Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to have a conversation about that. I think that we will need to take advice from Revenue Scotland and others on that. Without making a commitment, I am happy to have a conversation to understand whether there is something that would fit that scenario.

Both this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee were clear at stage 1 that matters such as payment time and administration are best dealt with through secondary legislation, precisely because that allows for adjustment in the light of operational experience. The bill already provides powers to make provisions on accounting periods and time for payment, which can be exercised in a way that is targeted, proportionate and responsive, instead of being fixed in primary legislation. That might address the issue that Michelle Thomson has raised.

Revenue Scotland works constructively and flexibly with taxpayers who experience difficulties in paying the tax that they are due to pay. It is important that we allow Revenue Scotland, as Scotland’s national tax authority, to retain the discretion and flexibility to collect and manage the levy in an efficient and effective manner, in line with how it has done that with other devolved taxes.

I turn to amendments 8 and 13, which should be considered together. They will introduce a new regulation-making power to enable information sharing between Revenue Scotland and relevant public bodies, including local authorities, Registers of Scotland and the Scottish ministers. The levy is designed as a self-assessed tax, but Revenue Scotland does not hold the key information that is needed to verify returns, such as data on building completions, ownership or exemptions. Without appropriate information-sharing arrangements, Revenue Scotland’s ability to administer and enforce the levy effectively would be limited.

Amendment 8 will provide the necessary legal gateway to support targeted, secure and proportionate information sharing, while amendment 13 will ensure that regulations that are made under that power are subject to the affirmative procedure, reflecting the importance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The proposals have been developed in close collaboration with Revenue Scotland, COSLA, Local Authority Building Standards Scotland, the Improvement Service and the Information Commissioner’s Office. Together, the amendments will ensure that the levy can be administered efficiently and fairly and with appropriate data protection safeguards in place.

I move amendment 7.

Convener, thank you for your efficient process in moving through the business this morning. It has been much appreciated by me and, I am sure, all members of the committee.

Amendment 15, which is in my name, inserts a new provision into the bill that will force the act to expire after a period of 15 years. That is the Government’s proposed sunset clause, which is designed to ensure that the levy is in place for no longer than is absolutely necessary. That period of time is in line with the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report and with the estimated lifetime of the cladding remediation programme.

If the amendment is agreed to, it will mean that, if the Government and Parliament do nothing, the levy will cease after the 15-year period. However, in recognition of the potential for unforeseen costs for the programme, ministers can take action by regulation to extend the lifetime of the levy. To ensure that the Parliament has appropriate oversight of such action, amendment 14 will require that such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must agree to any extension beyond the 15 years.

Additionally, subsection (3) of the new section inserted by amendment 15 will require ministers to lay before Parliament a statement of their reasons for extending the levy, which will ensure accountability for the decision. The Scottish Government believes that that is a fair position, and I hope that committee members will be minded to support amendment 15.

Amendment 47, in Craig Hoy’s name, intends to deliver a similar effect to my amendment 15, although with some differences. Amendment 47 would shorten the period in which the levy would be in operation down to 10 years, which is five years fewer than the committee’s recommended position at stage 1. Although amendment 47 contains a provision to extend the lifespan to 15 years, that extension could be applied for only in the ninth year of the levy’s operation. Such a restriction would create issues with Revenue Scotland’s continued operation of the tax and would risk creating uncertainty for developers, who will want clarity on whether the levy is to continue in advance of its final year. Although the aim of the amendment is understandable, its effect would unintentionally cause more uncertainty. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 47.

The same reasoning applies to amendment 66, in the name of Liz Smith. I note the subtle differences between amendment 66 and amendment 47, such as the requirement to lay a statement of reasons before Parliament when ministers propose to extend the lifespan of the levy. I trust that that means that the member will welcome the similar provision in my amendment 15.

As with amendment 47, however, the 10-year limit for the levy that is proposed in amendment 66 does not match the committee’s recommendation or the proposed lifespan of the cladding remediation programme. As with amendment 47, any extension could be enabled only at the end of the levy’s lifespan, which would create uncertainty for all parties involved. For the same reasons, I therefore ask members not to vote for amendment 66.

Unlike my amendment 15 and the other amendments that I mentioned, amendment 65, in the name of Mark Griffin, would see a termination of the levy after 10 years, with no recourse to an extension. That represents a substantial departure from the UK Labour Government’s approach to the building safety levy in England, which contains no such clause. I have been referring to the UK Labour Government’s approach in my remarks today in the hope that Labour members might reflect on that. However, given their newfound independence, they might not feel the need to do so.

