Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, I would not want to get into the territory of commenting specifically on the work programme and the work that Consumer Scotland will undertake, but clearly, as Scotland’s independent consumer advocacy body, it can play an important role in working with other stakeholders and working in partnership with others to maximise coherence and accessibility within the consumer support landscape. I do not know whether there is anything that Neil Ritchie wants to add.

Good morning to the committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations. The regulations are, in effect, the final piece of the jigsaw in implementing the Consumer Scotland Act 2020. Earlier sets of regulations have already been through Parliament, as has a United Kingdom Government order pertaining to reserved aspects.

The regulations in their simplest form will add “Consumer Scotland” or replace references to “Citizens Advice Scotland” with “Consumer Scotland” in Scottish acts to allow the transfer or sharing of functions between the two consumer bodies. This is a technical instrument, which brings transparency around the transfer of functions and also recognises Consumer Scotland as Scotland’s independent consumer advocate. The functions that are being transferred relate to the devolved policy responsibility for water. Without the transfer of functions from CAS to Consumer Scotland in the areas of consumer advocacy and general advice, Consumer Scotland would not be able to carry out its duties.

You may be wondering why we are not transferring all functions to Consumer Scotland. Consumer Scotland and CAS, although they are both consumer bodies, have extremely different roles to play in the consumer landscape. CAS will continue to provide advice via its network of bureaux and the extra help unit. Consumer Scotland, as part of its statutory functions, has the ability to provide advice, along with making proposals on consumer matters to the Scottish ministers and public organisations in Scotland, and to other organisations where needed.

Consumer Scotland has now been up and running since July, carrying out a wide range of activities, influencing and adding value where it is needed most. For example, in relation to water policy, Consumer Scotland is already a key player, campaigning for a fair deal for customers and assisting with policy development. As a member of strategic stakeholder groups, Consumer Scotland scrutinises the delivery of Scottish Water’s investment programme to ensure that ministers’ objectives are being delivered. I welcome this engagement as an assurance that customers and communities have high-quality representation. Consumer Scotland will also be carrying out its own research to identify the potential impact that future increases in water and sewerage charges may have on low-income households.

This legislation is an opportunity for us to ensure that consumers have a voice, that their interests are represented, and that their own capacity to drive change is harnessed. The cost crisis that we find ourselves in now has revealed how important it is that customers have access to the information that they need and are mindful of the impacts of their own behaviour.

We began this process of establishing Consumer Scotland because we recognise that consumers are the life-blood of our economy and, in the months ahead, consumers will be vital for rebuilding our economy and supporting businesses. We will continue this process and one of the ways of doing this is for the committee, I hope, to agree to recommend the approval of the draft regulations. On that, convener, I will conclude. I am happy to take any questions that the committee may have.

The role of Consumer Scotland is set out in the Consumer Scotland Act 2020, which was passed unanimously at stage 3. Its primary role is as Scotland’s independent consumer advocate, but citizens advice bureaux will still be the first ports of call for many people looking for advice. It sits within that broader landscape of consumer support. There is Consumer Scotland, there is Advice Direct Scotland, there is CAS and there are, of course, trading standards departments as well. The role of Consumer Scotland will be in providing national advocacy as set out in the legislation and working to co-ordinate a lot of the activity that goes on in Scotland.

Yes, it has been consulted. As set out in the legislation, there was a requirement to consult Consumer Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland, and they were consulted.

Absolutely. I very much appreciate that point. It was only because of the unique circumstances pertaining to the amendment order that we found ourselves laying it on 1 July. We are absolutely committed to ensuring, where possible, that we can provide the maximum opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise all legislation.

The options that were available to us were those that are set out in section 6 of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act. What we did was consistent with the order-making power within those provisions.

Any question about the more general use by ministers of the provisional affirmative procedure would more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

I reiterate my point to the convener: it tends to be the case that we are required to use the affirmative procedure only in very specific circumstances. We use it only when that is absolutely required.

Certainly. I note that, in its report, the DPLR Committee accepted the reasons that we provided.

Fundamentally, in November and December of last year, we consulted on a proposal for the amendment order. As the committee will appreciate, we took some time to consider the responses that we received via that consultation, and to engage in further discussions with stakeholders. There was then a decision from the Upper Tribunal for Scotland, which was publicised in May and which, naturally, we wanted to take further time to consider. In effect, therefore, the first practicable date on which to make and lay the order was 1 July. Given that we need to provide certainty and clarity to taxpayers and their customers, it would not have been appropriate to wait until after the summer recess had concluded.

Thank you, convener, and good afternoon to the committee.

The Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014 provides for the Scottish ministers to prescribe specific landfill site activities, with the effect that those will be treated as taxable disposals regardless of whether they meet the three conditions that are set out in section 3 of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014. Those powers are exercised through the Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Order 2014.

The Scottish Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Amendment Order 2022 provides additional confirmation about whether a taxable disposal has been made and ensures that there is clarity for taxpayers and their customers. It amends the existing prescription of cell bunds to specify that the use of material to construct or maintain a cell wall is a taxable activity. It also provides that, in addition to the current list of prescribed activities, any other use of material in a landfill cell will be taxable, with certain listed exceptions.

Although additional landfill site activities are prescribed, the effect of the amendment order is to confirm what the Scottish Government considers to be the existing scope of the tax. It is intended to provide additional certainty for taxpayers and their customers.

In order to minimise any potential period of uncertainty, and as provided for in the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014, the amendment order was introduced using the provisional affirmative procedure, and took effect from 1 July 2022.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the amendment order also ensures that the scope of landfill tax in Scotland continues to be consistent with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am happy to take questions.

A number of considerations have played into having consistency with the rest of the UK, but yes: when it comes to the way in which the landfill tax operates—the committee will be familiar with the setting of landfill tax rates—avoiding waste tourism has been a key concern in taking the decisions.

That is not a problem.

I am conscious that the matter has been raised. It is important to recognise that, although there is a 10-year period for the full administration of the minimal asset process bankruptcy, there is also a five-year period. I can understand the reasons and rationale that have been presented for removing the restriction, but it is often the case that the MAP is the best solution for someone because of their particular circumstances.

We have to recognise—as I am sure that we all do—the significance of the step of going into sequestration. I also make the point that, if someone has to have multiple bankruptcies in a limited period of, for example, a decade, it suggests that there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

However, as the committee is aware, we are in the process of conducting a wider review. The working groups have reported, we will continue to engage with stakeholders and we will be consulting later this year. I look forward to the committee’s report on its inquiry and understanding the committee’s views more fully. At this point, I would say that I recognise the rationale behind calls to allow people to access the minimal asset process more than once within a 10-year period. However, we have to consider that carefully.

I ask Alex Reid to respond to the question about the process for changing that.