Chamber and committees

It falls to me to shed the last beam of light from the Scottish National Party back benches, so I will try my best. First, I extend my thanks for the thorough way in which the minister has carried out his duties. I always have confidence that he is across his brief and well prepared as he appears in front of the FPA Committee. Secondly, I thank Revenue Scotland, which always exudes a certain joy about its role of robust tax collection.

I will comment briefly on some of the themes that have already been covered. First, the potential take for this tax is very low, assuming that the rate remains the same. Even if it reaches the top estimate of £61 million, we must bear in mind that that will be treated as part of the block grant adjustment via the fiscal framework. I suspect that the cost of set-up will far outweigh any benefit, and, in common with my colleague John Mason, I have to comment on how costs have been allocated. The Scottish Government having to reimburse the UK Government for switching off UKAL and bearing the costs of set-up is another example of heads Westminster wins, tails Scotland loses.

I fear that the levy is a bit of a tinkering tax that will have only a limited ability to make a difference, be it in driving forward a circular economy, in tax take or in changing consumer behaviour. I can sense that that view is shared by Opposition parties, yet we are all going along with it—so, it is all good so far.

My second comment is about data, which has already been referenced by others. We do not know how many quarries we have, a certain percentage of them appear not to be paying UK tax at all, we have no Scottish disaggregated data from HMRC, and the mechanisms for collecting the data are very uncertain. The committee’s stage 1 report notes:

“While we understand the current limitations with regards to the availability of disaggregated data for the UKAL in Scotland, the Committee is strongly of the view that such data is needed in order to establish the tax elasticity and enable future governments to set an appropriate rate of tax that will achieve the above stated aims while effectively managing the challenges and risks of behavioural change.”

That is an important comment, albeit a slightly technical one, and I certainly agree. Data is something that we lack in Scotland. Just recently, I wrote to the Office for National Statistics to inquire how we can access Scotland-specific data for the likes of inflation according to the consumer prices index or even those areas that are provided as inputs to CPI inflation. I fear that our Scottish Government is having to make financial decisions based on guesswork, and that cannot be acceptable.

My second theme concerns unregistered quarries, or so-called pop-up quarries, with materials taken from fields. The stage 1 report notes that “this could be significant.” Section 8(5) of the bill seeks to deal with that position, and it states that, where there is a supply chain arising from an agreement to supply aggregate, every person in that chain

“is liable to pay the total amount of tax chargeable on the quantity of aggregate as a result of the agreement, unless”

they have acquired the aggregate from a supplier who is registered for tax. That can only involve significant effort, including visits to sites. Revenue Scotland appeared confident that it could make a difference in that regard, but that remains to be seen.

My final observation concerns the opportunity to encourage the use of secondary aggregates. MPA Scotland stated that the UK has

“seen continued growth in the use of recycled materials and secondary aggregates”

and noted the indication that

“89 per cent of secondary and recycled aggregates are being used within the market.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 5 March 2024; c 34.]

There is still much that is unknown in this matter, however, and we are clearly some way from utilising the legislation to help improve a circular economy.

Arguably, the UK Government should be using such measures much more frequently. I am on record commenting in this Parliament that an estimated £262 billion is lost to UK gross domestic product every year as a result of tax avoidance, money laundering and so on, which I think rather puts that into context.

I, too, will speak about referencing data in my speech. However, we need to be clear that the data that the Scottish Government does not hold is actually data that the UK Government does not collect, and we need to emphasise the need for disaggregated Scottish data across the piece. Does Liz Smith agree?

I will bring in Donald Macleod to answer the same question. What is currently missing from the policy landscape to support Scots? How will the bill address any gaps?

So your commentary is really about—

Thank you.

I will not bring in Joanna Peteranna at the moment. I will go back to a question for James Wylie about Orcadian. In the work that you have done in your communities, what does success look like and how do you measure it?

We heard earlier about the limited financial resources that come with the bill. Notwithstanding that lack of financial resources, are there ways in which the bill will be helpful in providing additional support?

Good morning and thanks for joining us. I want to take a sense check on the financial memorandum. Your written submission gives some fairly stern commentary on some of the issues that you cover often, such as resource, the seeking of more investment and the potential diminishing of trust within communities if the associated funding is not in place. I am a bit confused about how that relates to the financial memorandum, which sets out the fact that things are moving from one body of good practice, in the existing plans, through what is in essence a refocusing. First, how rigorously have you been through the financial memorandum, and what additional commentary can you therefore give? Secondly, what discussions have you had with the Scottish Government that articulate at a detailed level the concerns that you have illustrated in your written submission?

You have given a general sense of how long-term funding constraints have affected you, and I do not disagree. I know from my other life on the Finance and Public Administration Committee that your commentary is the same as that of a multitude of other sectors and organisations. However, I was trying to explore the extent to which you have had active discussions with the Scottish Government on the specifics that are contained in the financial memorandum.

Let us assume that the bill goes through, that the refocusing take place and that you have to do that work on your existing resource. Have you had discussions on what that would look like? The financial memorandum suggests that it can happen within your existing envelope. Have you gone down to that level of discussion with the Scottish Government?