Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have not had any direct conversations with the UK Government on that matter, but I am conscious that the issue has been raised at committee, with the suggestion that, with the Scottish aggregates tax going live, there should be direct engagement with the UK Government in such areas.

The broader situation within the UK and the decisions that the UK Government makes will be among the many factors that will inform consideration of rate setting when the Government and Parliament set the rate for the aggregates tax.

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.

It has been brought to our attention and is under consideration at the moment. We will, of course, update the committee in due course, but I am aware of the specific requests and, indeed, the previous commitments that have been made in that area.

Yes.

I will not rehearse the points that I made earlier about the structure that was set out for the aggregates tax at its inception. There is certainly scope for introducing additional rates under the legislation, but we must operate within the parameters set out in the Scotland Act 2016. Any further changes to the aggregates tax or any wider considerations around localising taxes—if that is the member’s suggestion—would require detailed consideration, taking into account the considerable risks around the added complexity that could arise.

I cannot speak on behalf of HMRC. I appreciate that Jonathan Waite earlier tried to set out our understanding of what the issue would be for HMRC. We engage but, ultimately, the UK aggregates levy is a UK tax. It is set by the UK Government and administered by HMRC, so how that tax is administered and the requirements on the body that is charged with administering it are not things over which I have any executive competence.

You touch on and anticipate a point that I was going to make, which is that, without pre-empting future rates, there are opportunities to consider how the tax would operate in relation to landfill tax and to take a more rounded approach. That reflects the discussion that we had at the committee a few weeks ago on landfill tax, when the convener was raising those questions directly. As I said at that time, we will write back to the committee on some of the broader considerations that inform the landfill tax approach, beyond the long-stated commitment around parity with the UK to avoid waste tourism and so on.

With the powers contained in the bill coming online, Governments will be afforded the opportunity in the future to consider how the two rates could interact with each other. We would reiterate that careful consideration and consultation with industry are required, but there is a broader opportunity to consider how the two taxes could potentially complement each other in supporting the circular economy objectives.

We all recognise that Revenue Scotland is a highly respected body. It is an NMO, and it is appropriate for it to have that range of powers available to it with regard to the administration of the tax. However, I am happy to reflect on any specific considerations that the committee raises ahead of stage 2. We will read the committee’s stage 1 report with interest, as I am sure that Revenue Scotland will. For specific concerns and specific asks for reassurance, I will want to engage with Revenue Scotland to understand its position. However, I will reflect on that matter carefully.

It is probably better that I respond to that point. I will not rehearse the points that I made earlier, but we are being very clear about the challenges that exist around data. Through the work that we have done in commissioning surveys to harness the existing information that is available to utilise, we have sought to provide as much of an evidence base as possible, but I must be clear with the committee that we will not have the level of data and the sort of evidence base that we would ideally like until such time as the tax is operational and we start getting the returns.

Of course, Revenue Scotland is an efficient and effective organisation and, as that data starts to come online, we will have the abundance of data and evidence that is required to allow more informed decisions to be taken around the role that the aggregates tax can play in achieving broader policy objectives around the circular economy and in the sector itself.