Chamber and committees

The UK Government’s failure to follow through on its promise of additional funding and the mitigations that were then provided by the Scottish Government highlight the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing the additional support that people need.

However, we know that that will go only so far, so does the cabinet secretary agree that this Tory cost of living crisis is hugely concerning and that the position of our political Opposition—which is either to tell Scotland to eat its cereal or to ask for increases in spending without stating where there should be cuts—is simply not sustainable and that, in fact, the only rational decision is for Scotland to be a normal independent country? [Interruption.]

Okay. As I have been invited to do so, I will.

You allude to some of the potential limitations introduced by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill. The Scottish Parliament has refused to pass a legislative consent motion on that bill, and the Economy and Fair Work Committee, of which I am also a member, has written about it in quite stringent terms. Are there any other areas that you want to highlight in that respect? I suppose that there is a timing element to consider, given that, as you have pointed out, initiatives that the Scottish Government might attempt to introduce—and which might be trying to do the right things for the right reasons within a very restricted framework—could fall foul of that bill. You have provided some commentary in your report, but you have not chosen to give any specific examples. Are there any such examples that you would like to highlight now?

You have looked at other countries and set out that evidence in your report, but, as you have highlighted, part of the complexity relates to the fiscal transfer process, which is particularly complex for the Scottish Parliament. Did you consider other states where similar fiscal transfer models exist?

That will be in the Official Report.

You have done a great job with your report, Callum Blackburn, particularly in restricting it to only 90 pages, such is the complexity of the issue. There is a backdrop to it, of course. The UK Parliament Public Accounts Committee’s report makes it clear that the UK Government has a plan, without answering the key question of how it will fund the transition to net zero, including how it will deliver policy on replacing income from taxes such as fuel duty. It does not even provide a general direction of travel on levies and taxation, which would kind of nail it.

Few could disagree with the principles that you set out in your report, but it immediately struck me that there must be areas in which, if you adhere to one principle, you will be moving against another. Are there any particular areas that you would want to bring out that have not been brought out thus far? You have given some examples already, but it would be useful to have more examples, because I would not in any way want to underestimate the complexity of what we have to do.

Like everyone else, I could ask a multitude of questions, but we would be here all day.

For the record, I point out that the Scottish Government is recommending refusal of the LCM.

It is right to agree to the motion and allow Westminster, at long last, to legislate on economic crime. However, the bill is only at the second reading stage in the House of Lords, and there are some 47 pages of amendments from the House of Commons alone. Therefore, today we are debating the motion before the content of the bill is clear, and it might well emerge deeply flawed.

It should not have been like that. As Oliver Bullough’s new book, “Butler to the World”, makes clear, the UK has been the hub of international organised crime for years. What is worse is that it is not the case that we simply did not have effective legislation; rather, multiple—in particular, Tory—Governments have deliberately blocked reform. For example, it is on the record that, despite the best efforts of some people, the UK Government refused to tackle the criminality that is associated with Scottish limited partnerships. In doing so, it was effectively colluding with economic crime and corruption.

Legislation must also address the issue of UK banks. How many members in Parliament are aware that, since 2010, UK regulators have imposed penalties, mostly on banks, of more than £739 million for anti-money-laundering failures? The National Crime Agency has stated that, annually, money laundering alone is likely to amount to hundreds of billions of pounds. I have put that fact on the record on a number of occasions in Parliament.

The cynic in me might suggest that the real reason why the Tories in London are at last clamping down on organised corruption is that they do not like the competition. However, we must also look to institutions in Scotland. As Oliver Bullough’s chapter on the Scottish laundromat reveals, one major Scottish law firm threatened a senior investigative journalist with withdrawal of advertising from his paper if a story about SLP criminality was published. Said law firm has fronted huge numbers of SLPs and the Law Society of Scotland has not done enough to discourage their use, as submissions to various consultations have made clear. I appreciate that regulation on that resides with the UK Government, but will the Scottish Government consider how use of SLPs in particular can be discouraged—perhaps by having further discussions with the Law Society?

What are a few of the bill’s weaknesses? Despite claiming to make business vehicles more transparent, they can declare—without challenge—that they do not have a beneficial owner. That makes disclosure completely optional. Another weakness is that there is to be no disclosure of the beneficiaries of trusts that hold property. In addition, there will be only small penalties for missed deadlines and even for false filings.

The most startling weakness of all relates to the requirement to register. I would have thought that secret property ownership by oligarchs and others would be considered to be a bad thing in all circumstances. However, the bill will allow the UK secretary of state to exempt individuals from having to register if exemption is thought to be for our own wellbeing. Perhaps that is a perk for pals of the secretary of state. I do not know.

Of course, we have been promised that another bill will be coming along shortly, as Michael Marra mentioned. Despite Westminster’s track record, we are supposed to believe that, unlike what happened with the Criminal Finances Bill in 2017, resources will be made available to agencies such as Companies House to implement the legislation.

I fully support today’s motion, but I will have to reserve judgment as to the Westminster bill’s success.

I am trying to explain that, from an accountability perspective, money that the UK Government provides to councils has to be bid for. We have already agreed that that process is inefficient, as some public expenditure is lost through days of inefficiency. It is not the same as money being set aside, with assistance on how councils should spend it from the Scottish Government, because that is done on a universal basis. I am just trying to confirm that my understanding is correct.

Yes.