part of the local economy. How does he see the recently launched dairy action plan assisting local milk producers, and how might it benefit the local economy in general?
Mr Coffey is correct to say that the dairy sector plays an important economic role in many rural parts of Scotland, including in the Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency. The dairy plan that was launched by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, on 24 March, aims to improve the resilience of the Scottish dairy sector and to provide the right platform to ensure that the entire industry can thrive against the backdrop of a very volatile world market.
Some of the contents of the Government’s economic strategy—encouraging innovation, improving productivity and encouraging companies to look at international business opportunities—will be relevant to the activities of the dairy industry in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. I encourage Mr Coffey to point his constituents in the direction of finding active ways in which they can participate in developing that strategy in the local area.
The cabinet secretary will be aware how important the Kilmarnock campus of Ayrshire College is to the economy in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. He will also be aware of the funding shortfall in the Ayrshire College budget for 2015-16. The shortfall in this financial year is being met by turning depreciation into hard cash. Will the shortfall in the 2015-16 budget for Ayrshire College and others again be met by using cash allocated in budget terms for depreciation to meet the cash requirements of student funding, or will other sources of funding be provided?
Mr Scott will be familiar with the allocations of resources that have been made as part of the annual budget round, which concluded in early February and which gave allocations to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, which in turn distributes the resources to Ayrshire College.
The appropriateness and utilisation of the resources that are available to the funding council and then, by onward transit, to Ayrshire College are a matter for the funding council to determine in dialogue and discussion with Ayrshire College. The Government would expect that dialogue to focus on supporting the achievement of the outcomes that the Government seeks from its investment in the further education sector.
Economy and Public Services
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the economy and public services. (S4O-04185)
The Scottish Government is committed to creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth. “Scotland’s Economic Strategy” set out an overarching framework and actions for increasing competitiveness and tackling inequality in Scotland. We also remain focused on delivering a cross-sector programme of public service reform, and a clear strategic direction for protecting and improving Scotland’s public services is now well established.
The main fiscal policy of the Scottish National Party Government is, of course, full fiscal autonomy, which would lead to £7.6 billion of cuts, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Can the finance secretary tell us when he wants to see full fiscal autonomy come into force and why he thinks that a policy that will lead to £7.6 billion of cuts is a good idea?
I believe that full fiscal autonomy would give Scotland the economic levers to strengthen our economic performance and, as a consequence, to improve the productivity and, furthermore, the public finances of the country. I do not think that that is a particularly surprising ambition, given that I thought that we were all here to try to improve economic performance and to deliver stronger public finances as a consequence. If Mr Bibby is the slightest bit concerned about cuts, he should look at the Labour Party proposition for the forthcoming elections. It has signed up to the charter for budget responsibility, which involves £30 billion-worth of cuts. [Interruption.]
Order.
Before Mr Bibby comes anywhere near me, he should reconcile the issues in his party—the Labour Party—and think about the slash and burn cuts that it proposes for public services in Scotland.
Revenue Scotland (Information Technology)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the Revenue Scotland information technology system. (S4O-04186)
The implementation of the Scottish electronic tax system is an operational matter for Revenue Scotland. I discussed the issue with the chief executive of Revenue Scotland this morning. The system opened for sign-up for both the devolved taxes on 16 February, and registration opened for the Scottish landfill tax on the same day. The online return for land and buildings transaction tax has been available to users since 24 March. I am pleased to inform Parliament that the chief executive confirmed to me that, as planned, the system has today started to collect the first national tax to be introduced by a Scottish Parliament in more than 300 years, and it undertook that online.
I am glad that the first transactions have gone through fine online. Approximately what percentage of transactions will be done through the online portal?
I do not know what that proportion will be, as that will be for the market to determine. However, as of about 1.45 this afternoon, 83 transactions had been undertaken on the online system. I told Parliament that the online system would be available for operation on 1 April, but there were some doubters in Parliament. I would have thought that some of them could have come to Parliament and congratulated Revenue Scotland on the achievement of having an online system available, but perhaps that is too much to ask on a Wednesday afternoon.
