���˿���

The consultation in respect of the notice period involved student and provider surveys. The results of that are being analysed. When we see those results, the Government will come to a position, and it is important to consult the PBSA sector on that. The survey results will affect what that position will be.

I appreciate Mr Greer’s point, but I cannot speak for decisions that were made by previous ministers or First Ministers. As I said, our approach is to ensure that future changes are informed by robust data, expert analysis and wide public consultation. I ask Mr Greer not to move his amendments.

I cannot speak for the First Minister, but the importance of council tax reform has been discussed in various debates. As I said, such reform would have to be made in tax-specific legislation following consultation.

Ross Greer’s amendment 519 would amend section 2 of the bill to require a local authority, when stating in a report whether it recommends designating a rent control area, to also state whether it recommends that a higher rate of additional dwelling supplement should be payable in the area.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 74 would modify council tax discount law so that it applied until a student had graduated from, rather than just completed, their course. Graduation ceremonies can occur weeks or even months after a student has completed their course and, in some cases, individuals might defer their graduation. That raises two concerns. First, the amendment would extend council tax discounts to those who had, in practice, finished their studies and had potentially entered the workforce but who had not yet formally graduated. Secondly, the lack of a consistent meaning of “graduated” would create enforcement difficulties for local authorities. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 74 and I ask Graham Simpson not to move it.

There is no evidence on that point. ADS does not apply to properties that are unsuitable for use as a dwelling, which are deemed non-residential. If there are individual cases that the member has in mind, I would be happy to engage with her on those, but there is no evidence on the broader application of ADS in such circumstances.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 255 seeks to exempt registered housing co-operatives from ADS, while her amendment 492 seeks to wholly exempt all transactions by co-operatives from LBTT. The existing LBTT arrangements provide relief to those co-operatives that are registered as social landlords with the Scottish Housing Regulator or that operate as registered charities. The requirements in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 that are referred to in the amendments do not act to restrict co-operatives that have been incorporated under that act to the purchase of affordable housing.

Therefore, in our view, what Ariane Burgess’s amendments propose represents a risk to revenue and a legislative approach that may not wholly align with our affordable housing ambitions. Furthermore, the exemption that is proposed in amendment 492 would mean that such transactions would not have to be notified to Revenue Scotland, which presents a clear compliance and avoidance risk. We propose that the challenges that Ariane Burgess’s amendments raise should be fully considered as part of the LBTT review. I ask her not to move her amendments.

Ross Greer’s amendments 465 and 467 seek to amend sections 46 and 47 of the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013, which relate to open-ended investment companies and residential property holding companies, respectively. The amendments require that regulations “must” be made in respect of such entities, rather than saying—as the existing legislation does—that they “may” be made. It is our view that amendments 465 and 467 are unnecessary and that, should regulations be required, the current wording is sufficient. I am happy to engage with Ross Greer on that point.

There have been some lengthy contributions, and I am afraid that I have some lengthy speaking notes for this group, so please bear with me.

Some of the amendments in this group would make changes to LBTT, council tax and non-domestic rates. Changes to those taxes would normally be dealt with in tax-specific legislation and in line with our framework for tax principles and tax strategy. A key issue that has been mentioned is revaluation—it would be important to understand what the structure of that revaluation would be, but I will come to that later.

Any such proposed changes would be expected to follow focused taxpayer and stakeholder consultation. It would also normally involve collaborative working with Revenue Scotland or local government to ensure effective administration and compliance. Proposed changes would then be considered by the relevant committee.

For LBTT, that approach was reflected in the announcement of a review as part of the 2025-26 Scottish budget. That review is under way and will incorporate a broad range of issues that have been highlighted to us by a range of stakeholders, including some of the issues that are covered by the amendments. With that in mind, I ask members not to support the amendments relating to the land and buildings transaction tax.

For similar reasons, I ask members not to support those amendments that would make changes to the council tax and the NDR regime, with the exception of the amendment that would remove a cap on powers to vary council tax for unoccupied dwellings, which I will discuss later.

On that particular point, I cannot give a commitment at this stage until we have discussions on that with Revenue Scotland. I appreciate that you may or may not want to move amendment 468.

Amendment 469 would introduce an enabling power that would allow the Scottish ministers to apply different ADS rates for different reasons, such as according to the number of properties that are already held by a taxpayer. Likewise, amendment 493 would introduce an enabling power that would allow a different ADS rate to apply to companies that purchase residential properties in Scotland. Amendment 544 seeks to impose an additional amount of surcharge on properties in rent control areas unless the Scottish ministers disapply the surcharge for any such area.

Decisions on the rates and bands for additional dwelling supplement and land and buildings transaction tax are taken centrally as part of the Scottish budget process. Any new surcharge would increase administrative complexity and might reduce revenues as a result of efforts to avoid the surcharge.

Amendment 545 seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to set a specific separate rate of ADS for property transactions in national parks, as designated under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Members will be aware that ADS is set at a flat rate of 8 per cent in addition to the core residential rates of LBTT, and is charged consistently across all types of relevant transactions. Amendments 469, 493, 544 and 545 would allow for a significant divergence from existing arrangements of long-standing policy and would thus require a thorough consultation to ensure that such amendments have the intended effect. I ask the member not to move those amendments.

