Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I cannot say at this stage what the Government will do in that position. Obviously, that will have to be discussed with colleagues, too. However, it will be really important for me as minister, having heard the consensus that has arisen today, to engage with colleagues in other parties on amendments. We might come to an agreement on that, or not, but that would be a process for stage 3. What I am hearing is a clear consensus coming through on some of these issues, and I think that we need to hear the thoughts and views of the PBSA review group on how we take things forward. The group, which includes all the major stakeholders, will probably come forward with a response, and then it will be for all of us to go away and reflect on what has come out of that engagement. Obviously, that will happen at stage 3.

I understand the comments that have been made, but I cannot speak for previous decisions. The Welsh Government consulted on the issue in 2022 and is talking about beginning a planned revaluation exercise from 2028. Some valuable points have been raised but, as I said, the Scottish Government and COSLA have announced an engagement programme that will seek to build consensus on the issues.

I move on to Ross Greer’s amendment 542, which would require

“a review of the scale and impact of council tax arrears.”

Council tax is a local tax and responsibility for the collection and enforcement of arrears sits, rightly, with local authorities. Councils have the tools that they need to manage arrears, including the discretion to write off debts. In addition, support for financially vulnerable people continues to be provided through the council tax reduction scheme, which benefits 460,000 households across Scotland, with an average saving of £850 per year. The Scottish Government will continue to work with local authorities to explore the best ways to deal with such debt. Therefore, I ask the member not to move amendment 542.

Ross Greer’s amendment 543 would require a review of the impact of joint and several liability for council tax arrears in relation to individuals who are experiencing domestic abuse, with a report to be laid before the Parliament within six months of royal assent to the bill. Joint and several liability is a long-standing feature of council tax collection. It allows local authorities to recover the full amount that is owed from any liable individual, which helps to ensure that local services are funded effectively. However, that can also present difficulties, particularly when domestic abuse is involved, as those cases are often complex. A review would be an opportunity to shed further light on how joint and several liability operates in practice for those who are affected by abuse and, crucially, could help to inform guidance or best practice that might assist local authorities in navigating those situations more effectively. Therefore, I support amendment 543, although I may seek to adjust the timescale at stage 3. I thank Ross Greer for raising that important issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 132 seeks to apply the additional dwelling supplement to the purchase of three or more dwellings, rather than second homes. That departs from the stated policy intent of the additional dwelling supplement and has the potential to have a significant negative impact on revenues. I cannot support the amendment and ask the member not to move it.

There have not been discussions on specific amendments to the bill. The group has met more generally to discuss some of the recommendations that are being taken forward, and it has continued to meet on that point. I have attended a number of meetings, and there have been similar meetings involving stakeholders. As far as I am aware, there have not been discussions about individual amendments that have been lodged.

Having been involved in the PBSA review group, I know that that is one of the key areas that it is looking at. The local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow have worked on that point and considered how it feeds into the wider issues of housing supply and housing strategy. That is a key piece of work that local authorities are doing. The work is on-going, hence I come back to the point about engaging with the PBSA review group on the matter.

You raise important points, but the issue needs further discussion with the review group, which is working on implementation, about the best way to proceed in relation to your amendment.

For me, it comes back to the principle that the PBSA review group is already doing work on implementation. On the amendments that have been lodged, it is important that we engage with that group on where we all go and reach conclusions on what we do at stage 3. That work is on-going. It is important that we engage more collectively and more widely in terms of some of the work that the group is already doing.

I come back to my earlier point that, whatever an amendment is about, it is important that we speak to the sector. If the Government agrees with the points that have been raised, we will look at that. It is important that we engage with the sector before we make any final decisions on what amendments will be lodged at stage 3.

I have indicated that I have some sympathy with some of the amendments. However, some of the other amendments will need to be considered. For example, it is important that the analysis of the notice period surveys is considered before we bring something in at stage 3.

As I said, the review group has been discussing the implementation of the review, and not the bill, in its own particular regard.

I will continue. I mentioned the amendments on terms and conditions. Complaint procedures are also provided—

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.