Chamber and committees

I have been contacted by local church groups concerned about the closure at the end of this month of the United Kingdom Government’s listed places of worship grant scheme, a very valuable scheme that I am sure the First Minister is aware of, and which allows places of worship to recover value added tax on repair and renovation costs.

The UK Government has indicated that, from April, a replacement scheme worth £92 million will be established, but it will cover only England. That will, of course, generate Barnett consequentials for the Scottish Government, so will the First Minister commit to using those consequentials to establish a similar scheme for listed places of worship here in Scotland?

Like the minister, I commend the members who have joined us in the chamber. I am sorry that the public gallery cleared as the minister got up to speak—I am sure that that had nothing to do with the content of his speech.

I do not intend to say a great deal about the bill, as my comments in the stage 1 debate a few weeks ago covered all the key points that I would be making. No substantial amendments to the bill have been lodged, either at stage 2 or at stage 3, but some significant technical changes have been made that are welcome. I reiterate the thanks that I expressed at stage 1 to members of the Economy and Fair Work Committee and to the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance in helping members to understand the legislation and scrutinise it. I do not know whether this will be the last bill that the Minister for Business and Employment will bring to the Parliament—I expect that it may well be—but I commend him for the way in which he has approached the bill and the co-operative approach that he has led. As I have done previously, I wish him all the best for the future as he looks to pursue other avenues beyond the Parliament in a few weeks’ time.

The bill is significant but is not in any way politically controversial. It represents a significant step forward in modernising Scots law to deal with changing circumstances—in this case, the creation of digital assets. Those assets did not exist at all two decades ago, but changes in technology have led to their creation, and it is important that the law is adapted to take account of those changes. As I said during the stage 1 debate, the bill is necessary because Scots law, as it previously existed, did not recognise digital assets as property—or, at least, it did not properly define them. The bill will classify them as incorporeal, moveable property, which is property that is not attached to land and which does not have a physical existence.

The bill will allow the trading of digital assets and provide a legal framework for those who transact with them. It will also provide protection to someone who acquires a digital asset for value and in good faith. That is important because, without that reassurance, those seeking to purchase a digital asset in Scotland would be unclear on what their legal remedies might be. There was some discussion during stage 1 scrutiny about what exactly purchasing in good faith would mean in practice. At the time, I raised concerns about drafting that had been brought to us by the Faculty of Advocates.

It is important to note that the bill is just a first step. Further changes to the law will be needed to take account of the growth of digital assets. Changes will need to cover, for example, areas of private international law and insolvency. Where digital assets are traded between individuals living in different jurisdictions, which law should apply in relation to the death of an individual who holds digital assets? What laws of succession should apply to them? Where a digital asset forms part of an insolvency, how should that be treated? Those will all be matters for a future Parliament to consider. I am sure that the Scottish Law Commission, which does such good work in keeping our law abreast of developments in society, will continue to do good work in researching those areas.

We will, no doubt, return to those points in future but, in the meantime, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I am pleased to confirm our support for the bill at stage 3.

14:36

Will the minister give way?

When that tremendous technology of the iPhone was invented, did the minister think that the world would spend most of its time watching cat videos?

::As others have done, I will start by saying a few words in tribute to Shona Robison, given that this will be her final budget debate. I wish her well in the future. I know that, in her job, she has put up my taxes, but I do not bear a grudge. I assure her that, in my role as a trustee of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme, I will work very hard to secure her financial future.

Before I get into some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, I will provide a bit of context to the budget and say why the performance of Scotland’s economy is essential.

As we know, the budget has three component parts: the Westminster block grant, the money that is raised from devolved taxes and the block grant adjustment. The third part—the block grant adjustment—is crucial because, ultimately, that is what decides the overall size of the Scottish budget. Under the fiscal framework, which was agreed by the First Minister and recently renegotiated and signed off by the Government, the block grant adjustment depends on the relative performance of Scottish devolved taxes compared with what happens elsewhere in the UK. Scottish Conservatives make no apology for talking about Scotland’s economic performance, because that is crucial to determining the block grant adjustment and, therefore, how much public money there is to spend.

A growing Scottish economy not only delivers greater wealth and more secure, well-paid jobs but leads to better public finances. If there are more working taxpayers, more taxes are paid. If there are more economically inactive people, less money is raised in taxes and more support must be provided through the benefits system. What really matters in relation to the block grant adjustment is not how Scotland performs on a stand-alone basis, but how we perform relative to the rest of the United Kingdom.

::No, not just now, Mr Stewart.

What is clear is that there are further questions for the Lord Advocate that have not been answered today. In particular, a direct question was put to her five times by members in the chamber. The Lord Advocate was asked five times why the justification that she gave last week for giving a minute to the First Minister—that it was after service of the indictment and therefore there was no limitation on its terms being made public—would not have applied when she gave a memo to the First Minister in March last year. On five occasions, she did not answer that question. Other members also raised questions.

There is a legitimate debate about the dual role of the Lord Advocate. Is having someone who is head of the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and also the senior legal adviser to the Scottish Government and sitting in the cabinet legitimate?

::I have a choice. I will give way to Mr McKee.

::It might be performing marginally better than the dismal performance of the UK economy under Labour, but what really matters to the Scottish budget is comparative tax receipts. In that regard, we must consider what the Scottish Fiscal Commission refers to as the “economic performance gap”—or, rather, the devolved tax gap—and consider how Scotland’s performance compares to that of the UK as a whole. The figures show—not according to me, but according to the independent Fiscal Commission—that there is a staggering gap of £1 billion. So, £1 billion is being lost to the Scottish Government because our earnings growth is not as high as that in the rest of the UK.

::I cannot give way at the moment. I do not have time.

In simple terms, that means that we are not attracting enough new people, particularly high earners, to come to Scotland to address that gap. The Scottish Government will say that Scotland’s population is increasing, as are the number of people of working age. That might be true, but what matters to the Scottish budget is not the absolute numbers but the numbers relative to those for the UK as a whole. Relatively speaking, the population of the UK as a whole is growing more quickly than the population of Scotland. As a consequence, there is a negative impact on the Scottish budget. Therefore, we make no apology for saying that we need to focus on economic growth and, in particular, attract more higher earners to Scotland. Ross Greer’s recipe, which is to tax the rich more, would have the opposite impact and would diminish the Scottish budget, because we need more higher earners here.

::I will give way to Mr Greer, given that I mentioned him.