Chamber and committees

As the committee will appreciate, matters of enforcement and administration are properly for Revenue Scotland, as are issues with compliance. I appreciate that Revenue Scotland has set out the approach that it will take in detail to the committee in advance—

It is an important area to explore. Certainly, the Government has its approaches. However, I am also conscious that non-ministerial offices are directly accountable to Parliament. Although they are part of the Scottish Administration, they have autonomy and independence in how they operate. In the case of Revenue Scotland in particular, we all recognise why that is important.

With regard to how NMOs would seek to adopt automation processes, AI and so on, Parliament has the opportunity to directly scrutinise the work that those offices undertake. Parliament will scrutinise the legislative framework within which Revenue Scotland will operate. We have responded to the points that have been raised with us by Revenue Scotland. Bringing forward the regulation-making power will allow us to ensure that we do not inhibit Revenue Scotland’s ability to adopt AI approaches that would benefit users of the tax system and, indeed, the overall delivery of public services.

I appreciate the point that you make. In this context, because it is a regulation-making power, some of the points that we are starting to touch on relate more to the regulations themselves and interrogating what is brought forward—

I have not had any direct conversations with the UK Government on that matter, but I am conscious that the issue has been raised at committee, with the suggestion that, with the Scottish aggregates tax going live, there should be direct engagement with the UK Government in such areas.

The broader situation within the UK and the decisions that the UK Government makes will be among the many factors that will inform consideration of rate setting when the Government and Parliament set the rate for the aggregates tax.

It has been brought to our attention and is under consideration at the moment. We will, of course, update the committee in due course, but I am aware of the specific requests and, indeed, the previous commitments that have been made in that area.

Yes.

I cannot speak on behalf of HMRC. I appreciate that Jonathan Waite earlier tried to set out our understanding of what the issue would be for HMRC. We engage but, ultimately, the UK aggregates levy is a UK tax. It is set by the UK Government and administered by HMRC, so how that tax is administered and the requirements on the body that is charged with administering it are not things over which I have any executive competence.

You touch on and anticipate a point that I was going to make, which is that, without pre-empting future rates, there are opportunities to consider how the tax would operate in relation to landfill tax and to take a more rounded approach. That reflects the discussion that we had at the committee a few weeks ago on landfill tax, when the convener was raising those questions directly. As I said at that time, we will write back to the committee on some of the broader considerations that inform the landfill tax approach, beyond the long-stated commitment around parity with the UK to avoid waste tourism and so on.

With the powers contained in the bill coming online, Governments will be afforded the opportunity in the future to consider how the two rates could interact with each other. We would reiterate that careful consideration and consultation with industry are required, but there is a broader opportunity to consider how the two taxes could potentially complement each other in supporting the circular economy objectives.

We all recognise that Revenue Scotland is a highly respected body. It is an NMO, and it is appropriate for it to have that range of powers available to it with regard to the administration of the tax. However, I am happy to reflect on any specific considerations that the committee raises ahead of stage 2. We will read the committee’s stage 1 report with interest, as I am sure that Revenue Scotland will. For specific concerns and specific asks for reassurance, I will want to engage with Revenue Scotland to understand its position. However, I will reflect on that matter carefully.

It is probably better that I respond to that point. I will not rehearse the points that I made earlier, but we are being very clear about the challenges that exist around data. Through the work that we have done in commissioning surveys to harness the existing information that is available to utilise, we have sought to provide as much of an evidence base as possible, but I must be clear with the committee that we will not have the level of data and the sort of evidence base that we would ideally like until such time as the tax is operational and we start getting the returns.

Of course, Revenue Scotland is an efficient and effective organisation and, as that data starts to come online, we will have the abundance of data and evidence that is required to allow more informed decisions to be taken around the role that the aggregates tax can play in achieving broader policy objectives around the circular economy and in the sector itself.

As I touched on in my earlier answer, many of the issues around uncertainty can be addressed with the tax coming into operation and the provision of data that will follow from that process.

I recognise that in any transfer of power there are costs involved. That is reflected in the other devolved taxes and in other areas such as social security. However, it is important to assess the value of the devolution of any power. In the case of a tax power, it is not simply about looking at the set-up costs but about assessing costs over the medium to longer term. That is a fairer approach to take.

I very much recognise the costs involved in the establishment of the tax, and I recognise the two challenges that have been discussed around data. The challenges around data can be remedied with time and with the tax being collected by Revenue Scotland.

We have already identified an opportunity to address, through the legislation, some of the concerns that have been raised around compliance and, should Parliament agree to the bill, there will, of course, be the opportunity to reflect on and review that issue after the legislation has had some time in operation. The additional data that is provided will create a larger evidence base for future Governments to consider in their use of the power.