Minute wnaeth i chi, rwy'n siŵr i'r frightib driver rydw i ddi inni commentol. 5. Fwrdd yr marshall diwylliannol ddy of the appointment of administrators to Ferguson ship builders. Some 70 workers were directly affected by immediate redundancy announcements. Our thoughts are with those individuals, with their families, as they go through this period of significant uncertainty. The Scottish Government's immediate response to the news was to ensure that we were doing all that we could to support the workers who have been affected by this announcement. Following the announcement on Friday, we immediately offered individual tailored support to each of those employees through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative, and we will work with KPMG as administrator and with the trade unions to ensure that we deliver the best, most practical and personal support that we can. We have also established a task force with the aim of retaining a functioning shipyard and employing as many of the Ferguson staff as is possible. I chaired the first meeting of the task force yesterday in attendance where the transport minister represented us from across Inverclyde council, including the leader of the council and its chief executive. The administrators, KPMG, PACE, the Department of Work and Pensions, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government, the confederation of shipbuilding and engineering unions, local shop stewards from the Ferguson shipyard and local members of the Scottish Parliament. We discussed the immediate and practical assistance that can be made available for those facing redundancy, as well as the potential for maximising the opportunities for long-term employment in shipbuilding on the lower Clyde. However, the task force has unanimously agreed that there will be a concerted and coherent effort to do everything in our collective and combined powers to secure a new owner for the yard. We are determined to see shipbuilding continue on the lower Clyde. We will continue to work together to ensure that we see the best possible outcome for Port Glasgow. The next meeting of the task force will be on Monday coming, and we will continue to meet for as long as it takes to achieve the aims of the task force. The chamber is well aware of the long and proud heritage of shipbuilding on the River Clyde. For Ferguson specifically, this dates back some 103 years when four brothers established the yard. At one point, it employed up to 200 people. More recently, following a difficult period in the early 2000s, we have witnessed the yard loop to the future, with the cutting-edge delivery of the world's first sea-going roll-on roll-off diesel-electric hybrid ferries. Since 2007, anything Ferguson's have had the capability and the capacity to bid for, they have been successful in winning. Specifically, we awarded to Ferguson's the contract for two hybrid ferries in October 2011, procured by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, CMAL, and funded by Transport Scotland. Those contracts have provided over £20 million worth of work for Ferguson's, accounting for a substantial part of the yard's recent work. The Scottish Government, through the vessel owners at Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, worked very closely with the owners and management of Ferguson to ensure the delivery of those vessels. At the time of that award, it was understood that this work would enable the company to remain competitive, and it was hoped that it would give it a unique capability and foundation for further orders. That is not proven to be the case. Since January 2014, Ferguson's have been working with CMAL, Transport Scotland and Scottish Enterprise to review their financial position. With the support of CMAL, their final payment on the second hybrid ferry to Ferguson's was split into staged payments to help ease cash flow pressures. Scottish Enterprise at that stage provided grant support for a financial health check to help establish the business's financial position and short-term funding requirements. That was followed up in February 2014, with financial readiness support to strategically review the business and prepare it for investment, again provided by Scottish Enterprise. In March 2014, further grant support was delivered to provide information that would help Ferguson's to consider the medium-term needs of the business, including new investment or ownership to reshape the business. There continues to be work at Ferguson's, part-funded by £2 million from the Scottish Government and the European Fisheries Fund, which needs to be finished. That work will be important to any new owner in the early days of any takeover, and it is obviously important to the customer to take delivery of a vessel that they have already invested a great amount in completing. We will do whatever we can within the rules to pay grant claims to the vessel owner very quickly, indeed, once work recommences. I firmly believe that there is a viable future for shipbuilding on the lower Clyde. Our aspiration for future ferry orders remains, and I have allocated significant capital funds to Transport Scotland to deliver this. The Scottish Ferries Plan sets out a series of vessel procurements over the next decade. 12 current CalMac vessels are to be replaced, at an estimated cost of up to £250 million. Half of those vessels are vessels of a size similar to the two hybrid ferries recently built by Ferguson's. CalMac, CMAL and Transport Scotland are currently completing long-term plans for this procurement programme. There will certainly be construction work for a new owner of Ferguson to compete for, as well as regular repair and maintenance work from CalMac. The Scottish Government is investing, through CalMac and CMAL, significant sums into the design, construction and maintenance of vessels. There is sufficient work to sustain Ferguson's under a new owner, with the vision and the commitment to invest in the shipyard and its workforce. We would work closely with any new owner to support them in building a sustainable business, recognising that this cannot happen overnight. I must return to the most important aspect of recent events. There are 70 livelihoods at direct stake. In Port Glasgow, we have a highly skilled workforce. It is essential that those skills are put to productive use, and that commitment must be delivered with real urgency. The Administrator has made it clear that Friday's announcement has generated significant interests in the assets and the capabilities of Ferguson's. There is a challenge for all of us to work together to secure the long-term future of the shipyard. Our goal continues to be to secure the long-term future of Scotland's vital shipbuilding industry. The Government will do all that it can to work with others to secure the future of shipbuilding on the lower side. We now move to questions on the issues on 10 until around 20 minutes. Anybody who wishes to ask a question off the Cabinet Secretary should press a request speak button now. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and early sight of it. The dissent into the administration of Ferguson's, our last commercial shipyard, is a blow to an iconic industry. I want to which we must respond with every resource at our disposal. The hardest blow is, of course, to the workforce and their families. I very much associate those benches with the Cabinet Secretary's assurances that our thoughts are with them first and foremost. Though this yard is over a century old, these are not old-fashioned jobs. The work is highly skilled and the product of this yard technically advanced, innovative and cutting edge. As we heard, the last two vessels produced by Ferguson's were groundbreaking award-winning hybrid ferries. I think that we can all agree that these should be the jobs of the future, not the past, and we must ensure that it is so. The Cabinet Secretary was very clear. We have a yard, a skilled, proven workforce, a customer in Seymal, 12 vessels to be built, £250 million to be invested. We surely must find a way to ensure that that investment supports jobs here rather than somewhere else. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give any potential new owners that orders for Ferguson's will be forthcoming and quickly? Can I welcome the substance of Ian Gray's remarks and agree entirely that the jobs at Ferguson's represent jobs of the future, particularly given the innovation that has been taken forward by Ferguson's in recent years in taking forward the hybrid vessels, which, of course, are vessels that contribute significantly, not only in terms of new technology but in addressing some of the issues about carbon reduction. I think that we will have to address that. Ferguson's is in a leading position in terms of being able to influence that whole consideration by a variety of different countries. In relation to the prospects of future orders, I set out in my statement the extent of the investment in the ferry fleet that will be taken forward in the next few years. The estimated cost of up to £250 million across 12 carmac vessels. Around about half of those vessels are of a size that would equate to the hybrid ferries that have just been completed by Ferguson's. As I indicated in my statement, Ferguson's has a strong track record of being successful in securing the orders for which they are equipped to bid, given the size and the focus of the yard. I can assure Parliament that the Government is putting in place the resources to ensure that there is an on-going and sustained investment programme in the carmac fleet. The Government will commit itself to making those orders available at the appropriate times in relation to the renewal of the fleet, given the commitments that the Government has to operate lifeline ferry services and to ensure that those lifeline ferry services are undertaken by vessels of the appropriate quality and strength to undertake the task. I also thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and for convening the task force, which I was very pleased to attend the meeting of yesterday in Greenock. I echo the deep concerns shared by everyone about the events that have engulf Ferguson's and, of course, the consequences for the workforce. In the statement, Presiding Officer, I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to see shipbuilding continue on the lower Clyde. In the interest of finding a new purchase, which I think everyone agrees is the best way forward, has the Scottish Government had any communication with the United Kingdom Government to see if it can help? Has it had any communication with shipbuilders UK simply to ensure that every possible purchase possibility is being investigated? In relation to discussion with the UK Government, I spoke this morning with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the issues. Of course, if there is anything he may clear to me if there is anything that the United Kingdom Government could do, it would do so, but he certainly relate to me a view that all steps that could be taken were been taken at this stage. In relation to looking for new investors, the Government will talk to anybody who is a serious bidder in the process, and the primary responsibility for that dialogue lies with the administrators, given their statutory functions in this respect. However, I would take the opportunity of Ms Goldie's question to make the point that we believe that the way forward is with new ownership and new investment. It is the supremely urgent priority of the next few days to secure that. Without securing that investment in the next few days, there is obviously the danger that perhaps the critical asset of Ferguson's workforce will start to dissipate as individuals quite understandably try to secure alternative opportunities to support their families. However, I can assure the chamber that the identification of new ownership is the absolute and immediate priority of the Government, and I discussed those issues once again this morning with the administrator in that respect. I welcome the statement, the speed of the action and the collegiate approach that has taken so far with the establishment of the task force. However, I would like to ask the cabinet secretary what support the Scottish Government can provide to prospective buyers to diversify the yard, as it does not appear to have been fully capitalised upon up until now. As I have indicated in my statement, the Government, through the work of Transport Scotland, CMAL and Scottish Enterprise, has been heavily involved in supporting the development of the yard at Ferguson's. The hybrid ferry contract is in itself a significant example of diversification of the deployment of an entirely new technology and its application in a challenging environment. Having been on the MV Loch-en-Var just the other week there, I can testify that it is a beautiful piece of work by Ferguson's and absolutely fantastic piece of work. There is evidence of diversification already, and what the hybrid ferry contract represents is an opportunity to market innovation from Scotland to jurisdictions around the world. That is a significant and attractive opportunity for any new buyer to invest in the plant as a consequence. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and, indeed, for supporting much of the sentiment in that statement. Obviously, as the constituency MSP for the area and being with that workforce, we turn to harder questions that they wish to ask, or wish me to ask. They are asking the question about why promises of further CalMac orders were not delivered and why the yard was allowed to close and could the closure have been prevented. With the statement today, we have confirmed that the Scottish Government has been working with the employers on the perilous financial situation for eight months, and the workforce is very angry about being kept in the dark about those situations. Will you give an assurance today that all talks with potential employers will lead to the continuation of manufacture of shipbuilding at that yard, will not be used for any other purpose, and give a guarantee that there will be new openness with involvement from the trade unions and the workforce with any future potential owners? There are three points that I would like to make to Mr McNeill. I understand the raw sensitivity of the issue in the Port Glasgow community, and I addressed that on my visit to the yard yesterday and in my discussions with the workforce and subsequently with the shop stewards. I am sure that this point was also discussed when the First Minister met the shop stewards earlier on today into the bargain. The Government and its agencies have been involved in trying to address what I described at the task force yesterday as the precarious financial position of Ferguson's for some time. That is what the Government does all the time. We do it for companies that we do not disclose to Parliament or to anybody that we are having those discussions, because to disclose those discussions would be to destabilise many of the companies that we are trying to address and to try to support. It is not something that I am going to apologise to Parliament for. I think that Parliament would be horrified if the Government was not involved in private discussions with companies to try to remedy their precarious financial situation. That is what this Government certainly is here to do. How employers then deal with that with their employees is a different matter. That is where I want to address a second point that Mr McNeill has raised. In all my experience of the situations where we are involved in discussions with companies about their precarious financial position, the situation is much improved when the workforce is taken into the loop, because that is where many of the good solutions come from. I can think of numerous examples that I have never hit the headlines where jobs have been saved, hundreds of jobs saved, which has never been in a newspaper in the country because of the private discussions involving trade unions, workforce management and the Government to resolve those issues. I think that it would be better if there was that type of discussion going on. That is, frankly, what Mr Mather, in his review that he undertook yesterday, the key point that emerged out of that review, was that workforce and management discussions are a tremendous asset in resolving challenges within companies. The final point is that, on the issue of the future role for the Ferguson shipyard, I was crystal clear yesterday and crystal clear today that my priority is to secure a future for Fergusons as a shipbuilding concern in the years to come. That is the focus of our discussions. We do not have control over that issue because the administrator is now in control of the site, but the Government's intervention and the Government's approach will be to secure the future for Fergusons as a shipbuilding concern in the years to come. Kenneth Gibson will follow by Willie Rennie. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. As someone who represents aniline community, there have been discussions and understandings since at least November 2012 on the designs to replace ferries on the Brodict to Erdrossan route over the next few years. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the new orders are going to be placed? Clearly, any new buyer wants to know that there is not only the likelihood of new orders, but when new orders can be placed. I can say to Mr Gibson that there is an on-going programme in the ferries plan that sets out the routes that will require replacement vessels. Those priorities will be worked through as they are set out in the ferries plan. We, of course, are currently shortlisted to take delivery of the Loch Seaforth for the Stornoway Allopool route, and there will be further contracts that follow on in the wake of the Loch Seaforth. Those are all set out in the ferries plan, and the Government will provide the support that is envisaged in the ferries plan to ensure that that can be realised. I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. Earlier this year, the Deputy First Minister said that we would have preferred to see a private company by Prestwick Airport, but the strategic and economic importance of Prestwick Airport is such that we were not prepared to see it close. If the alternative is closure, will the Government buy Ferguson's? The situation that we find ourselves in now is that Ferguson's is in administration, and it is now the responsibility of the administrator to take forward that responsibility. The best thing that I can say in response to Mr Rennie's question is that I do not think that the Government at this stage is prepared to rule anything out. We want to see shipbuilding continuing at the Clyde and at Ferguson's Yard. We will do all that we can to try to secure new ownership, but we will keep an open mind on all options that are available to the Government at this time. I thank the cabinet secretary for making sure that the priority is to secure a new owner for the shipyard, because, as he knows, we have had several conversations about how there can be diversification at the yard. Can he confirm that Dale's engineering of Peterhead has taken over some of the apprentices so that they can complete their apprenticeship? I am afraid that that is a level of detail that I do not have in front of me, but I know that there are six apprentices at Ferguson's. The shop stewards were leaving my discussion with them yesterday to go with the apprentices to make arrangements to complete their apprenticeships. I have not had an update on the final destinations that have been arrived at, but all efforts have been taken forward by the shop stewards, by pace, to ensure that the apprentices were in a position to be able to complete their apprenticeships. The cabinet secretary has made clear that ferry procurement is a potential source of orders for Ferguson's. Will the cabinet secretary undertake to examine whether that procurement could at least be brought forward to provide that opportunity sooner for Ferguson's Yard? We certainly will explore how we can ensure that there is a credible flow of work that can be accessed by Ferguson's under the process of competitive tender. We will be taking all steps, as we have done over recent years, with the two vessels that have been secured by Ferguson's to ensure that every opportunity is there for the Yard to complete contracts of this nature. Joe McAlpine, Michael McMan. I ask the cabinet secretary what support will be given to those workers in Ferguson's who are facing redundancy, but we are approaching retirement. The purpose of the intervention by pace, working collaboratively with the Department of Work and Pensions, is to ensure that every individual at whatever stage in their working life is able to obtain the necessary support and advice to equip them for dealing with those challenges. In response to Maureen Watt, I indicated that specific support was made available to the apprentices. In relation to the question that Joe McAlpine has asked me, then of course for workers who are near retirement, the advice will be tailored to meet their circumstances and to assist them in a way that meets their requirements and their priorities. Finally, Michael McMan. I bring the chamber to the attention of my register of interests. I am a member of the GMB union. In the wake of last week's announcement, Jim Mouhan, the GMB Scotland senior organiser and chairman of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Injuring Unions said that the First Minister can, we believe, directly intervene and tender for commercial work within Europe to allow this Yard to remain open. All Governments have the right to make bold decisions to save an industry. He also said that a failure to intervene would be an utter betrayal. Does the cabinet secretary agree? We can always rely on Michael McMan to go with the flow of cross-party working on all those questions. I have been pretty clear to Parliament today that the Government is going to do everything it possibly can do to secure the future of the Ferguson shipyard as an on-going shipyard concern that will do everything it possibly can do to secure a future for the workforce. That is exactly what I am concentrating on and I am not concentrating on political points scoring like Mr McMan. That ends the statement on Ferguson's. We now move to the next ministerial statement, which is the future of the NHS.  Malcolm Chisholm last week asked for a statement on the consequences for the national health service of both a yes and a no vote in next month's referendum. As I said last week, I am happy to oblige. In short, the people of Scotland have a choice between two futures, one where the vast wealth of this nation can be marshaled to help create a fairer society or one where the budgets available for Scotland's public services are consigned to the whim of Westminster. Ngai Bevan's founding principles for the national health service were an institution owned by the people, giving access to the highest attainable standard of health services free at the point of delivery based on clinical need and not ability to pay. I believe that those principles must be protected and a yes vote gives this nation a chance to do just that by framing a constitution that reflects the values and aspirations of our nation. As the First Minister set out last week, one proposal that we will take to the independence constitutional convention will be to enshrine the national health service as an institution in that constitution. That would ensure that in contrast to what is happening south of the border, our health service could never be privatised against the wishes of the people. I note that all in this chamber say they do not favour privatisation, so I trust they will join with us in the constitutional convention after a yes vote in making the case for constitutional protection for the national health service. Scotland is a wealthy nation. We do not need to limit our ambitions to the parameters of Barnett consequentials. With the full powers of independence, the Scottish Government could do yet more to strengthen our economy, create more jobs and to make the kind of transformational investment that would help thousands of people back into work. More people in work is not just good for the economy, it is essential for improving the nation's health. A no vote is a very different and disturbing prospect for our national health service and our wider public services. Under the current arrangements, every £10 cut from health spending in England through austerity privatisation and patient charges will consequently reduce Scotland's budget by around a pound. Privatisation leading to further patient charges enabled by the Health and Social Care Act in England means that services that were previously free will have to be paid for by patients. That will see the replacement of public funding with private money and have a consequential impact on Scotland's budget. Be in no doubt reduced free services in England, along with the extended charging for health services, are exactly what is happening and will continue to happen in England. As unite the union has already warned, the public will increasingly have to pay for aspects of their care that used to be free at the time of treatment. This is a concern that the Labour Party in England share, as the publication of the choice stated, the prospect is of more NHS services being charged for and fewer services being provided free at the point of need. It is also the view of the Labour Party in Wales, where my opposite number, the Labour Health Minister, Mark Drakeford, has said that the fundamental issue is the impact on public services in Wales of the cuts being made by the Administration of Westminster and passed down to Wales. That is what the fundamental problem is here. We have a Westminster Government that believes in shrinking the state, which believes in doing less through the public realm and passes less money down to us in order to be able to do it. Labour's English health spokesman Andy Burner has given the same signal warning. Five more years of the same would push the national health service off the cliff edge where it now finds itself. He also said that the coalition sees no limits on the extent of privatisation in the national health service. Yet here in Scotland the Labour Party would have us believe that their colleagues in England and Wales are wrong. There would be no impact from the austerity privatisation and charging agenda of the current Westminster Government. That was not always the case, of course. In 2009 the warning was from Labour in Scotland that the Tories were, and I quote, relishing the chance to swing the axe at the public services millions rely on, cuts driven by ideology. That warning came from one Alistair Darling. Strangely, Alistair Darling was defending Osborne's budgets on the radio this morning and claimed that the national health service spending in England has been increasing for the last four years under the present Government. Yet Andy Burnham warned in 2012 that the Conservatives have cut the national health service budget for two years running and he owes it to patients and NHS staff to be honest about that. In the 2010 election, Scottish Labour's election campaign broadcast, upon which Mr Darling and all Labour MPs were elected, said that the Tories starved their schools and hospitals of funding and there's a real risk that we'd do the same again. Even after the Conservatives took office, Labour warned again what's going to happen when David Cameron's cuts start to hit. Scotland is worried and they're right to be worried, so said Ian Gray. Labour MP Michael Meacher has gone further still this year on the future of the health service in England. We know of the latest steps being proposed to make the NHS into a full-blown private health service. The truth has been let out of the bag that the Tories and their big corporate friends had in fact intended all along that it would become a fully paid-up service only they didn't dare say so before now. Perhaps in no campaign would have us believe that, despite the warnings of the Labour Party in England, Labour in Wales, the general marchers and myriad warnings from trade unions that the Tories are actually privatising the health service in order to increase public spending. As Mark Drayford outlined, we already know that the Tories' plans for spending are yet deeper cuts. Ed Balls has pledged to keep Labour within the Tories' spending plans and George Orr's born has pledged to force through another £25 billion worth of cuts. Since 2010, when the coalition came to office, we have already had a 7.2 per cent cut in real terms to a resource budget plus a 26 per cent cut in our capital budget. Despite those cuts, the SNP Government has managed to protect the frontline resource NHS budget in Scotland and since 2010 we have kept it increasing in each year above real terms. I don't think that anyone in this chamber can think that a realistic prospect that a further deep cut through austerity is forced in Scotland by Westminster that services will be left unscathed. The solution proposed by the no campaign is that taxes should be hiked in Scotland to offset those two-planned Tory cuts. That is unacceptable and a double whammy for Scotland. That is why a no vote would be putting our health service at serious risk. Reduce budgets as a consequence of privatisation, patient charges, fragmented pay arrangements for health staff, with further pay restrictions and austerity as a matter of ideology south of the border would be the consequence of a no vote. That is why we in this side of the chamber choose the path where the power and wealth of Scotland is put in the hands of the people of Scotland. We choose a future where Nye Bevan's founding principles for the health service are not simple articles of aspiration but part of our constitution. We choose to ensure that those who come after us can have the guarantee of a health service free at the point of need just as we have benefited throughout our and our family's lives. We are inviting the people of Scotland to choose that path with us. The first step is simple. Vote yes for independence on 18 September. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raising his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we move to next out of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary were to press the request speak button now. I call Neil Findlay. Even for the cabinet secretary, I think he surpassed himself there. At the SNP conference in 2014, Nicola Sturgeon said, I can stand here proudly and say this. For as long as we are in government, there will be no privatisation of the NHS in Scotland. Yet, yesterday and today, that position has been contradicted by the First Minister and the cabinet secretary. The SNP manifesto in 2011 said, and I quote, The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for the health service and that means we can protect NHS budgets. The white paper said, without devolution, that NHS would have been repeatedly reorganised and exposed to private competition. I am not allowed to call anyone in this chamber a liar, but was Nicola Sturgeon not telling the truth at her conference? Did the SNP not tell the truth in their manifesto? Or is the cabinet secretary not telling the truth now? I am not allowed to call the cabinet secretary and the First Minister liars, but will he condemn a campaign that claims private healthcare is cheaper and more efficient than public healthcare? I am not allowed to call the cabinet secretary and the First Minister liars. Your time is up, Mr Findlay. Do you have a question? Do they accept that the greatest threat to the NHS in Scotland is the £6 billion of cuts in public spending that would occur under their plans to break up the country? I want the cabinet secretary to focus on his day job and sort out waiting lists, huge problems in A&E, staffing in bed cuts, a social care crisis and a lack of GPs instead of supporting the most scandalous deceit of this referendum campaign today. In the spirit of Mr Findlay's remarks, I thank him for the compliment at the start of his question. I also say to him that I do not think that Mr Findlay understands what devolution means. Let me remind him of what Enoch Powell said many years ago. Devolution, the power devolved is power retained. What we have got to look at is not just today and tomorrow, it is five and ten years time. With the constitution that embeds and enshrines the basic principles of the national health service, Scotland will never have a privatised health service ever. Our powers in the devolved Parliament are not enshrined and they can be overruled at any time by any future Westminster Government. As far as the money is concerned, I will tell you the biggest problem I have financially is that we have been left with a legacy by the previous Labour Administration of a bill for £220 million every year for your PFI. That is the biggest spending on the private sector initiated by Labour, a rip-off for the health service and you have landed us with it for 30 years. Jackson Carlaw, followed by Ailey McLeodge. I thank the cabinet secretary at the site of the statement. Although I am bound to say, I cannot recall a statement that relied so much on cut and paste quotations from third parties, not all of which amounted to nothing more than speculation, rumour and unsubstantiated allegation. The cabinet secretary relied particularly in his statement on the consequences of the health and social care act in England. Here is the Government's statement when that act was passed. It is expected that it will produce £4.5 billion of savings in the lifetime of this Parliament, with every penny being reinvested in patient care. In consequence of that, the Government itself has published figures that show that there have been consequentials in 2011 of £280 million, 2012 of £249 million, 2013 of £293 million, 2014 of £284 million and 2015 anticipated of £202 million. An increase, and the clue is in the word increase, of £1.3 billion coming to the Scottish Government to spend on health. Can the cabinet secretary therefore identify today any statement from the Treasury or the Department of Health, which at any time has identified a reduction in health spending, which has been ring fenced as it has been throughout the very worst recession that we have known? If he cannot do that, does he not realise how shamefully this last-minute attempt to scare vulnerable voters into voting yes really is? In the spirit of this chamber, I have offered to work constructively with the Scottish Government, as have others, to set aside the course of the health service in England, to ensure that we in Scotland do work to preserve a public sector health service free at the point and need of delivery. Is the cabinet secretary now spurning that offer, which he himself embraced readily and enthusiastically at every other stage in the lifetime of this Parliament? Can I first of all say that Mr Carlaw is saying nowhere is there no increase? Can I tell him the nurses and other agenda for change workers in the national health service were refused the pay increase recommended by their pay review body, not just for this year but for next year by his Government? If they do not have an increase this year or next year, we implemented the recommendations and we implemented them with a view to reviewing them again in a year's time as normal, but nurses down south have been treated with contempt by the health secretary down there. I do not think that we will take any lessons about what is promised and what is said by a Tory Government in London. No nurse in England would believe anything that the Tory said about the health service and, as far as the money is concerned, let me just say first of all that the reason why we are spending so much additional money in the health service is because the SNP Government has ring fends, the money for health. The SNP Government has cut a resource budget by 7.5 per cent and a capital budget by 26 per cent. Over the last five years, Scotland's £8 billion advantage has been taken down to London to subsidise a treasury down there. Had we had access to our own £8 billion over those years, the increase in spending in public services would have been a lot higher. As members would expect, I have a large number of members who wish to ask a question. Can I urge brief questions and brief answers? Aileen McLeod full by Rhoda Grant. Given that George Osborne has promised £25 billion of spending cuts after the 2015 general election and that the Labour Party has signed up to Osborne's spending plans, what the real terms impact to the Scottish resource budget will be if Scotland were to remain within the union? Depending on where the Westminster Acts on public spending falls by 2018-19, if the further threatened cuts are implemented then, since the coalition came to office, Scotland's budget will be cut in real terms by between £4 billion and £5 billion. That is cut between 14.6 per cent and 18.3 per cent. The worst-case scenario is the front-line Scottish resource budget being cut in real terms from £27.3 billion in 2010-11 to £22.3 billion in 2018-19. To be written in terms that no campaign might understand, that is more than the entire school's budget for Scotland. Rhoda Grant, full by Jo McHale. Order! Last year, there was a huge 23 per cent increase in spending on private healthcare here within the NHS in Scotland. Does he agree with Audit Scotland that it shows a strain in the system? Will he now take responsibility and join Labour and have a comprehensive review of the NHS? Presiding Officer, as I have already said, the biggest expenditure to the private sector in Scotland is the £220 million in PFI charges. If you look at our spending in the private sector in Scotland as a percentage of our total budget in five out of the six years since we came to power for which final figures are available, we have spent less than the Labour Administration before us. Let me also remind the member, because she maybe has a short memory, that it wasn't this Government that tried to privatise Strachathro. I think it was her Government that tried to privatise services at Strachathro, and it took Nicola Sturgeon to reverse that privatisation and keep it in the public sector. Just across the border from my south of Scotland constituency, the hospitals in Cumbria are struggling to deal with the market system imposed on them. Several are under special measures, and the trust is £27 million in debt. This has been further exacerbated by a commercial decision to transfer all-hippony operations to Hexham, further depriving Cumbria of £2.7 million, which is likely to be recouped through further cuts. I'm coming to that. How can the health secretary guarantee that my constituents can always rely on a public NHS and not the profit-led system being imposed on their neighbours in England? First of all, when we're independent, we get the Government we elect. I don't think that any Scottish Government will ever dare to try to privatise the health service in Scotland. We saw the price a Labour Party paid in 2007 when they tried a bit of privatisation in Strachathro and indeed in Harthill in our constituency. However, the way to absolutely guarantee it is to write the founding principles of the national health service into an independent Scotland's constitution and build it into the ethos of this Parliament so that nobody by accident or by design can privatise our health service. I thank the Minister for an advanced copy of his statement. The NHS has received more money, not less, under every single UK Government for decades. The share of the UK national income spent on the NHS has doubled in the last 50 years. It is his independence plans that will cut £6 billion from our public services and threaten our NHS. Is not the minister just a little bit ashamed that he is misusing our NHS to shore up his campaign? I think that what I would be ashamed about would be if my party was shoring up the Tories and the privatisation agenda. I find it inconceivable that the Liberal Party in Scotland supports privatisation of the grass roots. It's inconceivable that they support the benefit welfare reforms that are doing so much damage to disabled people. I think that if anybody should be holding their head in shame is Mr Rennie. This morning on Radio Scotland, Alistair Darling said, look, it's no secret that the Tories have long had their sights on public spending. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this highlights the hypocrisy of the no campaign who claimed public spending is safe at Westminster? Of course, the public spending cuts were started by Alistair Darling when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can understand why he is defending Tory cuts, although in that interview he seemed to be facing at least two ways. In fact, after the interview, I began to think that he had more faces than Big Ben. Will the cabinet secretary now confirm that yes campaigners are being mendacious when they say all over Scotland that the Scottish NHS would be privatised following an NHS vote and ill-informed when they say that privatised services cost less public money, contrary to the view of NHS campaigners in England? That is a real threat to the Scottish NHS, the possibility of a yes vote and the increased austerity that would follow according to all independent economists. The last part is just totally factually incorrect, but let me say to Mr Chisholm, if you look at the impact of charges and privatisation is about imposing charges on services that previously were free of charge. If a service is paid through charges instead of taxation, which is the direction of travel down south, then the amount of revenue through time spent in the national health service will decline because the revenue is paid through charges. If the revenue declines, if we stay under the Barnett formula through time, our revenue, our budget will decline as well. Let me quote from a survey undertaken on 1 July 2014. This was a survey of the leading health and social care leaders in England. They were asked a question, and this is done by the Nuffield Trust, a highly respected organisation. They asked the question, how likely do you think it is that comprehensive healthcare, excluding charges that are already applying, will still be provided free at the point of use in England in 10 years' time? 47 per cent answered unlikely or very unlikely. They do not believe that the charges are not coming in England. They believe that they are coming, and they are the leading professionals in the health and social care system in England. It is politically independent. I would believe them before I believe Malcolm Chisholm. Is the Cabinet Secretary aware of scare stories put about by the no campaign that the excellent cross-morder arrangements for healthcare between Scotland and England, particularly my constituency, will cease after independence? How does he respond to that accusation? It is very serious to make it absolutely clear to people that, irrespective of the result of the referendum, the cross-border arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and the cross-border arrangements between ourselves and the rest of the United Kingdom and the European Union, which is covered by a cross-border directive, will all continue. Indeed, beyond that, we quite regularly send patients as far away as the United States, where they require a very specialist treatment. That will continue as well. It is two-way traffic. In a typical year, as well as us sending patients out with Scotland to get specialist treatment, there are about 7,500 people coming to Scotland for very specialist treatment that cannot get anywhere else. I do not think that any Government representing those people will do anything to endanger the cross-border arrangements. I am leaving aside the misstatements and inaccuracies of his so-called parliamentary statement. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the irony of his remarks today when, under his plans for independence, Scotland will no longer be part of the NHS as founded by Nye Bevan? We are no longer part of the United Kingdom NHS. For the first time since 1948, Scotland will no longer be part of the NHS across the whole of the UK. Following his remarks to my colleague, can the cabinet secretary address the concerns of a constituent who believes that he might have to use an E111 card to access services across the UK? Obviously, the member was up all night thinking of that one. Can I just say to the member that we do not have a UK national health service, because the divergence between what is happening north of the border and what has happened south of the border renders that impossible. South of the border, they are privatising. North of the border, we are keeping the health service free at the point that we do. There is no point of use and in public hands. We have free personal care, they do not. We have free prescriptions, they charge £9 per prescription. Despite what Andy Burnham suggested, there is no way that we would allow a publicly owned national health service in Scotland in any way to be absorbed into a partially and about to be extensively privatised health service. The cabinet secretary referred to the document, The Choice, in which the Labour Party has recently raised the prospect of patient charges in England and of, I quote, fewer services being provided free at the point of need in England. Are the Labour Party in England wrong and how would this impact on the budget available for these services in Scotland? I do not think that the Labour Party in England is wrong in terms of their analysis, nor is Mark Drakeford. As I speak, there is something of the order of £5.8 billion of invites to tender to the private sector currently issued in England to invite private sector companies, large companies, profit making companies to come in and take over the work of NHS doctors, nurses and other staff. There is no doubt at all that the facts speak for themselves that the health service is being rapidly and extensively privatised south of the border. Is the cabinet secretary concerned about the profound threat, as Unison described it, of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership on public services, including health? Will the Government join the growing number of organisations and individuals who oppose this proposed trade deal? We do not oppose the trade deal in principle, but we absolutely oppose any inclusion of free public services such as the national health service being included in such a deal. My colleague John Swinney and myself have made that absolutely clear publicly. Indeed, we have written to both the UK Government and the European Union to make it absolutely clear that in the TTIP negotiations the health service must be excluded so that there must be no part of that deal that forces us in any way to privatise the health service in Scotland or, indeed, in any other country where the health service is in public ownership. According to the British Medical Journal, 60 per cent of Scotland's doctors are planning to vote no. Why does the cabinet minister think that that is the case? In that survey, 14 per cent replied, so I have been trying to talk to the other 86 per cent. I can assure the member that I am absolutely convinced that a vast bulk of the 158,000 people working in the national health service in Scotland will be voting yes because they see that only a yes vote will keep the health service in public hands in Scotland. Thank you. That ends questions to the cabinet secretary on the future of NHS in Scotland. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Revenue Scotland and Tax Pairs Bill. We are dealing with amendments that members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 40CA, the Marshall List. That is SP Bill 40AML. The groupings that has SP Bill 40CAG. For further information, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon should there be one. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the Marshall List of amendments and we will get started. I call group 1 and call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Groups of amendment 2. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group please. I move amendment 1 and will speak to it together with amendment 2. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended in its stage 1 report on the bill that where Scottish ministers give guidance to Revenue Scotland under section 8 of the bill, a copy of that guidance should be laid before Parliament as well as published. Those amendments give effect to that recommendation. I move amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I move amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call group 2. I move amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Groups of amendments 4 to 6 and 89 to 92. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 3 and speak to other amendments in the group please. I move amendment 3 and will speak to it and other amendments in the group. Those amendments relate to the Scottish Tax Tribunals, which are established by part 4 of the bill. The amendments are entirely technical in nature. Amendments 3, 4 and 5 simply bring certain provisions of the bill into line with corresponding provisions of the Courts Reform Scotland Bill and the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 6 requires Scottish ministers to consult the president of the Scottish Tribunals and such other persons as they consider appropriate before making tribunal rules. Amendment 89 relates to the eligibility for the appointment of the president of the tax tribunals and the intention is to align the criteria with those for legal members of the upper tax tribunal. Finally, amendment 92 gives effect to our recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee by providing that any rules made by Scottish ministers as to the procedure to be followed in proceedings at a fitness assessment tribunal are to be published. I believe that those amendments are minor and sensible adjustments. I move amendment 3. I rise simply to welcome those amendments and support them. First, I bring the bill into line with corresponding provisions in the Courts Reform Scotland Bill, and that seems right and proper, with the effect that such cases that will be in the upper tribunal will have the same powers in relation to the petition as the court of session would have had. In particular, we wish to support amendment 89, which brings the criteria for the appointment of the president of tax tribunals into line with the criteria of the appointment of legal members of the upper tribunal. That rightly ensures that a person is eligible for appointment only if that person has the qualifications, experience and training in relation to tax law and practice that Scottish ministers consider appropriate. Those are welcome amendments, and we support them. I rise as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee just to thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board our comments. It is certainly a principle that we have adhered to in recent times that we would like to see all guidance published. There just seems to be no good reason why that should not be the case, and we are grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking that on board. I welcome the comments that Mr Dawn and Mr Gray have made. I think that those amendments bring those provisions into line with other elements of statute, and I think that strengthening the bill is a consequence. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I now call amendments 4, 5 and 6 on the name of the cabinet secretary, and I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question that has been put on these amendments? Cabinet secretary, would you like to move it please? Moved on block, Presiding Officer. Thank you. Does any member object to this being moved on block? As no member does, the question is that amendments 4, 5 and 6 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call group 3 and call amendment 7 on the name of cabinet secretary and a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, move and speak to amendment 7, please. Amendment 7 addresses an issue that was raised by the France Committee in its stage 1 report on the bill and by Mr Chisholm at stage 2. It relates to condition B of the general anti-avoidance role, which provides that a tax avoidance arrangement is artificial if the arrangement lacks economic or commercial substance. That amendment, together with those that the finance committee has already approved at stage 2, would put it beyond doubt that condition B of the general anti-avoidance role extends to transactions between individuals as well as commercial transactions between companies. I believe that clarifying the scope of regard in this way is a useful and sensible amendment, and I am grateful to Mr Chisholm for raising this point at stage 2 consideration of the bill. I move amendment 7. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Simply rise to support amendment 7 and welcome the cabinet secretary's recognition of the concerns that were raised at both stages by the committee, which he has now responded to. As he says, amendment 7 puts beyond doubt that condition B of the general anti-avoidance role applies to arrangements and transactions between individuals as well as companies or businesses. That is the point that Mr Chisholm pursued during stage 2, and we are delighted that the Scottish Government has recognised it and made the required amendment. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We now move to group 4. I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 8 and will speak to it together with the other amendments in this group. Although there are a large number of amendments in this group, they are all for a single purpose. That is to insert new sections into the bill and the two tax-specific acts that provide that any notice application or other communication from a taxpayer to Revenue Scotland must be in the form and manner and contain the information specified by Revenue Scotland. That, in turn, makes it possible to remove a large number of specific references throughout the bill and the two previous acts that require notices to be in writing. I have always made it clear that we want to put a tax system in place that is simple to operate and user-friendly for taxpayers and their agents. Those amendments will give Revenue Scotland the flexibility to provide for secure electronic communication with taxpayers and their agents while still allowing for paper or other forms of communication in appropriate cases. I move amendment 8. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 9 to 16 in the name of the cabinet secretary and previously debated and I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block. I move amendment 7. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As it bears that no one does, the question is that amendments 9 to 16 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I move amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 17. I move amendment 17. Section 78 currently provides that a taxpayer must pay any tax that is due when Revenue Scotland gives a notice of amendment under section 78. That is not quite right, as the point at which payment is due should be when the taxpayer receives the notice not when Revenue Scotland issues it. Amendment 17 makes this change and I move amendment 7. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I move amendment 18 in the name of the cabinet secretary to move formally. Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I start on group 6. I move amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with other amendments as shown in the groupings. If you could move amendment 19 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 19 and will speak to it together with the other amendments in this group. Those 25 amendments are minor and technical in nature and in general improve the clarity and consistency of the provisions in the bill and also improve the interface between the overarching framework of the bill and the first two tax specific acts. Amendment 124 ensures that the Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014, when it is in force, applies to Revenue Scotland in the same way in which it will apply to other public bodies in Scotland. I move amendment 19. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I move amendment 20 to 26, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated, and I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block. I move on block, Presiding Officer. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? Does it appear that no-one does? The question is that amendment 20 to 26 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Many thanks. We are. I move amendment 27 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 27, please. I move amendment 27. Section 944A imposes a three-year time limit after a taxpayer has died for Revenue Scotland issuing an assessment to the taxpayers' personal representatives. This amendment brings a time limit, applying to information that is given in connection with a deceased taxpayer, into line with that section. I move amendment 27. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I move to group 8 and call amendment 28 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group 29. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 28 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 28 and will speak to it together with amendment 29. Section 140 provides a power to enter business premises and take samples of material, but, as the bill stands, it is not supported by a penalty. On reflection, I think that it is right that a person who obstructs a designated officer in the exercise of this power should be liable to a penalty under section 167. Amendment 28 provides for this by bringing the power to take samples of material and premises within the scope of a designated officer's powers under section 135A. That means that we no longer need a power of entry coupled to the power to take samples. Section 1671B provides that a person is liable to a penalty for obstructing an officer exercising any power under section 135A. Amendment 29 is consequential on amendment 28, which I now move. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. Amendment 29238, in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated and invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments unblocked, please. Moved unblocked, Presiding Officer. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? It appears that no one does. The question is that amendments 29 to 38 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. Now move to group 9 and call amendment 39 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with amendments 40 to 44, cabinet secretary, to move amendment 39 and speak to the other amendments in the group, please. Presiding Officer, I move amendment 39 and will speak to it together with the other amendments in this group. Amendments 39 and 40 address an issue that was raised by Gavin Brown at stage 2 and concerns the date after which the taxpayer becomes liable to a penalty for late payment of tax. Section 151 of the bill currently provides that, for both devolved taxes, the taxpayer becomes liable to a penalty for late payment of tax the day after payment is due. During stage 2 consideration of the bill, Mr Brown suggested that this could be harsh and asked whether there was scope for flexibility. After giving the matter further consideration, I believe that it would be fair to give the taxpayer 30 days to pay any overdue tax in relation to land and building transaction tax return, before they become liable to a penalty for late payment. However, I do not believe that the same amendment is necessary in relation to a Scottish landfill tax return. Landfill operators will be required to make regular quarterly returns and so will be fully aware of their tax obligations. The amendments in this group will also give the taxpayer 30 days to pay tax due in relation to a Revenue Scotland amendment under section 78 and a Revenue Scotland determination under section 86 before they become liable to a penalty. At present, a penalty is imposed immediately in both cases. On reflection, I believe that it would be fair to give the taxpayer 30 days to pay tax due before they become liable to a penalty for late payment. I am grateful once again to Mr Brown for raising this issue at stage 2 and I move amendment 39. I rise to support the amendments and to put on record the fact that I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for bringing them forward. The idea of an instant penalty did strike me as a little bit harsh in some cases and I think that the flexibility and changes that he brings forward today strike the right balance and I am very pleased to support them. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. We will now call amendments 40 to 44 on the name of the cabinet secretary and previously debated. I rise to support the amendments and to put on record the fact that I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for bringing them forward. The idea of an instant penalty did strike me as a little bit harsh in some cases and I am very pleased to support them. The idea of an instant penalty did strike me as a little bit harsh in some cases and I am very pleased to support them. I rise to support the amendments and to put on record the fact that I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for bringing them forward. The idea of an instant penalty did strike me as a little bit harsh in some cases and I am very pleased to support them. The idea of an instant penalty did strike me as a little bit harsh in some cases and I am very pleased to support them. unsiwys i'r un Mangodau references ond y gwneud trengach 10—an oeddynt roedd un mwy gwaidd datblygu ac mae'n gwael agoin iawn i ddweud alsig y tryeon summit Tower—� obbyeg syddbae newlyn agnod olinegr おq-a-fawr mewn bysgwys, os i spokeiegrff oligwad hefyd wedi credu eich yeежau 때ilio wal y dylu markers encontrar Euw Osman-WaDI. Mae newid nhw'n攻 Provost Junior Oedden hedwyd pod chi'i wach i aelodiaeth eich viwawr hwrs o hyf manual a bwysig milwyd ddraeth, ac rharw ballach grafod o'i ddw'u ond, nifar hwnd, mae'r ddechrau. Dwi'n ganwch ymlaen, rydw i'n meddwl i ddechrau i fyndio, nid oedd athradd. Rydw i, Rhyw Meryl? Rydw i. Rydw i nodi, rydw i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i ffyrdd, a ddim yn ysgrifennu, a diwylliau i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl? Rydw i'n meddwl i ffyrdd? Ac y gallwn amdano'i oedd y cwestiynau ei ffordd y rheoli. Ond yn gallu gan dymrwy o gyda'n cyfan, mae'n gweithio i'i cyfryd yw iawn. A�l, yn dod i gael yn gyfer, mae'n gweld i'ch eu cyfr Waarham. Rwy'n gweithio'r cwestiynau, mae'n gweithio i'r cyfr Whithoedd yn ein mewn, mae'n gweithio i'r cyfr Whithoedd i'r cyfr Whithoedd i'r cyfr Whithoedd 80 a 97. Mae'n gweithio i'r cyfr Whithoedd i'r cyfr Whithoedd, os ydych i'r cyfr Whithoedd i'r cyfr Whithoedd I move amendment 75, and we'll speak to it with other amendments in this group. Amendment 75 provides that any decision revenue that Scotland makes in relation to the registration of a person for tax purposes is both appealable and reviewable. This is particularly relevant to sections 22 and 23 of the landfill tax Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 80 corrects section 210 by providing that, in certain circumstances, the general rule that tax penalties and interests are payable, pending review or appeal, does not apply. Amendment 97 ensures consistency with the rule that all notices of appeal are given to the tribunal and not revenue Scotland. I move amendment 75. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 76 to 97 in the name of the cabinet secretary in previously debated and I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block, please. It moved on block, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As no one does, the question is that amendment 76 to 97 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. Now I move to group 12 and call amendment 98 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 98, please. Amendment 98 amends the debtor Scotland Act 1987 to ensure that the same enforcement machinery that is available to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs for the recovery of tax penalties and interests owed by taxpayers is also available to Revenue Scotland. The bill provides ample opportunities for taxpayers to challenge decisions taken by Revenue Scotland if they disagree with them. Once legal liability for taxes has finally been determined, if a taxpayer fails to pay the tax that is due, then Revenue Scotland should be able to enforce that debt effectively in the same way as HMRC. I move amendment 98. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 99 to 103 in the name of the cabinet secretary and previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block, please. It moved on block, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As no one does, the question is that amendments 99 to 103 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I now call group 13 and call amendments 104 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with other amendments as shown on the groupings. Cabinet secretary, move amendment 104 and speak to the other amendments in the group, please. Presiding Officer, I move amendment 104 and we'll speak to it together with the other amendments in this group. Schedule 4 of the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Bill makes a number of final consequential amendments to both tax-specific acts to ensure that they fit together properly and seamlessly with the overarching framework set out in this bill. Amendments 104, 109 and 112 relate to amendments to the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Scotland Act 2013. Amendment 109 is the main substantive amendment in relation to these three amendments and concerns the recovery of LBTT reliefs. The reliefs in question are group relief, reconstruction relief and acquisition relief, all of which must be claimed by the taxpayer in a land transaction return. The LBTT Act already provides for the withdrawal of these reliefs when the circumstances justifying relief are no longer in place, in which case the taxpayer must pay the tax for which they had earlier claimed. The legislative machinery introduced by amendment 109 empowers Revenue Scotland to recover those sums of tax and makes appropriate adjustments to the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Bill for that purpose. Amendments 114, 115, 119 and 123 relate to amendments to the Land and Buildings Tax Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 119, which allows for the alignment of waste data return periods and Scottish landfill tax return periods, was proposed in the consultation paper that we published in May 2014 on Scottish landfill tax subordinate legislation. I can confirm to Parliament that our proposals for aligning environmental and tax returns were welcomed by stakeholders. Aligning the periods will allow for greater clarity when conducting compliance checks and greater IT synergies between SEPA and Revenue Scotland, while hopefully reducing some of the administrative burden on landfill operators. The other amendment in this group that I would draw particular attention to is amendment 114, which will allow the forthcoming Scottish landfill tax regulations to penalise failures to use waybridges. The aim here is to deter landfill operators taking advantage of using alternative methods of calculating weight when there is a working waybridge on site. Amendment 123 ensures that any penalty provisions included in regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. I move amendment 104. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 105 to 124 in the name of the cabinet secretary and previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move those amendments on block. I move the block. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question that we put on those amendments? There is no one does. The question is that amendments 105 to 124 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Excellent. That ends consideration of amendments. We now move the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 10822 in the name of John Swinney on the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak, but it is now or as soon as possible. I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet secretary, 10 minutes or thereby please. The Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill has two main purposes. First of all, it establishes Revenue Scotland as the tax authority which will be responsible for the collection and management of the two devolved taxes when they come into operation on 1 April 2015. These are land and buildings transaction tax and Scottish landfill tax, and of course the first two tax-specific acts are already on the statute book. Second, it sets out in one place the statutory framework within which Revenue Scotland will operate. That includes the constitution of Revenue Scotland, the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax authority, Revenue Scotland's investigation and enforcement powers, and the new two-tier Scottish tax tribunals to hear appeals against decisions taken by Revenue Scotland. It also includes a robust and distinctive approach to tackling tax avoidance, about which I will say more in a moment. I am grateful to the very detailed and thorough scrutiny that the French Committee has undertaken at stages 1 and 2. Many of the amendments that have been made to the bill at stages 2 and 3 reflect recommendations from the French Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The bill has been significantly improved during its parliamentary passage as a result, and I would like to put on record my thanks to both committees for the work that they have done. We have also taken the opportunity at stage 3 to bring forward a significant number of minor and technical amendments that are designed to improve the clarity and consistency of the bill and the interface between the overarching framework and the first two tax-specific acts. I believe that those final amendments provide greater clarity, coherence and consistency across the full package of devolved tax legislation. I would like to take a few moments to highlight some of the distinctive aspects of the new framework for the collection and management of devolved taxes. Part 2 of the bill provides for the establishment of Revenue Scotland as an office holder in the Scottish Administration, which means that it will be directly accountable to the Parliament and not ministers. The bill sets out Revenue Scotland's statutory functions with an emphasis on providing a service to taxpayers and their agents and not just collecting the devolved taxes. The bill also places a duty on Revenue Scotland to prepare and publish a charter setting out the standards of behaviour and values which will be expected of taxpayers and which taxpayers can expect of Revenue Scotland. Revenue Scotland is required to consult on the terms of the charter and that will provide a genuine opportunity for input from stakeholders about the nature of the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax authority. Part 4 of the bill establishes the Scottish tax tribunals, which will comprise a first tier and an upper tier under the leadership of a president. As colleagues will recall, the Parliament recently passed the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014, which paves the way for the establishment of the new unified Scottish tribunals. The intention is that early in 2017 the tax tribunals will become part of the Scottish tribunals. However, arrangements need to be in place to hear appeals about the devolved taxes from 1 April 2015, and therefore we need to establish self-standing tax tribunals for an interim period until the new unified arrangements are fully operational. Part 5 of the bill sets out a general anti-avoidance rule, the GAR. I am sure that I have the support across the chamber for establishing a Scottish general anti-avoidance rule, which makes the most robust possible approach to tax avoidance in relation to any devolved taxes. Artificial tax avoidance arrangements are unacceptable, and part 5 of the bill provides for Revenue Scotland to take effective counteraction against any such schemes. The bill provides two separate definitions of artificiality, condition A and condition B, to make sure that our approach is as wide-ranging and comprehensive as possible. Condition A allows Revenue Scotland to take counteraction where a tax avoidance arrangement is not a reasonable course of action, having regard to the principles and policy objectives on which the relevant tax legislation is based and to where the arrangement is intended to exploit any shortcomings in that legislation. That will allow Revenue Scotland, the Scottish tax tribunals and the courts to look at the spirit and the intention of tax legislation and not just a strict letter of the law. I believe that the purposive approach to legislation, supported by clear guidance by Revenue Scotland to which the courts and tribunals must have regard, will make it possible to defeat ingenious, but artificial and contrived avoidance schemes far more effectively than has previously been the case. Condition B allows Revenue Scotland to take counteraction against tax avoidance arrangements that lack either economic or commercial substance. It also sets out a number of examples that might indicate that an arrangement lacks economic or commercial substance. For example, if it is carried out in a manner that would not normally be employed in reasonable business conduct or consists of transactions that are circular in nature, the amendments that the Parliament has passed at stage 3 further reinforce that approach by making it clear that the test relating to a lack of economic or commercial substance applies to transactions between individuals, as well as commercial transactions between companies. I am grateful to Mr Chisholm for raising this point at stage 2. Presiding Officer, I believe that the approach that we have adopted for tackling tax avoidance is based on straightforward common sense tests that ordinary taxpayers would understand and endorse. I envisage that the robust approach that we have adopted towards tax avoidance in the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill would extend in very much the same way if we take the opportunity to become responsible for other taxes in the future. Throughout the bill, we have tried to strike a fair balance between the taxpayer on the one hand and the tax authority on the other. With that in mind, the bill ensures that taxpayers will have various opportunities to challenge decisions taken by Revenue Scotland without having to resort to expensive legal action. First, they will be able to ask Revenue Scotland to carry out an internal review which will be undertaken by a person not associated with the original decision. If that does not resolve the dispute, Revenue Scotland and the taxpayer will be able to enter into independent third-party mediation if both parties agree to do so. Finally, there will be a right of access to the new two-tier Scottish tax tribunals and, ultimately, on a point of law to the court of session. I believe that those arrangements are robust and credible and will provide Scottish taxpayers with confidence in the administration of devolved taxes. Part 8 of the bill sets out a penalties regime in response to recommendations from both the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We brought forward amendments at stages 2 and 3 to set out the detail of the penalties regime in full on the face of the bill, including all penalty amounts. At the same time, the bill provides the flexibility to make changes to the penalties regime by order, subject to affirmative procedure, if that should prove necessary in the light of experience. The process of implementing the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill will involve putting in place a significant amount of subordinate legislation by 1 April 2015, when Revenue Scotland comes into being. I intend to publish a consultation paper later this year accompanied by drafts of all the subordinate legislation that needs to be put in place by 1 April 2015. That will provide a full opportunity for consultation with interested parties well before draft orders are laid before Parliament early in the new year. We have already published consultation papers setting out the proposed subordinate legislation for land and buildings transaction tax and the Scottish landfill tax. While we are only assuming responsibility for the collection and management of a small proportion of taxation, it is a new and exciting opportunity for the Scottish Parliament. Throughout the process, there has been extensive consultation with the tax and legal professions as well as other stakeholders. The Tax Consultation Forum and the Devolved Tax Collaborative that we established have been closely involved throughout the process. We will maintain that open and consultative approach as we move towards the implementation of the devolved taxes on 1 April 2015. In conclusion, I thank the France Committee once again for the very positive and constructive approach that has been taken throughout the parliamentary passage of the bill. The bill, as passed at stage 3, is much the better for it. I believe that it provides a robust framework for the collection and management of the first two devolved taxes when they come into force on 1 April 2015 and also a solid foundation that we can build upon in the event of this Parliament becoming responsible for a wider range of taxes. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Bill be passed. I now call on Ian Gray, seven minutes or thereby please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In the stage 1 debate on this bill, I quoted, as I do whenever given the opportunity, Albert Einstein, who said, The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax. There you go, I quoted him again. I doubt that Einstein ever had to worry about land and buildings transaction tax, certainly not landfill tax. So we can probably assume that he was really talking about the complexity of tax in general. And indeed, looking back at that stage 1 debate, most of us began by noting how dull tax legislation is considered to be and how complicated it turns out it actually is. Although I have this afternoon spotted at least one accountant of my acquaintance drawn to the public gallery by our deliberations. So these things are, of course, a matter of taste. Perhaps it's a sign of the times we live in that today's debate, technical, pragmatic and above all consensual, feels rather like light relief this time from what passes for political discourse at the rest of the time at the moment. The fact is that although we began with a shared purpose of creating revenue Scotland in order to administer and manage the devolved taxes, landfill tax and land and building transaction tax, in spite of that consensus and shared purpose, still turned out sometimes to be a complex tax task to get it right. All the more reason then to congratulate, firstly, the bill team for their work in drafting and redrafting the legislation to get us the position we're in today, where I think we can be sure that the bill will be passed overwhelmingly, indeed unanimously, at decision time. The committee on which I don't sit deserves our thanks too, firstly for taking comprehensive, complicated and exhaustive evidence on the bill at pre-legislative stage and for also dealing with some 300 amendments at stage 2 of the bill's consideration. I also want to, perhaps unusually for me, praise the efforts of the cabinet secretary for steering this legislation through, including another 140 amendments today, so almost 450 since his original draft. Although we did deal in pretty short order with 140 amendments this afternoon, those amendments have included some significant improvements in response to the scrutiny of the bill by the committee, which I will mention in a moment. We should also note, as the cabinet secretary did once again, that this marks not just the completion of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill, but our completion of a trilogy of linked bills which create the first devolved national taxes and the body to administer and manage them. That is a significant task we are completing today. I am tempted to say to the cabinet secretary that, apart from pursuing the important matter of a future for Ferguson's shipyard, he should perhaps take the next few weeks off, put his feet up and stay out of trouble. However, I expect that he has other plans, which is a pity in a way, because the task that he is completing today is real proof of the power and flexibility of the devolution settlement. He will, in fact, I fear, spend the next four weeks trying his best to destroy. The three bills of which this is the third are derived, of course, from the common process and the Consequent Scotland Act. They constitute, therefore, a significant step forward in rebalancing the devolution settlement by securing new fiscal powers and decision making for this Parliament without breaking the social, economic and political union with the rest of the UK, which provides us with such significant opportunities. Nonetheless, consensus for today on this bill. That consensus started with the approach taken to creating a new tax system, the fundamental principle. The cabinet secretary made much of his starting point as being Adam Smith's four maxims for a tax system, certainty, convenience, efficiency and proportionality to the ability to pay. Rightly so, he has had support from across the chamber on the principle-based approach to this legislation. It has been interesting to see how turning those maxims into detailed legislation is less straightforward than might have been assumed in that they can sometimes contradict themselves. I do think that some of those 400-odd amendments have certainly taken us in the right direction. For example, we now have greater certainty over penalties on the face of the bill. Most importantly, amendments both at stage 2 and again today have made the definitions of what constitutes tax avoidance much clearer and more certain. As the cabinet secretary knows, we have supported his approach to tax avoidance from the start, agreeing with him that we should have a general anti-avoidance rule rather than a general anti-abuse rule. We agreed that the double reasonable test should be avoided, that the test should be of artificiality rather than abusiveness, and that arrangements for tax avoidance is one of the reasons not just the sole or main reason should also be caught by the general rule. In other words, we agree with the cabinet secretary that the net should be cast wider than in previous legislation, and that, indeed, it has been. However, we have, throughout the process, pursued further clarity, notably through Mr Chisholm and committee, and I am glad to acknowledge once again that the cabinet secretary has now put it beyond doubt that the general rule applies to transactions between individuals as well as companies or businesses. The cabinet secretary, in his own remarks, made reference to the consultations, guidance and secondary legislation, which will be consequent on the passing of this bill this evening. We should acknowledge that there is still work to be done. Indeed, we will not know if this legislation meets the maximum efficiency until it is tested in action, nor certainty until consequent guidance and secondary legislation is completed, nor proportionality until tax rates are announced, although that will have to happen quite soon now, as the cabinet secretary must know. However, we can claim today a good piece of legislation improved by the legislative process and one that can, should and will, I am sure, be supported at decision time this evening. Many thanks. Now call on Gavin Brown. Five minutes, so thereby please, Mr Brown. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Being involved with this bill has been both interesting and rewarding and I am extremely grateful to Professor McEwen, who gave expert advice to the Finance Committee and to all other stakeholders who gave round-table discussions, who gave formal evidence and who wrote in to try and explain some of the finer complexities of tax. Ian Gray quite rightly quoted the maxims of Smith and all those maxims on their own have great merit, but I think what has been very interesting to see in practice is trying to obey all those maxims at the same time as far trickier in practice than it is in theory. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that the biggest criticism that was made of the bill at stage 1 against, I think, praise for most of the bill was the section on penalties. It was an area where I think things hadn't been done quite rightly and there was a pretty strong view among stakeholders that the circumstances, the amounts and the factors to be taken into account really ought to be on the face of the bill and you could leave procedure and administration for secondary legislation. That was acknowledged by the bill team, acknowledged to by the Cabinet Secretary during the course of the stage 1 debate and then quite helpfully and quite rightly a raft of amendments were lodged by the Cabinet Secretary at stage 2. I think now the penalties provisions are far clearer and have a far broader support than they would have done had they been left as they were at stage 1. Just to go through a couple of examples, section 150, for example, of the bill, failure to make a return, previously there was no amount attached to that and it simply gave the power to the Government to produce regulations in relation to that. Now, though, with the amendments that were passed at stage 2, there are firm amounts put on what would be paid in the absence of a return and I think also quite helpfully they have divided it into time periods so if you're three months late, six months late or 12 months late there is different treatment and different penalties and also at the same time they have split the penalties amongst the two taxes. There is a slightly different regime for land and buildings transaction tax as compared to the landfill tax. So I think section 150 as one example now does what it ought to do in giving some certainty but I think as the Cabinet Secretary steads still allowing the Government a degree of flexibility by order should circumstances prove to be necessary. If you take something like section 151, section 160 just as another example penalty for error in your tax return again previously there was no amount set out at all it was simply a case of there could be regulations brought forward at some point. Now there is a clear percentage set out as what that penalty might be as against the tax and again also I think quite helpfully they have split it into two categories those where there is a deliberate inaccuracy by the person completing the return and the other category of where the inaccuracy is deemed to be careless as opposed to deliberate those two are treated separately as I think most people would argue they ought to be. So we now have a situator I think which is consistent which hangs together and which I think makes sense to the taxpayer so all of those were welcomed at the time and I welcome them again now. During the course of amendments this afternoon the cabinet secretary again touched on the issue of a penalty for failure to pay tax the amendment of course was passed by all in the chamber today but I think again I had some concerns how it was before where there was effectively an instant penalty if the tax wasn't paid on or indeed before the due date I think that was a little bit harsh the cabinet secretary did agree to reflect upon this and that came out I think in a good amendment or set of amendments today so that taxpayers at least in the case of LBTT now have 30 days to pay the penalty. A couple of other miscellaneous points I think worth dwelling on the first one is that there was some criticism before about the idea of the charter the charter as it was first drafted or at least as the bill was first drafted seemed to put a slightly greater obligation on the taxpayer than it did on revenue Scotland taxpayers had to obey revenue Scotland had to aspire to the charter again this was changed I think quite rightly by the government now both sides have to adhere to the charter so that there is reciprocity as opposed to the balance all being in favour of revenue Scotland and I suppose just the last thing to touch on again is the fact that both committees that looked to this felt there had to be if ministerial guidance was given to revenue Scotland this had to be made public and this was reflected again in an amendment today which makes it very clear that any ministerial guidance will be laid before this Parliament so on that basis the bill I think started off well I think it has been improved as the cabinet secretary said and of course we will happily support it at decision time today many thanks and we now move to the open debate and I call on the first of the open debate speakers Mr Gibson four minutes to be followed by Michael McMahon thank you, Presiding Officer and I'd like to begin by thanking the people who have been involved in the bill's progress the members of the finance committee our clerks, the committee's adviser Professor Gavin McEwn who has rightly already been mentioned by Gavin Brown and the organisation is an individual so it took the time to respond to the consultation and indeed give evidence on the bill earlier this year it has been a long road and from there it is that the finance committee was aware of the complexities involved in the bill of this nature and as the committee's convener I was conscious of the close scrutiny necessary the technicalities of this bill have been reflected in the large proportion of committee time dedicated to it and as members know the Scotland Act 2012 devolved the power to raise taxes on land transactions and waste disposal to landfill but the passage of the Revenue Scotland tax powers bill, important changes to the Scottish taxation landscape will be implemented and this bill will make provision for a Scottish tax system to collect and manage the land and buildings transaction tax and the Scottish landfill tax furthermore the bill will establish Revenue Scotland a new non-miserial department as of 1 April next year the new tax authority responsible for collecting Scotland devolved taxes and additionally this bill will also create the Scottish tax tribunals Apologies actually I can tell how much attention everyone has been paying to my speech for the fact that I'm about a third of the way through and folks suddenly noticed that I couldn't actually hear me that's a great vote of confidence I'll just sit down now perhaps there was I well under the remit of this bill the relationship between the tax authority and taxpayers will be clarifying indeed I'm optimistic this bill it satisfactorily creates a strong statutory framework for future devolved taxes clearly defining the duties, rights and powers of both the tax authority and taxpayers and this is strongly underpinned by the principles of anti-avoidance and the creation of the anti-avoidance rule enabling a new Revenue Scotland combat avoidance schemes which permit tax advantages this is a provision strongly supported by the finance committee and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and since we launched the bill in the chamber the finance committee has considered amendments put forward as part of stage 2 more than 300 number as Ian Gray pointed out and this involved a lengthy session with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and his officials and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance showed the importance of keeping fit as he nimbly responded to this myriad of amendments many of these amendments were minor technical or consequential and most concerned the drafting of the bill included clarifications such as that members of the Northern Ireland whilst devolved bodies are unlike the Scottish and UK equivalents not eligible to stand for Revenue Scotland appointments that Revenue Scotland must specifically address taxpayers and their agents for providing assistance and information and clarifying tribunal procedures in accordance with the new Tribunal Scotland Act 2014 Other amendments were made following the committee's own scrutiny and subsequent recommendations I have noted the section 10 charter of standards and values and section 13 use of information by Revenue Scotland The agreed amendments will fully protect taxpayer confidential information and ensure the new Revenue Scotland performs the general anti-avoidance framework with simplified following feedback for the committee's consultations Previously, three types of Revenue Scotland officer have been proposed however this has been refined and reduced to one and Revenue Scotland officers will now have the quad specialist skills and level of seniority to adequately deal with matters before them and this will ensure that procedures will be dealt with and will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy With support of the committee and the Cabinet Secretary and contributors such as the Congress and Unison, further amendments were added to the general anti-avoidance rule As a fundamental cornerstone of this bill those amendments were carefully considered and all those changes better secure the robustness of the legislation ensuring a fair piece of legislation I would like to conclude by restating my firm support for the transfer of financial powers to the Scottish Parliament and reiterate my thanks to my fellow committee members and all contributors but also