Chamber and committees

A lot of the points that I was going to ask about have already been covered by the convener and by Michelle Thomson, but I want to summarise some of the points that you have made, minister, and to discuss some of the evidence that we took last week.

I will start with a bit of a daft-laddie question. Is there any statutory requirement to take the bill through now? I know that it comes under the Smith commission and the Scotland Act 2016, but is there a statutory requirement to pass it now?

I will pass back to the convener, because he probably has more questions to ask, but I will say that I do not see a huge amount that is advantageous in this legislation unless the rate is changed. I am not suggesting that I would advocate that, but it seems to me that, unless that differential is used, the administrative and other issues are not of great benefit.

The lack of data, which we all appreciate but do not necessarily lay at anybody’s door in particular, has already been pointed out. There are also the costs of setting up the bill, and there is uncertainty over how it will impact on the block grant adjustment. It is likely that the bill will cost money from the Scottish budget. Why take the bill through now, when all those uncertainties are there?

I think that I will leave it there. [Laughter.]

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

That would make it harder to replace a UK aggregates levy, of which Scotland gets a share. Through the new legislation, the money will be raised in Scotland, but it will be reflected in the budget. How can we be sure that the bill will be of any real benefit, unless there is a difference in the amount that is raised? A higher rate in Scotland than in England would have implications for Scottish businesses.

However, a destination country might have its own levy.

Generally, would the bill have any real benefit unless there is a variation in the rate, which would be aimed at raising more tax, or would be done for environmental or recycling reasons?

How will you decide the cost benefits of pursuing unregistered quarries? That could be expensive and the benefits might be small, apart from the general approach of ensuring that those who should be paying tax are doing so. How will you do that and what sort of resourcing can you give to it?

I want to ask about the financial implications of the proposals. It seems that we do not have specific data from HMRC on the amount of money that is raised from Scotland by the UK levy. This committee and others have had a number of issues in getting data from HMRC. Do you find it surprising that it is not able to give a more accurate picture? The financial memorandum states that the Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates the Scottish share of the UK aggregates levy to be around £60 million at the moment, rising to £61 million in 2025-26. Do you think that that is accurate?