The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 4779 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
We continue our evidence taking on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting Ivan McKee MSP, Minister for Public Finance. The minister is supported by officials from the Scottish Government: Stephen Lea-Ross, director of the directorate for cladding remediation; Lorraine King, deputy director of the directorate for tax; Hannah Taylor, bill team leader in the directorate for tax; and Hugh Angus, a lawyer in the legal department.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Good morning, minister.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Ultimately, the levy will be paid by house buyers, will it not? For example, if there are 10,000 houses in a year that qualify, the levy will effectively put up the price of those houses by £3,000. Developers will not take the cost out of their profits; they will pass it on to house buyers.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
How tied is the Government to the figure of £30 million a year? Will there be flexibility in the amount of the levy? If only 7,500 houses are built in a year, does that mean that the levy might be £4,000, or will it stick at £3,000—or whatever the figure happens to be? If it sticks at £3,000, for example, you would get only £22.5 million. Where are we in relation to flexibility?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
You have talked about 77 per cent being the benchmark, and it was at 76 per cent last year. Roughly, where do you think that you are now? You have said that you cannot be too specific.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That is a politician’s answer, is it not?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 18 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
The directorate for internal audit and assurance has pointed out that the
“culture within Revenue Scotland continues to be open to audit and assurance”.
However, it has said that two items were highlighted for attention as part of the 2023-24 audit, namely
“the risk that the related party disclosure may be incomplete or inaccurate”
and
“the scope for medium-term financial planning arrangements to be developed further to highlight and ensure financial sustainability.”
It notes that
“Action to address these matters is underway and is expected to be completed”
during 2025-26. I wonder whether you can touch on that for a wee minute.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Are you talking about a total exemption or a discount? If it is a discount, what percentage are you talking about?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Looking at the evidence, we see everyone talking about exemptions. If all the exemptions were in place, there would not be any money to collect. Anna Gardiner, in your submission, you said:
“we would suggest that an exemption in the region of 50 units would provide a more meaningful degree of protection in rural Scotland.”
I do not know how many developments of more than 50 units there are in rural Scotland—I cannot imagine that there are many. Surely developers would just build 49-unit developments, to avoid the tax.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
Go on—tell us all!
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 November 2025
Kenneth Gibson
That appears to have exhausted the questions from the committee.
I would make an appeal to you, minister. You have mentioned flexibility, and you have talked about the outcomes of most impact. On the credibility of the budget and the portfolios that we discuss and debate as we go through the three stages of the budget, we are dealing with stuff like investment in the integration of health boards and social care, costing £257.2 million this year, a transfer of £79.2 million from housing to local government within the finance and local government portfolio for discretionary housing payments and a transfer of £49.3 million from health and social care to the education and skills portfolio to pay the teaching grant for nursery and midwifery students. Given that such transfers are happening every single year at this point, would it not be much better to have such funds in the budgets where delivery will take place? I do not see how that would adversely affect outcomes, although it might affect how some budget portfolios look, in the context of the public presentation of the budget. There is perhaps an element of that in Government thinking.
I wonder how many more years we will have those continuing transfers for, given that they happen every single year. As the Parliament has to vote for a budget every year, the more the budget reflects actual expenditure, the better it will be.
10:30