Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is that another intervention?

Different places are different, and I think that the minister is going to say that the Government will look at different rates in different areas. It is about the principle, however. There are hotels being built—as I said, I accept that it is not a huge number, but I saw in the media last week that there is a piece of land in Edinburgh that was possibly going to be used for housing, and it now looks like it will be used for a hotel. Under the bill, we will have a slightly strange situation in which we will have housing competing with a hotel, and the housing will have a levy on it but the hotel will not. It could be seen that we were favouring the hotel over the housing, which strikes me as slightly odd.

I will just speak to amendments 17 and 18 in my name, which both deal with exactly the same subject: whether hotels should be included in the scope of the levy.

I accept that there may not be a huge number of new hotels being built around Scotland every year, but if we want to widen the tax base—because the danger is that, with all the exemptions, it is narrowed too much, as the minister said—we should take the opportunity to include hotels in there, on the basis that we want the tax to fall on the people with the broadest shoulders, who can afford to pay. It has to be said that many people who stay in hotels, either for business or as tourists, can afford to pay a little bit extra.

My assumption with regard to the bill is that it will be the final user—the house purchaser, the hotel resident or whoever—who will end up paying for the levy, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. I think that most people staying in hotels could probably afford a few extra pounds; certainly the cost of a hotel in Edinburgh is excessive.

Could I ask that you give the result of the vote each time?

Were the respondents mainly from the industry or potential house buyers?

Once again, I will speak to just my amendments—amendment 25, with the rest being consequential—which are all about one point. The basic point is to ask whether it is the value or the floor space of a house that would provide a better basis for the levy.

We should want all taxes to be as fair and progressive as possible, with the heaviest burden falling on those who have the broadest shoulders. It would be better to use the value of the house rather than its floor space as the basis for the levy. As things stand, using the floor space would mean that two properties of the same floor space but with different values would pay the same levy. A mid-terrace property in a poorer area will command a lower sales value than a detached bungalow or a smart flat in an upmarket area, and properties in the second category should surely pay more than those in the first.

Yesterday, I had my staff look for some examples. They found an example of new homes that have been built by Barratt Homes—I might as well say which developer it is. The houses are exactly the same, with the same description and everything, but they are being built in two different places: one is being built in the west side of Edinburgh, and the other is in Robroyston in Glasgow. The Glasgow house is selling for £273,000 and the Edinburgh house is selling for £370,000. That is a difference of 35 per cent, yet the levy would be the same for both houses, which seems strange. However, I accept that there are practical issues with whichever method is used, and, however we do the levy, section 9(5) will require regulations.

We heard in evidence that there are questions about how common areas would be dealt with under a floor space system. I also wonder what would happen if a house were to include an attic or a loft. That would presumably not initially be included in the floor space, but it could perhaps easily be converted into a bedroom by a new owner. Therefore, there will be loopholes with the floor space system, although I accept that there could also be complications with a valuation system.

It has been argued that using a valuation system would provide less certainty for the builder or developer. However, my thinking is that the sales price would normally be the same as the value, and I understand that the selling prices of new properties are generally fixed early on; indeed, people sometimes buy a house at a fixed price before work on the house has even started. Those factors would be easily known to the developer and should not pose a major hurdle.

Despite my reputation for backing lost causes, I am marginally more optimistic that we might get somewhere with these amendments. My two amendments—amendments 30 and 31—are linked but distinct.

Amendment 30 would strengthen the requirement for reliefs by switching the wording from “may” to “must”, which means that, instead of the Government being allowed to make provisions for reliefs, it would be required to do so.

Regarding amendment 31, I accept that the Government has indicated that it intends to have a range of reliefs, but it would be good to pin that down a little more clearly. I fully accept that we do not want all the rates of levies and reliefs to be in the bill, but it has been suggested by the Scottish Property Federation that it would be good to have a clear steer about relief for brownfield land by including a minimum relief—perhaps 50 per cent, which is the figure that I suggest would encourage the use of such land. To give a relevant example from my constituency, developers have been very keen to build on the green belt on the edge of Glasgow, where there are no shops or amenities and few, if any, public transport links. Meanwhile, at the heart of my constituency is the old Parkhead bus depot—previously a tram depot—which is on contaminated land but is ideal for housing and has excellent public transport links, shops, general practitioner surgeries, schools and churches all close by.

There is a wider issue here than just the levy; it is about how we encourage the use of brownfield land while protecting greenfield land, perhaps through an urban development company such as Clyde Gateway. In part of my constituency, it handles the land clean-up, so the issue is less acute there, but many brownfield sites across the country are not covered by such a scheme, so I want to see that relief—

I am grateful to the member for giving way a second time. Does she accept the argument that was made to the committee that, when the cladding on a building is looked at, other issues will come up and that, as a result, it might be hard to separate other safety issues from cladding issues?

Will the member take an intervention?

That is very kind.

Surely the point is that we need to define what is independent, and then it is up to the young person or whoever to choose whether they want to be represented by someone who is independent or someone who is not independent, such as a teacher or social worker. They would still have that choice.

I am very sympathetic to what the member is saying. Is there not a problem, though, in that, especially there if the staff in a care home have completely changed, that is not quite the same situation as when an individual goes back to their family home?