Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes: that is exactly one of the situations where an LDP could be amended in the light of new evidence coming forward. If a local place plan that a community produces misses the initial deadline, the planning authority might want to take that on board, and the regulations give it the scope to do that and make provision for it.

Planning authorities have clearly been involved in the consultation on introducing the proposed scope for making amendments under the relevant SSI. However, they are at various stages of pulling together their initial LDPs, so we are not yet at the stage when they would be thinking about amendments.

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

I thank the committee for the opportunity to briefly outline the aim and purpose of these new planning provisions. The provisions are contained across four Scottish statutory instruments. They are technical procedural regulations that deliver principles that are already established in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019.

Scotland’s plan-led system of development is widely supported. The regulations are an integral part of the Scottish Government’s wider planning reform programme, with which the committee will be familiar. The regulations provide further procedural information regarding amending the development plan and developing masterplan consent areas.

The powers for making amendments to the development plan are set out in primary legislation by changes made to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. The amendment regulations that are being laid regarding the national planning framework and local development plans provide the details of how the primary legislation’s requirements should be fulfilled. We have sought proportionality across both sets of amendment regulations while incorporating appropriate checks and balances to ensure transparency and fairness.

The 2019 act introduced powers to establish masterplan consent areas, and further regulations are required to set out the detailed procedures for their preparation and adoption. Masterplan consent areas are an up-front planning consent that provides certainty and makes places more attractive to investors.

We envisage that MCAs could enable development on a range of scales and in different parts of Scotland. For example, they could be used to help deliver national developments on green ports and new homes in urban and rural areas. Our 2024-25 programme for government commits us to support early adopters through the roll-out of MCAs, and officials are already engaging with several planning authorities to help them move forward.

Each of the sets of regulations that are being discussed today was informed by engagement with key stakeholders and a public consultation. Overall, respondents were generally supportive of the proposed approach in the regulations and I assure the committee that the regulations that are being considered today have taken account of the comments raised through the public consultations. We have published a report with a summary of responses to the consultations.

For the amendment regulations, there was strong agreement with the proportionate approach and the flexibility given to planning authorities in it. Similarly, for the MCA regulations, there was broad agreement that regulations should be kept to the minimum necessary in order to provide for maximum flexibility. Much of the detail of our expectations for MCAs will be set out in guidance that we will publish when the regulations come into force.

The draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 mirror the provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 and ensure that MCA schemes are compatible with wider EIA requirements. Respondents to the consultation welcomed that approach.

I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that the committee might have regarding the details contained in the regulations.

Clearly, it will be up to local authorities—the planning authorities—to introduce such amendments. As you are aware, each planning authority is now going through the process of putting their initial local development plans in place under NPF4.

We would not expect alterations to local developments for individual units, for example, or to take account of individual smaller applications. They would be made when the authorities wish to make a change to what they have identified as areas for some types of development within their plans. That could be triggered by a range of requirements.

I would not say that we have an expectation as to how often that would happen, but I would not expect it to be a very regular occurrence. It is up to the planning authorities to bring such amendments forward as they see fit.

Good morning, committee. Trade agreements often include provisions for providing for reciprocal access to public procurement. Although we know that trade is a reserved matter, implementation often occurs in devolved areas, such as public procurement. Accordingly, Scottish procurement regulations set out that bidders from countries where a relevant agreement applies are entitled to equal treatment when bidding for specified contracts in Scotland.

The instrument updates the list of relevant agreements, inserts a reference to a new agreement between the United Kingdom and Kazakhstan, and updates references to agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania. Agreements with those countries, which were originally reached by the European Union and then rolled over by the UK, included contracts for some healthcare services in their scope. Although that did not compel public bodies to award contracts for those services rather than provide them in-house, it meant that, if contracts for those services were ever to be awarded, bidders from those countries would be entitled to equal treatment.

The agreements have been renegotiated to remove healthcare services from their scope. The instrument will ensure that Scottish regulations refer to the refreshed agreements.

The Scottish Government has consistently and successfully implemented international obligations on procurement since 2006, when it first transposed EU procurement directives, and is consistent in its commitment to upholding international law. The amendments to trade agreements that are contained in the SSI are necessary to reflect changes to international obligations, and there is no substantive discretion exercisable in their implementation.

Those are both good questions. The SSI is to update the references to those countries, so they will still be in the agreement, but the agreement is being altered by UK legislation post-Brexit to exclude healthcare.

I ask officials to say whether they can be more specific about what healthcare provision has been excluded.

We will write back on that. I am not aware of whether those countries are providing any healthcare at the moment—I would be surprised if they were—but we will check that. We will find out what the position is—as far as we know—and get back to you.

I have no further comments.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Amendment 31 not moved.

Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Section 56, as amended, agreed to.

Section 57—Role of designated officer

Amendment 25 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

After section 57

The situation as is, without Liz Smith’s amendment 30, preserves the situation where the status quo applies; that is, where nothing is taken forward with regard to the situation until the appeal is resolved.