I draw members’ attention to the points that I made on amendments 47 and 66, and to the potential risks of funding shortages in the cladding remediation programme further down the line. I know that no one will dispute the need for the Government to undertake that critically important work. I ask members to consider the implication of placing a greater share of the costs of that work on to the wider public purse if the levy is forced to end prematurely, with no regard to emerging data on the costs of cladding remediation.

For the reasons that I have given, I ask members to support my amendments 14 and 15 in preference to the other proposed sunset clauses in the group.

I move amendment 14.

To be honest, I find it hard to imagine that anyone who was seeking to create another scandal—if indeed they were seeking to do so—would decide whether to do so on the basis of this legislation giving them that opening.

That aside, I make it clear that we are proposing that the act will cease to be after 15 years, unless Parliament decides to extend it. That will not be down to Government ministers; Parliament will need to approve it through the affirmative procedure. That is very clear, and it provides the very clear end point that the sector has been calling for. Indeed, I think that this, in combination with the work that we will be undertaking with Liz Smith in advance of stage 3 on the scope of the use of the funds, will give the assurance that the sector is looking for.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Amendment 45 moved—[Craig Hoy].

The EU has just negotiated an FTA with India, too. For example, with tariffs on spirits, the Scotch Whisky Association sees reductions in tariffs as a consequence of the UK FTA, and the EU deal is broadly similar. It starts slightly later, because it was negotiated later, but the ramp down or reduction in tariffs is actually faster for EU exporters to India than it is for UK exporters, including Scotch whisky exporters. If Scotland or the UK were part of the EU, the FTA would be broadly similar. Clearly, if you are in the EU, you have much more negotiating power so, by and large, you would expect the EU to be able to negotiate better deals than the UK can.

Total imports from India into Scotland were about £480 million. That includes goods and services in the public and private sectors. I will see whether we can pull up the number on the public sector specifically, but I expect that it will be a lot smaller than that.

We have data available for the past three years. The amount last year was £900,000; in the year before, it was £1 million; and in the year before that, it was £500,000. The numbers are not significant.

It would not change any processes, because they are already configured to deal with the Scottish, UK and international markets. It is difficult to assess whether there will be more Indian bidders as a consequence of the trade agreement.

Good morning. As members know, the United Kingdom Government signed a free trade agreement with India on 24 July 2025. As is often the case, that agreement included a procurement chapter, which provides for reciprocal access to public procurement. Scottish procurement regulations set out that bidders from countries with which a relevant trade agreement applies are entitled to equal treatment when bidding for contracts in Scotland.

To implement the agreement with India, the regulations that the committee is considering today will, if agreed to by Parliament, update the list of relevant agreements by inserting a reference to the new agreement between the UK and India into the Scottish procurement regulations. That will ensure that suppliers from India are entitled to the same treatment as Scottish or other suppliers when bidding for contracts that are covered by the agreement. Importantly, under the terms of the agreement, Scottish bidders will, of course, be entitled to equal treatment when bidding for contracts in India, too.

I do not think that we have anything specific on that yet, because we do not know what bids we might expect for which products or services and in which sectors. We will be able to assess that once we see which Indian businesses are seeking to bid into the Scottish market and what the consequences of that are.

That is part of our consideration, but it is a legal requirement for us to put the measure into law as a consequence of the UK free trade agreement. You are right in the sense that there is always a tension—perhaps it is not a tension but a consideration—to do with how much to globalise the economy and how much to produce locally.

I think that everybody would accept that there is absolutely a need for global markets in certain services and products. For example, that allows the Scotch whisky industry to make exports and support many jobs in Scotland. Likewise, there will be much that India can produce that it would benefit Scottish public procurement and the economy more generally to import. It comes down to the particular goods and services that we are talking about. There will be areas that are more suited to local supply—hyperlocal services, as you said—and products that can be most effectively and efficiently supplied locally.

In the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill—treated in the round, because procurement is only one part of that—and across our wider public procurement, we have a huge focus on what we can do to support and develop Scottish businesses. However, it is absolutely undeniable that the ability to trade internationally is also a huge benefit to Scotland’s economy.

Yes. England and Wales are also implementing this, because it is a requirement of the FTA.