³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I will ask Jonathan Waite to talk about what we have done in the legislation. However, I note that, when you took evidence from Revenue Scotland last week, it set out how it will approach the tax. As the administering authority, it will undertake a level of engagement and, indeed, bring a level of attention and focus to the tax. That will be a crucial change and one of the key wins and gains that will result from the devolution of the tax, given that, as has been discussed at the committee, the UK aggregates levy is one of the smaller taxes in the broader context of the suite of UK taxes that are administered by HMRC.

Certainly. That would be subject to regulations, in relation to which there would be full public and stakeholder consultation and an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.

If I remember correctly, it might have been Mr Mason who raised the example of there being a penny difference in council tax and an automated reminder notice going out, which seemed somewhat disproportionate. I am conscious of the response that you received from Revenue Scotland with regard to that, which is that it would want to ensure that its processes in relation to automation were proportionate and balanced.

I do not want to pre-empt the regulations or say what work Revenue Scotland, as a non-ministerial office, would want to take forward, but I think that we would be less concerned with areas in which human judgment is required and looking more at automating routine tasks, which would allow staff to be freed up and deployed in other areas.

However, I want to provide you with the reassurance that there would be that full opportunity for consultation, engagement on the regulations and parliamentary scrutiny.

We are operating within the parameters of the 2016 act concerning the commercial exploitation of aggregates. I am conscious that questions were raised in the committee previously as to whether there was another point of charge. The fact that we have to operate within the parameters of the legislation creates a limitation, but that is what the consensus was, that is what the agreement was and that is what we have to work with.

As for different approaches, as we have set out—we went into some detail on this earlier—the rationale behind our approach, with a broader alignment with the existing UK aggregates levy, is that it reflects what business is familiar with. It recognises that it has not been a straightforward process to get to the point of the current UK scheme, as I appreciate the committee will understand.

That has been our starting point. Indeed, that is perhaps a better way to put it: the bill represents a starting point, and one on which there has been broad consensus from industry. The bill is not an end point. How the power is used and develops will be for Governments in the future to determine.

The flexibilities that are afforded to us by the Scotland Act 2016 determine what we can do, to an extent.

Robert, did anything come up on those areas during the deliberations of the advisory group?

I am sorry, convener, but is this with regard to interaction with Revenue Scotland?

I only want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak this morning and for all your engagement in the matter. I look forward to further discussions as the bill goes forward.

I am conscious that we discussed that under another agenda item a few weeks ago. Some strong and clear arguments have been deployed in favour of the principle of an annual finance bill. I note that witnesses have made the point that a finance bill would help to make the system more user-friendly by bringing things together and allowing for increased scrutiny through primary legislation as opposed to secondary legislation. A range of strong arguments has been made.

Our position is that we are not opposed in principle, but it would be a significant undertaking for the Parliament. The established budget processes have been developed, to some extent, in partnership with the Parliament through the budget process review work in the previous parliamentary session and by joint agreement with the committee. Any move would represent a fundamental change. I do not state opposition in principle, but we would need to do a lot more work jointly with the Parliament. It is for the committee to determine its remit, but I imagine that it would have a key and central role to play in that work. If we were going to move to that system, it would be a significant change to how things currently operate, depending on the scope of a finance bill.

I have touched on some ideas that stakeholders suggested. To some extent, such an approach would have to be a joint undertaking. I reiterate the point that I made previously. If there is a desire to explore the matter in more detail and to establish what such a process could look like, there is a willingness on my part and that of officials to have those discussions. However, the Government cannot take that forward on its own, because it is quite a significant change. As the committee will appreciate, whether through agreements with Parliament or through standing orders, there are established budget processes, and it is important that Parliament has a key role in what any change would look like.

On the arguments against a finance bill—I am not advancing any such arguments on behalf of the Government—I would just reflect on the fact that, in our existing system, tax changes are made through secondary legislation. Occasionally, we will bring forward primary legislation on tax, such as that which we are considering this morning, which will afford opportunities for wider reforms, but I recognise the criticisms of that approach, too. In considering any changes, I would want to ensure that we fully understand the full range of views. However, as I have said, I am sympathetic to the position that has been put forward.

I appreciate that we do not have any direct control over this matter, but—this goes back to a point that I made earlier—our overall ability to scrutinise the public finances in Scotland would be enhanced if the UK Government took a certain approach with regard to its own budget-setting process. However, I am not going to rehearse all the arguments, as we have been through them before.

There might be an opportunity in how Parliament might wish to consider the matter. Yes, this is, first and foremost, about holding the Government to account and scrutinising its position through the Parliament’s own processes, but it is also about looking at the wider UK fiscal framework and how the UK Government itself operates. That approach would certainly assist the Government, but it would be of use to the Parliament, too. I appreciate, though, that we have no direct control over that. I would certainly be more than happy to engage with the Parliament in conversations and discussions about issues of fiscal transparency and engagement with regard to what any finance bill or process would look like. If the committee wanted to do a bit of work on the matter, I and my officials would be happy to engage with it.

I think that that just reflects the existing arrangements that were in place for the taxes that were devolved previously. We have set out some estimates based on the costs when those taxes came online and what the process entailed. Jonathan, do you have anything to add?

To avoid any doubt, I say that I am not pre-empting the budget, and I am certainly not seeking to pre-empt the 2026-27 budget, which, if Parliament agrees to the legislation, is when we would anticipate the tax going live.

The points that I speak to around continuity and certainty are really a reflection of this being a new power and a recognition of the limitations that we have with regard to data. If I were to suggest something to the contrary, questions might be raised about whether that was a responsible and proportionate approach and whether we should wait until we have more data and a greater understanding of the position.