 Rwy'n dechrau'n gwrthu'n dwyf am rydyn ni oes i ymwyf yn 2014, a chymdeithio'r glyfwyr yn Sgronach. Felly, gallwch i ni i fy nhw mi'n gwybod eisiau o'r myfynau iwerthu'r cyfion ei modol, flasdau cyfion, gweithiau a pleasantiau eich anhygoel. Mae unrhyw i mwyaf o'r busnes o'r fwyf yma oedd ydych chi'n gofyn i'w ddau mae'n mythoo i siw fwyo 5 i 4. Rwy'n dwyf eich anhygoel yw gweld arlleg. Fwiel yn gweithio i'r llwydd diolch chi. Mae'n gwneud i fynd i gwisw Object 2 o gwelio'r USP Bill. Dechrau â'r cyffredinol Cymraeg cyffredinol i gyd-doeth ac i ffchiffigurau gyngor i'r team Pwaskoedd 3000 a Gweithreig Gwyrchrydor. Fawr hilyn i hynny ddim yn dda oedd cyffredinol Cymraeg cyffredinol Cymraeg cyffredinol Cymraeg cysyllt. Mae cyffredinol cyffredinol Cymraeg cyffredinol cysylltu cofnodol. Mae cael ei ddifnos i 300 cy Primorol. The Cabinet Secretary is giving evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee later this morning, so proceedings on the bill will have to be concluded by around 11.15. I do not intend to set a target, but we shall attempt to make as much progress on the bill as possible today. Members have copies of the martial list of amendments and the groupings, and we will take each amendment on the martial list in turn. I would like to formally welcome the Cabinet Secretary and his officials to the meeting. Welcome, Cabinet Secretary. The question is that sections 1 and 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary in a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to the amendment. I move amendment 1. The amendment deals with the issue that it would be inappropriate for serving members of the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly members to be eligible for appointment as members of Revenue Scotland. The amendment has the effect of disqualifying them from appointment. Members of the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are among others that are already disqualified. Okay. I know that members are asked to speak. Cabinet secretary, any further you want to add to that? Nothing else. Okay. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Members have indicated agreement. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Members have agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 2 and we'll speak together with other amendments in this group. These are all minor technical and drafting amendments. The most significant are perhaps those relating to section 3, which sets out Revenue Scotland's statutory functions and section 10, which relates to the charter. In response to recommendations from stakeholders, we've brought forward an amendment to section 3 to make it clear that references to persons to whom Revenue Scotland must provide information and assistance include taxpayers and their agents. The same amendments were made to section 10 to ensure that the charter, which Revenue Scotland must prepare, specifically addresses taxpayers and their agents. Okay. Thank you. Anything further to add, cabinet secretary? Yes. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and we've now been joined by Jeane Orkart to the committee and also Cabinet secretary's officials Ian Young and John Sinclair. I call amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group of its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 3. I move amendment 3. The arrangements that we are putting in place for Revenue Scotland include an emphasis on providing opportunities for disputes to be settled quickly without the need for expensive and time-consuming legal proceedings. One of these opportunities is provisioned for Revenue Scotland and the taxpayer to enter into independent third-party mediation. The purpose of this amendment, which makes specific reference to mediation among Revenue Scotland's statutory functions, is to underline the importance which Parliament attaches to this provision. Okay. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 4 to 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. I call amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 2. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. I move, convener. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 8 and 9. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 5 and will speak to it together with amendments 8 and 9. I undertook to lodge these amendments in response to recommendations which the committee made in its stage 1 report. The effect is to ensure that the charter will impose reciprocal obligations on revenue Scotland and the taxpayer and to require revenue Scotland to consult on the terms of the first charter and any subsequent revisions that are made to that charter. Okay. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9. All in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 6 to 9 on block. I moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? Yes. We have no objections. The question is that amendments 6 to 9 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that sections 11 and 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 10 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 10 and will speak to other amendments in this group. This group concerns part 3 of the bill concerning information. Section 13 allows revenue Scotland and persons to whom it delegates any of its functions. That is registers of Scotland and SIPA to share information with each other in connection with their statutory functions including land registration and environmental functions. Section 15 also imposes a duty on officials exercising tax functions to maintain the confidentiality of taxpayer information and provides that the wrongful disclosure of protected taxpayer information will be a criminal offence. This group of amendments clarifies the detail of those arrangements and provides additional safeguards by modifying the legislation that governs both registers of Scotland and SIPA to ensure that protected taxpayer information can only be disclosed in appropriate and given circumstances. I believe that, with the addition of these amendments, part 3 strikes the right balance between allowing information to be shared between the relevant agencies for the proper exercise of their functions and providing proper protection for the confidentiality of taxpayer information. I move amendment 10. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendments 11 to 15, all the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 11 to 15 on block. Does any member object to a single question when we put on amendments 11 to 15? No. We have no objections. The question is that amendments 11 to 15 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 16 to 19, all the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. Move, come here. Does any member object to a single question when we put on these amendments? No. We have no objections. The question is that amendments 16 to 19 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 20 to 24, all the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question when we put on these amendments? No. No member objects. The question is that amendments 20 to 24 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are an agreement. I call amendment 25, all the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 10. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 26, all the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 10. Cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 27, all the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 10. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Mae'r cwestiynau o gyda myth i mwy o'r enghwyloethol hynny yn dweud y cyfrifoedd? Mae'r cwestiynau o gyfrifoedd yn y cwestiynau o gyfrifoedd 17-22, yn dweud y cyfrifoedd? Rwy nid o gchwaith. Ar Degwet y Cynllewd 28, yn ffwrdd i ddweud gyffredinol gwrsfawr, gyda gynnig o'r enghwm ddechreg, mae cyfrifoedd yng Nghymlwch Pechryfב�ysigol Cynllewd 28 a gweithio gwybwch i gynnig o gwybwch i gynnig o gyfrifoedd. I move amendment 28, and we will speak together with the rest of the amendments in this group. Those amendments broadly align the provisions relating to appointments to the Scottish tax tribunals with the corresponding provisions in the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014, which Parliament has recently endorsed. It would be inappropriate for serving members of the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly to be eligible for appointment as members of tax tribunals and amendment 35 therefore has the effect of disqualifying them from appointment as a member of the tax tribunals. Is that amendment 28 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Is that section 23, did we agree to, are we agreed? Yes. We are. Among amendment 29 is the name of the Cabinet Secretary of State, I've already had a debate with amendment 2. Cabinet Secretary moved formally. It moves O. The question is, is that amendment 29 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Is that section 24, did we agree to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendments 30-51 on the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated and invited the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. It moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? No one objects, therefore the question is that amendments 30-51 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members have indicated their agreement. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 25 and 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 52 on the name of the cabinet secretary, a group with other amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, I move amendment 52 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 52 and I will speak together with other amendments in the group. As with the previous group, these amendments broadly align the procedures and administration of the tax tribunals implicit in this legislation, with the corresponding provisions in the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014. In particular, I would like to draw the committee's attention to amendments 53 and 54, which address concerns raised by the committee in their stage 1 report. These amendments provide that the size of the panel hearing and appeal in the upper tribunal can be augmented at the discretion of the president of the tax tribunals. Amendments 70 and 278 provide that Scottish ministers may by regulation provide for offences and penalties in relation to the proceedings of the tax tribunals. This power is aligned to the corresponding power that is available to Scottish ministers under the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014. I call amendment 53 on the name of the cabinet secretary, a group with other amendments 52. Cabinet secretary, I move formally. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 54 on the name of the cabinet secretary. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 55 on the name of the cabinet secretary. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is important to remember that allCome on service, peace and success on new people's Gen retardat gyнетifandro arkolaeth sy'n dal dwy Ad則s fel agriad y maen nhw'n alloy honodaeth ar yr aelod. Y beth ydweud amlan 85en a gofneiddiad cy concept honинг mwy o ran yr Aelod, votes atymnais cy waters. Merdwar, fel agriad o arddiffraith naziolaeth erwin,copod gan dill. Aelod yn sicrad â'r aelod. Merdwar, maen nhw'nальнойrお du. Mae'r aelod o arsig yn amlfa madnessur ar maen nhu'n madam. Ond diogelu ar awnd. Fe ddim yn sicrad negrat ar parteidau argynened rhagion nhu'n pri graspid. for a different test to apply for the procedure for permitting an onward appeal from the upper tribunal, depending on whether the original appeal was heard in the upper tribunal at first instance or not. What is known as the second appeals test will apply in the same fashion that the Parliament has endorsed in passing the Tribunal Scotland Act 2014. If an appeal is heard in the upper tribunal at first instance, then an appeal to the court of session on a point of law is permitted if the upper tribunal or the court of session agree. If an appeal is heard in the upper tribunal has already been heard in the first tier tribunal, then if the upper tribunal or the court of session agree an onward appeal is permissible if the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is another compelling reason to allow the appeal. Amendments 58, 60 and 262 provide that if the tribunal refuses to allow a late appeal, there is no onward right of appeal. Amendment 264 provides that a settlement agreement will be treated as a decision of the tribunal but not in respect of a right of onward appeal. Okay, no members have indicated that they wish to speak. So the question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. This question is that section 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 59, the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 58. Cabinet secretary to move formally. It moved. Good deal. Question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Call amendment 68 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 58. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with flies primero realizowaeth bethau, eg joint division, egy cwm ymgyrch y cymdrif dependen dudden do�adau niferol y byddheil, edrych i'u gyda ni efalleg yn gweld eiddo unrhyw niferol y byddheil ogiein razio ito'i bw persuadeas, a dyliannon am odd y cyn מעu oherwydd oes sy'n有 bw gwerth iddo o bethau hynny o publisher o gerdd, 쉽 iddo endondol dim mynd falch, alweth yma hynny i computers, adwrurech. Ysbytr langir, iechyd wedi ei bwg iddyn nhw yng ng示uririo phos assumedduri a Acol ymateb 63 i wneudpoddiumrwydd Cymru cofynium Feidpelledol saen nhw Romrf wybodaeth yr amlusion, byddai'r cyfnod yn cael ad teleport этогоwydau'r chyflod ddrwydol, dim 있는데, mae'r dwaethfold wedi cael eu chyrnas, byddai'r cydnod fwyf моedd relative of cyiran o bwrth ageritodeidd ar yr armadinkaent dimierod. Os gallm gweithio gael codi am pлять ad mango o yours, mae angen chi faen meddnych. Rwb ddaer Cau yn y rhywun sicr Senomorol y gweld rhydau gyda iddo, dw i ers higanom, fel whereteau rhai Gy BrianNO fe brwydigaeth yr armadinker y mae angen hefyd Miles diligently called it move convener. The question is in amendments 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed to us. we all agree that石 dinner called amendments 309, 71, 72 and 73, move amendments on block convener? Does any member object to a single question when put on these amendments? The question erwr ydych ar amcynnu 329, 71, 72 a 73 cwestiwn ar wrth gyffin, за hefyd. TEIGY LL Ysb 명 영, cyfar wspólol, ten bullion ei holw.' Diolch ar helpu cywpeth rwy'r w никwm a dweud o'r genl 어쨌든ol yma. Bethe gawd bod i'r ymgymell fel y dyma, y cwestiynau yma yn Cyngor 5, rwyf ni'n adolygiad y Gliferdos Gaelolol, anghym coachesent iawn, chi'wng i'i fy ngy practise? Gweld ein gwerth dezgw 330 du yn fawr? 3. Village League That is what it might say in English. I agree that I call amendment 79, the name of the cabinet secretary, or a debate with amendment 52. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Move, convener. The question is, amendment 79, we agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is, section 54 we agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is, sections 55 and 56 we agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. We agreed. I call amendment 80, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Group with other amendments, as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 80, and to speak to all amendments in the group. A move amendment 80, and it will speak to it and other amendments in this group. The bill, as introduced, established three separate categories of authorised officer, designated officer and designated investigation officer, who were each able to exercise some of the powers of revenue Scotland. During stage one, this was criticised by a number of stakeholders as being unnecessarily complicated, and I accept that criticism. The purpose of this group of amendments is therefore to replace the three different types of revenue Scotland officer with a single category of designated officer for the purpose of exercising relevant powers. This will enable revenue Scotland to ensure that officers who exercise particular powers are sufficiently senior or specialist without unnecessarily complicating arrangements. The question is, amendment 80, we agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is, section 57 we agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 81 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 82 and 83. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 81, and to speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 81, and we'll speak to it and other amendments in this group. These amendments relate to the general anti-avoidance rule in part 5 of the bill. I've made it clear that we intend to take the toughest possible approach to tax avoidance, and I'm delighted that the committee supported that approach. The committee recommended that we should further strengthen condition B of the general anti-avoidance rule, and this position was also supported by the Scottish Trade Union Congress and Unison, and those amendments are designed to do exactly that. First of all, amendments 81 and 82 provide that condition B will be satisfied if a tax avoidance arrangement lacks either economic or financial support. Second, amendment 83 adds a further factor, which might indicate that an arrangement lacks economic or commercial support, which is where it results in a tax advantage that is not reflected in the business risks undertaken by the taxpayer. Those amendments further reinforce the very robust approach that we intend to take to any form of artificial tax avoidance. I move amendment 83. I thank the cabinet secretary for responding to the committee's recommendation in this, as in other matters, but the committee also recommended, I think, in paragraph 38 of its report, that reasonable business conduct be extended to cover reasonable personal conduct. On the example slide, I think that the committee has suggested that we should continue to do that, because the committee has extended to cover reasonable personal conduct. The example cited by the committee in its report was the matter of a personal gift, which has no commercial substance and would not normally be employed in reasonable business conduct, so I just wondered why the cabinet secretary had not taken on board that particular aspect of the committee's recommendation. Our view would be that the definition of the amendments, by adding in the economic substance, as well as commercial substance, would address the issue that the committee has raised in its report. We consider that those definitions are sufficiently broad in scope to capture the scenario and issues that are raised by Mr Chisholm. I am certainly happy to reflect further on that point, convener, in the light of the point that Mr Chisholm has made, to satisfy myself that the aspirations that we have set out in the bill of establishing a very high level of intolerance of tax avoidance are satisfied by the provisions that we have put on the face of the bill. Obviously, if there is a necessity to bring forward further provisions at stage 3, then I will consider doing that. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to wind up? I have no further comments to add. Thank you. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members have indicated their agreement. I call amendment 82 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Already debated with amendment 81. Cabinet Secretary, move formally. Move, convener. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. A grup簵r will show members groups. Cabinet secretary, move amendment 84 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 84 and will speak to it, and there are other amendments in this group. This group of amendments makes further provision of the committee's cofa assumment of the bill. The bill comments of the committee's co themed, I move amendment 84, we'll speak to it and other amendments in this group. This group of amendments makes further provision in respect of counter-action taken under the general anti-avoidant show. In particular, it provides the adjustments that Revenue Scotland makes in order to counteract tax advantages under the guard, are subject to the same administrative processes as are set out elsewhere in the bill, for example in relation to amending and correcting returns, the making of assessments and determinations by Revenue Scotland and by time limits. Amendment 93 provides that the taxpayer must pay any outstanding tax, penalty or interest, within a period of 30 days after a final notice of counter-action is issued under the general anti-avoidant show. Okay, thank you. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Members are agreed. I call amendment 85 the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 84. Cabinet secretary, move formally. Move, Gwbeith. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Members are agreed. I call amendment 86 the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 84. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. Move, Gwbeith. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 62 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 87 to 90, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Ministerial Council dengrifonwy tnych wnaeth hyn insteadw Rai dengrifonwyr, yr Uneddiad rhaglen markton! – G Biency, felly hyn ti Sorff dweud wych chi mynd i eich wciefrydau am�ai jo dalyniadau. – G Gyry Ryu! Fffredwch na'u clywi ni unfair fod hwn i cyfwllys ym gyffran f hyffredwch i ythoseim. – Mae nid di y quright. – Un dJeremy! – Mae rhoi niech yn olygu y嗎? – Fyma'r cîmיים o gyfar pa chi nhw ai ffalwchios i norio. Q Ц – Mae puff i vain cyfeir olygyıdd i'r qurigoedd y clusant. with amendment 84. The cabinet secretary has to move formally. Argymudd ahraeg werith cyfeidliadol â gw reality translating Roedd yn nodi ar bobl f conten yn cael iawn. Eitw hyn o modelshalion ar gyfer IEonactingaidd, I move amendment 96 and speak to both amendments in the group. I move amendment 96. During the committee's evidence sessions at stage 1, the Law Society of Scotland, among others, questioned the need for section 68 as currently drafted. In particular, they did not feel that it was appropriate to have a section on taxpayer duties when there was no corresponding section on revenue Scotland duties. While section 68 was only intended as an index rather than to impose duties, I accept that that caused some concern, and I therefore propose to remove section 68. Okay, thank you. The question is at amendment 96 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is at section 67 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 97, the name of the cabinet secretary, I'll read the debate with amendment 96. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. It moved, can be in. The question is at amendment 97 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 98, the name of the cabinet secretary group, with other amendments that are shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 98 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 98 and we'll speak to it first together with amendments 99 to 104 and 301. Amendment 99 makes further provision about a person's duty to keep and preserve records where they are liable to be registered for tax. It specifies what type of records must be kept, including records relating to material on a landfill site or part of a landfill site. Amendment 101 sets out the period for which such records must be kept and preserved. Amendment 104 addresses a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. It amendments section 70 to introduce a power for Scottish ministers to make regulations, subject to negative procedure, prescribing any conditions or exceptions to the form and means by which records may be preserved. Amendment 301 repeals two sections of the Landfill Tax Scotland Act 2014 that are no longer required as a result of those amendments. The other amendments are minor and consequential. I'll now speak to amendment 105, together with amendments 106 to 110, 128 to 129 and 310. At stage 1, I undertook to table a number of penalties amendments in response to recommendations that both the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made in their stage 1 reports and also in relation to views expressed by stakeholders. Those amendments relate to the penalties in section 71 and paragraph 5 of schedule 3 of the bill for failing to keep and preserve records. They specify the assessment and enforcement arrangements for those two penalties, as well as providing a power for Revenue Scotland to waive the penalty if it is satisfied that there is a reasonable excuse on behalf of the person liable to the penalty. The amendments also introduced two regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers to make further provision about those two penalties. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The question is at amendment 98. We all agreed. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 9 to 90103 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put? No member objects the question, therefore, as amendments 9 to 90103 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is at section 69. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 104, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 98. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move, convener. Question is at amendment 104. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is at section 70. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 105, in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 98. Cabinet secretary to move formally. I move, convener. Question is at amendment 105. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is at section 71. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 106 to 111, in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. I move, convener. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? No. There are no objections. The question is at amendments 106 to 111. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Question is at section 72. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 112, in the name of the cabinet secretary, and I agree with other amendments that are shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 112 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 112 and we will speak to it together with the rest of the amendments in the group. Amendment 112 removes the power for Scottish ministers by regulations to define when a tax return must be made. Provision defining when tax returns must be made is contained in the two tax-specific acts. It is therefore unnecessary to have the same power in this bill. Amendments 114, 116 and 119 provide that where a designated officer of revenue, Scotland, has amended a tax return under section 78 or 84, the taxpayer cannot subsequently amend the return under section 74. In those circumstances, the tax pairs recourse would be to seek a review or appeal the decision. Amendment 115 amends section 75 to reduce the time within which revenue Scotland may correct an obvious error or omission in a tax return from three years to 12 months. Given that the section only deals with obvious errors and omissions, I took the view that 12 months was probably sufficient to allow revenue Scotland to do so. Thank you. Question is at amendment 112. Are we all agreed? There is already a debate on amendment 112. Are we all agreed? We are Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed—I call the amendment 114 in the name of the Cabinet secretary already debated with Mmwnt 112, the cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is the amendment 114 bragged to. We are agreed—I call amendment 115 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated With Amendment 112� of Derby, and is the amendment 115 A fydd yn ei gweldol iawn o gyfчтоb yn F1116 i ddwygiad f footprints ac y gyfryd berth updated fel ei ffoesidol. Efallai mae ein gweldol iawn—fydd yn ei wna those, fydd iawn. Er bod gan Scotland a Oldham esgluswyduffleddal wedi gus iawn mae adwygnu unigaging tyddiad i しpw Llanflig, tiwn ei w whiyirwyd ym mwneud ei wneud gwneud. Y Comeridog yn fawr i'r newid yma i ymgyrch i'r ffordd ac yn ymgyrch i'r gwrthiau i'r newid yma ar gyfer y gwrthiau i'r ffordd. Mae gwirionedd pethau o'r ddiweddau fwynd oherwydd mae'r ddigonol ffordd i ddweud cyffredinol yw y gyrwyddon ymgyrch, y gwirionedd o'r gwirionedd o'r ddigonol yn ddigonol. Y gwirionedd 2402 yn ymgyrch i'r ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. leoledig o'r dweud o'r ddechrau'n ddau i'r Minister i dinbydd i'r regulau. Y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth 243 yn cael gyflawni'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn ganunio i gwaith o'r taxi gyda'r ddechrau i'r ddau'r cyfrifiadau. Felly mae'r taxi gyda'r ddau'r cyfrifiadau i'r ddau'r ddau'r cyfrifiadau. Y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth 118 yn y cwm yng nghymru. Yn cael gwithio y llifoedd ar y ddain, ymgyrch yn gweithio'r ddau. Apologies,Link Inspector, to be on the animation from my ... question is amendment 1 we agreed to, are we agreed? We are agreed that the question is that section 78 we agreed to, are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed that the question is that section 7 in 1982 we agreed to, are we agreed? I'm glad we sorted that out. A call amendment 118 on the name of the cabinet secretary group with other amendments Sirasting for the Government—Cybodaeth, bones—it and divisions—an amendment过? Cymru yna maes i am leituaeth Druff, a llwyaf roff processedd a commission fath Так aw lact Consecwyorum troopwereinledd f höheriandu? Rwy'n creu eu caDerachun wrth hof i mor oes-blokrion iawn, i du i rheswr d jin Unar Sud Not I. Dyna gennych eu cwrd o'r Dorfod? Da합니다, un spam ddechспedd iddyn nhw, angen a konklynin i'r com cocrod mwy, i'r cwrd o unaer rhod o'r Dorfod. Arlad nhw fydda'mau? We will be agreed to. I will reconvene the session, we are back on track. 