I congratulate Revenue Scotland on operating online. However, before we congratulate ourselves, I point out that, yesterday, a firm of solicitors contacted a member of the Scottish Parliament to complain that the new land and buildings transaction tax forms were not yet available. I assume that that is because it was a day early. However, the cabinet secretary will of course be aware that conveyancing transactions cannot be registered at Registers of Scotland without a tax-paid certificate. Can he confirm that there are no problems at all with the implementation of Scotland’s new landfill tax and land and buildings transaction tax?
I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her warm words towards Revenue Scotland, which are in stark contrast to what she was drivelling on about in The Times on Monday.
The Government has taken forward arrangements for the implementation of land and buildings transaction tax and landfill tax. There has been good co-operation between Revenue Scotland and Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which will be involved in the administration of the taxes. I am satisfied with the arrangements that have been put in place.
I remind all members that they should use parliamentary language and be respectful to one another.
Smith Agreement (Implementation)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government on the implementation of the Smith agreement. (S4O-04187)
Since the United Kingdom Government published its draft clauses on 22 January, the Scottish Government has provided a range of detailed comments on the drafting and the scope of the clauses, with the aim of ensuring that they implement the Smith commission recommendations in full. That has been accompanied by discussions at ministerial and official level, including two meetings of the joint ministerial working group on welfare. The Scottish Government has also started work on development of the fiscal framework, which will be a critical element in implementing the Smith commission proposals. I met the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 2 March to discuss progress on that work.
The Deputy First Minister will be aware that academic analysis by Robert Gordon University shows that the draft clauses water down the already minimalist provisions of the Smith agreement. Does he agree that the absence of the power to create new benefits and the restrictions that are placed on the categories of people to whom benefits can be paid clearly show that the UK Government is already reneging on the implementation of the Smith agreement and that therefore the only way to deliver significant additional powers to the Scottish Parliament is to send a strong team of Scottish National Party members to Westminster to speak up and stand up for Scotland? [Interruption.]
Order, please.
The Government has raised a number of issues with the UK Government on the detailed definition of the clauses that were published on 22 January. We have shared with the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee detailed information on the matters that we believe have to be addressed. The Scottish Government has engaged constructively with the UK Government on the specifics of what we believe are deficiencies in the draft clauses, which are now subject to consultation.
I point out to Mr Eadie that his observations have been reinforced by observations from a number of stakeholders who have been involved in the dialogue on the implementation of the clauses. I hope that those issues are properly addressed by the incoming UK Government; we have made that point in our discussions.
Mr Eadie is correct to say that the best approach to safeguard Scotland’s interests will be to secure the election of a strong team of SNP members of Parliament at Westminster, who will be able to protect and promote the Scottish interest on all occasions and without reservation.
I note that the Scottish Government has stopped referring to vetoes being contained in the new powers, and I welcome that development. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the two Governments working together constructively to deliver the new powers will do much more to secure Scotland’s interest than trying to undermine the process?
I will happily restore the word “veto” in my answer if that would suit Miss Goldie better, but there is a serious point at the heart of her question. She says that there is no veto in all of this. In the Smith commission proposals, one of the commitments that Miss Goldie and I made was to secure the earliest devolution of the work programme. Last week, the UK Government vetoed the early devolution of the work programme.
During the Smith process, Miss Goldie and I were arguing for the work programme to be devolved earlier, and that position was echoed by the Labour Party. Indeed, a Labour member of the Westminster Parliament, Ian Murray, has introduced a private member’s bill to seek the earliest possible devolution—by this summer, if my memory serves me right—of the work programme. Not only has that been vetoed by the UK Government, the programme contracts have been extended against the express will of the Scottish Government.
