Seòmar agus comataidhean

Why not? Given that the minister’s key argument against the amendments at this stage is about the lack of consultation and discussion, and given that we have had 15 months since the review group’s recommendations and, at least in the case of my amendments—as I said, I cannot speak for other members—the Government has had four months to consider those, why has no discussion taken place?

Will the minister take an intervention?

On a point of clarity, my understanding is that the Government accepted the PBSA review group recommendations, but the minister has not confirmed that so far. Will he confirm whether the Scottish Government accepted the recommendations that the PBSA review group set out 15 months ago, or is that is no longer the Scottish Government’s position?

I recognise and appreciate the importance that the minister is placing on the PBSA review group, but its recommendations were published 15 months ago. A number of the recommendations would require a change in legislation, but the Government has not lodged any amendments to deliver that change through the bill. Will the minister confirm that, unless we make changes through this bill, there will be no legislative vehicle with which to make such changes in the remainder of this parliamentary session?

I understand and appreciate all the technical issues that you mentioned, particularly in relation to data sharing and privacy, but I want to clarify something. If the Government agrees with the principle that ADS should not be applied in the circumstances that I have outlined—where somebody is buying a home on behalf of a disabled individual who can live there but cannot be the property owner—and the issue is about doing something to enable that to happen, either through regulation or at stage 3, I would be happy not to move amendment 468 at this stage. However, given the discussions that we had earlier, I am looking for absolute clarity on whether the Government agrees with the policy objective and will work with me to achieve it through other means.

I absolutely agree with the minister that future decisions about reform should be made on the basis of robust data, but we do not have that. We have valuations that were done before I was born and most people are paying the wrong rate of council tax. Surely, the only way to get robust data is to complete a revaluation exercise. I am confused by the Government’s rationale for opposing that. I understand the political challenges that other members have implied. If that is the case, I would welcome the Government being honest about that. The minister has just said that we require robust data in order to move forward with the process, which is what my amendments 463 and 464 propose. I am not proposing to replace the council tax through amendments to the bill—I am proposing simply that we collect data that is accurate for this century.

I absolutely agree—of course there are winners and losers from any revaluation. However, I would argue that there are winners and losers right now and that the people losing out and most likely to be paying more than they would if an up-to-date valuation was being used are often those in the smallest or the lowest-value properties and on the lowest incomes, too.

Both versions of what is proposed include a requirement for ministers to look at transitional relief, in particular for those on low and fixed incomes. The classic example that is given is of a pensioner living in a large property but on a low income for whom it would be harder to pay an updated and likely higher council tax bill. That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that people in that scenario would have appropriate reliefs and that those who are, frankly, paying much more than they should, who are often those struggling the most, get a little bit of justice.

I agree that a bespoke bill on those issues would be preferable, but in 34 years, but we have not had one from a Government of any colour, before or during the devolution era. Does Mr Griffin think that such a bill is likely, clearly not in the remainder of this session, but in the next session? If he agrees that such a bespoke bill is not likely, is it really more important to not do this at all than to do it in this manner, particularly given that everyone agrees that revaluation in some shape or form is clearly necessary?

I recognise that amendments 465 and 467 are not required. Ministers currently have the regulation-making power in question, but it is 12 years since Parliament gave ministers that power and they have not applied it. Will the minister clarify what the Scottish Government’s position is, as of today, with regard to why residential property holding companies, in particular, which are an infamous tax avoidance vehicle, should be exempt from LBTT?

Rachael Hamilton questions how my amendments would achieve the aim that I have set out. As evidence of how they would do that, I highlight that, as has already been pointed out, the additional dwelling supplement as it stands has been doubled from 4 per cent to 8 per cent, at the request of the Greens during budget negotiations. Between that and the doubling of council tax on second and holiday homes, there were 2,500 fewer ADS-qualifying purchases last year—that is, 2,500 fewer homes were bought as second or holiday homes last year. Is that not evidence that the objective that I am looking for, which is to push those houses back into the market for people who will live in them permanently, is achieved through tax measures such as the ones in my amendments?