 I would ask members of the public who are in the gallery and departing after First Minister's questions, if they could please do so quickly and quietly, as we are hoping to resume our next item of business shortly indeed. The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion 5082 in the name of Rhoda Grant on fair tax week. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Rhoda Grant to open the debate around seven minutes, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to start by thanking those who signed my motion allowing this debate to take place. I would also refer members to my register of members' interests in that I am a member of the co-op party, a party that holds the fair trademark and also actively campaigns for its promotion, not just the fair trademark itself but for the very ethos that lies behind it. The motion was lodged to mark fair tax week in June this year. The debate is as pertinent today as it would have been then, possibly more so because we are facing a cost of living crisis. Many people are concerned about how they are going to afford the very basics for survival this winter. Tax is our investment in society. Into the society that we wish to live in, the money that we pay should be invested in creating better and more caring society to provide security to our citizens. Therefore, taxation should be viewed as a positive contribution to society. The fair trademark seeks to highlight that. It seeks to recognise the companies that have paid the correct rate of tax at the correct time in the correct jurisdiction. Companies take pride in the fact that they contribute to our collective wellbeing. Sadly, not every company wants to make that investment. It is estimated that shifting tax liability has led to a loss to the exchequer that is equal to 28 per cent of the tax that is collected. Income that should have been invested in the NHS and other essential services. Instead, it was off-shore to boost fat cats and shareholders' dividends. It is not illegal, but it should be. The United Nations principles for responsible investment state earnings that are reliant on tax planning rather than genuine economic activity are vulnerable to changes in tax regulation and enforcement. They go on. Even if specific tax regulations are not changed, more proactive enforcement by regulators suggests that earnings risk resulting from those strategies is increasing. As countries and their tax authorities become increasingly concerned with the exploitation of loopholes in international tax frameworks and are under fiscal pressure to fund additional government programmes, the incidence of tax disputes and litigation will increase. Therefore, staking a company's future success on a strategy based on tax avoidance is not only morally wrong but also risky. Tax avoidance is not only a concern to Governments but also to citizens. The Institute of Business Ethics annual survey showed that 47 per cent of respondents were concerned about corporation tax avoidance. That topped the list of public concerns for nine years in a row. Those findings are in line with the fair tax foundation polling. The foundation found that 74 per cent of people would rather shop with a business who are paying their fair share of tax. We in the UK can take steps to stop tax avoidance and offshoring, but we must also try and build global consensus to ensure that corporations pay their taxes where they are earned. That requires agreement between Governments and I urge the UK Government to initiate those discussions and to broker a global response. However, there are things that we can do in Scotland to promote the payment of fair taxation. The Scottish Government and the whole of the Scottish public sector procure services from the private sector. We need to use stringent procurement methods to ensure that companies pay their taxes, and that must be an essential requirement in all public contracts. We could also use that for licensing. For example, did the Scotland bidders have to show that they had paid their taxes where their profits were earned? Were they required to continue to pay their fair taxes on profits made from our renewable energy? The fair tax mark allows companies who do pay their tax at the correct rate and the correct jurisdiction at the correct time to be easily identified. That accreditation can be trusted by procuring authorities, allowing them simply to ask contractors and suppliers whether they achieve the fair tax mark. Councils across Scotland have been calling for ethical action in procurement by signing up to the councils for fair tax declaration. South Lanarkshire, Edinburgh, Midlothian and Dundee have already signed, but we need more councils to sign up as well. The public agree that 66 per cent of people believed that the UK and Scottish Governments and local councils should at least consider a company's ethics and how they pay their taxes part of the procurement process. During the pandemic, 80 per cent of people believed that businesses benefiting from Government bailouts should only have received that bailout if they had agreed to the conditions that prohibit tax avoidance. Frankly, I believe that they should not have received a bailout if they had not paid their fair share of tax in the past, given that those very taxes were what paid for that bailout. Many companies and organisations have received the fair tax mark accreditation, and I want to pay tribute to them. There are those that you would expect, such as the co-op party and co-op societies such as Scot-Mid and the co-op group, organisations that have fair practice at their very core. The Government-owned companies such as Scottish Water have achieved the accreditation, as have large PLCs such as SSE and smaller firms such as Glasgow-based accountancy firms such as Brett Nicholls Associates and North Berwick-based Gerba Caravans. It is a long list, but it is not long enough. We need to make sure that all companies that work with Government at any level should attain that accreditation. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I believe that we must change the culture around taxation. It should be acknowledged and valued when companies pay their fair tax in the country where they make that profit. It is fair to their workers and it is fair to customers. That payment is their investment in our society. That payment enables Governments to provide the services and securities that we all require. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this fair tax week debate and congratulate Rona Grant on securing it. Ms Grant has outlined the issues really well. Fair tax week is an opportunity to celebrate the companies and organisations that are proud to promote responsible tax conduct. Paying a fair share of tax is one of the principal ways that businesses contribute to society, helping to fund the public services that we all rely on. Championing a level playing field for businesses, fair tax week allows for an opportunity to highlight the importance of fair tax principles in protecting and advancing public services here in Scotland as well as across the UK. Presiding Officer, the growth of tax havens and unethical corporate tax conduct have become the subject of much debate here in Scotland across the wider UK and across the globe. Aggressive tax avoidance negatively distorts national economies and undermines the ability of business to compete fairly, both domestically and internationally. Indeed, as an example, eight large tech companies in the UK made an estimate £9.6 billion in profit from sales to Scotland and UK customers in 2019. However, by moving money out of the UK, those companies ended up declaring a fraction of those profits into the air accounts of their UK subsidiaries, radically reducing the tax liabilities. Amazon, eBay, Adobe, Google, Cisco, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple faced UK corporation tax liabilities of £297 million in 2019, putting the total amount of tax avoided by the companies in the UK at an estimated £1.5 billion in 2020, the latest year that we have figures for. Emma Harper for giving way. Did she agree or did she find interesting the points that Rhoda Grant was making in relation to the Scotland contracts and trying to make sure that we get transparency from the companies that have been awarded options to lease? Would she also agree that we need to look at companies that the Scottish Government is contracting with such as Amazon and should be expecting higher standards from them or not awarding contracts to them if they do not meet those standards? Emma Harper. I thank Ms Clark for the intervention. I am interested in how any company can be transparent in how they look at taxation, and as much of the taxation powers are not part of what this devolved settlement is about, I would look to the UK Government to help to support any opportunity to have the likes of Amazon, as you have mentioned, to declare their tax in a better, more fair and appropriate way. As I was talking about the amount of money that the 1.5 billion in 2020 that those companies had avoided paying tax, that money could have been invested in our country's infrastructure, our culture, our civic society or, indeed, topically, here to invest in the most in need with the cost of living crisis. Rhoda Grant mentioned that but, instead of aggressively working to tackle this issue and make companies pay the fair share, we have seen the UK Government spending three and a half times more chasing fraud and error in the benefit system than they spend pursuing tax dodging millionaires. The DWP is spending 510 million pounds, vastly more, to prevent fraud and error in the benefit system and to collect more debt from people on universal credit. The DWP estimates that it can claw back 3.15 billion from benefit claimants, while the HMRC estimates that 3 billion could be raised from putting additional resources into chasing tax dodgers. In 2020, the pandemic tax gap of unpaid revenues was 70 billion. It is simply astonishing that this is receiving less additional resources than social security fraud and error. I ask the minister for a commitment that the Scottish Government when we receive full taxation powers, which is currently reserved, will focus its efforts on working with business to ensure that they pay their fair share in tax and that we will not spend billions to penalise the most vulnerable in society. In conclusion, fair taxation and corporate tax are so important for investing in public services. We are the thread that binds our communities together, so I thank the fair tax foundation for all the hard work that it does to support the companies and pay their fair share. Thank you. I now call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Kara Mock in around four minutes, please, Mr Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, can I congratulate Rhoda Fife on securing today's debate on fair tax week? Fairness is one of the core principles of governance, and as Rhoda Grant's motion touches on the public show an overwhelming desire for taxation to be fair, for it to be applied in an even-handed way and for businesses as well as individuals to pay their share. The fair tax market at the centre of the fair tax foundation's work deals with the tax affairs of businesses and organisations. It is worth remembering that businesses operate in a competitive market. For that competition to work, there must be rules and rules that provide a level