I am all for co-operation on the substance of these issues, and I have conveyed to the UK Government a detailed list of areas in which we think the draft clauses are deficient in terms of the objectives of the Smith process. We have shared that information with the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee.
I hope that there is a willingness to engage constructively and solidly in implementing not only the letter but the spirit of the Smith commission report, which—as in the example that I cited to Miss Goldie—is about taking early action to ensure that the earliest possible devolution of the work programme is delivered.
Revenue Scotland (Vacancies)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has filled all vacancies at Revenue Scotland. (S4O-04188)
The staffing of Revenue Scotland is an operational matter for Revenue Scotland. I spoke to the chief executive this morning, and she confirmed that 38 of 40 operational posts have now been filled, providing Revenue Scotland with the breadth and depth of experience that it requires to collect and manage the devolved taxes.
Recruitment processes are under way for the two remaining posts, neither of which was identified as being critical for the 1 April launch.
Have the salaries that are being offered been increased? If so, what impact will that have on the organisation’s cost?
There have been no increases in salaries beyond what we set out to the Finance Committee and the Public Audit Committee as part of the process. There are no changes to the financial arrangements, which have been shared openly by the Government.
We have set out information on the financial provisions on a number of occasions, including in the financial memorandum, and the chief executive of Revenue Scotland provided further information at the Public Audit Committee and the Finance Committee in December, if my memory serves me right. There have been no changes since those updates were given to the relevant committees.
Question 6 has been withdrawn, and a satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Further Devolution (House of Lords Report)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s report “Proposals for the devolution of further powers to Scotland”. (S4O-04190)
The Scottish Government agrees with the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the proposed Scotland bill should receive “detailed scrutiny” when it is introduced after the United Kingdom election.
The bill and the accompanying fiscal framework will need to be scrutinised carefully in this Parliament to ensure that it reflects the substance and the spirit of the Smith commission proposals.
The Scottish Government has suggested changes to the draft clauses in a range of areas in order to bring them closer to the intentions of the Smith report. I hope that the new UK Government will work with us to make those improvements and to ensure that the additional powers are transferred to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it is an outrage for a group of unelected peers to respond as they have to the prospect of this Parliament obtaining increased powers? Does he also agree with me that it is high time that the democratic anomaly that is the House of Lords is addressed by its abolition?
I agree with Mr Dey about abolition of the House of Lords. In relation to the select committee report, it expresses a number of views, some of which are worthy of being considered and taken further and some of which do not require much attention. In the course of parliamentary scrutiny, Parliament will have the opportunity to consider any relevant remarks that come from that committee and how they might affect the formulation of the forthcoming legislation.
To the great disappointment of Mr Dey, I am still around and occupying a place in another house.
The House of Lords committee noted that Scotland and the UK have been in a period of constitutional upheaval for 15 years, which is unprecedented in mature western democracies. Can the cabinet secretary make a commitment that, once the new powers are in effect, the Scottish Government will end constitutional wrangling and give the new powers a chance to work effectively for the people of Scotland?
There is in that a pretty fundamental point about what we have gone through in the aftermath of the referendum—since September.
First, I state that where there is, in terms of the political process, a need for and an obligation on this Government to co-operate to implement particular changes, we co-operate in full. For example, in formulation of the approach on the land and buildings transaction tax, the landfill tax and various other provisions that arose from the Calman commission—which, if my memory serves me right, Miss Goldie helped to found but did not serve on—this Government has progressed in a spirit of effective co-operation. In fact, we have got to the point in respect of the LBTT in which the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I were just the other day able to exchange correspondence that enabled the UK Government to switch off stamp duty land tax in Scotland and enabled me to switch on LBTT. There were perfectly orderly arrangements to make that happen. Wherever such arrangements are required, this Government will undertake that activity.
