Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will concentrate my remarks on amendments 51 and 52.

I remind members and the minister that amendment 51 in particular stems from a committee-wide agreement based on an understanding of the complexities and sensitivities of the housing market in Scotland. Despite that, by unanimous agreement, we wanted to ensure that we see evidence of an impact assessment being carried out, given our belief that the introduction of the levy will trigger behavioural impacts by developers.

I appreciate that amendment 51 is very detailed and specific and could bring in issues around capacity. However, I would reflect that the wider housing market is detailed and specific. In reality, many of the interventions that have been made over recent years have been because of a failure to view the housing market as multiple markets, particularly with reference to rural areas and to how small and medium-sized enterprises, as compared to large providers, fit into that.

Amendment 52 is, arguably, the nub of it. It is about the wish to see evidence of this type of work being carried out in advance. We have often seen policy provision being made without an understanding of the resultant impact. The amendment is an attempt to try and put that right, although I concede that it is detailed and specific.

It is also worth fleshing out consideration of how the levy might impact private capital investment in Scotland, including in relation to section 75. We have seen a lot of implications of that not having been considered in the past few years, and we cannot get to where we want to be without supporting private capital. It is very important that there is continued underpinning of investment in Scotland and that confidence in that is retained.

I move amendment 51.

However, it could be argued that there is a midway point. While I can appreciate there being concerns about, for example, the use of special-purpose vehicles being a risk to tax receipts for the Government, there could well be a midpoint that front loads payment but still allows for staggered payments. That would not represent such a risk to the Government. Has the minister considered that?

We are definitely talking about large businesses. However, I come to this debate from the position that, if we are to get to the volume that we require, we need those large operators. We must recognise that, because of the way the market works, they can make choices as to where they invest. I want them to be able to invest in Scotland because the limitations of their business model are recognised and understood by the Government. They could easily go elsewhere, but we need them in order to get to the scale that we need.

As you are sitting next to me, you can see the yellow highlighting on my screen, Professor Bell.

My question follows on from the comment in your written submission that

“effective fiscal scrutiny in Scotland depends less on formal powers”

and your comment just then that we should focus on medium-term and structural issues. We all agree with that, and it is where we have kept our focus, but I am interested in your reflections on the extent to which annual budgets mean that there is a continued focus on the nearside.

Also, the inclusion of public administration in the wider remit of this committee has enabled us to look at culture and how things are delivered, not just at the numbers. I am interested in widening out your reflections in that respect.

I have a quick supplementary. Are we sufficiently considering the extent to which, in effect, turkeys do not vote for Christmas, given that the change programme will be delivered by the very body that it could ultimately impact? I am reminded of the time when my colleague Liz Smith pulled from the former permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks, the comment that accountability for head count resided with the permanent secretary, not with the Scottish Government. I suppose that the question is this: is there enough of an understanding of what a significant blocker that could ultimately be when it comes to the how of delivering public service reform, not just the what that we have been talking about thus far?

I reflect that Michael Marra opened with a general framing of the housing challenges that we have. Is it your position that accepting too many exemptions could render the bill unviable—because of the figure of £30 million—but that accepting too few could, ultimately, affect the housing market, as we alluded to in our report? Given that you are where you are—that the bill has been foisted on us, as has been said in earlier comments—do you have a sense of where the sweet spot is that makes the bill still viable without a significant impact on the housing market?

I am struggling to understand the purpose of the amendments. I understand what the member is saying about hotels, but he is making the link that it would ultimately be the consumer who pays. I thought that the intention of the bill, given that the levy will be linked to the completion certificate for a hotel, is that the charge would be paid at that point. Is that not what the member intends, or am I getting confused?

On the points that have been made about amendments 51 and 52, part of the point, for me, concerns confidence about the sensitivity assessment that the minister is setting out and whatever early sight of the measures can be given. It is not unreasonable to say that there is quite a broad range of considerations in amendment 51, but, for me, it is a matter of giving confidence. Seeing what, specifically, will be measured by the Government as part of its sensitivity analysis as soon as possible would give the sector some confidence. What guidance or information can you give in that regard?

I do not intend to make any further remarks about amendment 53, which concerns first-time buyers. Amendments 54 and 55 are coming up in the group—do you want me to talk to them?

Okay. I have nothing further to add on amendment 53, convener.