Chamber and committees

I cannot speak to the specific cost of doing that by truck. There can be other means of transport, such as by sea and by rail.

We will engage constructively with HMRC. I will invite Jon Waite to comment, but in terms of the engagement that we have had—

Mr Waite touched on a particular point. If the committee has views regarding the need for additional legislative provisions to provide additional support for Revenue Scotland, or if there is anything in the bill that would inhibit Revenue Scotland from carrying out its duties, we would want to be made aware of that. Our position and our understanding is that what we have provided for will allow Revenue Scotland to discharge its responsibilities as a tax authority, which include compliance issues.

If there is a willingness in the committee to start engaging in that work, I am more than happy to pick that up.

It is certainly a commitment. If the committee would like any additional assurance on the matter, I am happy to consider that.

I certainly want to do all that I can to raise awareness of the tax system in Scotland, and I appreciate the exchanges on the issue in the previous evidence session. I recognise that many people will engage with the tax system only when it bites them. The tax system is like many areas of regulation and policy in that, a bit like gravity, we do not really notice it until we have a stumble or, for some reason, we are reminded of it. It is understandable that, for many reasons, people do not have a requirement to engage with it in their day-to-day lives, so it is not a priority for them.

We have touched previously on broader issues around transparency and the information that is provided. I want to ensure that, as a Parliament and certainly as a Government, we communicate about tax in as clear and transparent a way as possible. I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck. Not providing enough detail and pursuing simplicity can mean that information is not fully understood. Providing too much detail can create complexity and some of the salient points can be lost. Therefore, on that broader question, I am always happy to engage with the committee. We have done various bits of work on social media and audiovisual packages, which have been shared, to highlight how the tax system operates in Scotland.

Revenue Scotland touched on the fact that it will be doing a lot of work around engagement with the sector prior to the tax going live. That reflects what happens routinely in the work of Revenue Scotland. For example, in an earlier evidence session, we touched on changes to LBTT and the work that Revenue Scotland is doing to engage with stakeholders, recognising that that is often quite specialist engagement with those who are actively involved, professionally, in the administration of taxes and the provision of advice on them. Revenue Scotland does an excellent job.

With regard to suggestions about how the Government can more effectively communicate changes around taxes and increase public understanding of the tax landscape across the UK and how it applies in Scotland between devolved, reserved and local matters, that is a conversation that I am always up for having.

Clearly, the application of the tax will support those objectives. I am thinking of the original intent of the UK aggregates levy, which goes back to, I think, 2002, as well as the UK Government review of it in 2019—it was published, I think, in 2020—which confirmed what policy intent was being realised through the levy. The tax supports that policy position, which is consistent with the intent of and what has been achieved by the UK levy.

The rate can be an element that influences the degree to which or seeks to—[Interruption.] The rate itself is clearly a specific component. The point that I am trying to make—and I apologise for the lack of clarity—is that the tax, in and of itself, supports the policy objective. Of course, the degree to which the tax supports it will be a reflection of the rate and the behavioural response to it.

Jonathan Waite can answer that.

I understand the point that you are making, and I am conscious of the issue that has been raised by stakeholders. I want to be clear that voluntary set-off with consent is already happening in Revenue Scotland. The other point to state is that we have identified that the introduction of the aggregates tax will increase the number of taxpayers who are active across multiple devolved taxes.

The power that has been highlighted is one that Revenue Scotland has asked for. It is consistent with powers that are enjoyed by HMRC. Revenue Scotland has already used it with consent, and it would allow for more efficient administration of the tax system.

As the member will appreciate, a number of factors can determine the availability and suitability of secondary and recycled materials. The committee will have heard a great deal of detail about that in its visits and engagement. We recognise the essential role that primary aggregates producers play in the Scottish economy and their essential role in delivering on infrastructure and a range of other projects.

On the revenue that is generated, you will be familiar with the OBR forecasts, and one would want to read into that for Scotland over the forecast period. Our focus, as I touched on earlier, is to ensure that we have legislation that provides for the effective administration of the tax and allows future Governments to take decisions, based on the data that they have available, about what the tax rate should be once the power comes into effect.

With regard to the revenue, a number of factors are involved. Revenue is not simply down to the tax itself and the rate at which it is set; it is down to the level of economic activity, macroeconomic conditions, the interaction of BGAs and so on, which I know the committee appreciates.