However, Ms Goldie must appreciate—I would have thought that she does appreciate this—that SNP members have views that are different to hers about the constitutional arrangements that are appropriate for Scotland. Those are appropriately held, deeply held and sincerely held views about the arrangements of our country: they are as deeply and sincerely held as I know Miss Goldie’s are on her position. We simply have to leave it to the people of our country to decide what our future should be. We are happy to enable them to do exactly that.
Renewable Heat Target
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Committee on Climate Change’s expert statement that further actions are required if the 2020 renewable heat target is to be met. (S4O-04191)
We welcome the Committee on Climate Change’s consideration of progress and action in regard to emissions reductions in Scotland.
We are making progress on the target to have 11 per cent of non-electrical heat demand supplied from renewables by 2020, but there is no doubt that it will be a challenging target to meet, particularly in the context of our not having within our competence the full range of drivers. For example, the renewable heat incentive is a United Kingdom Government scheme.
In order to focus and drive the pace of change, in 2014 we published our draft heat generation policy statement. It has a particular focus on encouraging uptake of renewable heat technologies and maximizing the potential of existing and new renewable heat sources. We expect the final statement to be published soon.
I thank the minister for that response. Will the Scottish Government publish an update on progress towards the expert commission’s 18 recommendations? Also, will the specific points that are raised in the Committee on Climate Change’s report be actioned urgently? Many things that are within the Scottish Government’s competence can be done, for example the setting up of a heat networks delivery unit and a requirement to consider district heating for all new developments. If the minister does not feel able to confirm those today, will he ask the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism whether he would be prepared to meet me to discuss taking forward those issues?
I acknowledge Sarah Boyack’s long-standing deep commitment to this matter. I could go through some of the issues that she has raised, but it is probably best if we arrange a meeting between the minister and the member.
Economy (Mid Scotland and Fife)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to grow the economy in Mid Scotland and Fife. (S4O-04192)
The Scottish Government is committed to boosting economic growth and tackling inequality across Scotland.
In Mid Scotland and Fife, we continue to support economic growth, with substantial investment in infrastructure and business support. For example, 113 businesses across Mid Scotland and Fife have benefited from more than £55 million of regional selective assistance awards since 2007, which has created or safeguarded 5,603 jobs.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that for the long-term sustainable growth of the Scottish economy we must shift the balance of investment towards manufacturing? Can he provide me with more detail of the progress that is being made to bring such investment to strategic employment sites in Fife, including the Rosyth waterfront area, the Motorola site in Dunfermline and the energy park at Methil?
On the fundamental point that Jayne Baxter raises, I agree entirely that the Government’s economic strategy is focused on strengthening innovation, encouraging inclusive growth and supporting investment in particular companies and in the wider infrastructure of the country. It is also focused on encouraging companies to be more actively involved in wider international business activity.
On the sites that Jayne Baxter referred to, additional freight capacity on the Forth was identified as a national development to assist in ensuring that proposals for the development of the Rosyth facility are delivered. That remains a central part of national planning framework 3. Scottish Enterprise has been heavily involved in investment in the Methil site and we will continue to encourage and support economic development on the site.
The Government undertakes a number of very focused initiatives to ensure that we have sites available for particular development and to encourage manufacturing companies either to locate to or to expand and grow in those areas.
The Scottish manufacturing advisory service, which is available through Scottish Enterprise, is available to companies in the Fife area. We encourage companies to take up such opportunities.
Will the cabinet secretary advise what are the potential benefits to the Mid Scotland and Fife economy of the University of St Andrews renewable energy project at Guardbridge?
That is one of a number of energy projects that are being taken forward; Jayne Baxter referred to the energy park at Methil. We encourage and support the development of renewable energy projects throughout the country. I am sure that the work that is under way at St Andrews will be of great benefit in expanding and developing knowledge and the approach to project development within those areas.
One proposal from the Scottish Government that will have an impact on the Mid Scotland and Fife economy is the plan to reintroduce business rates on sporting interests. Will the cabinet secretary tell us whether those rates will be charged on all agricultural land to which sporting rights are attached?