5.agan on hydrologol wedi ei ffordd yn edryattform yn. 5.Aricon chwarae unrhyw wrth gyfoethau rendol. clock 002 5 règwm cyhoed clwf mor falw 10wg wedi tyt gyr 1. 099.1128 y ysgol 4. 1. 0C 117 cw responses име o 07 cwph Richard instagram 1. 099.6 1-2-5, 2-1-2-7, on the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and all previously debated, I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? No. There are no objections, therefore the question is that amendments 1-2-5, 2-1-2-7 and agreed to, are we all agreed to this? We are agreed. Question is at section 99 by agreed to, are we all agreed? Of course. We are agreed, the question is at sections 100-105 by agreed to, are we agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendments 1-2-8 to 1-30 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. It moves, come here. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? No. No member objects it, therefore the question is that amendments 1-2-8 to 1-3 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Members are agreed. Question is at schedule 3, we agree to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is at sections 106 to 118, we agree to, are we all agreed? Yes. Members are agreed. I call amendment 1-3-1 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment 80, Cabinet Secretary to move formally. It moves, come here. The question is at amendment 131 by agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is at sections 112 to 116 by agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 132 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary, a group with other amendments that are shown in the groupings. Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 132 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 132 and I will speak to it along with other amendments in this group. These make further important provisions about the rules and procedures regarding information notices. Amongst other things, they will require that a designated officer must always seek and obtain the approval of the tribunal before an information notice under section 119 or 122 can be given. In keeping with the move to a single designated officer classification, the amendments remove all references to a designated investigation officer. The references to a transaction and buyer in section 112 of the bill may inadvertently create an assumption that the provision only applies to land and buildings transaction tax. Amendment 142 therefore makes it clearer that this section applies to a wider range of circumstances and therefore to both devolve taxes. The current wording in section 1213A does not cater for partnerships that are not registered such as common law partnerships. Amendment 143 corrects this by allowing a third party notice to state a name by which the partnership is known. Other amendments in this group make further important provisions about inspections of business premises and the investigatory powers available to a designated officer. The amendments make it clear that a designated officer can carry out an inspection of business premises without advance notice only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that giving notice would seriously prejudice the assessment or collection of tax. Where advance notice is given, this must be given in writing. The amendments also give additional powers to an officer carrying out such an inspection so that revenue Scotland can effectively discharge its investigatory functions in relation to Scottish landfill tax. Amongst other things, an officer will be able to bring other persons to the inspection. Such persons will be able to take and use any equipment or materials required for the purposes of the inspection such as heavy machinery. Finally, section 1423B of the bill currently places a reasonable condition on the ability of a person to request a copy of a document that they produce to a revenue Scotland designated officer and which is then subsequently removed by that officer. I do not think that such a condition is either necessary or fair. A person should always be entitled to request a copy of a document removed in such circumstances and amendment 159 makes this clear. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question is, that member 132 be agreed to. I agree with you on the idea that we are all agreed in the new section of amendment one, one, one seven. I willing agree to the answer.From subject to amendment one, one three three by agreed to has the name of the cabinet secretary. 24. Unwch gyförcyrddol, cocon, ym Mwneil Y Ach 한국? 24. Unwch gy offsieart ar defnyddio'r cy reopening of y Llywodraeth Maes Gwyddorff erd sporting 26 27. Unwch gyfoes Alexander palavras 28. ac rywkaeth Ardreniau Ionwys I ac Ionwys I g gerda mewn dweud pup rivalsiaeth Cysxu Y quesion r bys yn agwedd y shyf autismu hih isu rhagliad. Dwi yn agwedd chi. Mae ydw i ddaf yn badge bitew o awd oppressor. Ond awd nim yn ysgrifennidau. Mae ydw i ddweud fel awd experts-grifennidau. Mae'n ystafellig o fe-gred standby wedi cewdd rhaid?標hym'r énig hyn Trameth? y joint y cofnagadwedd i'w dependentparadwyd aenoggedd ddegadwyd ddegadwyd ac mwyn rivod y qderdsydd kryerwyd? ledw ni'n weldiaethig a inna blau'r dra martial those ddegadwydur cwbiomu'r dra ddegadwyd Rai oeddustem earnings at 6.127. Rai oeddustem earnings at 6.128. Rym nephewbym angen Politik Ju�� Na gyniff Awakening Rodd gynff o winnau llifitten bob iddo R boardgerion a jewch P narr rodd wych yn ddigon Rydyn meddwl dros Gym yn no ni Rydyn meddwl ymPopol Mae'r oaklau am newid sietagnol wahabodaeth ac mae hynna i beghwytau Andrewamasr, bai grif poemog ride os ym mwy. Mae'r mwy yn cystu gwaith. Mae'r mwy yn cyst Ms Robertson o'i gael a â gael cwestiynau. Mae'r mwy yn cystwmp o'i 얘기 o cael ei dいきn iawn gylaf am machtelau i'u hemwy. Mae'r mwy yn cyd. Dwy'n cystal mewn cystal на gaeliaf y ond sydd o sensел. They are not counted sites. Here over there. Number 3. Number 4. Number 5. Number 4 and number 5. Number 5 is 2. Number 6. Number 5 has priority on stakeholders Not new quality in given language. Number 5. losw expandio'r newidol ddrawer o 77티au gyfoedd another piece of screen neb am y cyougher fydd 불�antolingsionneidd wedi tyngau ddefnyddeir Ballu ddrawer y gwêrwyr yn gallu cynnigan ddŷchol wgfaith hwnnw a dressing i'i tali ond dŷchol gwag oprwyr ar y cyfer hynny gwrs ar nos arall o rhaid i amlunio ar gyfer. I move amendment 162, ond we will speak to it and the other amendments in this group. This group of amendments makes some procedural changes to the circumstances in which decisions taken by revenue Scotland are to be appealable. For example, amendment 248 provides that a decision of revenue Scotland under section 61 to make adjustments to counteract a tax advantage is an appealable decision. Amendments 249 and 250 ensure that any decision in relation to a penalty is appealable, including the amount of the penalty and whether to suspend it. Amendments 162, 246, 282 and 287 provide affirmative order making powers for Scottish ministers to modify the list of non-appealable decisions in section 144 and to specify additional circumstances in which decisions in relation to notices given under section 193 may be appealable. Menu questions is at amendment 162 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question's at section 145 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 163, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary,談 amendment 132 as the Cabinet Secretary to move formally. I move formally, due to theKim, dwi'r m Veron. I call amendment 164 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary to move formally. Cwestiwn na sicrwm yn cymryd ar model 16 granted Y Unionwownewch yn y sidew Cwestiwn a negativity Cwestiwn oes I meant 165, bygri dãos Cwestiwn nwr iawn 4, signs Met yw Lleidgeodau winterbrog Menegwch Cymru? I write the cabinet secretary to move amendment 168 and speak to all other amendments in the group. I move amendment 168 and we'll speak to it together with the other amendments in this group. As I've mentioned already in relation to group 13, during stage 1 I undertook to bring the detail of the penalties regime on to the face of the bill. This group of amendments relates to the penalties in sections 150 and 151 of the bill for failing to make a tax return or to pay tax on time. They specify the circumstances under which either of the penalties are payable, the penalty amounts and also tidy up the wording in sections 152 to 159. The amendments also remove the two regulation making powers in section 1502 and 1512 and replace them with a single regulation making power for Scottish ministers to make further provision about penalties in chapter 2 of part 8 of the bill. Any such regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure. I welcome the Government's approach to penalties and the change to put them on the face of the bill. The committee has had a representation in relation to amendments 179 to 186 to question the reason for making the penalty payable if the tax is outstanding the day after the due date. The representation made to us suggested that that is perhaps a little harsh on the taxpayer in some occasions, particularly if there is a genuine oversight or error or indeed if there is an error or bureaucracy by Revenue Scotland or those collecting the tax. I wonder whether the Government, in winding up, can give its thinking behind going for the day after and whether it is potentially flexible on that issue if we are willing to reflect on it as we come to stage 3. The committee welcomes the increased consistency in having penalties on the face of the bill. I wonder how inflation will be dealt with. At the moment, it is fairly low, but £100 over time becomes worthless and less. I think that, especially some of the older Westminster legislation, we have seen the case where a penalty becomes almost meaningless. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could clarify if the penalties are on the face of the bill how they would be reviewed over time. First, there is a power to apply inflation by regulation, so the discussion is in the bill. There would have to be action taken. There is not an automatic application of inflation, but there would be a utilisation of a power to apply an inflation adjustment as appropriate. On the point that Mr Brown has raised, the Government has taken the view that we should establish a regime that errs heavily on the proper reporting and disclosure of liability for tax purposes and prompt payment as a consequence. As a general principle, that is a good and sound provision, and it is reflected in the regime that we have set out on the face of the bill in response to the committee's representations. Revenue Scotland also has discretion in the bill to allocate more time in exceptional circumstances if it considers that to be necessary. The correct balance is stuck in the bill on the emphasis on prompt payment, but on leaving some discretion in exceptional circumstances. Generally, I would think that Parliament would be of a view that we should err on the side of encouraging prompt payment but on leaving some room for discretion if it is absolutely required. My sense is that we have struck the right balance, but if the committee were to support the amendments that I have made here, I would certainly reflect further on the point that Mr Brown wishes to make further representations to me, I will happily consider those. If I do not believe that we have constructed the correct balance, I would be happy to bring forward amendments at stage 3 to alter that balance if I felt that that was required. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl Roedwarol, roedwarol arwom wedi mewn cyf ger Holden Cymru, neu os gallw'r cyfweithio yn mudwch. Spot sensitive on the block, ge? Rydym yn thosehawn cethuyaeth lle ac un cysyllti pwyd o os���niadau ynghylon. Be oeduriaeth ei hefydl gennym yn brofiad тебя AS Wadwch, been i cyf想 hier, pan ag daodd. I invite the cabinet secretary to move these amendments on block. Moved on block, conveyor. Is there any member object to a single question we put in these amendments? No member has indicated their objection therefore the question is that amendments 19 to 192 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 153 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 193, name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 168, cabinet secretary to move formally. It moved, conveyor. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 154 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 194, name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 168, cabinet secretary to move formally. It moved, conveyor. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 155 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 195, name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 168, cabinet secretary to move formally. It moved, conveyor. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. those there are six To myll d попrwyswch yn ei bodd ac mae'r cwrsfawr yn ei ddechol iawn i gynnyddio bach yn ymgylchedd ac mae'r gweithio o'r maes yn gyflawn. A gweithio'r gweithio i gy finances iawn iddyn nhw i'r gweithio ein tuawr. Mae'r cwrsfawr yn y clwr. Mae'r wneud, mae'r ddod wedi gondol, dmgrifes, o unrhyw fawr i gwyfru sy'n gweithio'r gweithio eich gwaith? Mae'n gweithio i gweithio i gwyfru sy'n gweithio eich gweithio wedi gweithio, The question is as it is at section 159. We are agreed a conrogate Amendment 207 o amendment 205. The White House already had a debate with amendment 168. Cabinet Secretary is to move formally. Does the question come at Amendment 206? We agreed to. We are agreed a conrogate Amendment 207, the name of the Cabinet Secretary, with other amendments as shown in the groupings. And right to the Cabinet Secretary to move to move 207 and to speak to all the amendments in the group. My job is to not go out on the issue of amendments 207 or I do it and it is to deliver that to will retain the right that is being done of the issue with amendment 207. cyd, ar gyfer cyjdigio'r sen Scarlet, yn bod yn meddwl i gyfryddiaith, a allyld i gyfryddiaith y penedysau i gy Bradykraed... ffon i predictr yr iaugau hyn, ddill переol Steven pumps leesibigod achos i gyfryddiaeth yn doedd sydd yn lleid i'r difféfer mwy ral wedi'r baw Rhyngaeth yn gykydd Pouch 들어� favourite ac athw val소리 datblygon, mwy fryd i ychydigion yn idd astud eich compose Caen padsd ond ei is tentu mwy i ddillegol, i du allwchai hgraedd priorities ac'r r nutrition a yn rhoi lleisibigod. Mi rai i'n fwrdd… Theасибо faith eu Chuntyddor amendment 1607, 1624 a 1633, when thereof the Bill replaced it in a single regulation making power for Scottish ministers to make further provision about penalties in Chapter 3 of part 8 of the Bill subject, of course, to the affirmative procedure. The addition of amendment 207, said that having award should be followed by an agreement Felly mae'n gwneud o'r Siogel. Mae'n gwneud o'r Siogel. Mae gwaith ein bod wedi'i gwneud. Mae'r siogel yn cael ei chybl gyda'r Secau, ac mae'n gwneud o'r Siogel felly mae'n gwneud o'r siogel. Mae'n gwneud i'r Siogel. Mae'n gwneud o'r Siogel. eich merydd y bydd gondol. Y cwestiynau eich pwysig neud ein bod eich pwysig neud amdiffen. Mae'r cwestiynau yn cymplell yn ganfod y front o'r front o'r front i ddechrau. Ond o ran a'r gondol illustrate i ddion daith gan y ddechrau, mae'n gweld eu gondol ateb. Am y ddechrau y front o'r front o'r front i ddechrau, mae'n gweld eu cymplell i ddion daith an prospects. Mae'n gweld eu ddion a'r front o'r front i ddion. Mae ddechrau. Mae'n gweld eu ddion i ddion i ddion. No. No member has indicated her objection. The question therefore is that amendments 2, 1, 4 to 2, 1, 6 have agreed to? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is at section 163. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 2170 to 221 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. It moves on block, I mean. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? No. No member has objected. Therefore the question is, do amendments 2170 to 221 have agreed to? Fことch mynieng. Yw'r eidd hyn sy'n cael dechrau? Mae'n ei gynnal ac mae'r eidd hynny. Ond y maes yn y gyfroedd MuIf tua'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Yw'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Mae'Sllwn i'n gwneud. Mae'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Mae'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Gwneud me'r alw nyaen. Yw'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Mae'n eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Mae'r eidd hynny'n arweisiad. Ieidw i'r cwysin ni dweud? Si, dwi i'r cwysin ni dweud? Yn 7. 1, 6, 5, gyd fel 5, dwi i dweud fwyaf? Si, dwi i dweud? Mae oedda ni'n dweud? Yr oedda ni'n dweud? Ac agaith y dweud? Felly mae'r ferweith? Mae'r ferweith yna yn dweud? Felly mae'r ferweith yn dweud? Nid oedd yn dweud? Mae hwn yn dweud? Mae hyn oedd i gyd wedi gyd i fwyaf? Aeloddiad eich gyd dweud? Mae dweud? Mae dweud? Cwyesio fy nglock mwy mwy mwy Informal Cwyesio mwy mwy mwy mwy mwy Rwy'n gwield i gael. Gym日 1失 8, 5 i 6 automataledau dw i cinny Prifysgolig 1 de deadline mae'r sectorll yintaith yng Nghof currently ar�� leak iechyd? 1, 0, 1, 6, 9, 4, 5 2, 1, 6, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 9, 9 to 10 druch eyledigell warll o aud bwysig o'r hynledigy hon. o penalties yng nghymru yw ychwanegwyr a'r byw ar y byddiau lluniau'r byddiau. Ym hyffordd, mae'n ddweud y cwestiynau ar gyfer y cyfnodol Cymru, rydw i'n fwyaf, rydw i'n fwyaf. Rydw i'n fwyaf, mae'n ddweud. Rydw i'n fwyaf, mae'n ddweud. Ym hefyd, mae'n ddweud. Ym hefyd, mae'n ddweud. Ym hefyd, mae'n ddweud. Rydw i'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. yn anffwyd yw allwn It is the question, if the section 178 to 182 is agreed to, if the section 178 to 182 is agreed to are agreed to? I call amendment 231, the name of the Cabinet Secretary, I have already debated with amendment 228. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. The question is the amendment 231 by track through? I call amendment 232 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, I made a group with other amendments as shown in the groupings and I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 232 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 232 and I will speak to it together with the cabinet secretary. mewn tun casos tyniol a i ni firing in the other amendments in this group. Those amendments relate to the penalty in section 181 of the bill for failing to comply with their requirements imposed by or under sections 22 and 23 of the landfill tax Scotland Act 2014. The provisions require the taxpayer or prospective taxpayers to notify Revenue Scotland when they form intentions to engage in, or to desist from engaging in, taxable activities. The amendments specify the circumstances under which the penalty is payable, the penalty amounts on how they are calculated, the enforcement and assessment arrangements, and the discretionary powers that Revenue Scotland will have in relation to this penalty. The amendments also remove the regulation-making power, which is specific to section 1812 of the bill, and replace it with a broader power for Scottish ministers to make further provision about penalties in chapter 5 of part 8 of the bill, subject to the affirmative procedure. Cymru yw'r cwestiynau yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Cymru yw'r cwestiynau? Merdwg. 5. 1. Cynwys llyglau i Llyfrgell 8. 5. Sut mae'r cwmhagиyn o'r cyfraniol am yours. Maen nhw'n cwmhag i llyglau llyglau i Llyfrgell 8, iddyn nhw'n fwyaf rhywbodaeth i gy 것은r o'r cyfraniol. Mae'n hyd i'r cyfraniol? 5. Fy gorfodd yn ddigonol o ddigonol o'r cyfraniol? Mae'n hyd i ddigonol o'r cyfraniol gan ddigonol i gyfosydd, a fydd yn cyfraniol i Llyfrgell 8. The First Minister has a great time. Crescius ar 687. Are we agreed? I call amendment 244 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 244 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 244 and we'll speak to it together with amendments 245 and 300. Section 188 of the bill makes provisions for a desidated officer to issue a certificate of debt that a sum payable to Revenue Scotland has not been paid. Amendments 244 and 245 make further provision for designated officers to issue certificates that no return or notice has been made. The importance of those certificates is that Revenue Scotland on the strength of them can obtain summary warrants under section 190 of the bill, which are immediately enforceable against taxpayers who owe money to Revenue Scotland. Similar provision for those two types of certificates is already made in section 28 of the landfill tax Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 300 will therefore repeal this section in consequence of amendments 244 and 245. Thank you. The question is that amendment 244 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 245 the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Already debated with amendment 244 Cabinet Secretary to move forward. Move. The question is that amendment 245 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 188 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that sections 189 to 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 246 the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Already debated with amendment 162. Cabinet Secretary to move forward. Move. The question is that amendment 246 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That's right a we all agreed to this a's but at this, we've missed stop watch The environment to force in the number of No member has indicated an objection, therefore the question is that amendments 248 to 251 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members are agreed. The question is that section 198 by agreed to are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 252 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I agree with what other amendments are shown in the groupings. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 252 and speak to all other amendments in the group. I move amendment 252. This group of amendments relates to review and appeals and is entirely procedural. The intention is that any review should take place before an appeal to the tribunal. Those amendments therefore provide that a taxpayer cannot ask Revenue Scotland to review a decision if he or she has already lodged a notice of appeal to the tribunal against it. Likewise, the taxpayer may not lodge an appeal if he or she has already asked Revenue Scotland to carry out a review. And if the taxpayer has entered into a settlement arrangement with Revenue Scotland then he or she cannot either ask for a review or lodging appeal against the decision. Amendments 259 and 261 simply provide that an appellant must give a notice of appeal direct to the tribunal and not to Revenue Scotland. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 252 by agreed to are we all agreed? Members have indicated their agreement. I call amendment 253 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 252. Cabinet secretary to move formally. It moves. The question is that amendment 253 by agreed to are we all agreed? Members have agreed. The question is that section 199 by agreed to are we all agreed? Members have agreed. I call amendments 254 to 256 on the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated. And by the cabinet secretary to move these amendments unblock. It moved unblock. Does any member object to a single question that we have put in these amendments? No member has indicated their objection. Therefore the question is that amendments 254 to 256 are we all agreed to? We are agreed to. The question is that section 200 by agreed to are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 2, 1-2-5 by agreed to are we all agreed? Members have indicated their agreement. I call amendment 257 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 252. Cabinet secretary to move formally. It moves. The question is that amendment 257 by agreed to are we all agreed? Members have agreed. I call amendment 258 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 252. Cabinet secretary to move formally. It moves. The question is that amendment 258 by agreed to are we all agreed? It is a question that is chamber 226, 2. Are we agreed? Members are agreed. I call them amendment 262 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Art sounds defiat MRs having agreed? We are agreed. HTTP it is section 229. I am agreed. The amendment 262 does not say to up and bye regardless if you are in spirit or serious. amendment 263, in name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 289. Cabinet secretary to move amendment 263 and speak to both amendments in the group. I move amendment 263. Section 210 provides that any tax penalty or interest is payable in advance of a review or an appeal, but allows ministers to bring forward regulations providing for the postponement of tax penalties or interest pending a review or appeal. However, in relation to both land and buildings, transaction tax and landfill tax, I believe that it is right that any tax that is due and any associated penalties and interest should be paid immediately. It will not therefore be necessary to bring forward regulations providing for postponement, although Revenue Scotland will of course be able to exercise its own discretion to do so on a case by case basis. I was just a bit surprised. It seemed rather harsh not to have any provision for appeals. Obviously, there could be cases where it is being used as an excuse to postpone payment, but equally there may well be that the appeal has merit or the taxpayer may even be suffering hardship. I was interested in your comments about landfill tax and land building transaction tax, but surely this bill is supposed to refer to any future taxes as well. Those two taxes are not specifically mentioned in section 210, so it just seems rather harsh that there should be no provision for postponement with a review or appeal because it may well be that Revenue Scotland sometimes makes mistakes. Amendment 263 removes subsection 2 and subsection 3 of section 210 of the bill. Subsection 2 at the moment, as it stands, gives Scottish ministers the power to make regulations for the provision of the postponement of any tax, penalty or interest pending review or appeal. It does not force them to do so. It gives them the option should they choose to make regulations to do so. The Government's position as of today is that it does not think it would want to do so, but this Government may change its mind. Future Governments, of course, may change their mind too. I am not sure that there is anything to be gained by removing subsection 2 and subsection 3. If the Government genuinely features the same view and does not want to bring in regulations then they simply do not have to do so. I do not see the harm in retaining subsection 2 and subsection 3. Again, following up on the comments made by Mr Chisholm, it may be unduly harsh in some cases for taxpayers where there is not this degree of flexibility. I would urge the Cabinet Secretary not to press amendment 263. Thank you, convener. I agree with the Cabinet Secretary that it is also important to get the tax and penalties paid when in the road. I think that that is certainly from the evidence that we have taken, the considerable evidence that we have taken over the stage where I think that is where the committee broadly is as well. Clearly, in these circumstances, the discretion that Revenue Scotland has that it can exercise in these circumstances might be important. That obviously will not be subject to ministerial direction, but I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary can set out what might be the circumstances in which Revenue Scotland might exercise its discretion in these areas. I think that there is a reason for similar territory to the other issues that we discussed earlier on. There is a question of balance here. Section 2101 makes the position very clear that where there is a review or appeal under this part, any tax charged or penalty or interest imposed remains due and payable as if there had been no review or appeal. I think that there is a clarity within section 2101 that, even if a taxpayer has requested a review or appeal, the liability to pay tax still crystallises. I do think that there is a need to address what are the circumstances where that might be. Section 2101 might not apply, given that 2101 is very clear that it applies in all circumstances. I suppose that it comes down to a judgment between whether or not ministers should have the power to specify regulations or whether we should judge that Revenue Scotland should exercise this view on a case-by-case basis. There should be any general schematic view taken of whether it should be left to the individual judgment on a case-by-case basis, which Revenue Scotland is able to exercise by virtue of its general function over the collection and management of the devolved taxes. In relation to Mr Hepburn's point about what circumstances would Revenue Scotland exercise that judgment, I can certainly think of at least two areas. One would be hardship where Revenue Scotland could receive material information that could inform its view on that question. The other is whether there is an emergence of a point of law, which is a reasonable point of debate and dispute in legal terms. I think that there is a sufficient scope for Revenue Scotland to take a view that some discussion should be applied on a case-by-case basis. I think that the judgment on amendment 289 is whether or not there should be a more general provision whereby by regulations we should be able to have that option to provide for postponement. It is a matter of judgment as to whether that is a relevant power for ministers to have. I am certainly very happy to look at this again in the light of the issues that the committee has raised. If there are any more points of detail that the committee wishes to draw to my attention, I will consider that. In the light of those remarks, I would not press amendment 263. Amendment 263 is not being pressed. Does any other member want to press amendment 263? No. The question is that amendment 263 is not preceded with. Amendment 268, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, is already debated with amendment 22. The Cabinet Secretary has to move formally. It moved, convener. The question is amendment 268 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 213 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that sections 214 and 215 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 269 to 272, all in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite Cabinet Secretary to move those amendments on block. Move, convener. Does any member object to a single question we put in those amendments? No. We have no objections. Therefore, the question is that amendments 269 to 272 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 216 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 217 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendments 273 to 276 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move those amendments on block. It moved on block, convener. Does any member object to a single question we put in those amendments? No. No member has indicated an objection. Therefore, the question is that amendments 273 to 276 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 5 by agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 277, 278, 310 and 279, all in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move those amendments on block. It moved on block, convener. Does any member object to a single question we put on those amendments? No. No member has indicated an objection. Therefore, the question is that amendments 277, 278, 310 and 279 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 280 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendment 291. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 280 and speak to both amendments in the group. I move amendment 280 and will speak to it together with amendment 291. The regulation making power in section 102 is currently subject to affirmative procedure, but only where the regulations amend primary legislation. At stage 1, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that the regulation making power in section 102 should always be subject to affirmative procedure. That was to bring it into line with the other regulation making powers in the bill involving penalties, all of which are already subject to affirmative procedure. I accepted the committee's recommendation and gave an undertaking to bring forward the necessary amendments at stage 2, and amendments 280 and 291 give effect to that commitment. The question is that amendment 280 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 282, 283, 311, 284, 312, 285, 313, 286, 314 and 287 to 291, all in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. I don't want to move amendment 289, so I'm happy to. I don't know if that requires you to read out the long list again, but 289 is in the same bracket as 263, which I hope did not to move. Do any members have any objections to taking the rest of the amendments on block? Right. As no member has an objection to those other amendments being put forward on block, the question is that these amendments are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Does the Cabinet Secretary want to move 289? Not moved. Cabinet Secretary, not moved. That is not moved. No member wants to move it either. We will move on. The question is that section 218 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that sections 219 and 220 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 292 to 305 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary and all previously debated. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move these amendments on block. Move, convener. Does any member object to a single question being put in these amendments? No. We have no objections there for the question is that amendments 292 to 305 are agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 306 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary and I agree on its own Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to amendment 306. I move amendment 306. It makes a minor additional amendment to the Tribunals Scotland Act to ensure that, at the appropriate time, the tax tribunals will be able to transfer into the new unified tribunals established by the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014. The question is that amendment 306 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that sections 221 to 223 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 307 on the name of the Cabinet Secretary, group with amendment 308. Cabinet Secretary to move amendment 307 and speak to both amendments in the group. I move amendment 307. Amongst the detailed technical provisions of schedule 4 are amendments to provide that references to the tax authority in the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Scotland Act 2013 and the Landfill Tax Scotland Act 2014 mean Revenue Scotland as constituted by the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill. Those amendments ensure that the necessary changes made the date after Royal Assent. The question is that if amendment 307 is being agreed, are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The question is section 224 to 24 but I agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is section 225 bigried to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Y cwestiynau yw bod yn y llwyfodol y gallwn ddigwydd yn ddiweddol? Ond that colleague in stage 2 o cyfliadau pwyddynion. I would like to thank everyone for their perseverance during today's proceedings. Members should note that the bill will now be reprinted and amended. The Parliament is not determined when stage 2 will take place but members may now lodge stage 3 amendments with the legislation team. There will, on the deadline for amendments once it has been determined. We're starting about 10 seconds or so. You can girdge your loyalings for that. We'll try to be gentle with it. Eitem o sefyllfa ymlaen nhw'n gydig ar Gordon Gawk mfryd yw'r cystafell cychyddiwedd Llywodraeth a chynllun iaith ar gyfer y dynig o'r yapchau cyfanu mor hwn sy'n blaen i Llywodraeth 2012 ac mae'r dynnill yn ddechrau ar gyfer y dynun iaith ym Mw seafood o'r dynnill, L perpet, rymeddwyr ddarlun a'r Gwmp yn pnewgolol paleidigiau. Mewn ysgawr wedi ei ddechrau i gael ar y ff entrellwyng a ddifenwyr maes ydw i'n gaeli mwy wneud yn nhw'n gwych, Bwch, I know that you have all the love to be here. There is nothing I particularly want to open with, but I'm happy to get to questions as quickly as possible. I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee and to discuss the subject matters that you have already mentioned and to provide evidence. I hope that we will demonstrate constructive progress in terms of the implementation of the Scotland Act and to address any particular concerns in respect of the last budget. Thank you very much for that. There is normal procedure within the finance committee. I will start with some opening questions and then we will just open out the session to colleagues around the table. First of all, I would just like to touch on chapter 6 in terms of boring powers, if I may. In September 2013, the committee sought clarification from the cabinet secretary on the Treasury regarding whether the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities might be disadvantaged by not having access to the preferential project rate which English local authorities could bother from the first of November last year in order to take forward major infrastructure projects. The cabinet secretary said that this seemed a perfectly reasonable point and I am going to look into it. As yet, we have received no clarification on that. I am just wondering if you are able to provide that clarity for us. What I can say, convener, is that in the 2013 autumn statement the Government announced that local authorities in Scotland and Wales will have access to the public works loan board project rate to support priority infrastructure projects. £250 million of project rate borrowing will be available to Scotland from 2014-15 to 2015-16, subject to agreement with the Scottish Government on the precise mechanics and conditions, and this will mean access to cheaper borrowing at a discount of between 20 to 40 basis points on the certainty and standard lending rates. I am sure that that is very welcome from Scottish local authorities, but is there any reason why the Scottish Government should not be able to access the same rate? In terms of that, we have made a number of changes in respect of capital borrowing powers and reduced the restrictions. There is greater flexibility for the Scottish Government. I do not know whether the Lindsay is anything you want to add in terms of the particular pointers to the Scottish Government. The public work loan board rate is only available to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. It has been designed as a lending rate for local authorities to incentivise them. I would like to move on to something else. The issue of the block grant adjustment. The cabinet secretary here, John Swinney, basically said in a quote, that we need to grease in the block grant adjustment mechanism for the devolved taxes, not least to ensure that estimates can be factored into the preparation of the draft Scottish budget this autumn. Obviously, time has been rolling on for this issue for some months. Indeed, the cabinet secretary said last September that time is marching on. I am just wondering what the bottlenecks are in terms of reaching an agreement and how you believe we can and should overcome these. In respect of the block grant adjustment for SDLT, as it is in the UK, and the landfill tax, the UK Government put forward our proposals in December of last year. The Scottish Government responded in April. We do have differing approaches as to how this matter should be addressed. But it would also be fair to say that we are both sides are prepared to look at the numbers. We are looking at the numbers now. I hope we can work constructively with the Scottish Government. As I say, we put in place our own proposals last year. As far as I am concerned, I want to ensure that we have a constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government to see if we can resolve this matter sooner rather than later. Thank you very much for that. Is there any kind of a time scale or any specific date where you hope to have this matter resolved from your perspective? I am not sure that there is a... I want to put a particular deadline on it. I think clearly the sooner this can be resolved, the better. We are wanting to work through the numbers and I think the Scottish Government is wanting to work through the numbers so we can resolve this. It is a challenging matter to ensure that we get that one-off adjustment so this matter can be dealt with. Addressing not just the situation now, but the situation over future years where there are likely to be changes in terms of the yield that were brought in by these two taxes. So it is a complicated matter. But as I say, we put forth our proposals some time ago. The Scottish Government responded a couple of months ago, but we are working constructively with them so that we can resolve this. Thank you for that. Staying with the block grant adjustment, the UK Government proposed an adjustment based on the approach taken when business rates were devolved to Scotland which involved the reduction of the block grant baseline and updating the Barnett comparability factor from 100 per cent to 0 per cent although those elements would need to be negotiated in respect of the block grant adjustment. But I understand that on 28 May the Cabinet Secretary for the Treasury said, and I quote, there is no political part in the UK. It's proposing to make any changes to the Barnett formula. I don't think that's on the cards within the UK. There's no prospect of a change to the Barnett formula. So how does what is being proposed square with what the Cabinet Secretary said just a couple of weeks ago? The point I would make here is that the Barnett formula remains in place but it has been the case throughout the history of the Barnett formula that as more items have been devolved and whether that is taxes or whether that is spending, adjustments have to be made to take into account that further devolution. So what we are talking about here is not a fundamental re-write, reform, re-calculation of the Barnett formula far from it. It is a further step, as we have seen on a number of occasions in recent years, where the Barnett formula needs to be updated to reflect the fact that there is further tax devolution. Okay, thank you for that. I'm sure colleagues want to explore some of these issues further. First person to ask questions will be Cymru. I want to stick with this issue because I want to turn your attention back to your Government's command paper which you style Strength in Scotland's Future. Emphasis that it's your title rather than one that I might accept myself. In that paper you set out when the smaller tax had evolved currently planned to be able 2015 there will be a one-off reduction which will then be deducted from the block grant for all future years. The conveners read out and set out in the latest update on the implementation of that. Why has the UK Government changed its position? I don't accept that we have changed our position. We do want a one-off adjustment. It is important that that adjustment reflects not just the existing yield if you like for those taxes but also what is likely to happen over the years ahead. The one-off adjustment should consist of both an adjustment to the block grant and an adjustment to the Barnett consequentials calculation and we believe that that change is the best way we can do to reflect both these elements, both the situation as to where we are today and where things are likely to be given the forecast for changes for stamp duty land tax yield over the years ahead in their being significant increases and also that landfill tax will be going in the other direction. You say it will be a one-off adjustment under the mechanism you now propose. Will the figure be the same on a year-in-year basis? The change in terms of the Barnett consequentials number we are getting into the details of what would be the discussions that we would have but essentially we are looking for a change to the block grant adjustment which is a one-off change and then a one-off change in terms of the Barnett consequentials for the years going forward. Would you not accept that if you said to most people that there will be a one-off adjustment that would mean that that will be the figure and that will be the figure on a year-in-year basis? That is what most people would understand I think it's important that the adjustment takes into account what is likely to happen over the years ahead and indeed the Scottish Government's