Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 9, 2023

Official Report 1064KB pdf

---

Scottish Income Tax Rate Resolution 2023-24

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-07853, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Scottish rate resolution. Members should note that I will put the question on the motion immediately following the conclusion of the debate. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2023-24 are as follows—

(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £2,162,

(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £2,162 and up to a limit of £13,118,

(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £13,118 and up to a limit of £31,092,

(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £125,140, and

(e) a top rate of 47%, charged on income above £125,140.—[John Swinney]

16:32  

I will draw the Parliament’s attention to the procedural connection between this debate and rule 9.16.7 of the standing orders, which states that a Scottish rate resolution must be agreed before stage 3 of the budget bill is able to proceed.??

The debate is set against a backdrop of one of the most challenging periods for the economy and public finances that we have seen since devolution, almost a quarter of a century ago.??Over the course of the past year, we have seen Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, a cost of living crisis, spiralling inflation and the continuing economic impact of Brexit, all while recovering from a global pandemic.??We have been forced to navigate all that with our hands tied, given the limited fiscal powers that are at our disposal. Not only are we unable to borrow to support businesses and households in these challenging times, we have no legislative powers over key policy areas that would support the wider economy, such as the energy market and immigration.? Therefore, in the 2023-24 budget, we have taken the difficult but necessary decisions to allow us to protect our vital public services on which so many households, communities and, indeed, the Scottish economy rely on.?

We will cautiously support the resolution. As it is an emergency, we understand the need to protect public finances. However, if public finances improve, the economy will improve. Does the Government intend to then restore tax rates to the lower levels that they were at before this resolution?

I thank Mr Rennie for his support for the resolution, for his instructive engagement and for his enthusiasm, because he wants to start talking now about the 2024-25 budget. As I am sure he appreciates, we will use each budget in turn to set out our decisions on tax policy and will take into account a number of factors, including the prevailing economic conditions.

Now more than ever, it is vital that we are guided by the principles that are set out in our framework for tax, which we published in December 2021.?? One of those principles is engagement.?? That is why, ahead of the Scottish budget, the Deputy First Minister and I listened to a range of stakeholders. We thank all those who were involved for their input.?? We heard a consistent message from that engagement, which is that we need to use our tax powers to support and invest in our public services, reaffirm our commitment to reaching net zero emissions, tackle child poverty and support the economy.?

?Our income tax policy for 2023-24 responds to that. It seeks to strike a balance between ensuring that there is enough money for public spending and acknowledging the challenging economic conditions facing households and businesses and it supports Scotland being a great place to live, work, study and do business.?

?Our proposed income tax policy for 2023-24 is for there to be no changes to the starter, basic or intermediate rates and bands, protecting those on lower incomes.? We also propose making no change to the current higher-rate threshold of £43,662 and lowering the top-rate threshold from £150,000 to £125,140. Finally, we propose raising the higher and top rates of tax by 1p, bringing them to 42p and 47p respectively.?

?We have estimated that the income tax policies that I am asking members to vote for today will raise an additional £519 million for the Scottish budget in 2023-24.?? Those policy changes, which are grounded in our principles for taxation, will enhance the progressive approach to tax that we have taken to date. The majority of the additional revenue that is raised by those changes will come from those individuals and households in the top two income deciles.?

Our approach will mean that we can continue supporting our leading social contract with the people of Scotland, while also ensuring that the majority of taxpayers still pay less income tax than they would if they lived elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Crucially, as set out by the Deputy First Minister in his budget statement in December, the changes that have been announced for 2023-24 mean that we will be in a position to exceed the health resource Barnett consequentials received from the UK Government and to make a substantial additional investment in our national health service.? Our NHS is a precious public asset; by choosing to raise more revenue from tax to invest in vital front-line services we are making an investment that will benefit us all.?

I close by reminding members that we have had to make these income tax policy choices not only in a difficult economic climate but within the political chaos that has been caused by the UK Government in the past year.? In 2022, there were four UK chancellors in the space of four months. We saw constant U-turns on tax policy from UK Government ministers and should not forget the ill-judged tax cuts in its short-lived mini-budget in September and the impact on financial markets that many in Scotland are still facing as a consequence.

