Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2021 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The first item on our agenda is to take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances in 2022-23 and the impact of Covid-19. We will hear from two separate sets of witnesses.

The first panel consists of Polly Tolley, director of impact, Citizens Advice Scotland; Laura Mahon, deputy chief executive, Alcohol Focus Scotland; Adam Stachura, head of policy and communications, Age Scotland; and John Dickie, director, Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. I am delighted that John Dickie is able to be in the room with us today.

The majority of our witnesses for this session are joining us remotely so, if members wish to ask a specific witness a question, they should make that clear, please, and allow for a brief pause so that the broadcasting team can activate their microphones. I aim to give each witness a chance to respond to questions, but if any of you wish to reply to a specific point, please indicate that to me and the clerks by raising your hand and typing R in the chat function in the BlueJeans software package. Not everyone has to answer every question, of course, and some questions might be directed only to specific witnesses.

I intend to allow 75 minutes for the evidence session. Members have received copies of the written submissions that our witnesses have provided, along with a summary of evidence from the financial scrutiny unit in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. As John Dickie is here, he will get the first question. When you have heard the question, you might not think that that is a good thing. The quality of the submissions has been first class and there is lots of detail in them, but there are one or two additional things that I would like to have seen in them, which I will touch on now.

In answer to question 1, the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland said in its excellent submission:

“children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience chronic ill health, poor mental health, or behavioural and emotional problems, and do less well at school than their more affluent peers.”

The need for preventative spend is talked about.

Over many years, this committee has looked at prevention, and many excellent ideas have come forward; indeed, in your paper, you mentioned a number of them. SPICe has also made a submission for this evidence session, which quotes Professor Graeme Roy, who is dean of external engagement at the University of Glasgow. He stated:

“It is clear that budgets are going to be tight, not just in 2022-23 but for the rest of the Parliament, with demand likely to outstrip the funding available.”

The SPICe submission goes on to say that

“tough spending and taxation choices await as the extremely high levels of debt undertaken by the UK Government are addressed.”

How will we deliver the priorities that the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland wants to see? How will we deliver that prevention? For example, the difficulty that we had previously was not to do with thinking about how we could spend money on prevention; it was to do with how and where we could disinvest in other areas that are perhaps not delivering on the targets that you would like to see. We will also ask other witnesses similar questions soon.

The scale of some things that you have suggested is very significant. For example, you have spoken about increasing childcare to 50 hours as soon as possible for children aged from six months to five years. There are two issues relating to that, one of which is the cost of it. The second is the availability of people to deliver that on the ground: the staff who would work in nurseries. To be direct about it, there would also be a need to expand childcare provision through having bigger nurseries.

Over what time period does CPAG see that being delivered? I know that you have said “at the earliest opportunity,” but over what time period do you see it being delivered? We have just had a big boost to early learning provision as of last month. I think that just about every local authority in Scotland was delivering on the 38 hours. What kind of timescale are we thinking about? How would you like to see that happening?

Do members have any comments?

I turn to Adam Stachura. Age Scotland’s submission refers to the need for

“long-term investment in preventing ill health and tackling poverty.”

Again, that is focusing on prevention. It goes on to say:

“The Scottish Government should provide more funding to energy efficiency schemes”.

Given that we are deliberating over the budget, how much more do you believe that the Scottish Government should invest in such schemes?

There is a slight difference between a CPO and a CSO. With a CSO, you are not buying a property; instead, you are forcing someone to sell it.

Joanne, you can have the last word.

Is LBTT or house price inflation more likely to inhibit people’s ability to move to larger properties? That is in places such as Edinburgh. I am not talking about North Ayrshire, which I represent and where, for £0.5 million, you can buy a palace, never mind a house. I have a five-bedroom detached house with a garage, which cost me £145,000. There is a big difference between house prices across the country. What is your view on that?

It would help if people could actually speak, for the purposes of the Official Report.

We move to our second evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny today. We will hear from Kevin Robertson, who is chair of the Scottish Property Federation, and Joanne Walker, who is technical officer for the Chartered Institute of Taxation and its Low Incomes Tax Reform Group. Joanne is joining us remotely, so once again members should make it clear which witness they would like to respond, and our broadcasting team will turn on their microphones. I will aim to give both witnesses a chance to respond to questions, but if Joanne wishes to respond to a specific point, she should indicate to me by raising her hand and typing R in the chat function on the BlueJeans software package.

I declare an interest as somebody who owns a property and rents it out. I intend to allow around an hour for the session. Members have received copies of both witnesses’ written submissions. Without further ado, I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and start by asking a question of Joanne Walker.

In your submission, you say that you

“do not”

wish to

“put forward suggestions of particular powers for devolution or specific policy proposals.”

Why is that?

Secondly, with regard to the Scottish budget and its taxation policies, do you believe that it conforms to Adam Smith’s principles of fairness, certainty, convenience and efficiency?

I touch on a couple of areas that we have not covered so far, the first of which is that wee tax that Michelle Thomson mentioned—the land and buildings transaction tax, which still brings in a few bob. I am intrigued by the difference in the submissions on this point. In his submission, Kevin Robertson says:

“We are particularly concerned about the 10% tax band, and believe that its threshold should be increased to £500,000”.

In her submission, Joanne Walker says:

“following temporary relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax”—

as it is called south of the border, and as it was called here before LBTT came in—

“for first time buyers ... in 2010 – 2012, HMRC undertook an evaluation. It concluded that the majority of the 1 per cent tax relief (0.5-0.7%) was in fact capitalised in higher prices”.

Has there been any assessment of the impact of that with regard to revenue? After all, there is no point in our increasing a threshold to assist the sector if all it means at the end of the day is that prices go up, revenue declines and no one is any better off.