notably the bill team the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and I leave this bill marks an important milestone catering for the provision of future tax decisions made in Scotland It has been taken forward in a very positive way by all parties across the chamber and exemplified by the fact that there are no divisions at stage 3 here today and I am sure that I speak for all my finance committee colleagues when I say that this legislation has only relished and indeed whetted the appetite for further tax legislation in the months and years ahead Many thanks I now call on Michael McMahon to be followed by will there be any four minutes or thereby please Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer According to Dennis Healy the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall the former chancellor was absolutely right for while tax avoidance is simply clever financial planning tax evasion is illegal so it's understandable that at a time when high profile millionaires celebrities in multinational companies have been highlighted the focus of deliberations on taxation is on this issue It's become quite apparent that the public care more deeply than ever that we do not have a tax system that permits free loaders So I think the Scottish Government has got the balance just about right in legislating on how revenue Scotland will be tasked with dealing with avoidance and evasion within its responsibilities There is flexibility within the rules but still enough clarity that the rules are firm enough and the amendments that have been accepted and brought forward by the cabinet secretary I think have helped to clarify some areas that originally there was some doubt because we had to get this right there are serious implications for business in particular as a whole as a result of tax avoidance there are also implications for the public perception of our tax system which must maintain public confidence as the perception that others can avoid their responsibilities can damage that confidence So the clear view of those tax professionals who gave evidence to the finance committee indicated to me that the level of public scrutiny 10 years ago was much less than it is now but that tax avoidance itself is not necessarily any greater than it was in years gone by However the public's greater awareness of all of these issues means that when certain individuals or companies aren't contributing their fair share to the public purse there's a heightened sense of outrage and those concerns are justified so where avoidance is taking place we do have to make it easier to take action and I believe this bill does that I think that in relation to the landfill tax especially any avoidance could create economic distortions as a business could seek a competitive advantage by acting illegally to avoid paying tax I visited the new SEPA premises at the maximum development and Eurocentral in my constituency I was very pleased to see the dedicated team of investigators who've been tasked with pursuing companies who by many and varied means are seeking to avoid paying landfill tax that effort is already being fruit and I'm confident that it will increasingly clamp down on those who try to dodge their responsibilities so I have no hesitation in endorsing the bill and congratulate the cabinet secretary for guiding it so effectively to this point I also like to thank the convener of the finance committee and the finance committee for the efforts that were made to ensure that this very technical and complex issue passed through its process as smoothly as possible but I know that the cabinet secretary from our exchanges earlier this afternoon gets concerned when I break the consensus so I won't let them down I'll ask a question which has occurred to me because this bill and the two others which resulted from the further devolution of tax powers under the Scotland act sailed through the legislative process on a sea of goodwill and widespread agreement however the cabinet secretary came to the finance committee last week and his exasperation was evident that closure on the technical details of the block grant adjustment which is required under the new tax laws has not yet been achieved so can the cabinet secretary tell us if he can't conclude the process on the new tax with all the parties involved in total agreement on their desirability and efficacy how on earth do you expect to negotiate agree and deliver an entire transfer of powers set up and conclude applications for membership of NATO and the EU and other bodies set up a currency union all within 18 months of a yes vote in September I don't expect the cabinet secretary to answer that or have to answer that hypothetical question but I do thank the cabinet secretary for his efforts in bringing this particular devolved tax to freshing and I look forward to seeing how Revenue Scotland take forward the powers that I've been given to them to the betterment of our system of taxation in Scotland thank you very much Willie Rennie to be followed by John Mason thank you deputy president I'm grateful to the work of the committee, the advisors, the clerks the officials within the government for their quite detailed work over quite a long period of time it's quite striking today that the debate this afternoon contrasts remarkably to the debate that we had just a few months ago on this very bill it actually also contrasts very much from earlier on this afternoon where we were all very heated I felt the earlier adrenaline rush just evaporate as this debate concluded but it does show that I think the effectiveness of devolution and the effectiveness of this Parliament the value of devolution also this is a consequence of the 2012 Scotland act the direct consequence of that it's also finally I think a precursor to what I want to see is more powers for this Parliament transferred right here to Hollywood perhaps only if there's a vote next month but also I think the bill today sets an important foundation for what I want to see is an expansion on income tax also on capital gains tax and heritance tax in many other areas so that this Parliament raises the majority of the money that it spends but also I presume for those on the SNP benches that would set a foundation for independence so therefore I think the aspirations when this bill was first proposed and Revenue Scotland was first proposed to save quite significant sums of money I think 250 million pounds was mentioned because we'd have a much more simple flexible agile system of tax collection in comparison with HMRC so those ambitions I think will be tested on the two relatively small taxes that will be responsible for initially and I think everybody will be watching very closely to make sure that those bold ambitions that were set initially when this announcement was made for Revenue Scotland will be met even if it is in a minor way because I think what this bill has revealed as Ian Gray quite eloquently pointed out was with 450 or so amendments raising tax isn't a simple business people on the other side who want to avoid tax are smart people who will spend a lot of time trying to avoid that tax so we will have to work extremely hard and be extremely agile to make sure that we are as effective if not more effective as HMRC because HMRC has made some progress in recent years they've managed to make 40 changes in tax law since 2010 and many of the loopholes have been closed but it's an on-going process to make sure that those who want to avoid tax are caught and make their contribution because ultimately what we want to see here is public services that are properly funded adequately funded to make sure that we get the services that we deserve and that we need I've got great hopes for this bill I think is a good piece of work I'm hoping that it will be as effective as those who proposed it initially claimed that it would be and with that I pledge our party's support this afternoon thank you John Mason Thank you, Presiding Officer and I'm pleased to be able to take part in this debate this afternoon Taxation may not be everyone's most exciting topic but I do find it extremely interesting and this legislation is particularly significant as it is to become the underpinning legislation as we move forward whatever the constitutional settlement As I think I said when I spoke in this subject in May one of the problems of UK tax legislation has been its emphasis on the letter of the law as against the spirit or intention of the law as a result we have situations where the wider public was clear that tax should have been paid but some taxpayers have avoided tax in quite an artificial way and that has been referred to already in this debate this is particularly going for ordinary members of the public who whether employed self-employed or retired are pretty strictly regulated therefore I do welcome the more principles based approach which we are seeing in this legislation and hopefully we will see that in future Scottish tax bills While on the subject of principles I'm also happy to welcome as others have done the emphasis on Adam Smith's maxims which have been referred to to various extents in particular the burden proportionate to the ability to pay we did have some discussion at committee on the intricacies of this and the difference between proportionate and proportional which have now escaped me I have to say but it's certainly clear that there are some taxes like council tax which are really not linked to the ability to pay except in the loosest possible sense so hopefully as we move forward we can remember this principle and future new and amended taxes will be more proportionate also we have had the issue of certainty and that has come up many times as we consider the bill and that is one of Adam Smith's maxims which I think we all support however I continue to think that the demand for certainty can sometimes be a smoke screen meaning really more certainty for those who want to avoid paying tax therefore I personally am very supportive of the cabinet secretary's insistence that we stick to this principles based approach including having the wider general anti avoidance rule than seems to be the case in the UK now clearly only two relatively small taxes are being fully devolved while income tax is not really being devolved at all with only partial control over one aspect of it and that could frankly give us the worst of both worlds an already complex UK income tax system would become more complex and therefore more expensive to operate that is the downside of devolution and in particular the downside of sharing a tax rather than devolving it another factor in all this is the block grant adjustment which Michael McMahon already referred to it is disappointing that having promised to devolve these two taxes it now seems that Westminster is attempting to backtrack and keep its hands on as much of them as it possibly can this does not bode well for the vague assertion that more tax powers might or may or could or should possibly at some stage given the right circumstances and given the right government at Westminster and on the assumption that the UK does not leave the EU and does not go completely bankrupt such taxes might be devolved in the event of a no vote but I prefer to be optimistic and look forward to our taking control over the whole range of taxes as normal countries do we will probably have to start off by modifying the UK system but at some stage we will have the challenge to write our own legislation for those major taxes and I look forward to that exercise but the great thing about what we are doing today is we are setting out a direction of travel we want to do things our way and in a way that fits Scotland's needs I think that this is a very good start with this bill and I wholeheartedly support its approval many thanks that then brings us to the closing speeches and I call on Gavin Brown four minutes please if that was John Mason being optimistic I hope I will not hear the day when John Mason is pessimistic about the tax system Deputy Presiding Officer this has been quite rightly a broadly consensual debate with little areas for the chamber to divide both obviously at stage 2 and indeed today at stage 3 I was struck by something the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks where he pointed out just how much subordinate legislation is going to have to flow not just from this bill but from the other two tax bills that we passed earlier this year and at the end of last year for all three there is bound to be a raft of regulation and in some ways I think today is just a bit of a starting point there is more work to be done now on this bill and indeed on the other two than we have probably done so far and all of it of course will be done and completed by the first of April of next year so there is a huge amount for the Government to do, for Parliament to do and indeed for all of those involved in taxation in Scotland over the coming months and I think probably the first test the first true test of Revenue Scotland's performance and way of doing business will come in terms of the charter again to which the cabinet secretary referred in terms of section 10 of the bill Revenue Scotland has to create a charter of standards and values. Now I think that as I indicated earlier the section has been boosted up by bringing in reciprocity between Revenue Scotland and indeed taxpayers but in terms of pulling that charter together Revenue Scotland are to consult those who they think are relevant and I think that will be the first challenge for them how are they going to consult what to look like who are they going to consult and are they going to take a proactive approach to it or a reactive approach I think everybody will be looking very carefully because how the charter is constructed I think will tee up how Revenue Scotland performs over the coming years I don't know if there is information at the moment but if the cabinet secretary does have any information on the timing of that consultation of the charter at this stage we would certainly welcome it in the chamber today a couple of other points just to bring up one in terms of section 3 of the bill they talk about the resolution of disputes by Revenue Scotland with taxpayers and then there is the phrase including by mediation now individual cases between taxpayers and Revenue Scotland will clearly be operational matters and a decision quite rightly for Revenue Scotland to take but I just wonder by including those words is this a hint from Government or is this a steer from Government that as a policy they would like to see mediation being used by Revenue Scotland I don't know if I've read too much into that but again if it is I'd certainly welcome any clarification from the Government Deputy Presiding Officer maybe just the last thing to close and a couple of members have talked about the block grant adjustment mechanism and while it is not strictly and directly part of the stage 3 debate today obviously the cabinet secretary gave evidence to the finance committee on Wednesday of last week about how things have moved forward I just wonder and perhaps the answer is no because it was only a week ago has anything happened in the interim period is there anything else the cabinet secretary can share with Parliament so that we can see that process moving forward as fast as possible Deputy Presiding Officer that adjustment mechanism has to be sorted out in the coming months but everything else underpinning this bill and indeed the other two tax bills have to be in place by the 1st of April next year there is much for all of us to do in the coming months many thanks and in our call on Malcolm Chisholm six minutes please Mr Chisholm Ian Gray