The Government is still engaged in a detailed consultation on all of those issues. When we set out our further proposals on land reform, the particular issue that Murdo Fraser raises will be dealt with in that consultation. The Government believes that the anomaly that is created by the absence of business rates from sporting estates should be closed as part of the land reform process. We will set out the detail in due course.
Economy (Dumfries and Galloway)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to help regenerate the economy of Dumfries and Galloway. (S4O-04193)
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting sustainable economic growth and regeneration in Dumfries and Galloway. We support the work of the south of Scotland alliance, which is driving forward the south of Scotland rural regional economic development programme. Projects in that programme will encourage economic activity, promote growth, increase inward investment and protect and create employment across Dumfries and Galloway.
I am grateful for that answer but I can think of no greater stimulus to the economy of my constituency than the regeneration of Stranraer harbour waterfront, which is a large and prominent area of land that has become increasingly derelict since Stena, the ferry company, moved to its new port facility north of Cairnryan. I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned the south of Scotland alliance, which gave us a briefing two weeks ago, and highlighted the Stranraer harbour waterfront development as one of its top priorities.
Two bids are reportedly being considered for the redevelopment of that site but no outcome has been forthcoming, despite one being promised for some time. What steps might the cabinet secretary be able to take to move the process forward? Will he consider the creation of a special enterprise zone around Stranraer if no bids materialise?
I discussed this issue when I last met the south of Scotland alliance in Dumfries several weeks ago. Dumfries and Galloway Council has the lead role in the regeneration of the Stranraer waterfront, so consideration of the bids to which Mr Fergusson refers is entirely a matter for the local authority. I am certainly not sighted on any of the detail of the bidding process, nor should I be.
I said to the south of Scotland alliance that I could see the strategic significance of the Stranraer waterfront and, once the local authority was further through the process of considering the bids, would be happy to discuss further with it and the south of Scotland alliance how we might bring together different interests, parties and players to tackle a significant issue for the Stranraer area in Mr Fergusson’s constituency.
At this stage, the ball is in the local authority’s court but I do not say that because the Government has nothing to do with it. The Government will happily engage constructively with the council on the issue.
I encouraged the south of Scotland alliance essentially to formulate an economic agenda for advancing key projects across the area. The alliance has responded to that constructively and I am now committed to meeting it twice a year to ensure that Government agencies are engaging to my satisfaction with the agenda that the south of Scotland alliance has created. I welcome the leadership that has been put in place by both local authorities, and I pledge to ensure that the Government engages constructively in any way we can to deliver that agenda.
I attended the meeting with the south of Scotland alliance and it specifically mentioned the absence of financial support from central Government. Among the issues that the cabinet secretary will consider, will he also consider the use of Scottish Government finance to support the initiative?
It really depends on the project that emerges. The Government will have to consider a multiplicity of issues. For example, if a private developer proposed to develop the Stranraer waterfront, the Government would undoubtedly have to consider state aid issues; it could not ignore them.
As I think I made clear in my answer to Mr Fergusson, the Government is willing to engage in substantive dialogue with the south of Scotland alliance on the projects. I asked the alliance to come up with a substantive agenda that would advance the questions. It has now done that and we will maintain that discussion during our six-monthly meetings to consider the most effective ways in which the Government can assist.
Institute for Fiscal Studies Post-budget Briefing
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the post-budget briefing by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which finds that the poorest have seen the biggest proportionate losses as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s tax and benefit changes. (S4O-04194)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, because of the tax and benefit changes that have been implemented by the current UK Government, the poorest have suffered the biggest proportionate losses. Clearly, the UK Government’s austerity agenda and welfare cuts have significantly reduced incomes for some of our poorest households and are undermining our efforts to tackle poverty.
We are doing what we can to help those who are affected. We are investing around £296 million from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to limit the damage of the cuts and changes that are being introduced. We cannot fully mitigate all the effects of welfare changes, but we will continue to make the argument for a fairer welfare system.
