Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is to do with section 130 of the Finance Act 2008, which has to do with debt management and is what HMRC uses. Basically, it is about the offsetting of debts and where that applies.

We appreciate that. Do you want to make any further points before we wind up the session, minister?

I am sure that there is, and I am sure that colleagues will pick up on that issue. Meanwhile, let us go back to the crazy, wild world of aggregates and the legislation that is before us.

In your opening statement, you said that the levy will broadly align with the UK aggregates levy. You mentioned that limited data is available on Scottish aggregates, although we were told that about 5.5 million tonnes are shipped south of the border and that only about 16,000 tonnes are shipped north of the border. That is an issue, as it might mean that implementation of the aggregates tax would result in tax that currently comes to Scotland—worth perhaps £10 million a year—being lost to Scotland. Will you comment on that?

We are looking at a bill that will involve set-up costs of more than £4 million, with running costs of about £915,000 a year, according to the financial memorandum. The nudge and wink that you are giving us is that, although it is up to future budgets to set the aggregates tax, it looks as if it is going to be exactly the same—at the pennies—as the levy south of the border at present.

I was going to ask you about that at the end, but as you are giving me a nudge and a wink to ask about it now, I suppose that I may as well. Last week’s witnesses called for a finance bill, as have Liz Smith and I and other committee members for a number of years, because that would provide an opportunity to make changes across areas for which we have responsibility and, as you know, the Government is working on six new taxes.

Such a system would make it a lot easier to locate where provisions are and would provide a timetable for people to feed into the process in order to make representations about what can be influenced or included in that year’s finance bill. That seems to me and other committee members to be a fairly logical step forward.

I suppose that, given what you have said, the sooner we start, the better.

I take the word “prudent” as meaning inertia. A company that is investing millions of pounds in buying or innovating with regard to the latest technology to process and recycle, in the belief that the Scottish Government will move forward to a circular economy, will not see any evidence that that is the case. I am seeing evidence of a bureaucratic change whereby a tax is being devolved without any seeming ambition to make it any different from the tax in the rest of the UK. There will then be a wrestle with the UK over the impact on our block grant and so on and what that means for Scotland. It seems to me to be completely underwhelming.

The business and regulatory impact assessment refers to introducing

“a replacement tax that retains the fundamental structure of UKAL”—

that is, the UK aggregates levy—

“while being tailored to Scotland’s needs.”

I am just not seeing anything that is tailored to Scotland’s needs. Who undertook that BRIA?

Is HMRC just not telling you? Why do you not have that data? Surely you have asked. It must have some information on that within a margin of 5 or 10 per cent. I would have thought that it is pretty straightforward.

I apologise. What part of the bill will help Revenue Scotland to deliver that outcome?

You have been talking to HMRC for two years, so I do not understand why you do not have that information.

You talked about the Smith commission, but the committee has already said that it does not support the assignment of VAT because it would provide no advantage whatsoever to Scotland and trying to establish it would be a bureaucratic mishmash.

It is not just about devolving for the sake of devolving—there have to be some advantages. One advantage could be, as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency suggested,

“the use of secondary, recycled aggregates in Scotland as part of our shift towards a more circular economy”.

However, if you are not doing anything differently, there are no advantages. I note that you are saying that one day, in the far, distant future, the rate might be £2.05 as opposed to the £2.03 that it will be from April. I am sorry for being sarcastic, but the Government’s uber-cautious approach to the issue is underwhelming, to put it mildly.

I will move on—