���˿���

You are basically saying, as you do throughout your submission, that at 89 per cent we are almost in effect reaching the optimum amount, if you like, of what can be recycled. Therefore, any additional taxation that is imposed, should the Scottish Government’s bill plan to diverge from the UKAL—it does not plan to do so at this point, as far as I am aware—will not deliver any further recycling.

In one breath, COSLA is saying that it is not keen on the aggregates tax going up, because local authorities purchase large quantities of primary aggregates and there would therefore be an impact on their cost base, but, at the same time, COSLA wants to encourage greater use of recycled aggregates. Are those not contradictory objectives, given the fact that the levy is required in order to create a cost differential so that companies can invest more money in equipment for recycling?

Mr Doak, in paragraph 16 of your submission, you say:

“English producers may be keen to exploit any substantial increase in rates in Scotland.”

That depends on what you mean by “substantial”. What would you describe as “substantial”?

My understanding is that the Scottish Government does not intend to do this, but what if, for example, it decided to increase the rate from £2.03 per tonne, which is what it will be from April, to £3 per tonne? Given the cost of shipping or trucking aggregates, would an increase of £1 per tonne really mean that people would be shipping vast quantities of aggregates into Scotland? I would have thought that the cost of the shipments would be much higher than £1 per tonne once the fuel, the lorry driver and so on had been paid for. There are also not many highly populated areas near the border between Scotland and England; most of the cities that would use the aggregate are further south.

Therefore, would such an increase have a real impact? In other words, what is the elasticity of demand? Conversely, if the Scottish Government reduced the tax to £1 per tonne, would there suddenly be huge demand for Scottish aggregates in England? That seems a bit unrealistic—we are talking about £1 per tonne. I am struggling to see how changing the rate in either direction would have a major impact.

Private companies and local authorities are very responsible in how they deal with waste; they follow the regulations that apply. Have there been any prosecutions of unlicensed and unregulated dumpers?

Okay; I appreciate that.

Thank you. Incidentally, Gillian Mackay has had to leave to attend a meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau. She gives her apologies.

I have one further question for you, Mr Doak, before I open up the discussion to colleagues round the table. In the first paragraph of your written submission, you say:

“Extraction of ... aggregates in Scotland as in the rest of the UK is well-managed and heavily regulated. The industry has a strong environmental track record”.

I think that we recognise that. However, concerns have been raised about unregulated quarriers and so on. How big a problem or issue is that? Would you like the bill to tackle that?

That would be very welcome, and the sooner it could be introduced, the better.

Enterprise is obviously an issue. If one were to read the response without actually looking at the budget, one would think that everything was pretty hunky-dory in terms of the Government prioritising enterprise. However, what is said in the response is not really reflected in the budget figures. For example, in response to paragraph 102, you said:

“we have prioritised funding for the enterprise agencies to the extent possible given the extremely challenging settlement.”

You said “to the extent possible”, but I am looking at a 15 per cent reduction, which is pretty harsh. If we look at the overall settlement, the Scottish Government’s budget has not been reduced by that. The committee is of the view that we need a widening and growing tax base, which you refer to in other areas of your report. It seems to me and colleagues that 15 per cent is a pretty severe cut at such a time.

Thank you for that.

In paragraph 95 of our report, we raised concerns about the affordability and sustainability of the social security budget, which is growing inexorably. I am not making any comment as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing; I am just looking at the finances. One thing leapt out at me in your response. You said that

“the Scottish Government will ensure that there is budget cover within the overall Scottish Budget envelope”

to cover social security. Is the Government saying that the social security budget is sacrosanct in that, regardless of how demand grows—or reduces—the Scottish Government will meet it?

I will move on, because colleagues want to come in. In paragraph 144 of our report, we requested

“an update on when the Scottish Government will seek to schedule a parliamentary debate”

on the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s finances. The response says:

“The Scottish Government continues to support a debate ... on the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s finances as confirmed by the Deputy First Minister on 3 October 2023.”

That was five months ago, but we still do not have a scheduled date.

Let us be honest—some of the debates that we have had in the chamber have not exactly been thrillers. I have been in the chamber many times when the Presiding Officer has said, “I will allow the member a very generous six minutes,” because there is no great enthusiasm to speak. Debates that could last an hour are being extended to two hours and 20 minutes or whatever, whereas debates such as the one that we have requested, which are important, are not being scheduled.

There is a lot more to cover, but we have a full house, so I will open up the discussion to colleagues.