It is clear from the IFS analysis that austerity is not working, and our alternative of modest real-terms spending increases in each year of the next parliamentary session instead of cuts would see the deficit and debt fall as a share of our national income, freeing up billions of pounds to reinvest in infrastructure, skills, public services and protecting our people. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that highlights the need for a vote for the Scottish National Party in a couple of weeks, because that offers the best opportunity to stand up for all the people of Scotland?
It is clear from the current debate that alternative approaches to austerity can be taken. The Scottish Government believes that to be the case and we have long argued for that position. That issue is one on which people can use their votes effectively in the forthcoming general election.
We discovered at the start of this week that the SNP had signed up to Tory austerity plans for 2015-16. Given what James Dornan has said, why has the SNP joined with the Tories in continuing austerity? Does the cabinet secretary agree with the IFS analysis that there is a £7.6 billion black hole in the Scottish budget under full fiscal autonomy?
I really do not know what on earth Jackie Baillie is referring to regarding the start of the week. The Scottish Government has been crystal clear that we oppose austerity. Jackie Baillie would do us all a service if she and the Labour Party took a different tack to the one that they have taken and if they supported an approach of investment in the economy to deliver the economic growth that I thought Jackie Baillie would be interested in delivering, to create new hope and new opportunities for people in our country.
As usual, however, Jackie Baillie is continuing her partnership with the Conservatives, which saw her go through the past couple of years hand in hand—better together—and is continuing it into the election campaign into the bargain.
European Union Exit (Impact on Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact on the Scottish economy would be of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. (S4O-04195)
The Scottish Government firmly believes that exiting the EU would have a deeply damaging impact on Scotland’s economy. Membership of the EU provides us with access to the largest single market in the world, with more than 500 million potential customers. In 2013, the EU was the destination for 46 per cent of Scottish exports, worth almost £13 billion. On top of that, more than 300,000 Scottish jobs depend on those EU exports.
That is why the Scottish Government will continue to make the case for Scotland’s membership of the EU going forward, as is set out in “Scotland’s Action Plan for EU Engagement”, which was launched last Friday, and in our booklet on the benefits of EU membership.
The minister will be aware that there are many individuals from other parts of the EU who live and work in Scotland, and whose status may be affected by a decision that the UK should withdraw from the EU. I would be grateful if he would outline what constitutional measures could be put in place to prevent Scotland from being taken out of the EU against the wishes of our people.
The member highlights a very important point. Particularly in the run-up to the general election, we know that anti-EU migration rhetoric has been hyped up, and many parties have got behind that. All of us would recognise that EU migrants in Scotland have played a very positive role. Research from University College London has shown that, between 2001 and 2011, they contributed £20 billion to the economy. Scots who are on the continent, as the member has indicated, make a very positive contribution wherever they are, too.
A UK exit from the EU would have a drastic, catastrophic consequence for our economy. That is why the First Minister herself has made it clear that we believe in a double lock on membership, with an exit possible only if a majority of people in all four constituent parts of the UK vote to leave.
Progressive Taxation
To ask the Scottish Government whether it supports more progressive taxation for those on the very highest incomes and those with the most expensive properties. (S4O-04196)
The Scottish Government has set out its approach to taxation, which is based on the four principles set out by Adam Smith. Those principles are certainty; convenience; efficiency of collection; and that taxes should be proportionate to the ability to pay. The Government has placed fairness, equity and the ability to pay at the very heart of the first decisions that we have taken on national tax rates.
We have also set up the commission on local tax reform, whose remit will enable it to show how progressive the alternative tax systems that it identifies can be and the significance of any changes both to taxpayers and to the funding of public services.
