Chamber and committees

Our next item is consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill at stage 2. We have no amendments, but the standing orders oblige us to consider and agree formally to each of the bill’s sections and schedules, and its long title. We will take the sections in order, with schedules being taken immediately after the section that introduces them, and will take the long title last. Fortunately, the standing orders allow us to put a single question on groups of sections and schedules that are to be considered consecutively. Unless members disagree, that is what I propose to do.

The question is, that section 1, schedule 1, section 2, schedule 2, section 3, schedule 3, and sections 4 to 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Absolutely.

I am sorry, Deputy First Minister, but I am not trying to get the specifics, for the reasons that you outlined. I am trying to get parameters—for example, what is the minimum that it is likely to cost and what is the maximum? Surely the Government must be aware of that at this stage in the budget process.

That stability over such a long period has helped the Scottish Government’s policy direction whereas, south of the border, there has been incredible turmoil in energy policy, which has gone in all sorts of different directions: it has reversed and gone up, down and round about. There has been little consistency or long-term financial planning, whether we are talking about wind, solar or nuclear power. I take that on board.

My last question is about growing the tax base and productivity, which is a key area for us. You responded to the points that we made on that in our report by saying:

“Economic modelling estimates that delivery of key components of the strategy”—

the national strategy for economic transformation—

“could increase the size of the Scottish economy by at least £8 billion”,

which is almost 5 per cent,

“more than it otherwise would have been in 2032.”

You went on to mention a network of hubs to support high-growth tech businesses, the technology sector export plan, a hydrogen innovation scheme and the low-carbon manufacturing challenge fund. However, I wonder what other components will deliver that extra £8 billion.

Secondly, on ScotWind leasing, you referred to

“£28 billion of potential Scottish economic activity.”

Over what time period will that be delivered?

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary.

We move into private session to consider our work programme.

Do you accept that there is an element of frustration in the committee that we will not get the financial memorandum until after stage 3 has passed? Obviously, members are keen to know how much of a commitment there is to the NCS. We know the size of the overall budget and that more than £1 billion extra is going into health and social care this year, but there is a focus on that specific aspect.

Last week in the chamber we heard wildly differing figures for how much it will cost over the next five years. That is partly because we do not have a real grip on the financial memorandum and exactly what it is likely to say. Any help in terms of parameters would be useful—minimums and maximums, for example.

Indeed.

Some capital projects have had to be deprioritised. I am keen to get information on which projects have been affected. I am aware of one in my constituency, for a start. Major rail projects seem to be an area in which there has been deprioritisation. However, the Scottish Government has met its commitment to expand its green investment portfolio, the target on which it has exceeded by around 15 per cent. The current figure is £3.4 billion, so there is also some good news, is there not?

I will follow up on a couple of points. How much of the £34 million will be raised from local authorities?

Thank you. That would be very helpful.

What seems to have come out of the discussion is that the additional dwelling supplement appears to be a bit of a blunt instrument, although there are lots of really good aspects to it. John Mason made an interesting point. Raising the additional dwelling supplement to 6 per cent will not just make things more competitive for first-time buyers; it will probably deter a number of people in the buy-to-let sector from entering the market in the first place, which could reduce upward pressure on prices. That could be a significant positive gain from the policy.

The policy might deter people from buying second homes in our rural areas. In relation to some islands in Scotland, the figure is well over 50 per cent. A couple of years ago, I was in Colonsay, where, I think, 108 people live and only two children are in the school, with many of the properties having been bought by retirees who use them as second homes. However, some of the properties are not second homes; some people live in them. I realise that that is a housing issue rather than a finance issue.

The ADS can be a bit of a blunt instrument when it comes to people buying derelict houses or houses that are a wee bit rundown so that they can upgrade and live in them. Further thought should also be given to that. To me, the ADS is too broad an instrument. It has some positive aspects, but there are also negative aspects. In broad terms, it can act as both an incentive and a disincentive in relation to the Government’s objectives.

Minister, do you want to add anything before we move on?

There will be a division.

For

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)

Abstentions

Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife (Con)