That chaos presented significant challenges as we developed our transparent income tax policy in Scotland.? The UK Government’s financial plans look increasingly bleak and there is no doubt that they will cause significant fiscal challenges for us here in Scotland. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK has entered a recession that will last for more than a year and the International Monetary Fund suggested last week that Britain will be the only G7 country whose economy is forecast to shrink in 2023. ?

?This Government is clear what its priorities are. We are choosing to invest in the economy, in our leading social contract and in the people of Scotland.?? That is why I ask members to vote today to ratify the proposed changes to Scottish income tax that are set out in the budget for 2023-24.

16:39  

The minister is quite correct that there is a convention in this Parliament—rule 9.16.7 of standing orders says that a rates resolution must be passed before stage 3 of a budget process can happen.

It is clear there are strongly different views about tax policy and, in fact, I think that Mr Rennie has opened up another area of difference of opinion about tax. I will be interested to hear what he is saying this time next year about Liberal Democrat party policy. We have that difference of opinion, but there is the restraining order on us that, if we were to vote against a resolution, the Scottish Government would be prevented from collecting any tax whatsoever. From that angle, particularly just now, that would send out an irresponsible message, because it is a time of great economic difficulty, and people are under the cosh when it comes to raising sufficient revenue. That is difficult, and it would be irresponsible to vote against the resolution, so I put on record that we will not oppose the rates resolution, but we have considerable differences of opinion with the Scottish Government about tax.

In recent weeks, this Parliament has witnessed several debates—in the chamber or in committees—about the economic priorities that will be required as we continue our efforts to tackle the very difficult economic circumstances that the minister has referred to, including the fallout from the war in Ukraine, the many problems of supply chains, energy costs and labour markets, adapting to a post-Covid and post-Brexit landscape, as well as the significant changes that happened as a result of UK Government fiscal policy.

Despite our differences and the committee’s report, we have agreed on some main objectives, especially in relation to addressing the skills gap and retraining, encouraging different policies that will promote economic growth and ensuring that we do something about the labour market inflexibilities. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and the minister for their engagement on that basis, because there is a huge issue with people leaving the labour market post-Covid, either because of long Covid or because they have decided, for one reason or another, that they wish to come out of the labour market. At stage 2, we had an exchange about that issue, and I share the cabinet secretary’s concern.

Of course, we are especially keen to ensure that Scotland remains a very attractive place in which to work, live and invest, and it is important that that is right at the centre of our deliberations.

I am interested in the line of argument that Liz Smith is developing because, essentially, she goes into territory where the tax system can be utilised to create incentives but, as she will appreciate, that is not within our range of responsibilities. Without me making a big constitutional song and dance about it, does she accept that those are legitimate areas where additional flexibility might be of use to us in trying to address the specific and real issue that she raised in relation to participation in the labour market?

Yes, I accept that and I think that tax incentives are critical. We have had considerable differences of opinion about the behavioural aspects of different tax policies, and we will rehearse those again as time goes on. However, Mr Swinney is quite right that it is important that incentives are very much part of the tax decisions. The decisions that the Government makes about taxes are very much about its choices, and the decisions that the Government has taken on tax policy are different from the ones that we would like to see. When we look at the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s recommendations on where we have to focus and at the statistics that it has produced for the next few years, we are particularly concerned, because some worrying trends are coming down the track.

We have to think about a lot of issues and we also have to think about the fiscal framework, which the cabinet secretary signed in 2016 and which is due to be renegotiated. There is a lot of interesting debate to be had about that and, although we have different constitutional perspectives, we must ensure that the fiscal situation for this Parliament is as effective as—and in line with—what is happening at the UK level.

There is general agreement that there are issues with quite a lot of aspects of what we need to focus on. Obviously, the political debate about how we address those things will continue but, again, I put on record that we will not oppose the rates resolution when it comes to decision time.

16:44  

I think that it was deeply unfair of the cabinet secretary to make the Minister for Public Finance chuckle as he got to his feet. Tax is a very serious business, and I thought that the cabinet secretary was a serious man. I just want to put that on the record.

I am happy to confirm that I was not in any way deliberately trying to make the minister chuckle. I was simply somewhat discomfited by the fact that I was having to move the motion on the resolution; I thought that a speech from me was to follow. [Laughter.] Thankfully, the minister came to my rescue on that.

In fairness, that is a matter for the Minister for Public Finance, from whom we will hear later.

