Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, we would certainly be happy to receive that information. We are expecting the minister at our meeting next week, so if we receive it before then, we can certainly put questions to the minister on the topic.

We have been told anecdotally about unregistered quarries and stuff like that. Scotland is not Russia; it is not a vast expanse of a country. One would have thought that it should be easy enough to find a few unregistered quarries and tax them. It seems bizarre. One would have thought that a legitimate quarry that sells aggregates would say, “That guy down the road isn’t paying his taxes. What are you going to do about it?”

What is the scale of that? We have been told that SEPA can be finicky and pernickety about the licences that registered aggregates producers have, yet it almost seems as though those who are allegedly not registered and not paying any taxes are completely ignored. It just seems bizarre to me.

Yes, indeed.

I am not convinced that that is the rationale behind the bill, but there are questions that we can put to people, including the minister when he comes next week. That is an obvious question to put to him and, possibly, Revenue Scotland in the next evidence session.

Thanks very much for your evidence.

During the second part of our evidence session on the Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill, we will hear from Revenue Scotland. I welcome Elaine Lorimer, chief executive; John McVey, programme manager; and James Lindsay, Scottish aggregates tax design project manager. I understand that Ms Lorimer would like to make a short opening statement.

Thank you for that upbeat and interesting opening statement. I will refer to that as I ask my questions, before opening the session to colleagues.

You said that Revenue Scotland has worked closely with aggregates industry representatives. We have discussed how they have emphasised the need for a level playing field across the UK. However, other people have a different view on that. For example, the Scottish Environmental Services Association and the Resource Management Association Scotland argue in favour of an increased rate of tax in Scotland to incentivise the wider adoption of recycled aggregates, and have asked for the two Governments to work together, where possible, to bring about a UK-wide increase in the aggregates tax and levy. If that is not possible, they would like the Scottish Government to increase taxation on non-recycled primary aggregates in order to fulfil the Government’s objective of switching more production and usage to secondary recycled products. Have you had much contact with organisations such as those?

I appreciate that, and I realise that Revenue Scotland is there to implement Scottish Government policy. However, from your opening statement and your submission—I might have read that wrong—it appears that it is almost a case of saying, “Okay, we’ll just go ahead with that”, rather than querying whether that is the right thing to do and whether ministers are being advised that that is the way forward. Ministers listen to what Revenue Scotland has to say—it is not a one-way conversation.

We will put those matters to the minister next week.

Table 1 in the financial memorandum estimates that, in the current financial year, £60 million would be raised and that, over the next five years, that would increase to £64 million. Assuming that the tax rate remains the same, that does not suggest that there will be much of a switch to secondary products at all. It looks almost to be a case of steady as she goes. Is that a reasonable assumption on the basis of the financial memorandum?

We have 32 local authorities. They must know what quarries they have in their areas—

What is the general sense of the scale of unregistered quarries—quarries that, even though the levy has been in place for 22 years, are not paying any tax?