Chamber and committees

Certainly. I note that, in its report, the DPLR Committee accepted the reasons that we provided.

Fundamentally, in November and December of last year, we consulted on a proposal for the amendment order. As the committee will appreciate, we took some time to consider the responses that we received via that consultation, and to engage in further discussions with stakeholders. There was then a decision from the Upper Tribunal for Scotland, which was publicised in May and which, naturally, we wanted to take further time to consider. In effect, therefore, the first practicable date on which to make and lay the order was 1 July. Given that we need to provide certainty and clarity to taxpayers and their customers, it would not have been appropriate to wait until after the summer recess had concluded.

Thank you, convener, and good afternoon to the committee.

The Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014 provides for the Scottish ministers to prescribe specific landfill site activities, with the effect that those will be treated as taxable disposals regardless of whether they meet the three conditions that are set out in section 3 of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014. Those powers are exercised through the Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Order 2014.

The Scottish Landfill Tax (Prescribed Landfill Site Activities) Amendment Order 2022 provides additional confirmation about whether a taxable disposal has been made and ensures that there is clarity for taxpayers and their customers. It amends the existing prescription of cell bunds to specify that the use of material to construct or maintain a cell wall is a taxable activity. It also provides that, in addition to the current list of prescribed activities, any other use of material in a landfill cell will be taxable, with certain listed exceptions.

Although additional landfill site activities are prescribed, the effect of the amendment order is to confirm what the Scottish Government considers to be the existing scope of the tax. It is intended to provide additional certainty for taxpayers and their customers.

In order to minimise any potential period of uncertainty, and as provided for in the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act 2014, the amendment order was introduced using the provisional affirmative procedure, and took effect from 1 July 2022.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the amendment order also ensures that the scope of landfill tax in Scotland continues to be consistent with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I am happy to take questions.

A number of considerations have played into having consistency with the rest of the UK, but yes: when it comes to the way in which the landfill tax operates—the committee will be familiar with the setting of landfill tax rates—avoiding waste tourism has been a key concern in taking the decisions.

Absolutely. I very much appreciate that point. It was only because of the unique circumstances pertaining to the amendment order that we found ourselves laying it on 1 July. We are absolutely committed to ensuring, where possible, that we can provide the maximum opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise all legislation.

The options that were available to us were those that are set out in section 6 of the Landfill Tax (Scotland) Act. What we did was consistent with the order-making power within those provisions.

Any question about the more general use by ministers of the provisional affirmative procedure would more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Parliamentary Business.

I reiterate my point to the convener: it tends to be the case that we are required to use the affirmative procedure only in very specific circumstances. We use it only when that is absolutely required.

I am conscious that there was stakeholder interest in that matter. As the committee will appreciate, there is a degree of complexity around it but I am happy to take it away and consider it carefully. With any such matter, given the complexity, we must always be careful that we do not end up creating unintended consequences. Having said that, I am happy to consider the matter as part of the broader work that we are doing in our wider review of statutory debt solutions.

I invite Alex Reid to comment.

That is not a problem.

I am conscious that the matter has been raised. It is important to recognise that, although there is a 10-year period for the full administration of the minimal asset process bankruptcy, there is also a five-year period. I can understand the reasons and rationale that have been presented for removing the restriction, but it is often the case that the MAP is the best solution for someone because of their particular circumstances.

We have to recognise—as I am sure that we all do—the significance of the step of going into sequestration. I also make the point that, if someone has to have multiple bankruptcies in a limited period of, for example, a decade, it suggests that there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

However, as the committee is aware, we are in the process of conducting a wider review. The working groups have reported, we will continue to engage with stakeholders and we will be consulting later this year. I look forward to the committee’s report on its inquiry and understanding the committee’s views more fully. At this point, I would say that I recognise the rationale behind calls to allow people to access the minimal asset process more than once within a 10-year period. However, we have to consider that carefully.

I ask Alex Reid to respond to the question about the process for changing that.

I echo the cabinet secretary’s points and recognise that, although it is not for Government to mandate to local authorities how they manage debt, the work of the committee will be important in informing how local authorities choose to conduct their processes.

I am sorry, Mr Balfour—did you have a second question?

I am not aware of any discussion having taken place on that.