Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I touched on in my earlier answer, many of the issues around uncertainty can be addressed with the tax coming into operation and the provision of data that will follow from that process.

I recognise that in any transfer of power there are costs involved. That is reflected in the other devolved taxes and in other areas such as social security. However, it is important to assess the value of the devolution of any power. In the case of a tax power, it is not simply about looking at the set-up costs but about assessing costs over the medium to longer term. That is a fairer approach to take.

I very much recognise the costs involved in the establishment of the tax, and I recognise the two challenges that have been discussed around data. The challenges around data can be remedied with time and with the tax being collected by Revenue Scotland.

We have already identified an opportunity to address, through the legislation, some of the concerns that have been raised around compliance and, should Parliament agree to the bill, there will, of course, be the opportunity to reflect on and review that issue after the legislation has had some time in operation. The additional data that is provided will create a larger evidence base for future Governments to consider in their use of the power.

I think that the issues around estimates are reflective of the broader challenge that we have with data. The issue around compliance has been highlighted to the committee directly by stakeholders. I simply highlight it as an example of where this power and the devolution of the tax can confer a benefit, which is identified by those who operate in the sector.

I think that there will be substantive value through the devolution of the aggregates levy and the creation of a Scottish aggregates tax. Having Revenue Scotland as a tax authority, with the rigour and skill that it can bring to the administration of tax—also touching on the compliance issues that we have explored—will be of benefit and value.

I am conscious of how your question was framed. The convener’s earlier remarks about ambition perhaps relate to the longer-term trajectory of the tax. How will the rate be used as a policy tool? I have sought to set out the reasons and the rationale, and I will not repeat that, but the points that you touched on in your previous question, Ms Thomson, on some of the known unknowns regarding the aggregates tax, are not insurmountable problems. They will be remedied through the experience of the tax coming online and the data that is collected through Revenue Scotland.

When it comes to the benefit and gain from the devolution of the tax, we can be clear about its administration, while addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders and committee members around compliance. With more data and greater understanding of how the tax operates, and given the make-up of the sector in Scotland, there will be an opportunity for future Governments to take a view as to how the tax can be more effectively used, both in and of itself and in conjunction with the other fiscal and regulatory levers that are at the disposal of the Scottish Government.

I recognise that, in the cash revenue that it would represent, the tax would amount to a very small part of the Scottish budget but, for the reasons that I have set out, I think that there is value in the tax being devolved. I recognise that, if one compares it with the quantums of revenue that are generated through the partial devolution of income tax or the full devolution of LBTT, they are of different orders of magnitude. Nonetheless, for the reasons that I have set out, I think that there is value in the tax being devolved and in the approach that we have taken through partnership, engagement and collaboration with stakeholders. The design of the proposed legislation is consistent with our framework for tax principles and with the new deal for business approach.

There is not a statutory requirement, as I would define it. The switching off of the UK aggregates levy requires an order to be made by the UK Government—I will be corrected if I am wrong about that. However, a set of commitments was made as part of the Smith commission and the 2016 act, and as part of the fiscal framework, and I recognise that there is interest in a range of areas across those commitments. There is not, as we understand it, a set date, if I can put it that way, when the UK aggregates levy would be switched off irrespective of whether we had passed legislation to introduce a Scottish aggregates tax.

I would be happy to consider any specific views that the committee has. The operation of Revenue Scotland is governed by existing legislation that is quite detailed and complex, with the guidance and approach that Revenue Scotland sets out. I am more than happy to consider the committee’s specific concerns, if it has any, about the way in which any of the sections are drafted in part 2 of the bill, if it is a matter that the committee will raise in its stage 1 report. I know that that point was touched on earlier. I will then discuss those concerns with Revenue Scotland.

We want to ensure that we have legislation that allows Revenue Scotland to continue to operate to the effective and high standards at which it does operate. However, I appreciate that stakeholders and the committee might raise concerns and want statutory provisions, backstops, rights and so on to be set out clearly in legislation. As I said, for specific concerns on that point, I would be more than happy to engage with Revenue Scotland and report back to the committee.

