Chamber and committees

I will not, if the member does not mind.

The tax will apply even where there is no public transport available, which will affect night-shift workers. There are situations in which people live in one local authority area but commute to another. Should they face the levy in the latter, they would have no say in the elections of the authority that is imposing the charge.

We also know what businesses are saying about the issue. There was no consultation at the outset— comments from the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce have been mentioned.

It is incumbent on the Government to explain again the basis on which it decided that it was right to confer the power on local government. That is the key question here, but, as yet, it has not been answered. Therefore, I am happy to support the motion in the name of Graham Simpson.

I shall take great pleasure in being courteous.

When a Government is proposing to introduce a new tax, or conferring on local government the ability to levy that tax, it would be normal practice for that Government to undertake a full economic impact assessment of the proposed measure and to state, with clarity, the specific purpose with regard to bringing in revenue and determining policy direction.

I think that the cabinet secretary was about to respond to this point during Graham Simpson’s speech, but at yesterday’s meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, she seemed to imply that such modelling is not done until a scheme is in place. I am sorry, but that is not good practice. I sit on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and time and time again, we are told that modelling is essential before a policy is introduced. If the cabinet secretary wants to respond, I am happy to let her do so.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to introduce legislation to support veterans during this parliamentary session. (S6O-00763)

I am interested to hear that, because if the minister reads the transcript of yesterday’s committee meeting, she will find that her response was rather different from the response that she has just given.

I will deal with the point head on. In its September 2021 consultation document, Transport Scotland states, quite rightly, that it is for

“local authorities to decide whether ... to use that power and, if so, to shape their proposals”

according to local circumstances, but—it is a big but—Transport Scotland also said that

“Supporting regulations and guidance will be necessary to provide national consistency on ... the scheme”.

I ask the minister: which is it? Is this about autonomy for local authorities to adopt a workplace parking levy should they see fit, or is it a nationally designed scheme that is overseen by ministers, who will decide key elements of the policy, such as exempted groups? In other words, the scope of the tax has already been partially restricted by Scottish ministers, which undermines the localism that the SNP says that it is supporting.

I should also make the point that, in Nottingham—which has been referred to several times as somewhere where a similar scheme was introduced—the local authority invested heavily in public transport before the levy was introduced.

There are serious issues with the tax. It is non-progressive and it impacts most on low-paid workers and apprentices.

I have also just cited the fact that when it comes to the national care service, on which the SNP proposes to spend millions of pounds, we have grave reservations about whether it is worth spending that money.

I will not, this time.

I warmly congratulate the cabinet secretary on her exciting news that she announced earlier in the week. [Applause.] We wish her well in the months ahead.

I also start on a note of considerable agreement. The cabinet secretary said that the budget process is not satisfactory in exactly the terms of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report: there are real concerns about the timing of budgets, the definitions of “old money” and “new money”, and the challenges of working to estimates. That last concern is an issue between not just Westminster and Holyrood, but Holyrood and local government, which has been saying exactly the same thing. At base level, when it comes to planning budgets, there is, as the finance committee suggested, a need to try to ensure that we have a better process.

It is appropriate to think again about the economic context in which we find ourselves. Although the main economic forecast, on which the Scottish Government ultimately relies for both the formal interrogation of the budget statistics and policy making, has recently indicated some short-term relief—for example, growth in gross domestic product has been better—the longer-term predictions for the Scottish economy remain exceptionally gloomy. The main trends show that Scotland is behind the rest of the UK. They also point to serious structural problems in the Scottish economy, including imbalances in labour markets, which we have debated several times already.

The fact remains—and it is a fact—that income tax revenues are showing a £190 million shortfall for 2022-23. That means that the revenue from Scottish income taxes is growing more slowly than is the block grant adjustment. In other words, despite more tax powers having been devolved to Holyrood, we are facing a growing shortfall in income tax revenue, which will possibly rise to £470 million in four years’ time.

Since the budget statement was delivered on 9 December, we know exactly what the reactions of local government and business have been. Also, the cabinet secretary, quite rightly, has made reference to the significant increase in the cost of living. She has admitted to the finance committee that there are serious issues in relation to that, but she still fails to accept that the UK Government provided the Scottish Government with record funding for this year’s core block grant, not counting the funds from the UK Covid spend, and a record funding settlement for the next three years. This afternoon, she reiterated, as she said at stage 2, that she does not expect to be required to pay back the £440 million in Covid funding, as was previously thought.

I fully appreciate that there are severe issues with regard to planning budgets ahead and the fact that estimates have turned out not to be wholly accurate, not just in the UK but in Scotland, too. We know exactly what local government has felt about the uncertainty and the difficulties that it faces, because, as some of my colleagues will refer to later, at stage 1 there remained a real-terms cut of £251 million, which was £81 million short of what COSLA believed was necessary. I will leave it to my colleagues to pick up some of that.

For business—

Will the member give way?

I will leave it to the cabinet secretary whether to pick up that offer.

When it comes to business, although there is acknowledgment of the helpful support in the form of the small business bonus, there has undoubtedly been strong criticism that the Scottish National Party has ignored requests to extend the duration and level of relief. Marc Crothall of the Scottish Tourism Alliance said that the support went “not nearly far enough” to avoid the impending cliff edge facing many businesses in June. Liz Cameron of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that

“the Scottish Government should have gone further”

in supporting business. David Lonsdale of the Scottish Retail Consortium said that the SNP support for business was “a pale imitation” of UK Government support—and it goes on.

I thank you for that, Presiding Officer, because what I am citing is not what I am thinking, but what local government and some stakeholders in the care sector are saying.