Section 113 of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 sets out the circumstances in which Revenue Scotland need not give effect to a repayment claim, to the extent that the claim falls within one of a list of exceptions. Originally, section 52 of the bill inserted a new exception, allowing the repayment of a claim to be refused in circumstances where a taxpayer has another amount of tax outstanding. That was primarily a revenue protection measure. Without that provision, Revenue Scotland would be required to give effect to a repayment claim by refunding the amount claimed and then trying to recover any separate amount owed by the same taxpayer.

During recent stakeholder engagement, I was pleased to hear that the Law Society of Scotland is supportive of the policy intention behind the provision, and I thank it for engaging with my officials to help to clarify the wording of the provision. During on-going stakeholder engagement on the bill provisions, it became clear that the placement of the provision in section 113 could give rise to some confusion, as section 113 contains a list of the grounds on which Revenue Scotland need not ever give effect to a repayment claim. That could result in a misunderstanding of the intention of the provision, which is only ever supposed to be temporary in effect. I have therefore lodged amendments 6 and 7, which aim to provide greater clarity in that area.

Amendment 6 introduces a new exception to the existing duty that is outlined in schedule 3 to the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, which requires Revenue Scotland to give effect to a claim or amendment as soon as is practical after a claim is made, amended or corrected. The new exception, which is introduced by amendment 6, enables Revenue Scotland to disapply that duty to the extent of a failure to pay another amount of tax. The underlying duty to give effect to the claim continues to apply to the extent that the repayment exceeds the other amount of tax due, in which case the result will be a partial repayment to the taxpayer. As soon as the other amount of tax owed is settled, the exception no longer applies and Revenue Scotland will be required to give effect to the entirety of the claim.

I thank Liz Smith for her comments; I have no further comments to add.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Section 52—Refusal of repayment claim where other tax not paid

Amendment 7 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

I am reminded by the Deputy First Minister, who is sitting next to me, that it was she who started the Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill on its journey, so my thanks to her and to my colleague Tom Arthur, who did most of the heavy lifting in taking the bill through, prior to my taking it up. I also thank the officials who have worked on the bill, the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its constructive engagement, and stakeholders.

The bill, which was supported unanimously by all parties at stage 1, provides for the key elements of a new devolved tax on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates in Scotland. The Scottish aggregates tax will replace the United Kingdom aggregates levy in Scotland. In high-level terms, it will, for the first time in Scotland, be a tax on the crushed rock, gravel and sand from quarries that are commercially exploited. The new tax makes use of a Scotland Act 2016 power and will increase the number of devolved taxes and the proportion of the Scottish budget raised here in Scotland.

Most of my speech will focus on the Scottish aggregates tax, although I will briefly discuss part 2 of the bill, which includes provisions to support the effective and efficient collection of all fully devolved taxes by Revenue Scotland.

I thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bill up to this point. The bill has been informed by valuable engagement with and input from representatives of the aggregates industry and a range of other interested organisations. I also thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill, as well as all those who provided evidence at stage 1.

I thank Fergus Ewing for his question. I know that he has a particular interest in that proposal. Through economy ministers—and indeed all ministers—the Government is engaged extensively with all sectors of the economy, primarily on a sector basis through industry leadership groups, of which I think there are now 15 or 16 in operation, all with ministerial involvement. I know that those in the sector are keen to engage more extensively with the Government in a structured way, and I would very much welcome the establishment of such a forum. Clearly, legislation is not required to take that forward; indeed, as far as I am aware, none of the other ILGs has a legislative framework around it. Through either a subset of the Construction Leadership Forum or a specific minerals industry forum, I would be very supportive of taking that proposal forward.

Turning to the bill, my overall intention is that the Scottish aggregates tax will support the Government’s circular economy aspirations by encouraging the minimum necessary exploitation of primary aggregates while maximising the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. It will do that by taxing the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates, thereby creating a price signal to promote the use of secondary and recycled aggregates. However, I recognise the clear importance of primary aggregates in supporting new housing, the building of new roads, the development of energy infrastructure and many other forms of construction activity.

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Section 45A—Failure to notify change to group treatment application or notification

Compulsory purchase orders can be effective in supporting the delivery of much-needed development in the public interest. However, the legislation is recognised as being complex and out of date. We believe that its reform could contribute to outcomes that people associate with compulsory sales orders, such as bringing more vacant property back into use. That is why, as a first step, we have established an advisory group to review the current legislation and its operation and to seek ways of improving it and making it easier to use. We also continue to consider the justification for, and practical operation of, compulsory sales orders.

There are currently 74 on-going PFI contracts, and the total estimated cost of all the remaining payment charges from 2024-25 onwards is approximately £13.6 billion. The Scottish Government has called on the United Kingdom Government to reverse the damaging policies of the previous Administration, including by removing the benefit cap and abolishing the bedroom tax and the two-child limit. We are spending £134 million this year alone on mitigating the damaging welfare policies that were put in place by the previous UK Government, including the benefit cap and the bedroom tax.

That money could be spent on services such as health and education or on further ambitious anti-poverty measures, and it would pay for around 2,000 teachers or band 5 nurses each year.

The latest published data shows that the total estimated cost of private finance initiative payments in 2024-25 is £1.1 billion.

Work is being done on land reform, but, on the specific issue that Ariane Burgess raises, the work that has been done on compulsory purchase orders is to update the legislation to enable the process to be smoother and to be applied more effectively. The value that is ascribed when a compulsory purchase order goes through has to take into account a number of factors relating to the value of the asset that is being purchased at that time.

Councils already have the opportunity to increase council tax on empty properties; that is an option for them to take into account. The Government is undertaking work to look at what can be done to bring more properties back into use. Work with stakeholders is on-going, and we are looking for all opportunities and levers that we can use in that regard.

The reform of compulsory purchase orders is important, because it will make them easier to use and a more effective tool for local authorities and other public bodies. We are also looking at the scope and value that compulsory sales orders could bring to that picture. However, they are not a panacea. There are many complexities around the application of compulsory sales orders that need to be considered as part of the review.