Seòmar agus comataidhean

I come back to a point that Mr Greer made. I will probably come on to this, but I think that it would be useful for everyone who has lodged amendments to engage, either individually or collectively, not just with me, obviously, but with the PBSA review group and discuss their amendments with it. That group includes all the major stakeholders, who are incredibly important when it comes to dealing with this issue.

I said that I was going to come on to this, but I am happy to meet either individually or collectively with members. Obviously, I will have to contact the PBSA review group, but I am sure that it would have no issues with engaging with members on their amendments.

In recognising the points that members have made and the amendments that they have lodged, I have to say that I think it is important that we engage with the sector and hear its thoughts about the way ahead. At that stage, it will be for the Government to continue to push things—and, indeed, individual amendments will be lodged, too—but it is important that we engage with the sector to discuss matters on a much broader basis. As I have said, I am happy to take forward that engagement either individually or collectively.

I think that regulations have been used in that regard, but I am happy to engage further on that point.

Amendment 466 seeks to remove the exemption from LBTT for the purchase of military headquarters and barracks by overseas visiting forces. When it was introduced, that relief was considered necessary as a consequence of United Kingdom international treaty obligations and NATO agreements. In the light of the defence and international relations reservations under the Scotland Act 1998, the removal of the exemption from LBTT in such circumstances is outside parliamentary competence, so I ask Ross Greer not to move amendment 466.

Amendment 468 proposes the introduction of an exemption from ADS where a taxpayer purchases a property on behalf of an individual who is disabled and is not capable of assuming the responsibilities of home ownership. We are sympathetic to buyers who find themselves in those difficult and challenging circumstances. However, the proposal attracts significant legislative and administrative complexities, including considerations around the sharing of sensitive personal and medical information of a third party who is not connected to the legal substance of the transaction in order to ensure that only those who are genuinely entitled to the relief benefit from it. Complex equalities issues would also need to be addressed to ensure that the relief is designed fairly.

All that requires time for consultation and policy analysis. We propose to assess the issue as part of the LBTT review to allow us the necessary time to fully evaluate the challenges, engage in meaningful consultation, and work with Revenue Scotland to ensure that compliance and avoidance sensitivities have been considered in full. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 468.

As I mentioned, the programme of engagement that the Scottish Government and COSLA have announced will be key and it is the best way to proceed. I appreciate Mr Greer’s points, but the issues can be picked up in the engagement programme.

Of course I do. I know that members have done that over a period of time. It is important to get that broader view from the PBSA review group collectively. There will be a number of interests in the sector—providers, investors, student groups, universities and local authorities—and it is important to consult widely on the amendments that have been lodged. As I said, many of them were lodged later on and so have not been allowed that extensive consultation. That has been partly addressed by the PBSA review recommendations. However, with some of the amendments that were lodged later on, that broader engagement with the stakeholder group has not taken place, and I would encourage members to have that engagement. I am happy to speak to the group to arrange that; there could also be discussion of individual recommendations at that point.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging amendments 474 and 475. At this stage, it is important that we have that wider discussion with the PBSA review group.

On amendment 474, the review group made a specific recommendation on the development of a model of terms and conditions for the PBSA sector to support improvements in the consistency of the rights that PBSA tenants can expect across all providers. Work is under way in the sector to implement that recommendation by developing model tenancy agreements alongside a model complaints procedure to ensure that all PBSA tenants are empowered to raise complaints in the future.

The measure in amendment 541, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, raises similar considerations. It proposes an enabling power rather than imposing a requirement, but it is premature, as the need for action in that area has not been recognised.

On amendment 475, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, I understand the drive to recognise the issue with the supply of affordable student accommodation and to clarify a plan for future action on changes to the regulation of student residential tenancies. The PBSA review group work recognised those key issues, which were reflected in its final recommendations.

In particular, recommendations were made about the importance of effective partnership working at local level. Local authorities have been involved in that broader work, which is looking at the provision and use of student accommodation, and considering local supply issues in the short, medium and long term. The PBSA review group has also undertaken work to drive progress on the development of local strategic partnerships.

As I said, the group has met to discuss its recommendations at this point. Not knowing which other recommendations would be brought forward at that point, it has not discussed individual recommendations.

I can of course understand that. The review group has had its own timescale for meeting and for taking forward implementation. Obviously, in terms of timing, the group has not had the chance to look at the particular amendments.

I think that officials have been discussing that with the review group. I have not met the review group for a period of months, in terms of preparation for the bill.

We would have to consider that, if that were to happen. I cannot pre-empt what another committee will say with regard to amendment 230. If that amendment was not agreed to, we would have to consider that point before stage 3.

I appreciate and understand the purpose of the amendments on the timing of commencement of the bill’s provisions. I understand any member’s desire to see progress on the delivery of the new duties and to avoid a loss of momentum. However, those objectives would be better met by supporting Mr Doris’s amendment 230 on commencement.

I hope that Mr Balfour will understand why I oppose amendment 1031, in his name, and amendment 1075, in the name of Mark Griffin. I share Mr Balfour’s desire to see progress, and I am happy to report back to the committee on the homelessness prevention pilots when that information is available. We might be able to pick that up outwith the bill process. Mr Balfour has made a very relevant point. However, my strong preferences is for that not to delay commencement of part 5. Similarly, I do not see any need to delay commencement pending a review of the costs of the ask and act duties. However, I appreciate the relevant points that Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour have made, and I am happy to engage with both of them before stage 3.

Finally, I ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 1076, which would impose a backstop date of 31 December 2028 for commencement of part 5 of the bill. I hope that Mr Griffin will agree that that is not necessary, given the amendment that Mr Doris has lodged, which will fix a backstop date for commencement with reference to royal assent and will therefore avoid any difficulty in timing should royal assent be delayed for any reason. The timing of the interim statement, as set out in amendment 1076, might also create difficulties in relation to the Scottish elections next year.

Yes, of course.

Apologies, convener, but I am not finished yet.