Amendment 22, which comes up in a later group, perhaps provides the reassurance that Liz Smith is seeking. Revenue Scotland gave commitments on that in its evidence. It is about putting into the legislation that the set-off is not applied until such time as any appeal process in relation to a dispute that might be in play in regard to a debit or money owed by a taxpayer to Revenue Scotland is resolved. It clarifies the point that the set-off would not take place until that happens. Amendment 22 therefore perhaps provides the reassurance that Liz Smith is seeking.

I urge members to support my amendments in the group. The amendments refine and add to the penalties relating to Scottish aggregates tax in part 1 of the bill. They integrate the penalties fully into the established devolved taxes penalty system and ensure consistency of approach with other fully devolved taxes.

Taxpayers are required by section 19 of the bill to notify Revenue Scotland when they cease to carry out any taxable activity so that they can be deregistered. Amendment 8 removes the penalty for failure to comply with that requirement. On reflection, I do not consider that a penalty is required, because there is no advantage to the taxpayer in remaining registered, and they will have to continue to fulfil other obligations until they are deregistered.

I turn to amendment 9. Section 211 of the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 provides that the amount of certain penalties is to be reduced by the amount of any other penalty if it is applied and determined by reference to the same tax liability. Amendment 9 adds the penalty for failure to notify Revenue Scotland of exempt aggregate production to the penalties eligible for a reduction of that kind.

Section 20 of the bill requires taxpayers to notify Revenue Scotland of the production of specified types of exempt aggregate and to keep required records in support of that notification. Amendment 10 creates a penalty for failing to keep records as required. That penalty is necessary to ensure that record-keeping requirements are complied with.

Amendment 12 makes a consequential change to section 44 of the bill. Amendment 11 removes the penalty that was included in the bill at introduction for providing inaccurate documents in support of tax credit claims. Having taken into consideration the evidence that was provided during stage 1 and further engagement with Revenue Scotland, I am now satisfied that the penalty duplicates powers that are already available to Revenue Scotland and should be removed to avoid confusion.

Amendment 14 makes a minor change consequential to that removal. For specified penalties, Revenue Scotland or a tax tribunal can accept that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a statutory requirement. In such cases, there can be no liability if a penalty arises.

Amendments 15 and 16 apply the provision on reasonable excuse to the new penalties for failing to notify Revenue Scotland of exempt aggregate production and for failing to notify a change to group treatment.

Finally, amendment 17 relates to all the new penalties for the Scottish aggregates tax and specifies rules relating to the payment of the penalties and their assessment by Revenue Scotland. The amendment is intended to ensure that there are clear and consistent rules for all the new penalties.

I move amendment 8.

I thank John Mason for lodging amendments 32 to 35. As the committee will know, it is standard practice for the Scottish Government to review all legislation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as part of our day-to-day policy development, and that is very much the case for tax legislation, too. Revenue Scotland is fully engaged in that process, offering its operational expertise in devolved tax administration.

The part 2 provisions in the bill relate to the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 and take account of that on-going process. The Scottish Government also recently introduced a series of amendments to the LBTT additional dwelling supplement following a detailed review. In previous years, various Scottish statutory instruments have been introduced to Parliament that have amended the 2014 act as well as Scottish landfill tax and LBTT legislation in response to emerging issues, tribunal decisions and relevant developments in other parts of the United Kingdom.

In that context, the Scottish Government’s view is that a provision in the bill related to legislative review is unnecessary. Given the potential scope of amendment 32, a one-year time period is also considered unrealistic and would not result in meaningful review in practice. However, I wish to explore the issue further with the member and particularly with the committee to understand whether there are specific issues that you would like to be prioritised as part of the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment to review. The Scottish Government is also giving careful consideration to the possibility of making more formal commitments to legislative review as part of its proposed tax strategy. For those reasons, I ask John Mason not to press amendment 32 for the moment.

Amendments 33 to 35 would introduce amendments to the 2013 act and relate to specific issues that were raised by stakeholders during the stage 1 process. Mr Mason has comprehensively and thoroughly explained the details of the issues that are being considered, so I do not have to do so.

Amendment 33 would provide a retrospective effect for a 2018 change to LBTT group relief that was introduced by an SSI. I recognise that that reflects a ministerial commitment that was made by a previous Administration and that a change can be made only through primary legislation. On the basis of that prior commitment, and because it is purely an administrative matter with no implications for future tax revenues, I am content to support amendment 33.

Amendment 34 would provide for group relief to be available in LBTT in instances of non-partition demergers. I am sympathetic to the case for change but, given the complex nature of the subject—as we have witnessed—I wish to ensure that there is time to properly consider the wording of any amendment. That is to ensure that it does not introduce any unintended consequences to the legislation. As such, I invite John Mason not to move amendment 34 to allow for further consideration and engagement on the detail in advance of stage 3. I am keen to work with him on any potential amendment.

Amendment 35 is intended to provide absolute clarity on the timelines applying to LBTT sub-sale development relief. I am sympathetic to that, in particular as the intended effect appears to be in line with the policy intent for LBTT in this area and with the current Revenue Scotland guidance. I would of course wish to ensure that the wording of any amendment does not create any unintended consequences or other issues. I invite John Mason not to move amendment 35, to allow for further engagement in advance of any amendments being lodged at stage 3.