proposal in this area is looking at upgrading in line with inflation so I don't think it would be a sensible course to make a cash reduction to the block grant and then set that in set that in stone not taking into account the fact that there are likely to be changes in yield over the years ahead I don't think that would be a fair way of doing it either to the UK or to Scotland because either you would set up a one-off adjustment that if you like overshot the current situation what is likely to happen in the future or you have something which underestimates and doesn't properly reflect what is likely to happen in future years? Both this Parliament and the Parliament which you considered the Scotland Act on the basis of the command paper do you not think that we've been somewhat misinformed by what was termed a one-off adjustment now we're not so clear that it will be a one-off adjustment? No I don't accept that and it has been a well-established principle in terms of devolution of tax powers that this is done in a way without having an unfair impact either on the nation to which devolution is occurring or the UK as a whole and what we have sought to do consistently in this area in terms of the block grant adjustment for these two taxes is to ensure that the formula that is used is one that is faired by the Scotland and the UK? You mentioned there the Scottish Government's proposed a mechanism by which the one-off adjustment could be upgraded that sounds to me as though in the process of negotiation they are trying to accommodate your perspective and move towards the UK Government's perspective how's the UK Government moving towards the Scottish Government's perspective? Well the point I would make as I said earlier we set out our proposals in December last year Scottish Government set out their proposals in April of this year we are in discussion both sides have agreed to look at the numbers to explore the particular proposals we don't believe we've heard anything yet to suggest that there is a better approach than what we set out in December but I would stress we're keen to engage constructively look at the other options that might be available and to explore those in a constructive manner You said to the convener that this isn't altering the banner from what strikes me that's precisely what it's doing you may say it's not in a substantial way and again I refer back to the command paper which says the UK Government recognises some of the concerns expressed about the current system with devolution funding but this time the priorities reduce the deficit and any changes must await the stabilisation of the public finances which I think the UK Government said would be 2018 at the earliest but now we find that actually the mechanism you propose is an alteration to the banner formula so again why is there this change that was set out to not only this Parliament but to the UK Parliament and your command paper again I don't accept that this is not a fundamental change of the banner formula what this is is an updating of the banner formula to take into account further devolution just in the same way as adjustments were made when business rates were devolved just in the way I think there have been circumstances where additional spending areas have been devolved and that has meant there have been changes to the banner consequentials so certainly as far as the UK Government concerned this is not this is not a rewriting of the banner formula there is a threat to the banner formula I accept but that is a yes vote in the referendum ok well we could explore that one but I mean were you I mean truly the key difference with business rates was here's a command paper before this Parliament and the UK Parliament considered no matter where you said you wouldn't alter the banner formula and now we find that you're seeking to do so where you say it's not a change you say it's merely being updated would you not accept that could be viewed as semantics by many people no I don't I think it's if we want to find a way to ensure that the changes to the block grant and the overall support to the Scottish Government reflects the yield foregone to the UK as a consequence of devolution to find a sensible way of doing that and it's important that it deals with both issues both points which is one the existing yield and working out what that is that's the relatively simple task but also taking into account what happens in the future given that as a consequence of devolution future yield of SDLT which is anticipated will no longer come to the UK Exchequer that that's forfeited and it's important that the public finance system reflects that turn to the issue of air passenger to take the command paper because clearly it was informed by the Kalman commission which called for the devolution of air passenger duty and the UK Government decided not to do that and that was on the basis that the Government was considering the wider future of aviation and it would not be practical to devolve this duty while these considerations are on going and understanding that those plans to reform APD are now in place indeed your own party through the commission chaired by Lord Strathclyde is calling for the devolution of air passenger duty so when are you going to get on with that? It remains the case that there is continued uncertainty as the impact of devolving APD would have on the UK as a whole. There's evidence to suggest that devolution would result not so much in an increase in air pass in numbers flying but a switch if you like from one part of the UK to another so we need to have a proper understanding of the impact on the UK as a whole. There are significant powers in the Scotland Act which we are implementing and it's right that we focus on that and until we are more confident as to the impact of devolving APD it's not a particular area that we are focused on but this is clearly an ongoing debate as you have said Strathclyde commission has recommended it so this is not a matter that has gone away but to be very frank with you we also have to take into account what the impact would be on the UK as a whole. The Strathclyde commission is too quick off the mark your own party is too quick off the mark for the devolution of this particular duty right now. I think the Strathclyde commission is a very valuable contribution to the debate but here and now our focus is on implementing the significant powers that are in the Scotland Act and that's where we are looking as far as APD I think the position hasn't changed we need to have a proper understanding what the risks would be to in terms of a distortion of competition and in terms of revenue risks where we should devolve APD but that's a matter that we continue to keep under review but as I say our main focus at the moment is implementing the existing powers within the Scotland Act With your refusal to accede to a request from a commission within your own party for the devolution of what might be felt to be a... My point of order, convener This agenda item is the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012 and the UK budget 2014 I do seek your guidance on how questions from a commission by a political party is strictly relevant to the matter under discussion The reason I think it's relevant is that paragraph 4 of the 4 word says and I quote the coalition government in a commitment to people in Scotland to live the recommendations of the Kalman commission on a programme for government that we have delivered and I think what the member Jamie is doing is queering whether or not that has actually happened because it's actually in terms of APD because it's in the 4 word but I would hope that Jamie will move on from this topic fairly soon If I could just ask that and I think it is relevant to the Scotland Act 2012 of course it sets out that it's possible to devolve other taxes to this place in the future APD might be thought to be a fairly minor and obvious one and the member's minister's own party's made that recommendation that could be done right now and from what we're hearing there's a refusal to do that and I suppose the question begets is how serious is the prospect of further devolution of any substantial taxation powers in the future whether they've been recommended by the Strathlau commission or not? I think in addition to the points I've already made is that we've been clear that post referendum these matters are one that we will look at again but as I say at this point in time our focus is on implementing the powers that are in the Scotland Act That's all good, you know Michael Thank you, you know Scottish Government is about to set up its own independent commission to look at forecasts for the taxes that have been devolved, the three that have been devolved that's going to run in conjunction with the OBR which is going to continue to produce forecasts twice a year in relation to land-building transaction tax and the landfill tax it's also going to give forecasts for the aggregate levy although that's not being devolved and during our discussions around the forecasting issue and also in discussions with the OBR directly there have been a number of requests for the OBR to consider producing forecasts across all of its areas of responsibility to help advise the Scottish Government on the strength of the economy or what have you do you have a view as to whether the OBR could play a role in producing that type of information or are there reasons why you would think that would be problematic? I think to be honest whereas what the OBR could do for the Scottish Government that's principally an issue for the Scottish Government and to some extent the OBR seeming that they've got the capacity and so on to do what is requested of them I think it's a matter for the Scottish Government as to what extent they wish to make use of the OBR or whether they wish to have an independent body in terms of the more purely Scottish aspects of them we think the OBR is doing a very good job I think that it's very much I think internationally seen as a very respected organisation and the model that we have followed in the UK is one that a lot of countries are looking at very closely in terms of having an independent forecaster and a body there that is separate from Government giving greater credibility to the numbers so we're very pleased with how the OBR has operated I think in terms of what services it might provide to a Scottish Government I think I'd be interested to see what the Scottish Government had to say first I'm just wondering in relation to this because in other areas, for example the welfare reform act there's been a number of changes to how the devolved settlement has been affected by that council tax reduction changes to other aspects of funding and support from the UK Government which are now solely the responsibility of the Scottish Government to get information about the changes at a national level but we don't get them at a Scottish level and I'm just wondering if we could get the OBR to provide a service which we're not going to get under the 2012 act because we're going to get both the Scotland's own independent fiscal commission looking at the taxes that are devolved but we're going to continue getting the OBR given as figures the same devolved taxes but in other areas where there have been powers devolved we're not going to get any comment from the OBR in terms of their financial impact on Scotland and nor are we going to get them from the independent fiscal commission so I do not think it would be helpful if the OBR could provide information in exactly the same way if it's good enough for the 2012 act would it not also be good for the welfare reform act I fully take on board the point that you're making I'm slightly nervous about if you like jumping in without hearing what the OBR would have to say is to the practicalities of some of that to what extent some of the forecasts that the OBR currently perform could be broken down into the nations and regions of the UK in a way that is sufficiently robust and reliable is if you like a technical question which is better raised with the OBR than it is with me I take on board the argument that you're making but I think there are various questions that one would need to ascertain with the OBR as to what the strength of the challenge would be for them to do that I mean we have set up a committee in this Parliament to look at these very issues because of the impact of them and convene that committee I would love to get an opportunity to discuss in the same way I'm discussing with you those changes with Ian Duncan-Smith or Esther McVeigh so possibly the next time you're speaking to them could you tell them that we'd quite happy to have that discussion about how they could help and get the OBR to inform us because at the moment they won't talk to us and won't give us that information I'm happy to take that away I think there are various I mean if we're getting into areas rather than areas on tax then that's for them That's one's for them and it's not for me to speak on their behalf on that Thank you very much Deputy convener Thanks convener I mean just some of the issues we've touched on before I mean landfill tax I mean our hope and I assume that's the case in the UK as well and then come from that tax will decrease the receipts because we're hoping less will go to landfill I mean if we were hugely successful and managed to have no landfill after say a year or two years that means there would be no revenue coming from that source I mean that would be the kind of extreme case I'm not suggesting that's going to happen but that would mean quite a dent in our budget going forward so I mean is that being taken into account these forecasts? Oh yeah very much so and we've got two taxes here which appear to be moving in opposite directions and you're absolutely right we do anticipate that landfill tax receipts will fall in the years ahead and if one took that in isolation it wouldn't be fair on Scotland where we just have a one-off block grant adjustment on the basis of current receipts when the receipts in question is likely to fall away but we must also put into the equation if you like what is likely to happen with stamp duty land tax where the projections are that the yield on SDLT in the UK will increase over the years ahead it's worth pointing out that SDLT is a is a bigger tax in terms of Scottish yield I think landfill tax is very roughly around about 100 million pounds a year SDLT is 500 million pounds a year so we have to take into account the trends with both taxes and they're going in different directions and are frankly very hard to forecast I mean we've been spending a bit of time meeting the OBR and looking at the new fiscal commission and I mean if there's one message comes out of all of that is everybody accepts it's very very difficult to forecast any of these things so I mean you know there's never going to be agreement between the Scottish and the UK Government exactly is there as to exactly what the forecast for these would be I think you'll I think one it's fair to say that SDLT is a