Jointly with the UK and Welsh Governments, we have commissioned a survey of production and movements of aggregate for 2023, which should be available in 2025. However, the specific tax data that will come from the tax going live and being administered by Revenue Scotland will give us and Parliament the opportunity to consider and interrogate any propositions around what the rate should be.

I cannot pre-empt what decisions the Government will take in relation to the budget for the year when, subject to Parliament’s agreement to the legislation, the tax will go live. However, I assure you that we are conscious that one of the challenges that we will have to address is the building up of the evidence base and the data, which is just a case of time.

We decided on the approach that we have taken to introducing the legislation and the time that we are allowing before we expect the tax to go live in order to provide as much reassurance as possible and, crucially, as much opportunity as possible for engagement with industry. We want to be absolutely consistent with the approach that is set out in our framework for tax and, importantly, in the new deal for business. We want to have that level of engagement with those who operate in the sector and to give them the opportunity to bring their expertise to bear, so that we can minimise any risk and allow for the smooth and stable transition of the power to the Scottish Parliament. Future Governments will have the opportunity to make different decisions, particularly as more data becomes available—more data will be available the longer the tax is online.

As I said, at this stage, with regard to the bill, the crucial thing is to ensure that we have the appropriate legislative framework for the operation of the tax in order to provide the necessary stability and continuity and a proportionate and safe transfer of powers.

I am conscious of the committee’s broader interest in public service reform. Clearly, automation will be central to that. We all appreciate that automation provides tremendous opportunities but also significant risk. I imagine that we all agree that we want to seize those opportunities in a way that does not expose us to, or which minimises, the risk that comes with those. Therefore, with regard to this instance, we recognise that, if there is an opportunity for processes to be automated that will improve the efficiency of Revenue Scotland and enable it to free up staff capacity to take on more complex judgment-based activities, that would be a good thing.

Therefore, the questions are how we can achieve that and how we can be assured that proper consideration has been given to achieving that while avoiding the risks. That is why we have set out that this would be a regulation-making power. There would be consultation and stakeholder engagement as part of that and, of course, parliamentary scrutiny. However, I want to reassure the committee that, although the Government recognises the huge opportunities that artificial intelligence provides for more efficient and effective delivery of public services, we also recognise that there are concerns about some of the risks that can attend the adoption of AI. It is important that we fully interrogate those risks in a transparent way and that Parliament is fully involved.

With regard to the regulations that would be brought forward under the provisions in the bill for automation in Revenue Scotland, I can commit to providing a full opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on top of the public and stakeholder consultation and engagement.

You will appreciate that I would not want to speak on behalf of the whole Government on broader issues of parliamentary reform, not least because I recognise the independence of Parliament in those matters. However, with regard to my portfolio responsibilities around devolved taxation and the work that I do in supporting the Deputy First Minister on the budget process, I am happy to explore where there could be consensus. I appreciate that the Parliament might wish to provide a broader context for the consideration of issues of parliamentary reform, and I recognise the work that your predecessor committee in the previous session of Parliament undertook and led on in that area.

As I have said, there are clear arguments for such an approach, but people might want to use other arguments against it. There will be an opportunity to have that discussion. Given the interest that members of the committee and stakeholders have expressed, I would be keen to engage, but I stress and reiterate the point that the approach that we have around the budget process has been arrived at jointly with Parliament. I do not want to risk saying anything that would be contrary to the spirit of that.

I recognise those points. Either the changes are minor or consistent with the way in which UK taxes currently operate in Scotland, or they will be the subject of regulations, and there will be an opportunity for detailed engagement and consultation on any regulations that are enacted. I am conscious of the committee’s particular interest in the provision on automation. I also note that the opportunities that we have to introduce primary legislation on tax are infrequent. As such, when an opportunity does arise, it is important that we respond constructively to suggestions from Revenue Scotland. I am conscious that, in raising that point, I have inevitably precipitated questions on a finance bill, which I would be more than happy to respond to should the committee wish to ask about it.

I am not aware that that was the case specifically. I would have to go back and check the Official Report of the Parliament’s deliberations to see what was discussed regarding the landfill tax and the land and buildings transaction tax, and whether that issue was raised then. I apologise, but I cannot give the rationale that was set out historically, which set the precedent that has informed the change that is being made.