Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Mr Thomson, the problem that this committee has, which the convener has rightly pointed to, is that we are asked to scrutinise the numbers that have to go behind a bill. This is the fourth bill in recent months about which we have had concerns because the accuracy of the numbers does not suit the scrutiny that we have to provide. Do you accept that, when a bill team makes a presentation to Parliament, it is essential that the financial memorandum that goes with the bill is understood and clearly set out before we get to any legislative process? Do you accept that as a bill team?

It is a long-standing convention of this Parliament—rightly so, as the convener has set out—that the financial memorandum must be presented in time for the legislative process. That is not after stage 2. If that is a misunderstanding, we have to correct that very quickly.

I suggest that there is also a wider problem here. We have to ensure that any legislation that we pass in this Parliament is fit for purpose and is good law. Whether parties vote in favour of or against the bill is not the main point. The main point is whether the financial memorandum is factually correct and whether the evidence supports it. At the moment, it is very difficult for us to understand why a bill team thought that it was appropriate to come with the numbers after stage 2, which is after the committee stage as well as the stage 1 debate in Parliament. Do you accept that we are right to have those concerns?

You will not be surprised to hear that I will come on to the issue of a finance bill in a minute. First, I will follow up the convener’s questioning about data. With regard to the current UK levy, why is HMRC unable to tell us how much of that money is apportioned to Scotland? What is the problem there?

That is helpful. There have been growing calls in the Parliament for a finance bill, and, as Mr Mason has rightly highlighted, the public sometimes does not understand to a particularly high degree of transparency what is going on with the public finances. Anything that we can do to improve that process would be welcome, and I have certainly heard colleagues on all sides of the chamber suggest that it would enhance the Parliament.

Perhaps that is a debate for another time, minister. Thank you for your comments.

You mentioned that you have carried out estimates and studies to get an accurate assessment of that figure. I am struggling to understand why HMRC is unable to provide that information itself. I appreciate that you cannot answer that question, but it is not helpful that we do not have that data, because, if this devolved tax is to work well, we need to understand that.

You itemised the issues of fairness and simplicity, which I completely understand, but the other issue is the income that will be generated as a result. If that income was to be below what is already being taken through the UK levy, that would be an issue. We cannot make that judgment until we know what HMRC is currently doing. Do you accept that that is a bit of an issue?

I understand that, minister, and I accept that you cannot speak on behalf of the Government about the issue. You are quite right to say that it is a parliamentary matter in any case.

On the back of the concerns that the committee has heard, through Audit Scotland, about the lack of sufficient transparency when it comes to the public finances, and on the back of our unfailing difficulties in making the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts come together, the main argument that I can see for a finance bill is that it could provide greater clarity in the way that the convener described, which would make it much easier to see what the tax and spend would be. That is quite important, and it is something that this Parliament is lacking just now. Personally, I am very much in favour of such a bill, and I think that colleagues across the political spectrum are, too. You mentioned that there are arguments against having a finance bill. What do you think they would be?

The gap, though, does not help us to work out elasticities of demand, as the convener rightly pointed out. That is the issue. As you have rightly said, in 2016, all parties agreed about the devolution of the tax—I am not arguing about that point at all—but I would argue that, to make people feel comfortable, it would be helpful to have more complete data, which would enable us to analyse the likely behavioural change and the elasticities of demand that will follow from it. It is difficult to do that if we do not have information from HMRC in that manner, so that we can compare. I would make that point quite strongly, and it should perhaps be mentioned in your engagement with the UK Government.

I come back to the issue of the finance bill. You are quite right to say that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government to decide on. However, do you think that, when it comes to the next session of Parliament and a likely parliamentary reform of some sort—of course, that depends on the make-up of the Parliament and on the new Presiding Officer—the Government would agree that that issue could constitute part of the reform of the Parliament?

Ms Lorimer, you said in answer to the convener that one of the advantages of the devolved tax will be better compliance—that some of the people who have been going through loopholes will be picked up. That is obviously good news for extra revenue. Given what you know about the UK tax levy, which we have had for around 20 years, do you foresee other benefits from the devolved tax that will likely raise the revenue from what exists currently?

I have a question about the possibility of behavioural change, which has been flagged up to us by other witnesses. The general message that we are getting is that not much behavioural change in how people operate is predicted. That said, are you aware of any behavioural changes that have happened as a result of the UK aggregates levy, which I think has been around for about 20 years? Are you aware of any instances of UK tax changes having a marked effect on elasticity of demand or whatever having affected revenues? Are you aware of comparable studies?

We are not predicting that there will be behavioural change. That is helpful.