³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I am not familiar that the statement that the university issued or the broader context, so I cannot comment on that. However, we are talking about a transactional tax that does not impact on existing properties; it is about future acquisitions. Furthermore, as Ewen Cameron-Nielsen set out earlier, there are provisions in place to support the private rented sector when six or more properties are acquired in a single transaction.

Not at all. I have listened carefully and sought to respond to those views in context. I welcome all stakeholders’ views, and the time that they take to share them and their expertise with the Parliament. In the Government, we have to take a balanced set of decisions. The consequence of not taking the decision on the ADS would be less revenue at a time when we are facing significant challenges across the public sector. We have to take decisions in the round, which is the approach that we have taken on LBTT, as with all our tax decisions. They are consistent with the policies, principles and objectives that are set out in our framework for tax.

The SFC has forecast that we will continue to see significant revenue being raised by the additional dwelling supplement. Activity in the property market from those who are liable to pay the additional dwelling supplement is forecast to take place next year and in successive years. From 2025-26, there is a forecast for growth in the ADS. The decision to increase the tax must be considered in the broader context of the forecast growth in LBTT overall and the forecast growth in the ADS, specifically, over the five-year period.

The policy is supporting the raising of vital revenue, which provides a range of services and supports for our communities. That revenue is part of ensuring that Scottish students do not have to rack up £9,000 a year in tuition fees. That is the reality of the decisions that we take to ensure that we can maintain our social contract. We do that by having a progressive tax system. Those progressive values are reflected in what we do in relation to LBTT. That tax is working because it is delivering additional revenue above and beyond the block grant adjustment, which allows us in Scotland to offer a broader range of services and support than would otherwise be available.

Again, Mr Lumsden, you are drawing a direct link between those two things and completely ignoring the broader macroeconomic factors at play.

We are seeking to raise revenue and provide support for first-time buyers. There will be different factors that impact the individual decisions that individual landlords take. The ADS may be a factor; it is not for me to comment on that. It is clear that broader macroeconomic factors will have the most impact in determining the supply and availability of housing, as well as the investment decisions that are taken.

I only want to say that I am very grateful for the committee’s scrutiny, as always.

On the first point, I agree with you entirely on the need to recognise the broader context in which housing operates and what factors determine supply and demand. That includes the impact of what happened in 2008; the pandemic, with the associated challenges around supply chains; the cost crisis and inflation; and the challenges around recruitment and retention in the construction sector. Those factors all have a part to play, and I am very much alive to that following Parliament’s consideration of national planning framework 4. We cannot look at any one aspect of Government policy, whether it be planning or taxation, as a determining factor; broader macroeconomic elements are involved, and it is essential that we consider matters in that context.

With regard to looking at the impact, I take the example of revenue. The SFC has forecast that what will be lost in core LBTT revenue due to behavioural change will reach 50 per cent recovery, and it has anticipated 75 per cent recovery beyond that. That implies that transactions that were lost to the ADS will be made up for over time through first-time buyers and home movers.

I do not know whether Ewan Cameron-Nielsen wants to clarify any points in that regard.

I think that the Government’s position, especially when it comes to the work that we are doing on new rights for tenants and the new deal for tenants, is consistent with your analysis and critique.

In answering the committee’s questions, I am very conscious, as planning minister, of the need not to stray into that territory, too. As you can imagine, that has occupied a huge amount of my considerations in recent weeks and months, and there is a lot there that speaks to the specific points that you raise about the provision of housing and rural repopulation. However, I will stick to my public finance remit for the purposes of this committee session.

The policy lead on housing sits in a different portfolio. Clearly, the ministers for that portfolio are best placed to articulate their aims and objectives but, fundamentally, the key priorities are enhancing and protecting the rights of tenants, as well as ensuring that everyone in Scotland has access to a warm, safe home, which includes ensuring the availability of affordable homes.

As you also recognise, a significant number of factors, many of which are outwith our control, impact on that. I acknowledge that it can be quite difficult to disaggregate the various factors. However, that should not stop us from endeavouring to understand to the fullest possible extent the impact of our tax policy decisions.

We are consistent in our policy position that we want to increase productivity in Scotland and grow the number of highly skilled, highly paid jobs. We recognise that labour mobility is going to be an important part of that, in the context of our ambitions for a just transition to a green economy. That will also be particularly impactful and significant for our rural populations and communities. Those ambitions inform a range of policy decisions that we take in areas such as planning—specifically, our policy on housing and tenants—and taxation. As we have in previous years, we have maintained our residential LBTT rates, other than the ADS, to reflect the particular characteristics of the Scottish property market.

If we look at the data over the past 12 months—notwithstanding the more recent challenges of tightening in the market as a consequence of changing economic conditions—we see that there was a strong recovery in LBTT revenues, including the ADS, followed the pandemic. That suggests that our policies on LBTT are effective in getting the balance right of raising revenue in a way that is consistent, and that the tax is hitting the spot where it generates a net gain above and beyond the block grant adjustment but does not have a negative behavioural impact, which would obviously undermine our intent of raising revenue.