I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has played catch-up with Labour on the 50p tax rate for those with the highest incomes, contradicting what Alex Salmond said on “The Andrew Marr Show” 10 days ago. Will the cabinet secretary now go further and also support a mansion tax, to provide extra money for the national health service; a bankers’ bonus tax, to provide a job and training guarantee; and changes to pension tax relief for the richest pensioners, to provide more opportunities for young people?
The point that I would make to Mr Chisholm is that we should be judged on the actions that we take on such questions. The action that we have taken is that, when we had the opportunity to set particular tax rates, the Scottish Government used the first available opportunity—with the land and buildings transaction tax—to do exactly what Mr Chisholm talked about in his question. We have ensured that those who are living in the highest-value properties pay more on property transactions. Under the system that I have put in place, which Mr Chisholm’s party voted for, 90 per cent of taxpayers are paying the same or less and 10 per cent are paying more, and those are the people who are living in the higher-value properties. I would have thought that that would give Mr Chisholm reasonable reassurance about the direction of travel.
When it came to deciding on the 50p tax rate in the House of Commons, my colleague Stewart Hosie, the MP for Dundee East in the House of Commons in the previous Parliament, moved that the 50p tax rate be restored, but Mr Chisholm’s colleagues, for some unbelievable reason, could not find it in themselves to vote in favour of such a proposition. I am told that that is about the Bain principle that no proposal that comes from the Scottish National Party should be supported. That seems to me to be rather short-sighted action by the Labour Party.
We look forward to utilising the influence that we have in the House of Commons to deliver fairness and prosperity in the aftermath of the United Kingdom general election, and we will bring those values to bear in any situation beyond the UK election.
I shall allow a brief supplementary and a brief answer.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that Westminster’s 2 per cent national insurance contribution rate for high earners is regressive rather than progressive?
The Scottish Government believes that taxation should, in all circumstances, be related to the ability to pay, and that important decisions about the management of tax arrangements can best be taken in this Parliament, where we can take the opportunity—as we have done on land and buildings transaction tax—to deploy the values of fairness and equity, which have been at the heart of our decision making.
Question 14 has not been lodged. A satisfactory explanation has been provided.
Oil and Gas Industry (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the oil and gas industry. (S4O-04198)
The Scottish Government is using all the levers under its control to support the oil and gas industry. At present, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, is in the United States holding meetings and discussions with various parties with an interest in the North Sea oil and gas sector. An extensive network of support for the oil and gas industry is delivered through Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Development International, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. We have established the energy jobs task force, which has now met three times and has recently published its action plan, in which it sets out some of the key measures that are being taken forward with the backing and support of key industry leaders.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the U-turn by the chancellor, George Osborne, on taxation of the oil and gas industry was an admission that his policy for the North Sea has been wrong and that poor stewardship by the United Kingdom Government has had a detrimental impact on our oil and gas sector? Does he also agree that it has been another case of too little, too late, and that many job losses could have been avoided?
First of all, as the Government has made clear, we welcome the steps that were taken by the United Kingdom Government in the budget statement on 18 March. The reduction of the supplementary charge, the introduction of the basin-wide investment allowance, the reduction of petroleum revenue tax and the modest investment in exploration were all welcome. However, those steps indicate that the United Kingdom Government has realised that its stewardship of the North Sea oil and gas regime for taxation purposes had to be dramatically revised as a consequence of the results that were generated by the significant increase in the supplementary charge that has taken place since the UK Government came to office. In addition, a new Oil and Gas Authority has been put in place, changing the regulatory regime.
Therefore, in the course of the past 18 months, the UK has changed fundamentally both the fiscal regime and the regulatory regime, which demonstrates to me an acknowledgement that the UK has ill served the North Sea oil and gas sector in the way in which it has taken forward its policy agenda. The changes that have been made in the budget are welcome, and I hope that they are taken by the oil and gas industry as a signal that there is an opportunity to invest in the North Sea sector; I also hope that that opportunity is taken up by interested parties.
I apologise to the members whose questions we did not reach.
Next
Economy and Finances