���˿���

I cannot speak to the commercial decisions or operating arrangements of companies. If companies are operating in a way that is compliant with overall UK tax law and are in a position where they are making an investment, they would be treated just as any other company, depending on how it is constituted—

The important point about the control period is that if development does not take place within three years the relief can be withdrawn. Ultimately, the relief will take place and be utilised only if development takes place on the ground. It is about attracting investment into specific sites and seeking to incentivise and unlock development in sites that would not otherwise see development or—as I said previously—would not be developed to their full potential.

We do not have specific plans to extend the period beyond five years. Part of the logic of five years is to have parity with freeports in other parts of the UK. If the Parliament approves the regulations, the permissive environment for the LBTT relief to come into effect will begin on 1 October, but the relief can be claimed only following tax site designation, which is a process that involves HM Revenue and Customs and HM Treasury. The period is five years to ensure that there is parity with the offer that is being made elsewhere in the UK.

We anticipate that there will be early investment and we recognise that some investment will take place to enable further investment to take place at a later date within the five-year window. Of course, we will keep the overall five-year period under review should there be any delays or unanticipated problems regarding tax site designation. I stress that the five-year timeframe is to ensure that there is consistency and parity with the offer that is available with freeports elsewhere in the UK.

There is “underdeveloped” and there is “undeveloped”. I think that there is also obviously going to be a relation between the two. For some sites to reach their development potential, it will require other developments to take place around that—not to give too convoluted an answer. This is about helping to allow areas to realise their full economic potential. The LBTT relief is designed to support those developments to take place which, as I stated earlier, would not otherwise take place.

As regards what we would define as “underdeveloped”, there will, of course, be variations from place to place. This is a place-based approach, so there will clearly be some latitude in what “underdeveloped” means in specific instances and circumstances, based on the context. Laura Duffy might be able to add something about the terminology more broadly.

Laura Parker can come in with those details.

I do not have a specific set of numbers that I can share with you, but I anticipate that the successful outcome would, as you highlight, lead to a net gain for the Scottish economy and, indeed, the public finances. The exact timescales in which that will be delivered will, of course, be influenced by a number of factors, including individual commercial decisions and the overall macroeconomic environment in which we find ourselves. However, to come back again to the key point, I note that this is about seeking to incentivise investment that would otherwise not take place; clearly, economic benefit and gain would come from that. However, I am not in a position to give specific timescales or to forecast when we would get a return on the investment.

You would expect me to say in answer that a priority for the Government is to ensure that our workforce is skilled and able to take up the new opportunities. There is broad recognition that we have a highly skilled workforce in Scotland, which is reflected in a range of metrics—not least of which is our consistent success in attracting foreign direct investment.

Laura Duffy might want to add something specifically on how that thinking will link up with green freeports and how the business cases have been taken forward.

You must forgive me—I am here specifically to speak about green freeports. As I am not the lead minister on investment zones, I do not have the information in front of me. However, I would be more than happy to ask that a response be provided in writing to address any further points that you want to articulate on the matter.

There is a range of avenues for providing resource. As I said, that can happen under the planning system, when there is justification in planning matters for resources to be accessed as part of a development that is taking place. There are public resources, such as the capital allocations to local government.

As always, we will continue to have dialogue with local government. More broadly, that has been taken to a new and strengthened level across Scotland following the Verity house agreement. Such discussions will continually take place. If particular areas of pressure are identified and we need to consider solutions that go beyond what an individual local authority or group of local authorities was capable of, we would have those discussions at that point, just as local authorities routinely raise a number of areas.

We recognise that what we are seeking with regard to the creation of jobs and the development of land presents a huge opportunity. We also recognise that significant economic development can be attended by a range of challenges, so we will continue to engage. We are not taking an approach of saying, “On you go,” and leaving local government and the areas to it. We will continue to engage, and we will look to understand any challenges that emerge and identify solutions in partnership.

I am grateful for the committee’s scrutiny and have no further comments.