I am pleased to see the proposals being made. We are now seeing the powers that were granted by the Scotland Act 2016 being used. We have some £19 billion being raised directly by the powers that the Scottish Government exercises, which represents some 35 per cent of all available revenues and 44 per cent of revenue funding. It is important that we see that bit of the budget—the part that is within the Scottish Government’s control—being used and exercised. The other day, the cabinet secretary described that as being in the foothills of variation of tax policy. I am pleased to see that; it is what devolution is about.

I also note that the measures are progressive. Tax is a part of the social compact whereby those who benefit from public services are asked to contribute, and those who have the ability to pay more do so.

Scottish Labour will support the rate resolution this evening. I note the proposal on the top rate of tax, which we called for back in 2019. In reflecting—but not necessarily completely mirroring—the comments of Willie Rennie and Liz Smith, I say that we need to consider the effectiveness of such powers. The relevant behavioural impacts need to be studied. I suspect that they might be overstated, but we need to examine in detail whether such impacts detract from the mechanical increases that would have been predicted.

Likewise, we need to consider the effects of fiscal drag, which are of concern to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Those include the interactions between the Scottish bands and rates and other aspects of taxation—in particular, national insurance.

We now have anomalies in our tax regime, which we must examine. We need to consider the fact that the inflection point—the point at which a person in Scotland starts to pay more tax than someone who lives elsewhere in the UK would—is some £28,000. That will take in people who are in promoted posts in the teaching profession and nurses. We need to examine all those issues in the round and be led by the evidence to ensure that we have a progressive taxation system that is also effective. It is important that we assess that.

I believe that although our system should be progressive, raising taxes is not a benefit in and of itself. Although I absolutely support the right of the Scottish Government to have a taxation policy that is different from that of the UK Government—that is important—if we are to have a sustained higher level of taxation we must continue to test and challenge in order to ensure that we get commensurate benefit.

Finally, the clear point of fact with the fiscal framework is that it operates on the basis of average tax receipts per person in Scotland, their growth being higher than those in the rest of the UK. If that approach is to be sustained, we will have greater tax receipts and more money to spend in Scotland. Therefore I say to the Scottish Government that we need increased focus on growing jobs and wages, because ultimately that will be good not only for the exchequer in Scotland, but for Scottish people.

Scottish Labour will support the rate resolution. I seek to debate such topics further in the months and years to come as we explore tax devolution and variation in Scotland.

16:48  

I will briefly pick up on an issue that has dogged our debates on taxation in recent years. It has not come up this afternoon, but it did during last week’s debate on the budget when I did not have time to pick up on it. It is about whether Scotland is better off as a result of income tax devolution. We are all now at the stage where we recognise that, as a result of the specific arrangements in the fiscal framework, it is true to say that, in recent years, Scotland has ended up with less revenue to spend on public services than if income tax had not been devolved.

That is completely separate from the question whether our public services have benefited from the changes that we have made to income tax as a result of such devolution. I will come on to this point later, but for now it is absolutely true to say that our public services have benefited substantially from the progressive changes that we have made. It would benefit the Parliament’s debates on taxation to recognise the significant difference between those two points—in particular, because there is, I believe, cross-party consensus on the need to reform the fiscal framework.

As I said last week, despite the immense challenges, this is the greenest budget in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It is funded in part by the most progressive tax system in the UK—a point that was confirmed earlier today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. By raising the higher rate of income tax and the additional dwelling supplement, the highest earners and people who buy holiday homes and extra properties will pay a bit more to fund the public services that are so desperately needed during the cost of living crisis.

Scotland has extremely limited devolved taxation and revenue-raising powers. We certainly need more powers over tax and borrowing and we need a more functional reserve, but we also have an obligation to make best use of the powers that we have.

In 2018, the Scottish Greens worked with the Government to deliver progressive changes to income tax. We lowered the tax that is paid by the lowest-paid workers and increased tax for those on higher incomes. Our public services are better off to the tune of £1 billion as a result of the progressive changes that we have made in the past couple of years.

However, given the monumental pressure that the budget is now under, and the need for high-quality public services during the economic crisis, we need to go further. I am proud of the agreement that we have reached on those further changes, which will raise over half a billion pounds more for our public services.

