Chamber and committees

Okay.

We have already mentioned prisons. Paragraph 47, on the justice and home affairs portfolio, talks about the reprofiling of capital for HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow. Is it your expectation that there has been such high inflation in construction costs that that might come down, so we could save money in the long run, or is it the case that, if we reprofile, the costs will inevitably go up?

Although the target is to borrow £450 million, which I think is the maximum that we are allowed to borrow annually, it is likely that we will end up slightly below that each year.

There was a suggestion from at least some people who wrote to us that the definitions could be wider and that products are being missed and are not being taxed under the current definitions. Does any of you feel that that is the case?

Would you go as far as to say that we could have different rates? Say in the Western Isles, if virgin material has to be used, there could be a lower rate whereas, in the central belt, where there is a choice, it should be a higher rate?

So you have no position yet on whether you want a national rate or local rates.

Fair enough.

I will move on to an issue that I was initially surprised about but that I am perhaps understanding now. I thought that the tax would have been applied at the point of production at the quarry, rather than when the material is put into use. Obviously, it would cause a huge problem with the rest of the UK if we had different systems, but what is the logic of having the tax at the point of use or commercial exploitation, rather than at the source?

On the question of definitions, such as the meaning of “commercial exploitation”, we are sticking closely to the UK rules. Are you all comfortable with that?

I have not checked back to see what the percentages were but, obviously, pay is going up 7 per cent or thereabouts. Some of these are quite small amounts, but it is the principles that I am thinking about.

Paragraph 26 talks about £4.75 million for the Covid-19 inquiry. It concerns me a little with some of these inquiries that the costs can run away, which I think happened with the Edinburgh trams inquiry. Is there a control on such inquiries, or is it very much up to the person leading the inquiry what the costs end up being?

We have discussed capital expenditure and borrowing. I note that paragraph 89 says that

“The improved position has allowed the Capital Borrowing requirement to be reduced, by £150 million from £450 million”,

which means that the plan is to borrow £300 million, although that could still vary by the end of the year, presumably.

On the financial transactions money, I think that £53 million is being deferred to 2024-25. Will you explain to us what impact that will have? If I am not mistaken, some of that was used for housing in the past.