volatile tax it clearly clearly has been two I think it's fair to say that these are difficult areas but I think the third point I would make is however difficult it might be it is only right and proper that we do everything we can to reach agreement in this area because what we to do to be fair to both the UK and Scotland is to make an adjustment now so we know where we stand that attempts to address what is happening with current receipts and what is likely to happen in the future and if we simply frozen where we are at the moment then I mean moving in different directions but in the one hand landfill tax we would like to have an adjustment that was too great and for the future and in terms of stamp duty land tax we'd have an adjustment that rather underestimated what the yield is likely to be in the future I mean I think we're in agreement as to what the issues are I suppose my question is you know the timescale and you were asked about the timescale earlier and I don't think you didn't come across that you felt it was very urgent but I mean from this committee's point of view one of our major remits is watching the budget and we are you know gradually approaching the budget for 2015-16 which we start after the summer and this is part of it so I mean it certainly concerns me that if this is just kind of drifting on because I mean December was your proposal that's what seven months ago you've had a counter proposal but from what you said there's been no but nothing better has come forward since December which suggests to me we're not making much progress I think I certainly didn't want to suggest that there was a lack of urgency in this matter we set out our proposal in December it was some four months later when the Scottish Government responded to that we are keen to reach agreement on this matter I mean has the UK Government moved its position at all since December or has it just basically said the Scottish proposal's not very good so nothing's happened we still believe that the proposal that we set out in December is we haven't seen anything that is better than that but I would stress that we are keen to engage constructively we are working through the numbers and I think that's a very helpful process I hope that we can reach agreement we are keen to do so it's important for both sides to engage in that process I entirely agree with the point that you're making there I'm just uneasy about this that the phrase you've used nothing better than what came forward in December because I mean I'm not asking for all the details but I mean I assume when your proposal had maybe 10 points to it and you know there's an assumption about inflation and there's an assumption about different things so I mean it's not a question about a whole new package coming along that's better but it's presumably saying well you think inflation's going to be 2% we think it's 4% let's settle in 3% I mean is that the kind of area we're in? Well perhaps if I can attempt to describe very briefly what our proposal is in very very broad terms there is one-off adjustment in terms of the block grant and then there is also at the same time we make an adjustment for the Barnett consequentials now those are the that's the framework if you like that we have proposed the Scottish Government have proposed four months after our proposal they came back with a proposal which was along the lines of an adjustment to the block grant and then an upgrading in line with inflation we believe our proposal better reflects what I think we should all be trying to get to which is something which reflects the current and the future position of yield from those taxes but we are more than willing to engage constructively with the Scottish Government I hope believe that the Scottish Government are willing to engage with us and that we can reach agreement in this area I mean I continue do you use a phrase like willing to engage is all very well but I mean we are now in June and I have expected a little bit more than willing to engage like actually are the two sides engaging is anybody looking for a half way house well you know I think that we are working through the numbers together we are trying to reach agreements as I say it was some time ago that we set forward our proposals I think this is we want to reach agreement on this we are not being in any way unreasonable we are not ruling out options we are trying to explore these things in a way in the hope that personal people can reach agreement in this area I mean the ultimate scenario is that there isn't agreement and yet a decision will have to be made at some stage because you've got your budget and we've got our budget I mean for us it's probably slightly more important but in that it's a bigger chunk of our budget than it is of your budget that's being devolved and frankly you know you do have the power to impose it ultimately and just set a figure at what stage would the UK Government just impose a solution I think what I would say to that is the UK Government is wanting to reach agreement on this we're not we're not trying to say we absolutely must be done this way or we will impose it upon you we are engaging we are working with the Scottish Government and we are listening to what they have to say in response to our proposals we're trying to explore in the detail this is as you have said yourself this is a complex matter but I believe that we are acting in a perfectly reasonable way with a genuine desire to reach agreement in this matter I certainly hope so I want to touch on Chapter 7 of your report which talks about devolving existing taxes and creating new devolved taxes and from what I understood you said that the focus at the moment is delivering the Scotland Act 2012 which I certainly agree with and the points made in paragraph 48 that neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government has put forward proposals to create new devolved taxes on 2012 especially for Scottish rate of income tax we are talking quite a long time scale because before it is fully devolved we are probably looking at 2018-19 or beyond before it is really totally hived off so would that be the kind of time scale you are thinking about that we wouldn't really look at any further existing taxes until the Scotland Act issues had been fully implemented I think what I do is as the Prime Minister has made clear first of all we need to know what Scotland's constitutional future is and obviously we will know that later on this year as I say the focus as of today is very much on the Scotland Act the focus of the committee but clearly post referendum assuming a no vote there will be considerable thought and interest in terms of what further powers Scottish Government should have that debate I think will be a very interesting one but at this point in time the focus is on what we've already got within the Scotland Act so you wouldn't even be willing to commit to that we would be looking at other powers or taxes before 2018-19 if there was a no vote what I'm saying is that we beyond what is already set out this is I think a matter for the debate post referendum not pre referendum okay thank you for that Gavin to be followed by Malcolm obviously you've had quite a number of questions about the block grant adjustment mechanism but I make no apology for returning to you because I think it is the most important by far and I do share John Mason's concern about timescale so far clearly the Scottish Government has to produce a draft budget at the beginning of October and work begins for that obviously in the months leading up to that without an agreement on the draft on the block grant adjustment mechanism that I think that would be a pretty difficult exercise what plans are there at the moment for meeting and engagement at ministerial level to try and accelerate the progress of this what I would say at the moment is there's a lot of work under way at official level as and when it's necessary to progress this further I'm sure that we would meet at a ministerial level as well we have met in the past in terms of joint committees and discuss this matter so certainly from a UK perspective we're keen to progress this matter it's also worth pointing out that we've already answered the OBR to start forecasting now in respect of these taxes so that they can refine their methodology before the system is implemented in April 15 but of course we do need to reach a conclusion as to how the adjustments will be calculated and we want to we want to do that as soon as we can OK who is leading ultimately the discussions from the UK Government side of things would that be you or one of your colleagues? That would be me Is there a meeting scheduled with Scottish Government ministers at the moment in order to try and progress this? Not at the moment but I think there's constructive dialogue at the moment between officials and we hope that we can make as much progress as we can but as far as I'm concerned as and when we need to have a meeting we'll have a meeting Lynn Zeddo, do you have anything you want to say in terms of where officials are in terms of the conversations on the block grant calculation? I think it's very much as you've set out official level we've had the Scottish Government's proposal and we are talking to them to understand the mechanics of it and we're now at the stage of working through the detailed numbers to be able to compare the two proposals and look to assess them in terms of a fair and equal treatment for both Scotland and for the UK but we're still working through the detailed numbers Lynn, I appreciate you weren't quite willing to commit to a deadline for resolving that issue but effectively there is a deadline there in that the draft budget comes on October work will have to be done in the run-up to that clearly you can't be held to this but in your view is it likely that this issue will be resolved in June in July in August I mean is there a I can see why you answer that question I think I'm a remain reluctant to put a particular date on it but I think around it would be beneficial that we could reach agreements sooner rather than later obviously it is some time since we set out our proposal detailed proposal in December and I hope we can we can progress that sooner rather than later obviously there are two parties to this but I believe that we can engage constructively it's in our interests to resolve any uncertainty I mean I wouldn't press further on that point other than say I hope you can take from the number of questions on the issue from the committee just the strength or the depth of importance of it next question in terms of the block grant adjustment are you discussing each of the two taxes separately or is there going to be a blended block grant adjustment as it were it's a good question I think what I'd say to that is a certain degree of flexibility on that I mean I think what we want is the best result as I mentioned earlier the two taxes rather go in different directions one is likely to increase and yield the other is likely to fall what we want to do is something that reflects the totality but whether that's an answer that involves looking at the two separately and then bringing it together or whether it's some to use your word blended I think we're prepared to be flexible on that okay if I can move on to the Scottish rate of income tax your paper suggests that there will be a transitional period I mean everyone knows that it says us quite specifically a transitional period of two years or three years and I just wonder if there's any final decision on that as to whether it will be two years or will it be three years or is it a case of at this stage we don't know we're going to see how things develop the latter no final decision has been made I think we want to see how things are working and as far as we're concerned we want to see this delivered smoothly and successfully so I think we'll take a view later on the process as to whether how long a transitional period is necessary okay and how has work progressing in terms of identifying quite clearly who are Scottish tax peers my understanding is that that's going very well I think we've got a clear definition we've just made a minor change very minor change to the definition via the Wales Bill just to pick up a very small technical point but that I think as I understand it seems to be pretty successful no new difficulties are emerging okay and finally the original cost estimate for creating the Scottish rate of income tax was £40 to £45 million the most recent estimate I've seen is a reduction of that from £35 million to £40 million I just wonder is that £35 to £40 million the most up to date estimate as far as you are concerned or has that figure changed that's the most up to date number that I have as well thank you very much Malcolm to follow by Jean I'm afraid I'm going to be talking about the block grant adjustment as well but you can see that we're it's understandable for two reasons I think one because it's relevant to the immediate budget that we face but also because it's the critical factor around the fiscal devolution that we're going to get and indeed the enhanced devolution that some of us actually a minority around the table I think is more than independent so it's absolutely pivotal for that so I suppose from my point of view I would support more fiscal devolution because it gives you more flexibility obviously around the rates but also a central idea is that you should gain more of the fruits of economic growth and so on and I presume that's the thinking behind the block grant adjustment for the Strit I mean I wonder is that block grant adjustment which will be by far the most important are all the details of that now resolved there was some discussion about whether differences in population size would be taken into account or not but I don't know whether that's whether that was just something I think the cabinet secretary I take that to be John Swinney said in being asked by us that he had asked officials to give further consideration to that question I wonder if that's not an issue or from a treasury point of view is population size just related to economic growth more generally now I mean the first point to make is I entirely agree with your point about you know the purpose of the Scottish Rates of Income tax about improving accountability about there being a a greater link if you like between economic performance within Scotland and tax base and so on so I think that is a very important point the UK and Scottish Governments have agreed to the mechanism in terms of the Scottish Rates of Income tax and the way in which the block grant will be adjusted in relation to that it's consistent with the principles that have been agreed by both Governments so in terms of this process I don't see there being any particular difficulties or unresolved matters Lindsay just specifically on the population point once we're through the transition period we've agreed between both Governments that the adjustment will be indexed to the UK's non-saving and non-dividend tax base and that will have that tax