Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are basically saying, as you do throughout your submission, that at 89 per cent we are almost in effect reaching the optimum amount, if you like, of what can be recycled. Therefore, any additional taxation that is imposed, should the Scottish Government’s bill plan to diverge from the UKAL—it does not plan to do so at this point, as far as I am aware—will not deliver any further recycling.

In one breath, COSLA is saying that it is not keen on the aggregates tax going up, because local authorities purchase large quantities of primary aggregates and there would therefore be an impact on their cost base, but, at the same time, COSLA wants to encourage greater use of recycled aggregates. Are those not contradictory objectives, given the fact that the levy is required in order to create a cost differential so that companies can invest more money in equipment for recycling?

Mr Doak, in paragraph 16 of your submission, you say:

“English producers may be keen to exploit any substantial increase in rates in Scotland.”

That depends on what you mean by “substantial”. What would you describe as “substantial”?

My understanding is that the Scottish Government does not intend to do this, but what if, for example, it decided to increase the rate from £2.03 per tonne, which is what it will be from April, to £3 per tonne? Given the cost of shipping or trucking aggregates, would an increase of £1 per tonne really mean that people would be shipping vast quantities of aggregates into Scotland? I would have thought that the cost of the shipments would be much higher than £1 per tonne once the fuel, the lorry driver and so on had been paid for. There are also not many highly populated areas near the border between Scotland and England; most of the cities that would use the aggregate are further south.

Therefore, would such an increase have a real impact? In other words, what is the elasticity of demand? Conversely, if the Scottish Government reduced the tax to £1 per tonne, would there suddenly be huge demand for Scottish aggregates in England? That seems a bit unrealistic—we are talking about £1 per tonne. I am struggling to see how changing the rate in either direction would have a major impact.

Private companies and local authorities are very responsible in how they deal with waste; they follow the regulations that apply. Have there been any prosecutions of unlicensed and unregulated dumpers?

Okay; I appreciate that.

Thank you. Incidentally, Gillian Mackay has had to leave to attend a meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. She gives her apologies.

I have one further question for you, Mr Doak, before I open up the discussion to colleagues round the table. In the first paragraph of your written submission, you say:

“Extraction of ... aggregates in Scotland as in the rest of the UK is well-managed and heavily regulated. The industry has a strong environmental track record”.

I think that we recognise that. However, concerns have been raised about unregulated quarriers and so on. How big a problem or issue is that? Would you like the bill to tackle that?

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. We will move into private session to consider our work programme. I thank you, Deputy First Minister, and your officials for your contributions.

On the issue of not being affordable, you used that argument in relation to not passing on the non-domestic rates consequentials, on which you said that, because of

“a ‘worst case scenario’ UK Government Autumn Statement”,

that money has had to go into public services such as the NHS, although you went on to say that

“the Basic Property Rate for non-domestic properties with a rateable value up to and including £51,000 will be frozen, delivering the lowest such rate in the UK for the sixth year in a row.”

You also talked about how, for businesses in islands and in three very remote communities, rates have been capped at £110,000 per ratepayer, with 100 per cent rates relief.

Have you had any discussions with the UK Government about the VAT threshold? The threshold has been stuck at £85,000 a year since 2017, but cumulative inflation since then has been 32 per cent and the Federation of Small Businesses has said that a significant number—more than a third—of its members are reluctant to grow their businesses because that would take them into the VAT threshold. If the VAT threshold was increased, that would allow local businesses to have more money in their pockets, as opposed to having to pay 20 per cent over and above that threshold.

Is the Scottish Government engaging with the UK Government in order to help small businesses, without having to reduce the income from non-domestic rates at a time when the Scottish Government will already be paying £685 million a year in reliefs from next April and must use the money in other areas of its budget?

In paragraph 46 of our report, we raised the issue that there was

“little evidence of either government seeking to avoid or resolve the anomalies arising from the way their tax and national insurance policies align”.

You responded that you accept that

“the high marginal tax rate from both Income Tax and NICs faced by some taxpayers between the Scottish and UK Higher rate thresholds results from incomplete devolution of tax powers”,

but that the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that

“for the Scottish Government to address this issue ... there would have to be significant increases to Basic and Intermediate rates.”

You further said that the UK Government has refused

“to substantively engage on this matter”,

but that you

“continue to call on the UK Government to have regard to interactions and engagement with devolved policy when setting National Insurance Contributions policy.”

The UK Government would argue that the issue arises because the Scottish Government has chosen to set a different higher rate of tax than the UK Government, so one could argue that it is the Scottish Government that should change. Given the fact that the UK Government is unlikely to change its position, what will the Scottish Government do to try to minimise the marginal rates, whereby people are, in effect, paying a 52 per cent marginal rate on £43,666 a year?

Will local authorities that accept the 5 per cent council tax freeze benefit from having money redistributed from other local authorities that do not accept it? For example, if half the councils accept the freeze and half do not, will those that do not accept it get that money? It would be £70 million if half of them did not accept it. Would that money be given to the local authorities that accept the freeze?