Chamber and committees

You highlighted the issue of exports to England resulting in money being collected under the UK aggregates levy. You talked about the percentage of exports to Europe. Are those exports covered by that levy?

The Scottish Government website—I do not look at it every day—rightly highlights that the bill will mean more money being raised in Scotland. However, it is not necessarily the case that more money will be raised in, or will come to, Scotland; it is just about how it will be raised. Are there any benefits, apart from that tailoring ability? That might require differentials that might impact more widely.

Going back to the compliance issue that the convener and Liz Smith have raised, I appreciate that you cannot give a exact number for that, but you have said a little about certain areas. I think that Mr McVey talked about farmers perhaps providing aggregates under the radar. I can assure you that, if 100 tonnes of material were to be taken off my land, it would be pretty obvious to folk. All the same, we are still not talking about huge numbers. My understanding is that, if 100 tonnes were taken, the tax would be £200. I would be interested to find out whether that would be worth the risk for someone.

Everything so far seems to have been very anecdotal, so I wonder whether you have any idea of the split between some of the smaller non-compliance issues and some of the larger ones. As the convener rightly pointed out, this is not a big country, and quarries are pretty obvious; they cannot be moved or hidden easily. Do you have any idea of the balance in that respect?

Depending on the type of community it is in, a quarry’s operations will have impact and people will know about it. It might not be seen from the road, but the trucks will be seen.

On that point, why do you think that the industry will work with you and that you will be able to have an impact and be more successful in dealing with that than was the case under the previous UK aggregates levy?

Yes.

Good morning. Liz Smith and Michael Marra covered a lot of ground in relation to the additional capital spending in the NHS. You said that you will provide further information. Will that include a breakdown of projects that sets out whether the cost increases are inflationary and non-inflationary, whether those are new capital projects and whether there are refurbishment issues and so on?

People have raised concerns about the moratorium on new builds with me a number of times. That means that our NHS boards will likely have to invest more heavily in refurbishment because they will not be able to build new hospitals or facilities. Will that information be provided in your written response to the committee?

In terms of the revisions.

I suppose that what I am asking is this: when do you first become aware, or when is it confirmed to you, that a project will need additional support in the current financial year, and how does that process work?

I am also interested to know where the issue is not just inflation but where there are simple cost overruns. I ask that that be included as well.

That is what I am trying to clarify—the process behind it. As you said, decisions might be made to prioritise one area over another, and those might be perfectly reasonable priorities. However, it could be that projects are reprofiled, put on hold, slowed down or whatever in order to deliver in other areas or in areas where there is, say, an overspend or that face inflationary issues.

In relation to the £75 million and the £41 million for vessels and piers in the ferry services budget, how much of that is capital and how much of it is resource? Are you able to say? Sorry—I should have given you a little bit more notice on that.