playing field for everyone, rules that do not distort competition or embed the position of those who are already successful. This is not to ignore the obvious interest that we all have as a Parliament in gaining revenue that can be used as support public services and the spending that Government undertakes. We have seen an increased interest in cracking down on tax evasion and the sort of aggressive avoidance activity that takes advantage of legal loopholes, constructing tax affairs in such a way as to reduce transparency. Governments across the UK have taken action. In 2013, the UK Parliament voted to support the general anti-abuse rule, sometimes referred to as the general anti-avoidance rule. In 2014, this Parliament followed implementing a Scottish anti-avoidance rule through the Revenue, Scotland and Tax Powers Act. Both are part of a package of measures that have been taken to tighten up tax regulation while also trying to reduce the burden on those businesses and organisations who are paying. Of course, where tax liabilities arise is not precise. They often depend on self-reporting. Tax arrangements can be reasonably construed in different ways, and it is often a clear intention of tax rules to allow for exemptions and deductions to provide support to organisations or to encourage positive practices. There remain, unfortunately, many mechanisms for evasion and avoidance. However, HMRC's central measure of liabilities versus payment is the tax gap. We have seen a positive decline in the gap between what is estimated to be due and what actually ends up in the hands of the state, with stabilisation at a lower level in recent years. However, this is not a definitive conclusion of the issue. Tax rules are regularly changing and the approach is taken to evade or avoid them evolved to. However, the spirit of the law is, of course, not a value neutral or necessarily objective judgment, particularly where complicated tax regimes are involved. Despite work under several Governments to promote simplifications, the complexity of corporate tax remains. The ultimate decision on who is paying their fair share must be for independent bodies working on the basis of what is due. Uncertainty, over such standard lies within the fair tax foundation itself. Last year, Richard Murphy, who has given evidence to this Parliament's committees in the past and who claims creation of the fair tax mark, resigned from the foundation in part due to concerns about the mark's international standards. As a broader point, I would also caution against increasing the administrative burden on procurement policy. It is good as a point of principle for the public sector to make ethical procurement decisions. Too often, we have been perplexed that a small number of large suppliers to the public sector continue to secure public contracts at the expense of smaller and more local ones. Procurement reform has attempted to address this gap, but fundamentally many businesses do not feel they can compete as a result of the administrative burden requirements placed upon them. While small businesses may have more straightforward tax arrangements, they may also be less likely to be able to justify in time and cost the investment of being accredited by those standards. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is certainly positive that we are discussing ensuring that tax is fair and that businesses, as well as individuals and other sorts of organisations pay their way. While bodies such as the Fair Tax Foundation are making a positive and useful contribution to the discussion, I would be cautious before applying too great a reliance on the standards and the potential costs that they could create. I'm afraid not. I now call Karen Mocken to be followed by Michelle Thomson. Around four minutes, please, Ms Mocken. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague Rhoda Grant for bringing this important debate to the chamber. In the first instance, I refer members to my register of interest as a member of the co-operative party. In a week in which we have debated the impact of the cost-of-living crisis, it is only right that we support fair trade week, and debate in this chamber the importance of ensuring that every company is held firmly to account, as well as note the positive steps taken by the co-operatives and other companies. It has been known for years that powerful co-operations and super-rich individuals are exploiting a rigged global system that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. As always, it is the poorest people in our country, the low-paid workers who pay the price. We have spent this week in this chamber talking about how people in our communities are struggling to afford necessities such as food and heat. It is appalling that we should need to celebrate companies that pay the correct level of tax and the correct jurisdiction at the correct time. It should be the norm, but, alas, the actions of the super-rich bring us here today. Extreme economic inequality is being fuelled by an epidemic of tax evasion and avoidance that has reached an unprecedented scale. In that context, I thank the fair tax mark for their work in celebrating those companies who do and for making individuals, companies and parliamentarians alike talk about responsible tax conduct. Governments should take note that polling by the Fair Trade and Fair Tax Foundation shows broad public support for the fair tax mark and for a greater interest in tax behaviour. 66 per cent believe that Governments and local councils should at least consider a company's ethics and how they pay their tax when letting public contracts. 80 per cent believe that all businesses benefiting from Government bailouts should have to agree a set of conditions. 