Seòmar agus comataidhean

I meant if you accepted all the exemptions. As you have correctly pointed out, if you were to accept every exemption it would mean that the money would have to be found elsewhere. That is what I was getting at.

I think that the minister is making an assumption as to the effective operation of what is proposed. It would be possible to grant a relief to a builder where there is demonstrable evidence that the accommodation is being sold to a first-time buyer, for which there would be ample evidence after completion. Has the minister considered that? In addition, has he considered the vital role of first-time buyers in keeping the housing market viable? They drive demand and create a ripple effect, free up homes for rent, support economic growth, support a balanced market and play into balancing sustainable communities.

I appreciate the complexity of what the minister thinks may be intended, but my question is simple. Would he consider, at least in part, some kind of relief where it can be easily proven after the event that the purchaser was a first-time buyer?

Will the member give way?

I am happy to accept what the minister has outlined and I welcome further discussions. Some good points have been made around the table, and I go back to my earlier points about finding the sweet spot. Perhaps more legislation should have come through the Finance and Public Administration Committee at stage 2, as that might have led to more rigour. However, that might be just my opinion.

I will not press amendment 51.

Amendment 51, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 9

Yes. Amendments 54 and 55 would set the levy-free allowance at 29 units rather than 19. We have had a lot of discussion thus far about smaller builders and the delivery of housing in rural locations, and passing those amendments would certainly help to support that. Fundamentally, the amendments aim to reduce the cliff-edge effects whereby a marginal increase in output can trigger a disproportionate tax and administrative burden. My particular concern is that I want to see an environment in which SMEs are focused on growing their own companies because of the wider benefit, and I do not want the allowance to be restricted to only 19.

I note that the minister has previously conceded the point in a letter to the DPLR Committee. However, while the minister has now determined that the allowance will be set at 19, the sector has not been consulted on the specific decision to do so and no further consultation or explanation has been undertaken. Underlying data sources and evidence have not been shared with the expert advisory group. Given that, I hope that the minister will look favourably on amendments 54 and 55.

Yes.

I do not want to take us on to a different thread, convener, but the Auditor General was reflecting on something that we might want to pick up on further. When it comes to the discussion about the shorter term and the longer term, one thing that the committee has looked at quite a lot in this session is financial memorandums, because of our disquiet that some of those have been insufficiently detailed because they have been linked to framework legislation. The Auditor General’s point, I think, was about how a burgeoning environment, which we can project, that will include ever more framework legislation will actively work against the long-term strategic planning and nearside detail around finances that we are looking for. Arguably, the situation is even more risky than the one that the Auditor General set out.

I will focus my remarks on three amendments: Liz Smith’s amendment 38 and my amendment 50, which are in this group, and my amendment 53, which also relates to this area.

I have already set out to the minister how important the first-time buyer is, and I have set out my rationale for holding that position. I also want to add a consideration about developers and remind him of how difficult an operating environment they have found the current economic climate to be. It is important that we support developers to have a continued focus on the first-time buyer market. It is much easier for developers to go for the step-up market, as, in that area, access to finance is easier and quicker, transactions are larger and margins are better. My concern is that, if there is not some kind of relief, we could inadvertently limit the activity in the first-time buyer market.

I point out, in response to the minister’s earlier comments, that I see the linkage being to a developer relief, not a relief for the buyer. That would exclude the likes of LBTT. Part of my rationale for taking that approach goes back to my earlier comments. We need to find the sweet spot to make the bill operational, given the set of circumstances in which the Government finds itself, while ensuring that there is not a disproportionate impact on the market. I think that everyone would agree that first-time buyers are utterly vital to ensure that there is activity throughout the market and the cycle of house buying.

I accept what the minister is saying, but I would like there to be a little more clarity.

It is actually an oblique intervention to the minister—I am not sure of the protocol in that respect.

I am sure that it would be possible in what I am suggesting to have a partial exemption, because I fully accept the concerns around the 22 per cent figure. I think that something could be put in place that might not be a total relief.

I will concentrate my remarks on amendments 51 and 52.

I remind members and the minister that amendment 51 in particular stems from a committee-wide agreement based on an understanding of the complexities and sensitivities of the housing market in Scotland. Despite that, by unanimous agreement, we wanted to ensure that we see evidence of an impact assessment being carried out, given our belief that the introduction of the levy will trigger behavioural impacts by developers.

I appreciate that amendment 51 is very detailed and specific and could bring in issues around capacity. However, I would reflect that the wider housing market is detailed and specific. In reality, many of the interventions that have been made over recent years have been because of a failure to view the housing market as multiple markets, particularly with reference to rural areas and to how small and medium-sized enterprises, as compared to large providers, fit into that.

Amendment 52 is, arguably, the nub of it. It is about the wish to see evidence of this type of work being carried out in advance. We have often seen policy provision being made without an understanding of the resultant impact. The amendment is an attempt to try and put that right, although I concede that it is detailed and specific.

It is also worth fleshing out consideration of how the levy might impact private capital investment in Scotland, including in relation to section 75. We have seen a lot of implications of that not having been considered in the past few years, and we cannot get to where we want to be without supporting private capital. It is very important that there is continued underpinning of investment in Scotland and that confidence in that is retained.

I move amendment 51.