We might be in a cost of living crisis—one that is pushing many households to crisis point—but there are plenty of high-income and wealthy people in this country who can afford to pay a bit more. Those on the highest incomes can afford an extra penny on the tax rate that is paid on the top slice of their salary. People who are in a position to buy a second home or holiday home can absolutely afford to pay a bit more tax on that purchase.

It is incumbent on those who are opposed to the progressive changes to explain why they think that the most privileged people in our society should not be paying a bit more right now, and to explain what they would cut from the budget if they were to prevent those changes.

I welcome in particular the contribution that Liz Smith made to the debate in recognising the challenges that would be posed by voting down the rates resolution and in explaining the position that the Conservatives have come to. I absolutely agree with the points that she made about labour market participation. I commend to Parliament the study by Sheffield Hallam University on that subject, which found that a substantial number of people in Scotland—perhaps in the tens of thousands—would like to work but are on incapacity benefit because they are unable to find the kind of employment that meets their needs as disabled persons. Those people are not trying to avoid being in work; rather, they are people for whom we have not put the right employment support in place to enable them to join the labour market and to contribute to our public finances via tax revenue.

In the period leading up to publication of the budget, both the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Unison produced papers on tax reform. Both papers advance the principle that those who have the most should contribute the most. Although most of their specific proposals were for long-term legislative change rather than for this budget, I believe that they deserve a large share of the credit for the immediate-term progressive changes to income tax and additional dwelling supplement that we will vote on today. The long-term changes that they propose, however, cannot be lost as we move rapidly from one annual budget cycle to the next.

Despite the challenges, this budget delivers for people and planet. It includes a record £2.2 billion to tackle the climate emergency, it delivers more affordable public transport and it provides essential support to children and families—and does so by having the wealthiest people in our society pay a bit more. That is something that is worth voting for.

16:52  

Scottish Liberal Democrats have considered the vote on the rate resolution separately to the vote that will come on the budget after recess. In the debate that we had on this a year ago, few would have predicted double-figure inflation or that Vladimir Putin would invade the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Nobody could have foreseen the extent to which the incompetence of the Conservatives would trash the economy and the public finances.

Public services have had to brace themselves against these winds. It has been a “protection operation”, as Sir Anton Muscatelli told the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee. However, it is essential to grow the economy, because Scotland has underperformed relative to the UK since powers were first devolved to it. The Scottish Fiscal Commission believes that ministers might already be losing out on almost £700 million in income tax revenue. Worse still, it is expecting Scotland’s economy to grow more slowly over the next 50 years.

An IFS analysis published today showed that average net household income will be reduced by £110 next year by the tax and benefit changes. The bottom third of households with children will gain, on average, around £1,200 a year, due to the Scottish child payment, but poorer households without children will, in the words of the IFS,

“see virtually no change in their incomes”.

Those households have rent to pay and rising food and energy bills, which is why we need to see progressive changes to the budget, such as a new, national emergency insulation programme.

We have previously supported modest tax rises to deliver essential investment. We will do so today, as we are in an emergency.

However, for those at the higher end, the cumulative effect of tax changes matters. Next year, someone earning £50,000 will pay over £1,500 more in Scotland than if they lived elsewhere in the UK, and someone earning £150,000 will pay almost £4,000 more. Those are talented people whom we are already short of—the consultants that we desperately need in our NHS, cyberanalysts, tech innovators and the best engineers.

I do not believe that one-off, defined and limited tax rises have a significant impact on behaviour, but people need to be confident about the future intentions of Governments, which is where I think the intervention from my friend and colleague Willie Rennie came from. If people think that the Government has lost control of tax rises, their confidence drops and that affects their behaviour. When those individuals come to weigh up where they want to live and work, it could cost us dearly if the Scottish Government has lost their confidence. Those people are mobile and there are opportunities elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

It is an imperfect science, but I am not convinced that the Government understands what those people are thinking, and their behaviour really matters to the tax take. Where is that evidence? I think that higher-rate taxpayers are worried about the long-term intentions of the Scottish National Party Government. The presence of the Greens does not reassure them; it adds to the uncertainty about the direction of taxation and the perception that the Government may go much further and take tax to extraordinary levels. Those taxpayers do not know what is going to happen next.

The social contract is also being stretched by Government incompetence. The ferries have become a symbol of that. Then there is ScotWind—the best chance for generations to bring serious money into the public purse, but Scotland’s prized seabed was sold on the cheap. I fear that the national care service will be the next shambles.