77 per cent believe that all companies, whatever their size, should have to publicly disclose the taxes that they do or do not pay in the UK. 74 per cent of the public would rather shop with businesses or work with businesses, which can prove that it pays its fair share of tax. Part of what we can do is engage with the public, and by doing that we can put increased pressure on companies to behave properly on Governments globally to reform a broken system. I congratulate the co-op movement for its part in achieving the fair tax mark for highlighting the practices of tax avoidance and for supporting the Fair Tax Foundation's call to ensure that advanced reform of Scots public procurement rules and allowing contracting authorities to explicitly reward good tax conduct when awarding public contracts. Those businesses must make public commitment to shun avoidance, profit shifting and any artificial presence in tax havens and that they should make full as possible financial disclosure and make full as possible disclosure of their beneficial owners and persons of significant control. I hope that the minister will respond to those points. Also, significantly, the Fair Tax Foundation has opposition to any efforts by the UK Government to reverse the planned UK corporation tax rate increase, as doing so would further facilitate and international race to the bottom. Surely, no-one wants to go there. I thank my colleague Rhoda Grant for bringing this debate to the chamber. I hope that this debate allows us all to raise this important issue, ensuring that companies in Scotland, in the UK and across the world are held properly to account. I now call on Michelle Thomson, who will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond around four minutes please, Ms Thomson. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing the debate and for her very good speech. I have had an interest in taxation issues for a number of years and not just because I have to pay quite a bit of it. Back in 2016, when an MP was a sponsor of a double taxation treaties bill, the bill sought to write some injustices such as the fact that if African countries were able to access the corporate taxes that were due, the money would exceed the total amount of aid the rest of the world supplies. The bill reached second reading and, although it was not fully picked up and full by the UK Government, it did bring some changes. It has already highlighted one of the problems with the UK tax system as a whole is its complexity and large number of loopholes. Of course, there is a huge industry to milk those loopholes, limited resource and government agencies to plug them, and limited appetite from the UK Government to narrow the tax gap, which stood at £32 billion in 2021. I am reminded of the joke about an accountant's children being told the story of Cinderella and interrupting to ask, but mum, when the pumpkin changed into a golden coach, would that be classed as income or a capital gain? In Scotland, despite our Government having very limited powers over taxation, I applaud the efforts that the Scottish Government has been making to create a fairer and more efficient taxation system in those areas within its control. On rereading Tom Arthur's excellent reform Scotland blog in June of this year in the Government's framework for tax, he explained the need for fairness, transparency and engagement, and good guardianship. I suspect that those hark back to the four principles of good taxation set out by Adam Smith in 1776. One of those fairness, and by which Smith meant the ability to pay, appears to be a guiding light for the framework for tax. Similarly, Smith argued for certainty, by which he meant taxpayer should be clearly informed about how and why taxes are being levied. In other words, he argued for what we termed transparency today. Again, I note how Tom Arthur has taken forward this concern. He knows that there is considerable scope for improvement and has pointed out that 61 per cent of people in Scotland know very little about the tax system. Transparency and fairness are fundamental to further progress. It is fair to say that we are on a journey but have some way to go before we reach our destination. One further thought is that it is difficult to conceive of any tax that does not have unintended consequences. That is inevitable, as a way in which individuals respond to tax changes may be very different to the intentions of Government. I am sure that we have all seen examples that we can relate to. My own concerns about the world that we live in include the growth of shell firms and not least the massive abuse that is enabled by the existence of Scottish limited partnerships. Despite huge efforts over the years, the UK Government who are responsible for the relevant legislation has steadfastly refused to reform, so we are making progress but we have a huge way to go. I like to thank everybody who has participated and encourage members to continue the conversation because it affects everybody in Scotland. I also like to thank the local authorities that have signed up as fair tax councils and the fair tax foundation for the work that they are doing in this regard. Of course councils are independent, corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities will strongly encourage them to endorse the principles of the fair tax declaration. Fair tax week is a recognition of the businesses paying the correct amount of corporation tax and the correct jurisdiction at the correct time. Across the chamber we all agree that our tax system should be fair and that businesses have an ethical obligation to deal openly with their tax affairs and to pay the correct amount of tax. After all the money