Chamber and committees

I would like to ask a few questions about the appeals system. Over the past few years, it has changed quite a bit for a variety of reasons—most obviously, but not entirely, because of the pandemic. The 2022 appeals system probably received the most positive welcome from young people and from organisations that represent them and their rights. We had an appeals system that allowed direct access for young people, that was free and that considered evidence in the round. It was not just a script remarking service.

Perhaps this is a subjective term, but we have gone back from that. We have moved away from that for this year and the system has gone back to script remarking again. Can you explain the rationale behind that decision? Specifically, what were the issues with last year’s appeals service, which was based on wider evidence of young people’s work throughout the year?

Yes. Sorry.

That covers some young people but not all of them. For example—I have dealt with casework like this—there is the young person whose parent died the day before the exam but who really felt that they wanted to go in and take the exam. They are having to make a choice: “Do I think that I can perform well enough in the exam, or do I make a choice before that to take up the exceptional circumstances service?”

Did the young people on the learner panel support the change? Did organisations that represent young people’s rights support the change to the script remarking service this year? Did the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland support that?

Is not it the case that, ultimately, the issue is that grading is relative and that, owing to how the system operates, there can be only so many As, Bs and Cs each year? For example, if the number of A grades in the first instance looks to have increased significantly, that is interpreted as there being a question about the integrity of the data. Ultimately, the approach to grade boundaries sets a cap on the number of A grades that there can be each year.

I will just come in on that point. I completely understand the concern about overassessment, particularly in relation to the challenges in 2021 with managing the lack of exams. However, in the period between 2014 and the pandemic, the script remarking service that we moved towards rather than the usual assessment system was, partly because of cost, disproportionately used by independent schools. I get the concerns about fairness, but the script remarking system that we used and to which we have now returned has its own issues with fairness—they are evidenced—as well.

Sorry—I am conscious that I am taking up other members’ time. Did the young people on the learner panel support that?

Right. Can I just finally—

As I said in questions to the minister, the economic fundamentals that underpin freeports are those of trickle-down economics, which is not something that the Scottish Government can subscribe to. There is no evidence base for saying that wider economic benefits are going to be felt as a result of developing freeports. In fact, the evidence base from freeports across the world shows that the companies that are involved in freeports certainly benefit but the wider communities around them do not. I recognise that most of what is involved in setting up the freeports is reserved, but there are levers within the Scottish Government’s powers that have not been used, including to exclude any entity that is based in an offshore tax haven from accessing LBTT relief.

There is a lot of language around fair work, and I recognise the Scottish Government’s commitment to fair work, but in this case it is just language. There are no binding commitments to ensure that the companies adhere to fair work principles. I am concerned about the long association that freeports have internationally, but particularly in Europe, with crime, particularly money laundering, smuggling and the exploitation of workers. The European Commission has highlighted that, and the European Parliament called for an end to the freeport experiment in Europe as a result of that. I do not see evidence that sufficient consideration has been given to the impact of that in the UK and, as Michelle Thomson said, the impact that that could have on Scotland’s international brand.

I am also concerned about the potential for job displacement. We saw the evidence from the UK’s last experiment with freeports in the 1980s that there was up to 40 per cent displacement, rather than new jobs being created. Given the position of the freeports in our economy, as a West Scotland MSP, I am concerned that the economy in the west of Scotland is already not in the same state as the economy in the east. We face significant depopulation issues and growth in wages is nothing like what it is on the east coast, and these developments will only exacerbate that.

I recognise that the Scottish Government is in a difficult position, because this policy is being driven by the UK Government, but devolution exists for the purpose of creating divergence where we believe that it is necessary. I do not think that the opportunity to do that has been taken. Tax breaks and deregulation are not a path to prosperity. Investment is a path to prosperity; working with rather than against trade unions is a path to prosperity. The Greens want to see profits reinvested in local communities, not squirrelled away in offshore tax havens, but I think that that will be the consequence of this so I am afraid that I cannot support the order.

You mentioned the traditional issue with trickle-down economics, which is that the wealth that is generated is then hoarded offshore. Can any offshore entity benefit from this LBTT break? A company that is based in an offshore tax haven will be able to benefit from this tax break, will it not?

I am sorry to jump in, minister, but this is not about UK tax law: it is about a devolved tax. It is—potentially, if it so wished—within the power of the Scottish Government to, for example, exclude any company that is based and incorporated in a tax haven from benefiting from an LBTT relief. However, you have chosen not to do so in this case. Why is that?