Chamber and committees

Will you remind me when that was?

I will not repeat all the points that have been made regarding framework bills, but I certainly support colleagues on those.

I want to ask about the timelines. You suggested that Police Scotland was not aware of the full financial implications of the bill until the bill was presented. You suggested that, despite working closely with Police Scotland, its official position did not change until the evidence was presented to us, as far as you can see. In that interim period—since June last year, when the bill was introduced—what concerns has Police Scotland raised with you about the costs, and what figures did it put on any potential increase to costs?

So, in September 2023, Police Scotland raised concerns over the costs. Did it give you a figure at that point, or did you go back to Police Scotland and ask it to revise the costs and provide you with updated parameters, in effect?

Did you ask Police Scotland for updated costs?

While that has been happening, you have been progressing with your work on the bill. What concerns does that raise with you? Were you aware that Police Scotland would present new costs?

I will ask a quick question. When was a decision made to update the FM?

Okay, so it is a relatively new decision. You have the figures for the updated costs from Police Scotland. You say that you are discussing those with Police Scotland. Is there concern that the figures that it has presented as evidence could increase even more?

Thank you.

A lot of the evidence that we received on compliance—certainly some of it—was anecdotal. Last week, I asked Elaine Lorimer from Revenue Scotland:

“Do you have any estimates of the current cost of non-compliance?”

She replied:

“When you say ‘cost’, do you mean revenue loss?”

I said:

“Yes.”

She said:

“I am sorry. I am not able to provide you with that.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 12 March 2024, c 38.]

Even Revenue Scotland is not sure about the estimated cost of lack of compliance at the moment. Given the importance that you and Revenue Scotland seem to be assigning to that issue, is it not concerning that there are no real estimates of the costs of non-compliance?

I suppose that the objective for the tax is that revenue from it will reduce, because, if the Scottish Government’s broader policy objective is to increase recycling, the amount of tax paid on unrecycled raw products will, you hope, reduce.