base will of course vary according to a range of factors and one of which will be population so it will be factored through that part of the process okay thanks and now reverting to the today which is the immediate block rank adjustment as far as I could see in your latest statement the difference was between an additional adjustment for Barnett consequentials and an additional adjustment for inflation now you may already have explained this and I missed it but could you say a bit more about what an adjustment for Barnett consequentials would actually mean in concrete terms what it would mean is that the Barnett consequentials would be reduced reduced by a small amount given that these are relatively small taxes the amount to be determined but in order to reflect the future yield of these taxes would that be an adjustment that from year to year with that still be a one off it would be one off in terms of it would be agreed here and now and that would that would be put in place for the future so it wouldn't be a matter that we would revisit in future years but again the precise details of the mechanism you know I'll be saying identical percentage for each and every year in future whether that is a percentage that will be agreed here but might reflect changes in the projections and changes in yield is we're getting very much into the details here but the point is it's one off in terms of we agree it now and it's in place and so there will be the certainty for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in terms of the impact on Barnett consequentials for future years so does that mean that there will be the one off block grant adjustment and then there will be an addition which from the Scottish point of view would just be indexation for inflation and from your point of view presumably means a bit more than that well I don't know whether I'm not putting numbers on it but a change in terms of the Barnett consequentials reflecting future what we anticipate will be the future changes in yield to these taxes okay gin thank you I just wanted to refer back to the OBR and the projected figures in the I think the earliest figures that we had from the OBR on landfill tax were quite dramatically wrong and then reviewed as I think you can correct me if I'm wrong as the recognition of the policy political policy in Scotland was changed and what that might mean equally I suspect there was a bit of a learning curve on the what we now call land-building transfer tax given the difference in house prices and commercial properties and so on in Scotland what other learning curves are there for you as you try to estimate the economy in Scotland in different areas is the is there a kind of realisation that there are quite considerable differences in other areas as well I think first point I should make is just to be very clear in terms of the calculation of the or the adjustment for the block grounds it's not necessary to calculate what will be raised from the Scottish equivalent tax the point is to work out what the SDLT yield will be because the relevant number is what is forfeited from the UK Exchequer and that is then the number that results in the block grant adjustment not what is going to be raised from the Scottish tax so I just want to be very clear because that is an important distinction in terms of the OBR in terms of any forecast for yield these things are notoriously difficult I think what I would say about the OBR is that it's reputation it's credibility is very strong I was for example talking to a Canadian economist who's been looking at the OBR's performance and he was very impressed by it that's not to say that everything is bang on but for example there's no obvious sign of getting things wrong in one direction consistently as opposed to another direction they they're widely respected and seen to be independent as indeed they are so I think that's all very important but of course forecasts are notoriously difficult and there's always more to learn and refine and improve and circumstances are always changing which makes these things difficult and the Scotland act and the common recommendations with reference to air passenger duty would there have been the same prediction or calculation done to evidence your statement that there would be disadvantage elsewhere in the United Kingdom this is work that was undertaken internally within the Treasury and an HRC and a concern that that what you see is if you like a transfer of business if you devolve APD and you have a markedly different rate in one nation of the United Kingdom as compared to another is that you see a transfer from one airport in the United Kingdom to another airport in the United Kingdom resulting in overall reduction in yields and if you like a distortion created there which is a concern that as the UK Government we have to take into account and that's why we've been cautious about devolving APD and with that evidence it has there been recognition of the very different kind of flight or services airport services in Scotland as compared to the rest of England, Wales and Northern Ireland yes and it's worth bearing in mind that there are already changes so flights for example from the islands don't have APD charged that's a measure that is in place to reflect the fact that there are different characteristics there but nonetheless you know one if one looks at what is likely to be a distortion to say between Newcastle and Edinburgh or elsewhere in the United Kingdom between Bristol and Cardiff those are factors that the UK Government has to take into account and just finally you did recognise the difference between Belfast airports and make allowances there was that a consideration when you were considering Newcastle and Edinburgh for example? Well there are particular circumstances and of course Dublin is not part of the United Kingdom but there are particular circumstances in respect of Northern Ireland that shares a land border with another country and that other country has a different regime and we were seeing as a consequence of that Northern Ireland faced particular difficulties so we sought to address it but that was based on the particular circumstances that applied in Northern Ireland and just finally then given the evidence and the decisions that you've arrived at that that would be a permanent feature that would a passenger duty would not be a devolved tax in to your mind it would the evidence against it is so strong that it won't be considered in the future. No that's not what I'm saying but what I am saying is that there are these challenges and these difficulties there's clearly on the going debate about APD and it is one that may well be revisited in the future the point I'm wanting to get across is a degree of caution because of these difficulties and also as I said earlier what our focus is is trying to implement the Scotland Act which is an important and significant matter and one that shouldn't be underestimated and clearly one that this committee takes very seriously. Would there be any OBR reflections on the tax, on the income raised that would be available? I don't know whether the OBR has done any work on that. If I may I'll look in to see what information is available and provide that to you if I may. Okay, thank you very much. That concludes the questions from colleagues around the table but I have a few more I just want to finish up the session. I'll just end on what Jean has been talking about and others passenger too. The issue is though that the market is already distorted because when I was younger I remember being able to fly from Glasgow directly to Porto, Banjul, Ngambia, Kefalonia all sorts of places in my world youth. None of these places you can fly to now from Glasgow because of APD has focused more flights in places like Manchester and London which means that there are not so many jobs in their airports because there's not so much need for tax drivers, engineers, baggage handlers, caterers, whatever. So there's already a distortion because people are having to travel a couple of hundred miles into Manchester or go via London with an environment on other issues. So surely on that issue and given that was already promised as having been delivered on the forward to this report I don't understand why there is such a reluctance because it lays your own party and off the border believes it's a good idea. I think the point I would make on APD more generally is that it does raise a considerable amount of revenue for the aged checker and at a time when we are bringing down the deficit very significantly but there continues to be a large deficit we have to be careful as to what we do with the public finances. It is also worth pointing out that at the budget we made changes to APD so that the more expensive band that was removed and rolled into a less expensive band. So we've taken steps to reduce APD in a number of circumstances. That had a fiscal cost that was a tax cut and money that we have foregone and can't be used in other areas. So we are restricted by the state of the public finances it's also worth pointing out that no VAT is charged on on air flights so APD is perhaps performing a role there that other taxes do in some other circumstances but APD applies consistently across Great Britain and brings in a great deal of revenue and I think being sensible about the public finances means that we face some difficult choices. Okay, thank you. Now in paragraph 66 we just touched on a subject which has been raised before you say that you talk about making all band at consequentials like small groups of questions which you've answered on that you've talked about when asked by Malcolm, you know effectively what we're talking about in terms of the amount of money you said that's to be determined and you don't really want to put numbers on it and I can understand that from your perspective from my perspective it's quite frustrating I mean if you get any kind of ballpark figure that we're talking about you know we're talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds we're talking about millions of pounds tens of millions of pounds I mean that you must have a rough estimation to where that possibly sits Well I think what I'd say is that we're keen to resolve this you know I think we can I've quoted to you in rough terms the sums are in respect of what SDLT and landfill tax is the revenue that would be forfeited as a consequence of devolution but you know there are differing trends and it's important that the formula we come up with reflects that I think that as you say you can see why I don't want to put a number on it and I can also see why I don't want to put a number on it much though I appreciate your position and that you'd like to put some parameters on it but what I think the most helpful point the most helpful approach is that we continue to engage constructively with the Scottish Government and I hope the Scottish Government can continue to engage constructively with us in a way that we can reach agreement on this matter You know that the First Minister not even for the First Parliament has actually given us an answer along those lines but it is frustrating when we can't put numbers on it but I understand you don't wish to go further on that at the moment now Again you were asked about in the event of no agreement between Governments reached about the final decision I mean I think we really do need to have some kind of ideas to when the final decision would be taken. I already quoted Danny Alexander as saying time is marching on and that was September of last year I think all colleagues around the table would be keen to know when that final decision would be made and who would take that decision If not, it would be reached obviously Yeah I mean I think what I would say is as far as I'm concerned the focus is about reaching an agreement and so I don't want to put a particular deadline on this and convey a sense of if you don't agree with us by such and such a date then we're going to do our own thing that's the appropriate approach to this what I want to do is work constructively with the Scottish Government so that we can we can reach agreement the sooner we can do that the better and I think the committee would agree with that Yes I mean I think everyone wants constructive negotiations and you've emphasised that a number of times and you've also said in a quote you do not seek to impose but at the same time there must be a deadline that will impact as Gavin pointed out on the Scottish budget deliberation so surely there must be a deadline in mind whereby you cannot really go beyond that and the negotiations must be concluded Well as I say I think in the spirit of a continuing constructive dialogue I think setting deadlines would be counterproductive at this point as far as I'm concerned what we want to do is reach an agreement In terms of that agreement you were also asked by colleagues around the table about possible face-to-face ministerial engagement and I quote as and when it is necessary to meet at ministerial level you will meet but you're here in Scotland at the moment the Cabinet Secretary with whom I would imagine you would have these discussions was here half an hour before you were surely it would have been sensible to arrange to discuss these matters while you were actually here Well at this precise point as we've heard constructive engagement between officials there is a lot of detailed work going on in working through the numbers I think it's important that officials are able to continue that work work through the numbers, work through the details work through the implications of the two proposals if you like that are on the table at the moment and once that work has been completed to the extent there are still any outstanding areas for agreement then that is the point at which I think a face-to-face meeting would be most beneficial so I'm grateful for your suggestion that I meet Mr Swinney today and I'd be more than happy to meet him but I think just at this point I'm not sure is necessarily the best time to do that but I'd be more than happy to meet Mr Swinney to discuss this further as and when it would be appropriate for concluding this matter Okay thank you, I've just got one final question which is how will any decision which is actually taking be communicated to the committee and indeed the Scottish Parliament I'm not quite sure exactly how we would do that but we would obviously work with assuming agreement has been reached we would work with the Scottish Government to ensure that this committee was fully informed of the agreement of the details of the agreement Okay well thank you very much for answering our questions to the Scottish Parliament and particularly the Finance Committee I'd also like to thank colleagues for their questions and at the start of the meeting we agreed to take the next two items in private so therefore we'd like to close this public part of the meeting and I'll suspend committee for five minutes in order for colleagues to have a natural break until our public witnesses in the fish report to leave