Seòmar agus comataidhean

Something else that would help local government with housing would be for the Scottish Government to meet its promise to have multiyear funding in budgets. Are we any closer to getting that?

I have spent quite a lot of this morning reading up on the EU rules on this, and I understand what is being asked for, but I remind the Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Government has already handed back €199 million. I am asking for clarity and that is what the rest of the Parliament is asking for. If the Deputy First Minister is saying that the £450 million figure is inaccurate, she must have some idea of what the actual figure is. The Parliament ought to know what that money is and what it has been earmarked for.

I am asking for a statement so that we can be provided with further information and can scrutinise what the Scottish Government is saying on the matter. To come back to the point that I made yesterday, if money has been available, we ought to know about it and we ought to be able to tell local government and all the people who have been involved, for example, in enterprise budgets, exactly where that money is. If we are not doing that, we are not being transparent or ensuring that this Parliament is looking after the public.

I move amendment S6M-13493.1, to leave out from third “followed by Business Motions” to second “5.00 pm Decision Time” and insert—

“followed by Ministerial Statement: Allocation of EU Structural Funds

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.30 pm Decision Time”.

It is my understanding that, prior to the Presiding Officer’s selection of my topical question yesterday, the Minister for Parliamentary Business had intended to schedule a statement about the recent reports in the media that the Scottish Government would be handing back £450 million of European Union funds that are available for investment projects in Scotland.

Yesterday, in her answers, the Deputy First Minister told Parliament that those reports are untrue and that almost all of the allocated funds will be spent. She added:

“we will endeavour to spend as much of it as possible.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2024; c 3.]

That is hardly the most convincing line about the detail of the allocations of the money.

The Deputy First Minister added that 60 per cent of the available funds had been earmarked for local government investment projects, but there was no detail, nor did she elaborate on the Scottish Government’s acknowledgement that the initial available budget was reduced by €72 million because there had been a lack of demand or a lack of ability to spend the money.

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has reportedly not allocated £450 million of available European Union funding for investment projects in Scotland. (S6T-02023)

I am interested in the Deputy First Minister’s response, which is the same response that the First Minister provided: that EU funds will be spent by the Scottish National Party Government in the future. However, according to EU data, the Scottish Government has already returned an unspent €199 million to the fund, and reports are that it is struggling to spend the other €331 million. Does the Deputy First Minister understand why those in local government—who are running enterprise and investment programmes and our cash-strapped public services—are so angry?

The Deputy First Minister says that she will try to spend the money. Surely that money was available previously, so it should have been earmarked for spending that would help the Scottish budget.

In her recent budget statement, the finance secretary said:

“Quite simply, we cannot spend money that we do not have”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2023; c 19.]

Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the finance secretary? The Government had that money, which could have been spent on urgently required investment.

The cabinet secretary was very clear at the Finance and Public Administration Committee and in the chamber that the fiscal framework has yielded a set of changes that are

“fair and pragmatic and will strengthen the financial management levers available to the Scottish Government”.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the fiscal framework is very valuable to Scotland and shows good joint working between the Scottish and UK Governments?

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.