began his speech by quoting Einstein to the effect that the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax to be perfectly honest being expelled from the finance committee I think the hardest thing in the world to understand is the revenue Scotland and tax powers bill in view of that I would like to thank all those who helped me and no doubt others to understand better namely the adviser in particular perhaps the clerks the witnesses the bill team and the cabinet secretary himself I'd also like to thank the cabinet secretary for taking on board so many of the committee's recommendations in his stage 2 amendments and of course further amendments today particularly I should thank him for the amendment where he picked up the point I made in committee referring to the artificiality in the gar I asked why the reference to reasonable business conduct in section 59 should not be extended to include personal conduct and I welcome the amendment that the cabinet secretary brought forward to deal with that issue the word reasonable has haunted our discussions and I even found myself at one point saying that the UK double reasonable test was quite reasonable but I am quite happy in the end to defer to the government in that regard in terms of the general anti-avoidance rule there were some concerns that the bill had been drawn to broadly and that the language used in defining what constitutes a reasonable action was too vague part 5 of the bill outlines that any activity that has the obtaining of a tax advantage as the main purpose or one of the main purposes of the arrangement may be deemed as unlawful I believe however that it is right to draw the rule quite widely as historically and specifically in the case of HMRC the use of a more targeted or narrow approach has led to the emergence of loopholes that can be abused by businesses having the principles of the gar enshrined in the bill will I hope mitigate the need for any targeted rules for tax avoidance in future. Further to this while I recognise that the double reasonable test may be construed as being unnecessarily complicated is absence from this new legislation means we must make absolutely certain that channels are made available to challenge any decision in a timely and fair manner. Therefore a vigorous approach to tax avoidance must be balanced by a fair appeal system I raised this issue at stage 1 in the committee with the cabinet secretary and the committee recommended that he reconsidered the restrictive rule governing appeals in the court of session and the number of members of the upper tax tribunal for appeals. I would welcome reassurance from the cabinet secretary in his wind out about the fairness of the appeal system. Another issue of fairness concerns the contrast between the advice offered by lawyers and accountants and at what extent it should be privileged. I believe that what is and is not privileged advice should apply equally to all advisers whether or not they are lawyers and I would welcome a statement of the Government's most up-to-date thinking on that matter. Finally on fairness equality between taxpayers and Revenue Scotland is also important. Part 2 of the bill addresses the establishment of Revenue Scotland and provides for its general functions and responsibilities as we take forward the devolution process. The final draft is reassuring to see that a number of the recommendations made in the committee stage have been taken on board by the cabinet secretary with regards to this process. That includes booting taxpayers and Revenue Scotland on an even footing in terms of the expectations placed upon them in the charter. That was not the case in previous stages of the bill and the change of language to standards of behaviour and values which Revenue Scotland is expected to adhere to rather than aspire to will not only reassure taxpayers but also firmly cement the duties of the new body on the face of the bill. Section 3A in paragraph 10 of the bill should also be welcome as it offers reassurance that the charter will be drafted and subsequently redrafted only after Revenue Scotland consults such persons as it considers appropriate. That is good news as the charter should not be skewed towards the interests of Revenue Scotland but rather represent the best practice and widest number of stakeholders. I would, however, welcome a little more in the way of reassurance that Revenue Scotland will engage with as many stakeholders as practically possible making it absolutely clear to Parliament who has been involved and for what reason. With regard to the delegation of powers, the Registers of Scotland and SEPA of duties relating to LBP and landfill tax respectively, I welcome the pledge to publish information concerning the nature of this delegation and lay it before Parliament and that Revenue Scotland will still be ultimately responsible for carrying out delegated functions. Those powers may be delegated as and when Revenue Scotland see fit and while I support the theory behind this I was somewhat concerned by some of the evidence given in terms of the balance of responsibilities and pressures this may bring. The Faculty of Advocates was keen to point out that certain powers such as the power to levy a penalty or to make an assessment are inherently the concern of the taxing authority and that Revenue Scotland should not be given carte blanche to delegate at will. Powers must be delegated according to what works best where and there are some responsibilities that are best kept within the remit of Revenue Scotland. Presiding Officer, the tax system that a country adopts goes fundamentally to the heart of what sort of society we wish to create and I believe that within the framework of devolution it is possible to achieve the best outcomes for Scotland and co-operating effectively the finance committee and the cabinet secretary have provided Parliament with an effective foundation stone for a fiscal devolution. The bill before us with its enshrined charter of responsibilities will encourage a relationship of respect between the taxpayer and the authority based on transparency and accountability. I congratulate all members who have been involved with this process and hope that in future years the same approach will be applied. I support the bill and thank the Government for bringing forward this landmark piece of legislation. Just before I call the cabinet secretary could remind Parliament that our debates this afternoon are on a follow-on basis and therefore I trust that all members will be in the chamber for the next debate. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate to cabinet secretary. Eight minutes please. Ian Gray said that this today marked the conclusion of the trilogy of bills and it just got me thinking that there's Peter May, that great Scots author responsible for the Lewis trilogy of the Black House, the Lewis Mann and the Cheswyn, and there's John Swinney responsible for the trilogy of land and buildings transaction tax, landfill tax and the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill. It's not much of a sequel to other trilogies but nonetheless very, very important legislation for the parliamentary vote, of course. In the spirit of the famous Scissor's Paperstone the fact, of course, is that Peter May's product will eventually end up in landfill and be subject to landfill tax Mr Swinney has introduced. Cabinet secretary. Not for a long time, I do hope. I think that the debate has been a welcome conclusion to what's been a really good parliamentary process and I want to start by recording my thanks to the bill team for the work that they have put in place. This is, as Mr Chisholm said, complex area of activity. If I had to navigate the finance committee through this somebody's had to navigate me through this first and that's the bill team and they have been of exceptional quality in supporting me in developing this legislation. In the process of doing so, as has been the case with all of the tax legislation we've taken forward over these three bills, there has been enormous consultation with external stakeholders on the contents and the provisions. Most of that we've managed to come to agreement with external stakeholders about some of it we just can't get to agreement about but what I would assure Mr Chisholm about is that that approach of maximum consultation and dialogue with external stakeholders will be the hallmark of how we take forward the further dialogue and discussion that emerges and that extends to issues around the charter as well for which I would certainly give Mr Brown the assurance that we will engage in extensive consultation but we will also give adequate time to ensure that the proper consideration can be given to these issues into the bargain. Mr Chisholm said that the design of the tax system is very much a reflection of the approach we want to take as a country to our taxation arrangements and the way I initiated this process by reference to the Smith principles of certainty of convenience of efficiency of proportionality to the ability to pay were designed to set out how we could reflect in our modern 21st century thinking some of the great foundations of thinking which Scotland has contributed to the world and I think that the modern application of these values of certainty, convenience, efficiency and proportionality to the ability to pay are important considerations for setting out what we want to achieve from our tax system and how we want our tax system to have its impact on our society and that will be the approach that we take to reflect on the further provisions that have been taken forward in the subordinate legislation for which there will be a lot of subordinate legislation and we will of course engage with Parliament around its contents. One of the other innovations of the bill has been to ensure that as we take forward the great principles of Adam Smith we design new mechanisms that are appropriate for the times and that is how I would characterise the general tax avoidance rule. I wanted to set out I was very clear with Parliament at the outset I wanted this bill to define emphatically the intolerance that we would have in Scotland towards tax avoidance that we wanted to err on the side of tax maximisation in the way in which we structured our legislative framework and I invited Parliament to challenge the Government's thinking as to whether or not we were able to translate that lofty aspiration into practical legislative form in terms of how we took forward the bill and we've listened carefully to the areas of challenge that have come from Parliament in this respect and I think we've responded significantly to that in the course of stage 2 and stage 3 as we have concluded that process. The current constitutional debate has crept into the debate and of course my friend Mr McMahon didn't disappoint in this debate either and he would be disappointed in me if I didn't get on to some of this territory before I concluded my contribution to this debate. Mr Brown and Mr McMahon have talked about the block grant adjustment process and of course the block grant adjustment process is an interesting contrast to the legislative process that we've gone through in the Parliament here. Across the political spectrum, with all our different opinions of how we view the world we've all managed in this Parliament and we will get, I assume from what I'm hearing this afternoon to a point of unanimity about the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Bill when we vote later on this evening. That is because we've considered those issues according to our own values, our own principles and we've come to this conclusion and I've compromised on certain things and we've got to agreement and Parliament will unanimously support the bill. I think there's an interesting illustration for us there that when we get on with these provisions in here as members of the Scottish Parliament working together we can come to good, logical, sensible conclusions and if we can do that on the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Bill why can't we do it on issues like welfare reform and other measures on the tax system or how we should speak to the world in terms of our international policy and all of the other issues that would be able to be taken for because, of course, the obstacle and the reason why we've got to agreement Mr Chisholm said that he felt that the word reasonable had haunted the discussions of the bill I consider myself to be an entirely reasonable person I've tried my level best to display that reasonableness in trying to get to this position of unanimity so if we can have that reasonableness across the chamber here in Parliament why can't we have it on all of the issues that allow us to advance our constitutional agenda in fulfilment of our mission to deliver the very best for the people of Scotland because, of course, we would be able to make progress on the block grant adjustment if all of my reasonableness was just absorbed by the other party to that discussion which, of course, is Her Majesty's Treasury and the lesson that I take from all of this is that when we all work together in Scotland with the legislative framework in front of us we can take good decisions that are the hallmark of how we should be governed in the years to come so, with those remarks which I think are expressed entirely consistently with my reasonable style and with the optimistic tone which was to the fore in the debate today I'm sure that Scotland can reflect on these points in the weeks to come and come to the right and sensible conclusion Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary that concludes the debate on the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill and it's now time to move on to the next item of business I'll allow a few moments for members to move seats The next item of business is a debate on motion number 10783 in the name of Dennis Robertson on disabled persons parking badges Scotland Bill I now invite all those members who wish to take part in this debate to press the request to speak buttons please and I call on Dennis Robertson to speak to and to move the motion 10 minutes, Mr Robertson, please Thank you, Presiding Officer Presiding Officer it's a great privilege for me to be able to take this forward as a member's bill and in doing so I'd like to begin by inviting members in the Parliament who believe that they might not get an opportunity to contribute during the debate to please feel free to intervene if they have a specific question during my opening remarks Presiding Officer taking this forward is an empowering bill it will empower or people with disabilities to lead full and fulfilling lives in terms of being able to exercise their right to use a blue badge which they are entitled to to find legitimate parking spaces in our towns and cities I'm very grateful to the local government and regeneration committee for scrutinising the bill at stage 1 and stage 2 and I believe that the scrutiny that certainly the committee demonstrated during this process was fair, transparent and just it actually looked at in great depth some of the questions that many people have been asking for quite some time Presiding Officer and that is why and only why now are we looking at trying to ensure that people who have a blue badge are able to use their badge in a manner which gives them that freedom I mentioned in my opening remarks At stage 2 there were some amendments lodged by Inclusion Scotland and I'm grateful to again the committee for scrutinising those particular amendments I believe that we have a deal of consideration to those amendments and I think that the conclusion was that during the consultation process tha