Official Report 500KB pdf
Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015 (SSI 2015/446)
The third item for today is the consideration of an instrument that is subject to negative procedure. Paper 5 summarises the purpose and prior consideration of the regulations. Members might wish to note that the committee will receive an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities on the suite of secondary legislation on public procurement reform when it considers the draft Procurement (Scotland) Regulations 2016, which are an affirmative instrument, at a future committee meeting.
The committee will now consider any issues that it might wish to report to Parliament on the regulations. Members should note that no motions to annul have been received. I invite comments from members.
As the convener has rightly pointed out, this is a negative instrument and there have been no motions to annul. I have some points to put on the record for passing on to the cabinet secretary.
The regulations are fine as far as they go, but there is a big gap in that there is no reference to or substantial action on tax dodging. I support the moves by Christian Aid, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Unison and others to restrict from Government procurement companies that avoid paying tax. I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am a member of Unison.
It is difficult to ascertain the unpaid tax for the UK, but the estimate from the group that I have just mentioned is that there is around £25 billion in unpaid tax because of aggressive tax avoidance. We probably all want to secure tax justice, and I believe that the regulations before us today have a big gap in that regard.
Europe has had a lot of positive things to say about tackling tax avoidance and I would support Europe-wide tax reporting to ensure that large companies such as Amazon do not get round domestic tax laws. I believe that Scottish firms are losing out because of tax dodging because, unlike multinational firms, they are less able to use aggressive tax avoidance, and we would not want them to do that.
There is clear economic, social and community benefit in companies that want to benefit from the public pound paying their fair share of tax.
Thank you. It is helpful to have your comments on the record. I am not entirely clear that the issue that you raise falls within the remit of the regulations or the primary legislation. However, I might have a solution, which would be for us to write to the cabinet secretary to ask him to provide further clarification on the issues that you have raised, should the committee be minded to do so.
I simply want to comment on the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion, one of which is a criminal offence while the other is a practical management issue.
I also note that the UK Government is doing quite a lot to tighten up the regime and close some of the doors that have been left open. Along with one or two other significant points, the matter was discussed extensively when the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament; we had these arguments then.
With the one reservation that the regulations are something of a telephone directory of secondary legislation and the instrument can be difficult to assess, the regulations appear to give effect to the provisions of the bill as it was when we passed it in the chamber. I am therefore content with the instrument.
Are there any further comments?
If I am correct, all members have received a briefing from Unison on the regulations. I received it just as an MSP; it was not specifically for my attention. The committee has been asked about the issues that we want to report to Parliament, so we should say that we have been approached by organisations outwith Parliament that have concerns and it is not just MSPs who are concerned. That should be put on the record.
That is helpful. Are members content to write to the cabinet secretary in advance of his appearance at the committee to ask for further clarification on the issues that have been raised?
Members indicated agreement.
All the issues that members have raised can be put directly to the cabinet secretary when he appears before the committee. Are we agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendation to Parliament on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you.
12:15 Meeting continued in private until 12:28.Previous
Forth Road Bridge Closure