Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister undertake to look into the issue of second home ownership and council tax for employment purposes? A briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre says that under schedule 1 of the Council Tax (Variation for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, councils can still apply a 50 per cent discount where the property is occupied for employment purposes. If that is the case, will the minister remind councils of their obligation to do so?

I am afraid that I do not have time.

I am afraid that I have only four minutes and I have some ground to cover.

The first specific case that I will mention is that of my constituent Ruth Campanile, who works at the Old Clubhouse in Gullane, which is in the minister’s constituency. Ruth lives on the premises of the pub, which is owned by her brother. East Lothian Council has now determined that the home that she will move to soon, when she retires, is a second home and it will therefore accrue a double council tax. That is something that she cannot afford. The legislation still provides for councils to give a 50 per cent discount for a job-related dwelling, but East Lothian Council is not willing to apply that discount.

I say to the minister that there are reasons why people in his constituency of East Lothian and elsewhere will require a second home. Recently, I spoke to a consultant who works in the national health service between two hospitals. Because rents have gone up in so many areas, he decided to buy a second home so that he could contribute to healthcare in two remote parts of Scotland. The consequence of that was that the property that he bought accrued the additional dwelling supplement, which is now 8 per cent. That meant considerable expenditure for him to be able to do his job in two places.

The positions that are faced by council tax payers and those who buy homes is similar in that the tax measures are indiscriminate and blunt and they are catching in the tax system people who are not traditional second home owners—that is, holiday home owners. People who own holiday homes are also being pulled in.

I will give another example of a resident of Gullane in the Minister for Housing’s constituency who has owned a second home there for many years. The owner inherited the property and he and his wife are not wealthy people. They spend time in the south of England so that they can be with their grandchildren but, ultimately, their hope would be to move to Gullane. I say to the minister that, if that property came on to the market, I very much doubt that a first-time buyer in East Lothian would buy it. The couple concerned are there pretty regularly—at least once a month. The minister will know that area very well. If the couple sold the property, I suspect it would not be a to local East Lothian resident. The chances are that it would be to a wealthy American golfer who, rather than visiting once a month, might visit only once a year.

Although I accept that some of what has been said in this debate is valid and that there are issues with the concentration of second homes in some parts of Scotland, I want to dwell on some of the unintended—or perhaps intended—consequences of some of the fiscal measures that have been taken in respect of second home ownership. I will give a couple of examples that the minister can take away to consider with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government how the taxes, if they are to remain, could be better applied.

There are two reasons for such taxes. One is ideological and the other is that the Government needs to get money wherever it can find it. The same goes for local authorities, which, given the power to levy a 100 per cent supplement on council tax, will do so because of the financial pressures that they face as a result of the SNP’s year-on-year real-terms cuts to their finances.

The approach that the Government is adopting is a blunt instrument. It is indiscriminate and arbitrary, and it is pulling into additional tax measures people who I honestly do not believe should be caught in that trap.

Will the member give way?

Ultimately, the issue is that those who cannot afford to retain a second home are forced to sell up and they often sell to wealthy second home owners who are prepared to cough up.

If we are to maintain the taxes, I urge the minister to look at them again. They are indiscriminate and they are catching people who I believe should not be caught by them. I hope that the minister will think again when the Government reforms both ADS and council tax.

Mr Greer quite rightly identifies areas where there is a density of second home ownership for holiday homes, but does he also accept that there are many people, such as members of the Scottish Parliament, who, for the purposes of employment, for example, require a second home and are being penalised by the additional taxes?

What message does the education secretary think that playing truant from the Parliament, because she believed that she had something better to do, sends to the children she is imploring to attend our schools?

Will the minister take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with the Lord Advocate regarding the costs of defending unsuccessful legal cases in the Supreme Court. (S6O-04651)