Chamber and committees

I understand that, minister, and I accept that you cannot speak on behalf of the Government about the issue. You are quite right to say that it is a parliamentary matter in any case.

On the back of the concerns that the committee has heard, through Audit Scotland, about the lack of sufficient transparency when it comes to the public finances, and on the back of our unfailing difficulties in making the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts come together, the main argument that I can see for a finance bill is that it could provide greater clarity in the way that the convener described, which would make it much easier to see what the tax and spend would be. That is quite important, and it is something that this Parliament is lacking just now. Personally, I am very much in favour of such a bill, and I think that colleagues across the political spectrum are, too. You mentioned that there are arguments against having a finance bill. What do you think they would be?

The gap, though, does not help us to work out elasticities of demand, as the convener rightly pointed out. That is the issue. As you have rightly said, in 2016, all parties agreed about the devolution of the tax—I am not arguing about that point at all—but I would argue that, to make people feel comfortable, it would be helpful to have more complete data, which would enable us to analyse the likely behavioural change and the elasticities of demand that will follow from it. It is difficult to do that if we do not have information from HMRC in that manner, so that we can compare. I would make that point quite strongly, and it should perhaps be mentioned in your engagement with the UK Government.

I come back to the issue of the finance bill. You are quite right to say that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government to decide on. However, do you think that, when it comes to the next session of Parliament and a likely parliamentary reform of some sort—of course, that depends on the make-up of the Parliament and on the new Presiding Officer—the Government would agree that that issue could constitute part of the reform of the Parliament?

Ms Lorimer, you said in answer to the convener that one of the advantages of the devolved tax will be better compliance—that some of the people who have been going through loopholes will be picked up. That is obviously good news for extra revenue. Given what you know about the UK tax levy, which we have had for around 20 years, do you foresee other benefits from the devolved tax that will likely raise the revenue from what exists currently?

I have a question about the possibility of behavioural change, which has been flagged up to us by other witnesses. The general message that we are getting is that not much behavioural change in how people operate is predicted. That said, are you aware of any behavioural changes that have happened as a result of the UK aggregates levy, which I think has been around for about 20 years? Are you aware of any instances of UK tax changes having a marked effect on elasticity of demand or whatever having affected revenues? Are you aware of comparable studies?

We are not predicting that there will be behavioural change. That is helpful.

In relation to the work that Mr Lindsay talked about, obviously Revenue Scotland has been speaking to HMRC, but has the latter flagged up any issues of concern?

That is all very encouraging. The bottom line is that, for the tax to be successful, there has to be good compliance, it has to be seen to be fair and people need to understand what it is for. It is also vital that we get some benefit from its revenue-raising aspect—indeed, that is the basis for the Scottish Government wanting to introduce it.

My second question came up in the previous evidence session and is on an issue that has been going round the committee for some time: the possibility of a finance bill that would allow the Parliament—not just this committee—to scrutinise taxation a bit more fully than is currently the case, and with greater clarity and understanding. I know that you cannot comment on Scottish Government policy, but would that help the process of getting more people to understand what is going on?

Boring technical can be good.

That was very helpful—thank you.

Indeed—but the money is being held over.