Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree absolutely, and I know that Michelle Thomson has been very active in citing several instances in which we feel that the data is not appropriate for some of the legislation. It is not just about the UK Government’s inability to disaggregate the information that we need, but about the Scottish Government’s need for access to that data, in order for us to do our job properly, whether that is in committee or in the chamber.

We also heard concerns regarding non-compliance with the existing tax regime. Those were based on anecdotal evidence rather than anything scientific, so we do not have terribly much information about that aspect. However, it was put to us by many stakeholders that there is anecdotal evidence about such non-compliance, and that is an area of concern to the committee.

Our report welcomes Revenue Scotland’s intended approach to ensure that compliance and enforcement are very much better in the future. It calls on Revenue Scotland to

“work closely with local authorities”

to identify

“quarrying activity”

and how that works.

With regard to part 2 of the bill, the minister mentioned that there have been considerable concerns about the lack of consultation on its provisions. Although I appreciate that the minister has said that the proposals in part 2 followed detailed discussions with Revenue Scotland, those in the industry want much greater consultation on that area.

The lack of consultation so far has given a bit of cause for concern; there is a view that the bill will not be complete unless there is consultation on part 2 and views are taken on board. The committee shares those concerns, and we therefore note in our report that

“This approach does not support effective policy-making”

unless we have that full round of evidence.

I still have a lot to say, but I will finish now, as I have only seven minutes. The committee’s general feeling is that we would like to support the principles of the bill. As yet, however, we do not feel that we have enough information to enable the scrutiny process to be as accurate as it could be.

First, I extend the apologies of our convener, Kenny Gibson, who is unable to be present. He has given me quite a lot of ideas for how to reflect our deliberations.

As part of our scrutiny, the committee ran a call for written views, which received 10 responses. We took oral evidence from stakeholders at three meetings throughout March, and we visited an aggregates recycling facility in Livingston. We are grateful to everybody who took the time to share their insights and help inform our consideration of the bill.

I will highlight some of the key issues that were raised in the committee’s report on the bill, which we published on 29 April, and I will respond to a few of the comments in the Scottish Government’s response.

Part 1 of the bill introduces the Scottish aggregates tax, which our report describes as

“a tax on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates, to be administered by Revenue Scotland.”

The proposed SAT retains the fundamental structure of the UK aggregates levy, with the stated aim of offering

“a degree of continuity for taxpayers ... while also ensuring that the devolved tax can evolve over time to support the Scottish Government’s circular economy objectives.”

The bill provides the legislative framework for the operation of the tax, but does not set the specific tax rate, which would obviously be established as part of a Scottish Government budget process.

The evidence that the committee received broadly supports the general principle that a tax be levied on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates. Most respondents agreed that the proposed SAT aligns with the Scottish Government’s “Framework for Tax 2021” and with the principles and strategic objectives that underpin the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation. They also generally welcomed the consistency with the UK treatment of the tax.

On exactly the same basis as the UK levy, the SAT is an environmental tax that aims to reduce the extraction of primary aggregate, so part of our scrutiny focused on the tension between maximising recycling rates, which will contribute to the environmental aims of the bill, and keeping the tax as simple as possible.

Witnesses broadly agreed that

“to prevent behavioural change and competition”

it would be preferable to match the rate that is charged by the UK levy. It is good to see that the minister acknowledges that stability and continuity are vitally important.

We also heard that

“use of secondary aggregates could be expanded”

and that

“the quality of recycled materials is continuously improving”.

Stakeholders told us that

“the availability of materials fluctuates according to the changes in the construction and demolition markets”.

That said, it is

“the market and financial incentives available”

that dictate

“the amount of aggregate that is recycled.”

Stakeholders told us that there is still “a general perception” that secondary aggregates are somewhat inferior and that the lack of demand for them, coupled with the current low rates for the aggregates and landfill tax, contribute to potentially recyclable material still ending up in landfill.

The committee has expressed

“reservations regarding the potential of the SAT to incentivise the switch to recycled secondary products and reduce the use of natural products”,

which is a key ambition of the bill, without there also being

“an increase in the tax rate above that currently charged, or broadening the use and classification of recycled aggregates”,

which is a key point from the committee’s deliberations.

One of the main challenges that we identified during scrutiny of the bill was the lack of relevant data, which I hope that the Scottish Government understands is a serious concern, since it impacts on the scrutiny process. For example, we heard that

“HMRC does not currently hold Scotland-specific data on the volume of taxable material located in Scotland or moved throughout the UK.”

Although we understand the current limitations with regard to the availability of disaggregated data, our committee is strongly of the view that such data is essential in order to establish tax elasticities

“and enable future governments to set an appropriate rate of tax”

that will achieve the circular economy ambitions.

First, I extend the apologies of our convener, Kenny Gibson, who is unable to be present. He has given me quite a lot of ideas for how to reflect our deliberations.

As part of our scrutiny, the committee ran a call for written views, which received 10 responses. We took oral evidence from stakeholders at three meetings throughout March, and we visited an aggregates recycling facility in Livingston. We are grateful to everybody who took the time to share their insights and help inform our consideration of the bill.

I will highlight some of the key issues that were raised in the committee’s report on the bill, which we published on 29 April, and I will respond to a few of the comments in the Scottish Government’s response.

Part 1 of the bill introduces the Scottish aggregates tax, which our report describes as

“a tax on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates, to be administered by Revenue Scotland.”