I worry that we are coming to a tipping point and that some people will say, “Enough is enough”, so I am telling the Scottish Government today that it cannot guarantee to have our support if it brings forward further tax increases.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats fought for tax powers for this Parliament, and when we proposed a moderate penny for education in 2016, it was for a defined purpose and period. It was designed to make education the best again, driving the economy and growth.

Now there is a crisis in every corner of our NHS and social care. It is unprecedented, so we can see the logic in a penny—a further penny—for health at this time. Putting aside the refusal of the SNP Government to acknowledge its role in this—

Could you please conclude, Mr Cole-Hamilton?

—we can see the necessity of fixing it. I would like an answer from the cabinet secretary, in his closing remarks, to the question: will those tax increases remain if that health crisis abates? I do not think that the answer was given to Willie Rennie, so if the cabinet secretary can find it in himself to give it in his closing remarks, I would be very grateful.

I call Tom Arthur to wind up. You have up to four minutes, minister.

16:57  

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am conscious that I stand between members and recess, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.

I begin by thanking folk from across the chamber for their contributions. I welcome the fact that no member is intending to vote against the SRR, and I welcome that pragmatic approach.

Minister, if you could just give me one moment. I would be grateful if members who are just coming into the chamber could do so quietly and if conversations could cease.

I will build on the response that I gave to Willie Rennie’s intervention, in direct response to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s question. He asks what our future policy will be on tax at different budgets. I think that the member will acknowledge, as other members have eloquently summarised, the very changed landscape that we have found ourselves in over the past year. I am conscious that it was only three years ago that we became familiar with the term “Covid”, and that we still have three years to run until the next election. Therefore, I think that members would agree that it is a sensible, prudent and practical approach to recognise that decisions around taxation are best taken at the budget, in line with a range of circumstances.

I will give way to Mr Rennie.

I completely understand that point—the world is unpredictable. However, I hope that the minister understands our point about the balance. We need to have proper evidence to make sure that, in future years, we do not create behavioural change that has a cumulative effect on tax, and that we consider the possibility of reversing tax changes that we have brought in in an emergency. I hope that he understands that.

I do, entirely, and that speaks to the importance of the independent and robust assessment and forecast provided by the Scottish Fiscal Commission, of the Government’s process of engagement and, indeed, of adhering to the principles and objectives that are set out in our “Framework for Tax”.

I recognise that the devolution of income tax affords us the opportunity to take a different approach and, indeed, a range of different approaches across a range of areas in Scotland. Our powers over income tax and over taxation more widely are essential to enabling us to do so, to fulfil the commitment to delivering the best social contract that we possibly can.

I note the recent findings from the IFS report, which recognise that the Scottish Government’s changes to the income tax and benefits system over the past six years will make the Scottish system considerably more progressive than that of the rest of Great Britain. The same report finds that, since 2017, the poorest 10 per cent of households will see their incomes increase by £580—4.6 per cent per year—compared to the rest of the UK, England and Wales, while the richest 10 per cent will see their incomes fall. Among the poorest 30 per cent, Scottish reforms to the income tax and benefits system are set to raise the income of households with children by around £2,000 per year on average.

That is made possible because we have those powers over income tax. It speaks to the point that powers are for a purpose and can effect real change—here, the material change in the circumstances in which individuals on low incomes find themselves.

I am conscious that we are out of time. I again thank members from across the chamber for their constructive input and support—or, at least, lack of opposition—to the Scottish rate resolution.

That concludes the debate on the Scottish rate resolution.

Rule 11.3.1 requires the question on the Scottish rate resolution to be put immediately after the debate.

The question, therefore, is that motion S6M-07853, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Scottish rate resolution, be agreed to.

Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

17:02 Meeting suspended.  

17:04 On resuming—  

The question is, that motion S6M-07853, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Scottish rate resolution, be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.

We will ensure that that is recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have a slow connection, and I am not sure whether my vote has been recorded.

I confirm that it has been recorded.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Abstentions

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 2, Abstentions 28.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non-savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2023-24 are as follows—

(a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £2,162,

(b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £2,162 and up to a limit of £13,118,

(c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £13,118 and up to a limit of £31,092,

(d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £125,140, and

(e) a top rate of 47%, charged on income above £125,140.