Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The rationale that I have sought to set out, specifically on LBTT, is that they are sites that would otherwise not be developed. They would remain as they are, or underdeveloped. The intention of the incentive, beyond the points that I made about parity with the UK freeport model, is to incentivise investment in sites where development would otherwise not take place.

A trickle-down approach relates to things that would otherwise take place through alternative models or vehicles. It is also predicated on the notion that people on high incomes will spend their money in ways that are economically, socially and environmentally impactful rather than hoard it in assets or offshore.

It is about getting investment on the ground and development of land in Scotland that would otherwise not be developed or not be developed to its 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.

As you correctly identified, the SFC stated that the relief would be below the materiality threshold of £5 million. Given that such things are demand driven, it can be challenging to forecast with the degree of precision that we would like. However, there is an expectation that many of the transactions that would take place would be leases rather than conveyances. If we look at leases as a proportion of total LBTT revenue for Scotland in 2021-22, for example, they work out at about 3 per cent overall. Therefore, we are talking about relatively small sums of money, but such reliefs can be very meaningful and impactful with regard to decisions on whether individual transactions should take place. Of course, we should bear it in mind that we anticipate that the transactions would not take place were the relief not in place.

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.