The proposed SAT retains the fundamental structure of the UK aggregates levy, with the stated aim of offering

“a degree of continuity for taxpayers ... while also ensuring that the devolved tax can evolve over time to support the Scottish Government’s circular economy objectives.”

The bill provides the legislative framework for the operation of the tax, but does not set the specific tax rate, which would obviously be established as part of a Scottish Government budget process.

The evidence that the committee received broadly supports the general principle that a tax be levied on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates. Most respondents agreed that the proposed SAT aligns with the Scottish Government’s “Framework for Tax 2021” and with the principles and strategic objectives that underpin the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation. They also generally welcomed the consistency with the UK treatment of the tax.

On exactly the same basis as the UK levy, the SAT is an environmental tax that aims to reduce the extraction of primary aggregate, so part of our scrutiny focused on the tension between maximising recycling rates, which will contribute to the environmental aims of the bill, and keeping the tax as simple as possible.

Witnesses broadly agreed that

“to prevent behavioural change and competition”

it would be preferable to match the rate that is charged by the UK levy. It is good to see that the minister acknowledges that stability and continuity are vitally important.

We also heard that

“use of secondary aggregates could be expanded”

and that

“the quality of recycled materials is continuously improving”.

Stakeholders told us that

“the availability of materials fluctuates according to the changes in the construction and demolition markets”.

That said, it is

“the market and financial incentives available”

that dictate

“the amount of aggregate that is recycled.”

Stakeholders told us that there is still “a general perception” that secondary aggregates are somewhat inferior and that the lack of demand for them, coupled with the current low rates for the aggregates and landfill tax, contribute to potentially recyclable material still ending up in landfill.

The committee has expressed

“reservations regarding the potential of the SAT to incentivise the switch to recycled secondary products and reduce the use of natural products”,

which is a key ambition of the bill, without there also being

“an increase in the tax rate above that currently charged, or broadening the use and classification of recycled aggregates”,

which is a key point from the committee’s deliberations.

One of the main challenges that we identified during scrutiny of the bill was the lack of relevant data, which I hope that the Scottish Government understands is a serious concern, since it impacts on the scrutiny process. For example, we heard that

“HMRC does not currently hold Scotland-specific data on the volume of taxable material located in Scotland or moved throughout the UK.”

Although we understand the current limitations with regard to the availability of disaggregated data, our committee is strongly of the view that such data is essential in order to establish tax elasticities

“and enable future governments to set an appropriate rate of tax”

that will achieve the circular economy ambitions.

I agree absolutely, and I know that Michelle Thomson has been very active in citing several instances in which we feel that the data is not appropriate for some of the legislation. It is not just about the UK Government’s inability to disaggregate the information that we need, but about the Scottish Government’s need for access to that data, in order for us to do our job properly, whether that is in committee or in the chamber.

We also heard concerns regarding non-compliance with the existing tax regime. Those were based on anecdotal evidence rather than anything scientific, so we do not have terribly much information about that aspect. However, it was put to us by many stakeholders that there is anecdotal evidence about such non-compliance, and that is an area of concern to the committee.

Our report welcomes Revenue Scotland’s intended approach to ensure that compliance and enforcement are very much better in the future. It calls on Revenue Scotland to

“work closely with local authorities”

to identify

“quarrying activity”

and how that works.

With regard to part 2 of the bill, the minister mentioned that there have been considerable concerns about the lack of consultation on its provisions. Although I appreciate that the minister has said that the proposals in part 2 followed detailed discussions with Revenue Scotland, those in the industry want much greater consultation on that area.

The lack of consultation so far has given a bit of cause for concern; there is a view that the bill will not be complete unless there is consultation on part 2 and views are taken on board. The committee shares those concerns, and we therefore note in our report that

“This approach does not support effective policy-making”

unless we have that full round of evidence.

I still have a lot to say, but I will finish now, as I have only seven minutes. The committee’s general feeling is that we would like to support the principles of the bill. As yet, however, we do not feel that we have enough information to enable the scrutiny process to be as accurate as it could be.

To ask the Scottish Government what events it has planned to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings on 6 June. (S6O-03426)

I thank the cabinet secretary, and I am sure that we wish all those who participate in the events every success.

The cabinet secretary will know that MSPs recently received information from Historic Royal Palaces on its access fund for schools and how schools can apply for financial assistance for visits. It is a charitable organisation that is working with the Government. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what work is being done between the Scottish Government and charitable organisations to facilitate a greater number of school visits to historical sites such as the D-day Atlantic wall in Sheriffmuir, in my constituency?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the rural affordable homes for key workers fund. (S6O-03404)

I suppose that having four homes in Orkney is better than zero homes, which is the figure that my colleague Miles Briggs was given when he asked the same question about the £25 million fund six months ago. Does the minister accept that that situation is entirely unacceptable, given the pressure that the rural sector faces when it comes to attracting the workers that it needs? John Swinney highlighted that in his interview in The Courier, which was published this morning. In light of the collapse of the Bute house agreement, will the needs of our rural communities finally become a priority?

Last year, the Scottish Government made a commitment, via the Verity house agreement, that it would introduce multiyear funding for council budgets, and, in November, Shirley-Anne Somerville made that commitment for the voluntary sector. I ask again, when is that going to happen?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what provision it is making to ensure that all school pupils have access to music tuition. (S6O-03346)