Amendment 546 would enable the Scottish ministers to set a specific separate rate of ADS for property transactions that are made by individuals who are not ordinarily resident in Scotland, where the property purchased is not intended to be that individual’s only or main residence. Consultation and engagement with Revenue Scotland would be essential here to allow us to fully consider potential administrative challenges and compliance risks, including access to necessary data and the inherent complexity of establishing ordinary residence for tax purposes. I ask the member not to move amendment 546.

Amendment 547 would require the Scottish ministers to introduce for the 2026-27 year an additional residential LBTT for properties with a chargeable consideration of £1 million or more. Members will be aware that decisions on the rates and bands of LBTT are taken as part of the Scottish budget process. Further, given the small number of transactions that take place at that price point, the proposal would likely generate limited additional revenue. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 547.

Amendments 193 and 194 would remove the requirement for a local authority to obtain ministerial consent to transfer amounts from the general fund to the housing revenue account to support social housing provision, while ensuring that any such transfers are recorded in the housing revenue account. I support those amendments as they align with the Verity house agreement in giving local authorities greater financial autonomy over how to fund social housing.

Amendments 459 to 461 would require the Scottish ministers to levy a non-domestic rate supplement on short-term lets that are suitable for providing housing on a temporary or permanent basis or require the Scottish ministers to remove reliefs.

Amendment 459 would require the Scottish ministers to levy a higher non-domestic rate on such properties and would also prevent the amount of rates charged from being remitted or reduced. The properties would not be able to receive any relief, such as small business bonus scheme relief, business growth accelerator relief, fresh start relief or local reliefs the council might wish to offer.

Amendment 460 would only require the Scottish ministers to levy a non-domestic rate supplement on such properties. Amendment 461 would only require the Scottish ministers to provide that the rates charged are not remitted or reduced.

I understand Mr Greer’s concerns, particularly those around the contribution of self-catering accommodation to local taxes. However, the classification of such accommodation has already been significantly tightened to prevent tax and rates avoidance in relation to second homes in recent years, following a recommendation from the independent Barclay review of non-domestic rates. Since April 2022, owners must evidence an intention to let for 140 days and actual letting for 70 days a year.

The Scottish ministers already have powers to adjust reliefs and apply supplements, and the amendments would constrain that flexibility. For instance, the Scottish ministers could no longer choose to provide transitional relief to the self-catering accommodation sector following a revaluation, no matter how high the increases in rateable value might be, or offer relief to support the sector during a pandemic.

Although I accept that many self-catering properties receive 100 per cent relief, and I understand concerns about their role in the housing market, I do not believe that the amendments offer a nuanced or proportionate solution. They risk being a blunt tool that would not take into account the varied landscape of the businesses that operate in the sector.

There are a number of points. First, we have discussed the matter with local authorities and, for them, having the flexibility to submit the report in advance of the deadline is key. In relation to the point that you raised, it is relevant to note that communication around the dates is up to each individual local authority.

Secondly, our getting all the reports in at the same time might impact on the speed at which we deal with them. I take on board your points, but we have spoken to local authorities about flexibility around submitting the reports in advance.

I will pick up the member’s points and touch on those issues when I come to speak.

Local authorities have asked for flexibility on that particular point. We would encourage local authorities to be as timeous as they possibly can be, but some of their feedback was about giving them the flexibility rather than setting a specific date.

All the reports coming in on the exact same date would obviously impact on the speed at which rent control areas could be designated. We are asking local authorities to be as timeous as possible, but they asked for flexibility on that point.

I can make a number of points on that. On short-term lets, there has to be a balance. I appreciate Rachael Hamilton’s point on that. There must be a balance between the housing provision that is required for people and for the needs of tourism. In my experience, that varies across Scotland.

As I said, the best approach is to introduce tailored local measures, including licensing schemes. The Scottish Government also has the ability to look at control areas for short-term lets, which would be a matter for individual local authorities. I think that that is the best way to take forward what we are supporting, as local authorities know their individual circumstances.

Noting that the next revaluation is on 1 April 2026, I am open to discussing with the member how the targeting of the small business bonus scheme could be improved. I would want to ensure that business and other stakeholders can comment on any specific proposals for change, including via the consultative non-domestic rates sub-group, which was set up under the new deal for business.

Amendment 550 would modify a sunset provision so that the power to establish an infrastructure levy in section 54 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 will not lapse in July 2026 in so far as it may be exercised in relation to housing developments.

The Scottish Government consulted last year on introducing an infrastructure levy. The responses made clear that neither the development industry nor local government strongly supported it. There were widespread concerns about the complexity and uncertainty that the levy could introduce, and the limited funds that it would likely raise. We therefore decided to stop that work and allow the powers to lapse.

Retaining the power to establish an infrastructure levy in relation to housing developments would create additional uncertainty in the market, potentially limiting investment and the provision of much-needed housing. I would therefore ask the member not to move the amendment.

In summary, I support amendments 191, 193, 194 and 543 in the name of Ross Greer. I oppose all other amendments in the group. If any of those other amendments are pressed, I would urge members of the committee not to support them.