that we raise through our taxes is spent to benefit people across the country. The debate is not just about the levels of tax that individuals and companies are paying but about the values of our tax system. Since the devolution of powers over taxation, the Scottish Government has created a fairer and more progressive approach to the tax system following a distinctive Scottish approach to taxation. That approach continues to be founded in Adam Smith's Four Canons of Taxation, namely certainty, proportionality, convenience and efficiency. Another cornerstone of our approach is taking a tough approach to tackling tax avoidance issues. As has been mentioned by Jamie Halcro Johnston, the Scottish Government has introduced its own general anti-avoidance rule, GAR, established by the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014. It is wider than the corresponding UK GAR because its focus is on not just a narrow abuse rather than the wider test of artificiality, which is what the Scottish GAR covers. During the pandemic, we implemented measures to ensure that grants and funds did not go to recipients with links to tax havens. As a consequence of the House agreement, we are exploring what else we can do in that regard. It is also important to recognise that corporate taxation and the issues that go with it are reserved to Westminster, and the Scottish Government is constrained in what we can't do in that regard at a point well-made by Emma Harper. Of course, there was further devolution or indeed those powers were transferred as a consequence of Scotland becoming a normal independent country. We would be in a position to do much more in that regard than we currently are at the moment. The Scottish Government strongly condemns companies and individuals who artificially arrange their affairs to pay less tax. After all, every penny that is lost to the tax avoidance is a penny less to be spent helping people and businesses of Scotland at this very difficult time. Of course, those powers lie with UK Government and HMRC and we strongly urge them to do more to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. As has been highlighted by a number of members to work internationally for co-operation across tax jurisdictions to establish processes that allow those issues to be addressed—what are global issues to be addressed in a global context—the points that Michelle Thomson made about the international aspects of that and the impact on certain countries in Africa is extremely well-made and the points that she makes about the complexity of the UK tax system, which makes progress in many of those areas more complicated and difficult than it might otherwise be. I know that Michelle Thomson has a significant interest, not just in good tax practices but in wider aspects of corporate governance, and I thank her for the work that she takes forward in that regard. I want to talk a bit about procurement, which has been mentioned on more than one occasion this afternoon. First, I want to recognise that the £14 billion public sector procurement spend in Scotland is something that the Scottish Government and myself are responsible for. Procurement absolutely recognises a lever that we can ensure to use to the full extent to progress other wider social, environmental and societal agendas. It is important to recognise that we already use the procurement levers that we have within the constraints that exist. Of course, we do not control employment law either, but we have done significant work to move the real living wage agenda, the fair work agenda forward. We have done significant work to support and encourage and shift as much spend as possible towards SMEs within Scotland, something that we have had significant success in, compared to other parts of the UK, and also through the sustainable procurement duty to further the community wealth building agenda. We are very focused—you can rest assured—on looking to do everything that we can in that regard. Of course, it is important to recognise the constraints that we operate with regard to procurement. The public contracts Scotland regulations 2015 already require that public bodies exclude bidders who have been found to have breached their legal obligations in relation to the payment of tax or social security. They also allow public bodies to exclude bidders where they can demonstrate such a breach of legal obligations by any other appropriate means. However, neither the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish ministers have the power to exclude companies from public contracts on the basis of offshore tax planning practices that Westminster allows. That is an important point to recognise because those powers, as I said, are reserved. I can continue to work with procurement officials and, as we are interested in this area, to explore further opportunities for us to tighten up those practices. However, as I said, it is hugely important to recognise that, because those powers are not devolved, there are legal restrictions that limit how far we can go, and we are not able to go as far, frankly, as we would like in that regard. In conclusion, it has been a very helpful and useful debate. It is good to get those issues raised. I know that my colleague Tom Arthur has responsibility for tax. He will be watching this very closely in this regard as well. It is important to recognise that, through our Scottish approach to taxation, we are committed to ensuring that individuals and businesses pay the right amount of tax at the right time and place. We are also committed, as I have indicated in the House agreement, to take forward and explore any further measures that it can execute in that regard within the limited powers that we have.