Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are grateful to the committee for reaching out to stakeholders to get further evidence ahead of this session—it has been useful. We note the points that have been raised by the SPA, and we are looking into and carefully considering the matter, but it is not something that we were able to address in the set of amendments in this instrument. As the committee will appreciate, the role that local authorities play in relation to housing is quite distinct and different from that of other public bodies and authorities. However, we are looking at the matter carefully, and I am very happy to engage directly with the SPA on the matter and to update the committee in due course.

I recognise the interest in the matter. Liz Smith and I have had exchanges in the chamber on it, and there is merit in exploring it further.

An annual finance bill would be an undertaking for the Government, but it would also be an undertaking for the Parliament. It would be important for Parliament to be involved in that process and that would mean an important role for the committee. I recognise that the committee has a significant programme of work, but I am happy to engage with it to explore how we can build on the work that was undertaken before the pandemic through the devolved taxes working group. I am keen to look for ways to build on that, but it is important to recognise that, although there is an argument for an annual finance bill, we need to take account of the views of Parliament on how that would be managed.

We are considering this particular SSI as a result of a broad consultation and engagement process. We are also, through the Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill, seeking to amend the powers of Revenue Scotland. I appreciate that the committee will consider that legislation later in the spring, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity for further conversations in that space.

We are using legislative opportunities to bring forward reforms, whether that is in primary legislation or, as the case is here, via an SSI. The fundamental point is that there is merit in looking for something that might be more legislatively neat and efficient. However, as I said, it is a matter not just for the Government but also for the Parliament, although I am happy to engage to explore what we can do going forward.

What is in the SSI reflects the work that was undertaken through the call for evidence and consultation, and the provisions in it relate to housing under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. It represents progress, and I note that it has been welcomed by local government.

However—and this speaks to the point about the discussion of future reforms—this is a process rather than an event, and tax policy will continue to develop more broadly in the work that the Government is committed to doing on the refreshed tax strategy and the medium-term financial strategy, as well as on operational, administrative and technical matters.

I am happy to consider further the points that have been raised by the local authority as part of the on-going work. We always have to give detailed consideration to specific asks as we keep policy under review.

Laura Parker might have something to add.

I note that the majority of claims for repayment of ADS tend to happen within 12 months, which is broadly similar to the equivalent taxes in England and Wales. The matter will work its way through over the forecast period. The figure of £7 million is for the end of the forecast period; in that respect, we will continue to monitor both the revenue and the SFC forecasts.

The position on the engagement that the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government is broadly set out in the correspondence that I referred to. Clearly, the matters that are before us today—the issues that triggered the legislative consent process—are fairly narrow and technical and relate to the devolved aspects of procurement.

I recognise that there will be a range of views on the provisions of any trade agreement that the UK enters into. I recognise that the Parliament will have and take its opportunities to express its views on these matters. Ultimately, the decision on whether to enter into such agreements is a matter for the UK Government. We obviously appreciate and want to strengthen the opportunities that we are afforded for engagement with the UK Government, but the matter before us this morning is about the relatively narrow and technical aspects of implementation through the act and how they trigger legislative consent with regard to procurement.

These are, of course, minor changes that we are required to make, given the requirement to implement this particular agreement. On the detail and any specifics, I ask Alasdair Hamilton whether he wants to comment.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, committee.

The United Kingdom bill makes provisions in three areas—public procurement, technical barriers to trade and intellectual property—where legislative intervention is needed to give effect to the terms of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Public procurement is a devolved matter, and the implementation of international agreements is devolved to the extent that it relates to procurement. The bill therefore triggers the consent process in respect of the procurement provisions that apply to Scotland. The amendments to Scottish procurement regulations are minor and technical in nature, relating to contracts that are awarded under international rules and contract award notices.

In contrast to the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023, which conferred delegated powers on UK ministers for the purpose of implementing the procurement chapters of those trade agreements, and to which the Scottish Parliament withheld its consent, in this bill the UK Government has agreed to make necessary provision to amend the Scottish regulations in the bill. We welcome that change of approach, which affords the Scottish Parliament the proper ability to scrutinise the proposals.

We recommend that consent be given to the bill. My officials will continue to work with UK Government officials to agree a pragmatic approach to preparations for commencement of the provisions of the bill that relate to Scotland.

I am conscious that that goes beyond my remit on public procurement, and I recognise that, when the committee has previously considered LCMs regarding the ratification of trade agreements, its concern has primarily been with the contents of those LCMs. The Scottish Government’s position, in its constitutional aspirations and the policy position as set out in “Scotland’s Vision for Trade”, which was published at the start of 2021, is well understood. Our views are clearly set out.

With regard to how things operate at the moment, we always seek the maximum engagement possible with the UK Government to ensure that Scottish interests are represented, and our endeavours to that effect have been set out in the correspondence that the committee received and that I referred to earlier.

We will of course continue to seek to engage constructively with the UK Government on the implementation of the agreement, and we continue to engage with stakeholders. I am sure that the convener will appreciate that it is my colleague the cabinet secretary who leads on those particular matters.