Meeting of the Parliament 03 June 2014
Let us look at the detail of the proposal. The Scottish Government has said that the costs of reducing APD could be offset by increased VAT receipts as a result of increased tourism. Of course, that revenue would go to the UK Treasury, and that seems to be the reason why the Scottish Government is not introducing its childcare policy, but we can leave that inconsistency for another day.
It has been indicated that a 50 per cent reduction in air passenger duty would increase passenger numbers by 3 per cent. A 3 per cent increase in inward passengers would generate additional income and tax revenue in Scotland, but would that be enough to offset the £135 million pounds in lost revenue? As I have said, if we were predicting a 3 per cent increase in visitors, surely logic dictates that we should expect a 3 per cent increase in Scots flying out. How much would it cost the Scottish economy and the public purse if more Scots were to go on foreign holidays rather than stay and visit UK destinations?
I have yet to see any detailed figures produced by the Scottish Government on the likely impact of the policy other than what we know for certain: the public purse would be £135 million pounds worse off. Will the minister say today, in the interests of transparency and ahead of the referendum, which public services would be cut or who would pay higher taxes to fund the policy? Would it be teachers, nurses or the police? Would it be local government or come from care of the elderly services? The Scottish Government can have no credibility on the issue when it has no costings and it is not willing to say where spending will be reduced or taxes increased.