Chamber and committees

We have proceeded very carefully on this issue, and we are in discussion with the UK Government on it. I can guarantee that we will maintain a Highlands and Islands exemption, but that will be possible only if we have devolved powers over ADT.

The UK Government has advised that we cannot simply pour the existing air passenger duty exemption into the ADT regime without undertaking a full subsidy control assessment, and the issue that arises then is that exempting international flights from Highlands and Islands airports could raise competition issues, as it would mean international flights being subsidised. Therefore, we have developed a revised Highlands and Islands exemption that will protect Highlands and Islands aviation connectivity and comply with the UK Government’s subsidy control regime.

We have written to the local authorities that are impacted; we are going to launch a consultation on the new exemption—this week, in fact; and we will undertake a programme of engagement with the aviation industry and regional stakeholders, particularly the local authorities, on what we are proposing. We want to hear what they have to say on that.

Obviously, the UK Government is looking at this, too. Again, we would want to do this within ADT from 2028-29, so there is time to look at the detail. We think that the rate of the private jet supplement in 2028-29 will be set out alongside the broader ADT rates and bands in the 2027-28 budget.

It is only fair that this contribution be made, given that the carbon emissions per passenger from these flights are greater than those from commercial flights, and that folk pay that additional supplement for the right to be able to use Scottish airports. We are also seeking to engage with the UK Government on having further devolution to address the issue of private jet ghost flights—that is, flights that do not have any passengers. Like the UK Government, we believe that those who operate and own private jets are able to make that additional contribution.

I will bring Ellen Leaver in to talk about the communication that she has had with COSLA about that.

No—I will come to that in a second. It is important to set out why this has happened. It has not happened by accident; there is an inadequate level of support from the Home Office for the number of people who are being supported by Glasgow in particular.

What is important here is that we are in discussions with Glasgow about those matters. I want to make sure that we do not enable those who would seek to exploit the position to do so. It is important that those discussions are enabled to happen, and we are having them directly with colleagues in Glasgow—at both official and political levels—about how we manage a very challenging situation. I will be happy to keep the member appraised of the outcomes of those discussions.

However, we cannot let the Home Office off the hook for the position going forward. The Home Office must acknowledge that what it is creating is not sustainable. We are jointly lobbying the Home Office about those matters.

Yes, essentially—with some private investment, too. It is about trying to grow the pots.

It must be the case that the projects in question are coming to a head from the point of view of the flow of those repayments. On roads, there are still significant payments to make on the Aberdeen western peripheral route and some of the motorways.

If it would be helpful, we could come back to you with more information on the profiling.

I expect it to be reasonable. I will not put a figure on that. We have, of course, listened to COSLA. Local authorities wanted flexibility on council tax, so we have given them that.

We have increased the general revenue grant by £253 million. I have had a debate with COSLA in which it has criticised the level of social care funding. I could have hypothecated that £253 million for social care, but I would then have been accused of ring fencing money rather than giving local authorities flexibility.

The £253 million is in the general revenue grant, which can be used for social care or any other priorities for local government. Of course, we are supporting social care—the latest figure is £2.3 billion, including funding for the real living wage.

The £750 million of new money for social care that COSLA asked for just did not exist. I was very up front with it in the discussions that we had. That quantum is more than the entire resource consequentials for the spending review for one year. The money just was not there.

Do I accept that there are pressures in health and social care partnerships? Absolutely. We require to address those, and we need to work together to do so. However, I cannot provide money that simply does not exist.

What I have provided is a fair settlement for local government that represents a real-terms increase. There is a debate among commentators about what the level of the real-terms increase is, but everybody has accepted that there is a real-terms increase.

On enterprise funding, there are some in-year movements, but we have done more to give the agencies more flexibility. Scottish Enterprise set out a programme of transformation that it wanted additional flexibility to deliver, and it has been given that. It is a reasonable budget in the light of our constraints, and Scottish Enterprise has an ambitious programme of reform to get on and deliver.

09:00