Chamber and committees

Yes.

I am not in a position to give timescales. We will consider any aspects pertaining to housing that are relevant to other public bodies. We will also consider the issue not only from the perspective of the tax—in this case, the LBTT—but more broadly through engagement with housing colleagues. As I said, I am more than happy for Government officials to engage directly with the Scottish Police Authority on the matter.

We are grateful to the committee for reaching out to stakeholders to get further evidence ahead of this session—it has been useful. We note the points that have been raised by the SPA, and we are looking into and carefully considering the matter, but it is not something that we were able to address in the set of amendments in this instrument. As the committee will appreciate, the role that local authorities play in relation to housing is quite distinct and different from that of other public bodies and authorities. However, we are looking at the matter carefully, and I am very happy to engage directly with the SPA on the matter and to update the committee in due course.

I recognise the interest in the matter. Liz Smith and I have had exchanges in the chamber on it, and there is merit in exploring it further.

An annual finance bill would be an undertaking for the Government, but it would also be an undertaking for the Parliament. It would be important for Parliament to be involved in that process and that would mean an important role for the committee. I recognise that the committee has a significant programme of work, but I am happy to engage with it to explore how we can build on the work that was undertaken before the pandemic through the devolved taxes working group. I am keen to look for ways to build on that, but it is important to recognise that, although there is an argument for an annual finance bill, we need to take account of the views of Parliament on how that would be managed.

We are considering this particular SSI as a result of a broad consultation and engagement process. We are also, through the Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill, seeking to amend the powers of Revenue Scotland. I appreciate that the committee will consider that legislation later in the spring, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity for further conversations in that space.

We are using legislative opportunities to bring forward reforms, whether that is in primary legislation or, as the case is here, via an SSI. The fundamental point is that there is merit in looking for something that might be more legislatively neat and efficient. However, as I said, it is a matter not just for the Government but also for the Parliament, although I am happy to engage to explore what we can do going forward.

What is in the SSI reflects the work that was undertaken through the call for evidence and consultation, and the provisions in it relate to housing under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. It represents progress, and I note that it has been welcomed by local government.

However—and this speaks to the point about the discussion of future reforms—this is a process rather than an event, and tax policy will continue to develop more broadly in the work that the Government is committed to doing on the refreshed tax strategy and the medium-term financial strategy, as well as on operational, administrative and technical matters.

I am happy to consider further the points that have been raised by the local authority as part of the on-going work. We always have to give detailed consideration to specific asks as we keep policy under review.

Laura Parker might have something to add.

I note that the majority of claims for repayment of ADS tend to happen within 12 months, which is broadly similar to the equivalent taxes in England and Wales. The matter will work its way through over the forecast period. The figure of £7 million is for the end of the forecast period; in that respect, we will continue to monitor both the revenue and the SFC forecasts.

I am more than happy to ask officials to engage directly with the committee following this meeting, and we can discuss how we can take forward that work.

I would not want to describe today’s consideration as the end of the matter. As with all aspects of tax legislation, it is a process rather than an event. A number of issues have been raised. It was always a case of finding a balance. I appreciate that there are competing demands and that not everyone can be satisfied without that impacting on others.

The broader points around transparency and how user friendly the presentation of legislation is—again, that touches on the point about an annual finance bill—are very important. We want to have a tax system that is as straightforward to use as possible. We understand the importance of that in relation to economic growth and providing certainty. In that spirit, we are very keen to continue those conversations, whether with public bodies and other authorities or, indeed, with organisations such as ICAS, CIOT and the Law Society.

The SFC has given its forecast and, for most of the measures, it is below the immateriality threshold. It estimated a maximum of £7 million over the period with regard to the extensions of the timelines from 18 to 36 months, but we will see that even out.

As much as I made reference to having received correspondence from colleagues on the operation of ADS, the system overwhelmingly works as intended. It works effectively, and the whole system is proving to be an important source of revenue for the Scottish Government. The measures that we are considering today are quite narrow, and they will perhaps not affect a significant number of people, but they respond to concerns that have been raised. The point about responding to a unique set of circumstances is one that I accept.

As for what is covered by the particular provision before us, I take the point about the situation in which the conclusion of missives and the closing of the transaction happen almost simultaneously, in which case there is not a window. However, when there is a window between the conclusion of missives and the effective transaction date, if someone were to inherit a property—we should remember that LBTT does not bite on the inherited property—come into possession of that property and purchase another property afterwards, that situation would be almost outwith their control, to some extent, so the proposed measure seeks to provide a relief that is fair and reasonable.

I recognise that the situations in which what is proposed might be of benefit might not be frequent, but for those who find themselves in such situations, it will help to provide greater certainty and fairness in the system.