Official Report 174KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is consideration of petitions that have been referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. The first petition is PE178, from the British Aggregates Association, on the implications of the aggregates tax for the Scottish economy. Do members have any comments? Obviously, taxation is a reserved matter.
I have received representations from at least three or four major quarry operators in my constituency, who are very concerned that the tax will undermine their competitive position. Indeed, smaller rural quarries—some of which rely on exporting and are currently under the cosh because of the strong pound—feel that the tax could hit at their viability. As the quarries provide jobs in very remote rural areas, I believe that we should register our concern about the tax and I ask committee members to support the petition.
What is George Lyon trying to achieve?
I am asking only that we take a position.
In a previous life, I went round many of those quarries and spoke to some of the people who worked in them. They were owned by major companies that operate across the UK and further afield. They may be based in rural communities, but they are linked to the construction of roads and benefit from all the public spending that is available, and one reads about the prices in Scotland compared with those in the south of England.
Duncan McNeil asked about the specific Scottish dimension, and that is something which crossed my mind. When I read the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee, I was struck by the answer given by Mr Durward, the representative of the British Aggregates Association, to a question from the convener about the Scottish dimension to the problem. He said that it is a problem for the Treasury. That is obviously true, although the Scottish quarries' competitive position is a matter that would concern us if it were adversely affected by the legislation, although I do not think that there is significant evidence to suggest that it is.
My point is similar to Allan Wilson's; it is a reserved matter. However, the suggestion is that we consult the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee. It would be interesting to do that, to examine the issues that were raised in the evidence session.
Like Allan Wilson and Nick Johnston, I think that we should consult the other committees. There might be a specific issue for Scottish local authorities, as an increase in the cost of materials used in road construction might have implications for them.
It is suggested that we take advice from other committees on the subject and consider their responses in due course. Is that agreed?
The second group of petitions, from Owen Connelly, from the Strathmartine Women's Rural Institute and from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, relates to sub-post offices. The committee will recall that, on 3 May, we considered a petition on sub-post offices from Dunlop and Lugton Community Council. At that stage, the committee offered no comment, but supported the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee that the Rural Affairs Committee should consider the issues raised by the petition in its inquiry into the impact of rural employment change. I think that these new petitions fall into the same category. Do members agree to refer them to the Rural Affairs Committee?