³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We currently believe that the application of block-grant adjustments in relation to the revenues of £4 million per annum under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 breaches the Smith commission’s no-detriment principle. That is because we believe that that funding should come to the Scottish Government.

I have written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to try to progress resolution of that issue, and we have agreed that it should be resolved as part of the fiscal framework review. It is still an outstanding issue.

Obviously, this is a highly technical area. Claire McManus might be able to supply some information that I have missed out.

The UK Government has announced what money it thinks will be generated and therefore what will come in consequentials, but I encourage the committee to scrutinise what is finally announced, to ensure that the £1 billion—if it is £1 billion—is additional and not netted off elsewhere. That remains my concern, and we will not know the answer to that until 27 October.

It has been well documented that the national insurance increase will have an impact on private and public sector employers, as any increase in taxation will have. There is no doubt of that. Our job is to ensure that the money is used wisely and carefully.

Convener, I promised to provide an update on the small business bonus scheme, in response to Ross Greer’s question. Dougie McLaren says that he is happy to answer the question now, to save writing a letter. That is entirely at your discretion.

That is a good question. We have commissioned the Fraser of Allander Institute to review the effectiveness of the small business bonus scheme, in particular. That work is on-going. The institute is reviewing how effective the scheme is in meeting its policy objective of helping small businesses. The scheme has a huge role to play, especially in local economies and on our high streets. That is the primary review that is on-going.

However, we are regularly asked for additional reliefs. We now have reliefs in place for hydro power, new buildings and recently occupied buildings, all of which will have to be reviewed according to their terms. The business growth accelerator, which incentivises new builds, and the fresh start scheme, which incentivises tenants to occupy previously unoccupied buildings, need to be reviewed on their own merits. At every budget period, we consider again whether either those reliefs are the best use of our limited funds, or there is another way to meet the policy aims—which, I think, we all agree on—through other use of the funding. Such regular reviewing is important.

That is a good question. I might have to write to you on that. It was originally due a number of months ago, but was delayed because of Covid. We wanted to ensure that the reviewers got access to small businesses and had comprehensive data. If my officials do not know whether we have confirmed an updated timetable, I will get back to you in writing about the latest deadline.

Your question highlights the point that some things can be actioned in budgets from year to year; you asked about council tax. A fuller conversation about the right mix of powers and flexibilities is—I think, rightly—for the fiscal framework discussions, in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The discussions have, largely because of Covid, perhaps not moved at the speed at which I think either party would have liked them to move. I am committed to getting them back on track.

Our position on council tax, specifically, will be set out in the upcoming budget. I assure you that that budget will be set only after extensive consultation with COSLA’s finance spokesperson, Gail Macgregor.

That is an important context-setting question because, as I said the last time I appeared before the committee, next year’s budget feels like one of the most challenging in devolution. I think that every finance secretary has said that since the beginning of devolution, but next year’s budget is particularly challenging for three reasons.

First, the costs of mitigating Covid continue, as do the associated volatility and uncertainty. Therefore, we need to manage those when it comes to self-isolation payments or the national health service. Secondly, we are trying to remobilise all our public services. Remobilising the health service, social care and the justice system requires financial support, as does economic recovery.

Over and above that, the final challenge is the funding settlement that we are receiving. Although they were significantly less, there were still Covid consequentials this year. I think it highly unlikely that we will see such additional funding from the United Kingdom Government to deal with the additional pressures next year. Indeed, the UK Government is already pulling back significantly, with the removal of the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit and the end of the furlough scheme.

All in all, the cost and the need will continue but the funding that is available to us will significantly decrease.

You asked what the Scottish Government’s priorities are. Our priorities are set out in the programme for government. They are simply to continue to support families in need who are dealing with the consequences of Covid and some of the inequalities that it has exacerbated, to remobilise our public services and to drive economic recovery. Those are our three main priorities.

You talked about the Scottish child payment. The First Minister said in the programme for government that we would double the payment to £20 as soon as possible. We will outline plans in the budget for how we will do that.

I am sorry; I did not catch that.

If I were to summarise what you are saying, it is that our budget choices need to be aligned to the national performance framework. Sometimes, that will require difficult decisions as to where we put the money. For example, in the big debate about preventative spend, putting more investment upstream to change the outcomes is important. There is an opportunity to do that in a significant way with the resource spending review, because that will be multiyear. Most of the outcomes that we are talking about will not be delivered in the space of a year. For example, changing health and social care outcomes is a multiyear initiative and the resource spending review will allow us to look at how the compounding effect of multiple years delivers that change.

The challenge that I would put to you in return—I cannot recall whether I have spoken about this previously in this committee, or whether it was in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee—is that the nature of our debate in Parliament needs to reflect the magnitude of the choices. If we are to spend more money on active travel, it has to come from somewhere. If we want to recycle money from acute healthcare to spend on active travel—I am just using that as an example—we must have a mature debate. It is in that fashion that the Opposition must scrutinise, and the Government must present, where that penny is best spent.

We all know that funding supplies are not unlimited. If we think that it is important to invest in prevention rather than cure, that will require money to be shifted. Every time I stand up to present a budget that displays any reductions at all, those are immediately latched on to and criticised, so we need a mature debate. The Government certainly needs to be pushed by the Opposition to contend with those issues, and the Opposition needs to reflect that, too.

It is a difficult problem to solve, because we cannot force people into particular occupations, but we can make those jobs more attractive, and there was a real focus on that in the tourism recovery task force’s work. Previously, I referenced some of the short term urgent work that we were happy to do with the tourism industry, which was specifically to help recruit to those roles, by presenting tourism as an attractive industry to work in. A lot of the tourism recovery task force’s work looked at how to make it a more attractive career option. Rather than assuming that it is just a filler job until people get something else, we need to think about how we make it more attractive. The tourism recovery task force—which, again, is predominantly industry based—had a number of suggestions on how to do that, and we have provided initial support, particularly around skills and training. I know that I am talking about skills and training, but that is also part of the attractive package within the tourism industry because we hope that, if people feel like they are being invested in, they will have a greater sense of loyalty and responsibility to the job. Terms and conditions and pay go alongside that, so trying to ensure that the living wage is being paid is one small example. It is a huge area and, where we can provide support, we will do so, whether that is financial support or working with the industry to implement its recommendations. However, that work is very much industry led and that is important.

At the very least, but basing limits on affordability rather than arbitrary caps would be my default position.