Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly, it will be up to local authorities—the planning authorities—to introduce such amendments. As you are aware, each planning authority is now going through the process of putting their initial local development plans in place under NPF4.

We would not expect alterations to local developments for individual units, for example, or to take account of individual smaller applications. They would be made when the authorities wish to make a change to what they have identified as areas for some types of development within their plans. That could be triggered by a range of requirements.

I would not say that we have an expectation as to how often that would happen, but I would not expect it to be a very regular occurrence. It is up to the planning authorities to bring such amendments forward as they see fit.

I will ask officials to comment on the specifics of why those areas were included.

The national planning framework can be reviewed in a number of ways, but specific amendments would be at the discretion of ministers, where we see that a significant change to one of the policies has come to light and we feel that there needs to be an amendment. We do not expect that to happen very often, but we have that provision, if it is required, if we see that something significant has arisen and there is a need to address that.

Obviously, we are going through a process in which NPF4 is still bedding in. As it is a new approach to planning, we are working through and issuing guidance letters and so on as things come up. If we came to a situation where we felt that there was a need to amend one or more of the policies, we would have the scope to do that. At present, however, we have no expectations or plans to address anything specific that has come to light through such amendments.

The plans are in place for a period of time, and planning authorities will go through the process, with the evidence that they need to provide as part of it, as well as the gate checks. As you know, we are starting off on that process with a number of planning authorities, which will proceed on the basis of the information that they have available at the time.

Circumstances can of course change, and it may be that the planning authority itself will have a change of direction, or other events may happen that require the authority to review things. Evidence may come to light that the authority was not aware of previously, which would require it to review the LDP. We would not want authorities to be locked into something that could not be amended, so an amending provision should be allowed if it is required.

As I say, I would not expect such amendments to be made very often. My officials can correct me, but I assume that, if planning authorities were to amend an LDP, they would introduce all the various changes that they wanted to make in one go, rather than making several changes to the LDP concurrently.

Regarding the substance of your question, we are very conscious of the resourcing challenges that planning authorities and the whole planning ecosystem are suffering from, and we are taking separate steps, which I will outline to the Parliament in the near future, to help with and address those resourcing challenges.

As I say, it will be up to the planning authorities to decide when they need to make amendments to their LDPs. I am sure that they will factor in the resourcing requirements accordingly.

Good morning, committee. Trade agreements often include provisions for providing for reciprocal access to public procurement. Although we know that trade is a reserved matter, implementation often occurs in devolved areas, such as public procurement. Accordingly, Scottish procurement regulations set out that bidders from countries where a relevant agreement applies are entitled to equal treatment when bidding for specified contracts in Scotland.

The instrument updates the list of relevant agreements, inserts a reference to a new agreement between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan, and updates references to agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania. Agreements with those countries, which were originally reached by the European Union and then rolled over by the UK, included contracts for some healthcare services in their scope. Although that did not compel public bodies to award contracts for those services rather than provide them in-house, it meant that, if contracts for those services were ever to be awarded, bidders from those countries would be entitled to equal treatment.

The agreements have been renegotiated to remove healthcare services from their scope. The instrument will ensure that Scottish regulations refer to the refreshed agreements.

The Scottish Government has consistently and successfully implemented international obligations on procurement since 2006, when it first transposed EU procurement directives, and is consistent in its commitment to upholding international law. The amendments to trade agreements that are contained in the SSI are necessary to reflect changes to international obligations, and there is no substantive discretion exercisable in their implementation.

Those are both good questions. The SSI is to update the references to those countries, so they will still be in the agreement, but the agreement is being altered by UK legislation post-Brexit to exclude healthcare.

I ask officials to say whether they can be more specific about what healthcare provision has been excluded.

We will write back on that. I am not aware of whether those countries are providing any healthcare at the moment—I would be surprised if they were—but we will check that. We will find out what the position is—as far as we know—and get back to you.

The purpose of amendment 18 is to make sure that situations that involve two different devolved taxes are in scope, which is a clarification of the intent of the legislation. It closes that loophole. We will discuss set-off in more detail in the next group, and I know that Liz Smith has lodged an amendment on that.

The important point is that there are safeguards for the taxpayer. The key concerns are on the ability to appeal and the review processes that provide that safeguard, which will maintain consistency with the legislation that is in place at the moment—including the important principle that tax remains due until such time as the review process has been completed.

I urge members to support amendment 18. The Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 provides that a taxpayer may make a claim for a repayment of tax, up to five years after the relevant tax return. Section 52 in this bill provides that a repayment of a claim can be refused in circumstances where a taxpayer has another amount of tax outstanding. That could relate to an undisputed amount of tax, an amount of tax due after a review or appeal or a failure to postpone payment in a review or appeal context. It adds to the existing list of circumstances set out in section 113 of the 2014 act.

Amendment 18 addresses a potential point of confusion that was raised during stage 1. It provides, as intended, that section 52 can be used when a taxpayer has a debit and a credit for the same devolved tax, as well as in situations that involve two different devolved taxes. I therefore urge members to support amendment 18.

Amendment 30, from Liz Smith, would have a much more fundamental impact on section 52. It would prevent Revenue Scotland from refusing a repayment claim in cases in which the taxpayer was disputing other outstanding debts through a review or appeal.

The Scottish Government’s position is that, in the case of a live appeal on another amount that is owed by the taxpayer, section 52, as amended by amendment 18, is consistent with broader provisions in the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, and should not be amended in the way that is envisaged by amendment 30. Specifically, section 245 of the 2014 act provides for the important principle that

“Where there is a review or appeal ... any tax charged or penalty or interest imposed remains due and payable as if there had been no review or appeal.”

As amendment 30 would delay the timeframe during which section 52 could be used, it undermines that principle.

We will come to discuss set-off provisions in the next grouping but, for clarity, while there was a dispute, any repayment would not be automatically set off against tax that was due; the proposed arrangements would, however, preserve the status quo until the appeal was resolved. If the amount that is owed by the taxpayer is extinguished in an appeal, section 52 would cease to be relevant and the repayment claim would be considered against the other grounds in section 113 of the 2014 act. If the amount that is owed by the taxpayer is upheld on appeal, any set-off would be regulated by section 56. Revenue Scotland would provide guidance on the detail of that.

Overall, the Scottish Government’s view is that section 52, as amended by my amendment 18, would be more consistent with the existing legislation and would strike a better balance between the protection of the taxpayer and the protection of public revenues. For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 30.

I move amendment 18.