Seòmar agus comataidhean

People will look at changing existing taxes or bringing in new taxes. Our discussion today suggests that changes to taxes are more likely. What information, policies and focus do you have in place to support that?

That would be great to know, too.

Good morning, minister. I have a couple of short questions. When I read through the framework for tax, I asked myself what word jumped into my head to describe how I felt about it, and it was probably “unobjectionable”. It does what it says on the tin—the Scottish tin, as Liz Smith said.

To pick up on a comment from the deputy convener, at an overarching level, what specific and measurable difference will the framework make? There is little to object to in it, and there is clarification. The deputy convener asked about a more detailed level but, in general terms, how will you know that it has been a success?

I can see how the principles, with the two additions, provide the possibility of such a discussion.

Addressing tax avoidance is close to my heart, and you are correct to point it out. House of Commons research on tax avoidance from the last quarter of last year shows that the figure involved is £35 billion a year. We do not know what that equates to in Scottish terms, but that is obviously a huge concern.

Alex Doig may well need to answer this. What is the structure in the Scottish Government—rather than local authorities or whatever—to ensure that there is a focus on tax avoidance? How many full-time-equivalent staff do you have to look at the issue? Does a department head up that work? What management accountability is there? I would appreciate a bit more information about how that functions in the Government, given the importance of the issue.

Yes. I am trying to determine the link between regarding the principle as important and translating that into real spend or accountabilities in relation to Revenue Scotland and so on. How does that flow through? It strikes me that there is a possibility that we might be saying something nice but not necessarily translating it into real resource or a real focus. I am trying to get more of a sense of that.

I was interested in what you and Gary Gillespie said about exports and evidence of impacts that is still to emerge. Perhaps inadvertently, Gary gave a very good explanation and reminder of why proximity in relation to trade is vital. I understand that we will see the global impacts of the geopolitics that is going on unfold, but in relation to proximity impacts and our trade with Europe, do you have a sense, in numerical terms, of the additional costs that have been incurred as a result of Brexit? How will those additional costs impact on the development of resilience in supply chains? Brexit is on-going and is important in relation to proximity. Do you have any further reflections on that?

I want to pick up on another issue that we touched on earlier: that of risk relative to innovation, which is one of your guiding mantras. It almost seems counterintuitive that, at present, when geopolitics is in a state of flux, there is a requirement for more innovation, including with regard to net zero.

How confident are you that you have landed it just right in the current climate? As you alluded to, if you only ever invested in Government bonds, you would always get a guaranteed return. There is a sweet spot, which I regard as quite challenging, given the nature of how the bank is set up and structured. Not everybody necessarily understands how that translates into risk appetite, and it is not all that common for parliamentarians to understand risk appetite. Do you have any further reflections, in the light of the current state of geopolitics?

It has been very brave to do a 10-year macro strategy. I regard it as a framework strategy, and have read the 118 pages of analysis underneath it. In relation to other important areas, the section on our financial services and fintech sector, which are of personal interest to me, includes Scotland’s leading position in responsible and ethical finance. I am on the record as being fairly active in that area and in highlighting where lax governance has allowed extensive corruption in the UK. Very conservative figures put that at £290 billion—or 15 per cent of UK gross domestic product—every year, which is utterly shocking. My concern is the potential impact that that could have on Scotland’s brand, which is viewed as being trustworthy, for Scots who do business around the world and for the country itself. Have you managed to consider that specifically, and have you looked at how we might heighten Scotland’s brand profile to avoid issues around global corruption in relation to the City of London. Can you reflect on that?

Good morning, and thank you very much for attending today’s meeting.

I want to pick up on an earlier point about subsidies—Willie Watt referred to it, but then moved on. In your submission, you comment on the new UK subsidy control regime and note that, at this point in time, there is not really any clarity in that regard. Having followed up on that myself, I understand that there are some principles that may ultimately rely on legal challenges leading to precedent. That seems to be a very clumsy way of doing things.

I have two questions. First, have you had any further insights of which the committee might not be aware? Secondly, what impact might that approach have on your investments?

You have looked at other countries and set out that evidence in your report, but, as you have highlighted, part of the complexity relates to the fiscal transfer process, which is particularly complex for the Scottish Parliament. Did you consider other states where similar fiscal transfer models exist?