Chamber and committees

First, as a general question, do you think that the split between primary and subordinate legislation is correct? Should more be set out in primary legislation, or should more be set out in subordinate legislation?

That would mean that we would need primary legislation every year to change it.

Ms d’Inverno, did you want to comment?

That makes sense. I should say to the other two witnesses that if you wish to come in, by all means do, but I have a couple more questions for you, Mr Brown.

In paragraph 4.4 of your submission, you say:

“there might be scope for confusion”

when the new tax is introduced

“until site operators and businesses are used to the new SAT and the interaction with UKAL.”

Is that a serious concern? Do we need to do something about that?

I think that I will leave this line of questioning for the time being and move on.

The financial memorandum says that part 2 of the bill is cost neutral. I am interested to know whether you all agree with that.

Do either of the other two witnesses have views about the part 2 costs? Are you comfortable with them?

How will an operator that is based in England and that is not even aware that we will have a new tax learn about it?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation made the point in its written submission that there could be double penalties in some situations. For example, both a quarry operator and a customer could be subject to a penalty of 100 per cent of the tax that is claimed. The institute felt that it would be a bit harsh to penalise both by that amount.

I will raise a few issues to do with part 2 of the bill. One provision would give the Scottish ministers powers to enable Revenue Scotland to undertake more automation. Can you say anything about that and what protections there would be? Some people like having a bit of face-to-face and personal interaction, as well as making use of computers.

Okay.