Chamber and committees

On the approach that we are taking in Scotland, the need for parity in some areas is recognised. We are also seeking to tailor the model specifically to the comparative advantage that we have in Scotland, hence the particular focus on net zero and decarbonisation.

On the point about a longer timeframe for specific relief, such as for LBTT, I can appreciate the points that have been made around having to assemble capital and put together various bids and proposals. However, we also want to incentivise development to happen as soon as possible, because there is a pressing urgency with regard to the activity that we want to see in green freeports, particularly given the role that that will play in our decarbonisation and net zero agendas.

As I said, the timeframe brings parity with regard to the offer and we want to ensure that we incentivise investment and development happening at the earliest stage possible. Of course, we will have a process of monitoring and evaluation throughout the period during which the reliefs are in place and there will be transparency through the information and data that will be published by Revenue Scotland. Therefore, there will be ample opportunity for Government, other stakeholders and the Parliament to measure the impact that the reliefs are having.

I will highlight two elements. Within the overall package for each of the green freeport sites, there is £25 million of seed capital available. More crucially, on that point about having a coherent approach and taking into consideration infrastructure, including schools, local government is part of that consulting approach and is a key partner with regard to its responsibilities around planning. It is about ensuring that we have all the right people around the table and that, given its statutory responsibilities in that regard, local government is at the table. That will help to ensure that there can be a co-ordinated approach to address the issues around infrastructure that you highlighted.

It is important to recognise that place-based approaches to economic development are integral to a range of the work that is being progressed, from regional economic partnerships to community wealth building. I do not agree with the characterisation of the situation as an example of pork-barrel politics. I do not think that anyone could suggest that, from an SNP perspective, there was any political motivation to the decision in relation to Dundee. I do not think that that is a fair assessment to make.

I think that it is recognised that the Scottish Government has sought to work and engage constructively with the UK Government on initiatives that it has taken forward and with the areas involved. It is fair to say that parliamentarians of all parties regularly call for greater collaboration and partnership working. That is reflected in the fact that we have been willing to engage constructively with the UK Government on those measures, which were initially a UK Government initiative. We have not sought to be obstructive in any way; we have sought to engage to ensure that we can achieve the best outcome for people in Scotland.

That is a very important point and I recognise that various Administrations—at devolved level, at local government level, at UK level and at international level—will be engaging with the issue. In the private sector, various organisations will be assessing their commitments on sustainability and attempting to find a stable definition of green jobs. Clearly, as tackling the climate emergency has, in recent years, moved to the top of the political agenda domestically and internationally, there has been an evolution in some of the language that is used.

For example, in work that was published in March, the Office for National Statistics defined a green job as

“Employment in an activity that contributes to protecting or restoring the environment, including those that mitigate or adapt to climate change.”

That definition is sufficiently broad to encompass a range of green jobs, including those related to decarbonisation and net zero. It is anticipated that the ONS will, in the next few months, publish estimates of green jobs in the UK.

Other work has been done in this area. The green jobs fund, which the Government launched in 2021, uses the definition of

“Jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.”

In addition, the climate emergency skills action plan from December 2020 states that green jobs include those in

“renewable energy, circular economy and zero waste ... and the nature based sector with wider ‘green skills’ sitting on a spectrum ranging from highly specific requirements in sectors directly supporting the transition to net zero such as energy, transport, construction, agriculture, and manufacturing, through to more generic requirements across all sectors to thrive in a net zero economy”.

I recognise that that definition is broad and all-encompassing, which might, understandably, prompt questions about where one draws the line. However, it speaks to the point that net zero is not something that we do specifically; it runs through all aspects of the economy.

As outline business cases are developed and we monitor and evaluate the progress that is made through the green freeport model, there will be further refinement and greater understanding of what we mean by a green job. I hope that, as an opener, what I have said helps to set the scene and shows some of the developing thinking in Scotland and elsewhere.

The question of displacement is key and it is an active part of our consideration with regard to engagement with the individual green freeport sites and the overall process. It will also be a key concern for local government as partners. The risk of displacement comes with transferring jobs from one part of the country to another, of course, but with this model we are trying to create new high-quality jobs—jobs that respond very specifically to the assets and strengths of particular areas. We can recognise where there are similarities but also where there are distinct differences between each of the green freeport sites.

I come back to the discussion that took place at the committee’s meeting last week, to recognise that the model that was referred to, which goes back to the 1980s, is in many respects from a different era. It is important to learn lessons and to recognise the possible risks of seeking to incentivise development in one part of the country. It is also important, though, to recognise that we are in a different era and that some issues that were pertinent in the 1980s and early 1990s are not so now—or not to the same degree. The current labour market is different and we also have a different focus, which is on the primacy of tackling the climate emergency and on decarbonisation.

I also come back to the key point on displacement, which is that our policy is about creating new, high-quality jobs as opposed to moving jobs from one part of the country to another.

It could create challenges, but in designing the reliefs we have sought to incentivise new developments. The reliefs that the committee is considering today specifically concern LBTT. The policy affects land that is either undeveloped or underdeveloped—that is, land that would perhaps not see any development were it not for such intervention. It concerns a reserved area, but the employer national insurance contributions for new jobs that are created will help to mitigate the risk of jobs being transferred from one part of the country to another.

I am ambitious, in the sense that I hope that if there is any displacement it will not be from other parts of Scotland and that people from other parts of the UK and the world will be attracted by those high-quality jobs and so will come to work in Scotland. Speaking as the minister with responsibility for public finance, such highly paid jobs will help to generate revenue to support our public services. There is a real opportunity for us in cutting-edge industries, in which we have comparative advantages and where we can be world leaders, to attract people from outwith Scotland and from other parts of the UK and beyond. I certainly hope that that has happened.

Where we have been able to take action on the shaping of the tax policy—for example, on LBTT—that has been done to incentivise development that would otherwise not take place.

Of course. The convener alluded to the ambitions on job creation at both sites. If those are realised and provide high-quality and high-paying jobs, it follows that there would be a significant return on investment relative to LBTT exemptions, for example.

I have spoken previously about one of the key aspects being consistency with the SDLT arrangements elsewhere in the UK. However, ultimately, the benefit that is going to be conferred is development. I apologise for labouring this point, but it is development that would otherwise not have taken place. It is not as if there is potential competitive advantage for one particular model of company over another, or the potential of alternative development taking place on the site. It is about whether development takes place or not, or whether it takes place to its full potential. That is the rationale that underpins the relief in relation to underdeveloped or undeveloped land.

That aspect focuses on the fact that the relief will be accessible only if development takes place. If there is a transaction and a commitment to development, but such development does not take place within three years, the relief will be withdrawn. There has to be development. The second aspect is the broader parity that we have sought with regard to the arrangements elsewhere in the UK. Laura Duffy might want to comment on where we have sought parity on the arrangements for freeports and where we have diverged.

LBTT relief sits separate from the other reliefs. The way in which LBTT is constructed as a tax is that it is transactional—it is based on the transaction. Earlier I set out the criteria for when that could be withdrawn—that is, when development does not take place within the control area.

As for the broader points on fair work and monitoring, those must be evidenced through the outline business case and go into the full business case. Laura Duffy might want to add to that.

I agree with what Councillor Heddle has said, particularly on subsidiarity and recognising local government’s statutory oversight of community councils. I also agree with his point about not taking an overly prescriptive approach and recognising that different models might be suited to different areas. It is important that we go through the democracy matters process and are collectively open to the outcome. Any next steps would be taken in accordance with the principles of the Verity house agreement, through close partnership working.