Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—if you could. Equally, I do not have a detailed understanding of it, but one operator has told me that they are compensated fully for one of the two schemes, but a fixed amount is provided for the other scheme. I do not know whether that relates to the under-22s scheme or the over-60s scheme, but there may be a similar overspend that has to be absorbed by bus companies. Mr Harvie might be aware of how it operates. It would be interesting to see whether that relates to one specific scheme or whether it is just a general oversubscription against forecast.

Looking at these amendments, I would say, as I said in the chamber last week, that we are very unhappy with the budget in its totality. It is hard to argue against these measures, cabinet secretary, but the risk that you are now running in many respects—for example, in relation to social care—is that, although you have found additional money at this stage in the budget process, it is rather like the burglar who robbed you blind two years ago returning to offer you some of your goods back and expecting you to be grateful.

The ultimate issue in relation to the budget—I am thinking of rates relief, for example—is that this is, in many respects, too little, too late. If we look at this year’s local government settlement, although we welcome additional funding for social care, which will deal with some of the crises that we are seeing in health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards, we think that it will be insufficient to deal with the challenge that councils face in delivering social care. As we have just been discussing in relation to preventative spend, many of the problems that we are seeing throughout, say, the health service, which also faces issues in this budget, are being made worse by the crisis in social care. We question whether the prioritisation in the budget is sufficient.

Overall, I repeat what I said last week in the chamber. We do not object to these individual measures, but the budget in its totality still does not pursue the right priorities for Scotland, and it contains misplaced priorities.

This question is for Paul Cairney. Recently, the Scottish Government has made great play of co-creation in policy making and working closely with those with lived experience. In your submission, you say:

“Avoid power hoarding at the ‘centre’. Co-produce policy with citizens.”

That was meant to happen with the national care service, the establishment of which was meant to be a collaborative effort involving all stakeholders, including those with lived experience. However, basically, that crashed against a wall.

I am mindful of the old Henry Ford adage that, if you asked your customers what they wanted, they would say, “Faster horses.” Could the result of such co-production be policy inertia, because it involves outsourcing difficult decision making to citizens? Ultimately, people want their Government to come up with solutions, not to keep asking them question after question in order to avoid taking tough decisions on—in the case of the example that I mentioned—social care.

I accept that the witnesses do not wish to be drawn into a political discussion, but devolving further taxes to Scotland will, potentially, only make the system more complex unless efforts are made to make it more transparent. You see that in respect of rental income falling to the Scottish Government and in relation to various levies—effectively taxes—such as the tourism levy.

To what extent is it inevitable that, as we bring more taxes into the system, there will be less transparency? Could an independent organisation assess the point at which we start working for ourselves in the calendar year and stop working for the Government? The Adam Smith Institute used to call that tax freedom day, and lots of think tanks in the US explore that.

It strikes me that, given the complexity of the tax system—we have VAT on services, taxes and that sort of thing—it is becoming almost impossible for taxpayers to determine how much tax they actually pay, both at the Scotland and UK levels, on income tax and on the proliferation of new taxes. Is the lack of transparency just inevitable now?

Another issue is the public’s understanding of Scottish devolved taxation. They think that we have tax-raising powers when we actually have tax-varying powers. That point seems to have been lost in Scotland.

My question is probably for Stephen Boyle, but others may want to chip in. It strikes me that, with the Scottish Government coming forward with a £1.5 billion figure, it is very much focused on scale, size and cost but not on the required form and function for the public sector in Scotland. If we end up with a salami-slicing approach to the process, what is the risk that we could meet the numerical targets but have entirely the wrong public sector for the challenges of tomorrow? I presume that that is the warning that we should be alerting people to.

You look under the bonnet of the Government machine more than anybody else. Do you get the impression that the really hard work that needs to be done beneath that bonnet is being done to get us into that position?

I will speak briefly to Michael Marra’s amendment 16. I do not think that the minister gave a credible reason when he said that the amendment was effectively a mechanism that would delay the introduction of the levy and would stop funds flowing into cladding remediation. As I think that we have said to the minister on several occasions, the Scottish Government has been given £95 million for cladding remediation and has spent less than a third of that, as I understand it. Therefore, I do not think that the lack of access to capital funds would be an issue by that stage, unless the minister now has a projection of how that money will be spent.

I will speak to amendments 32 and 44. I assure John Mason that he might not always be advocating for a lost cause, because I certainly think that, if there is a strong view that we should be seeking a carve-out for brownfield sites, it would give greater assurance to the industry if that is on the face of the bill rather than being subject to change later.

Amendment 32 would introduce a viability-based relief that allows Revenue Scotland to reduce or remove levy liability when payment would make a development financially unviable. The evidence to the committee from Homes for Scotland and a number of developers was that development viability varies sharply and widely across Scotland depending on geography, site conditions, tenure mix and market values. That variation has become more pronounced in recent years as a result of rising business costs, longer planning timescales and increasing pressure on private capital investment and pools. Therefore, a levy that is applied without regard to viability risks stopping marginal developments from proceeding altogether, which would further slow the market. As the minister has stated, when that happens, there is no levy revenue, no associated LBTT receipts and no contribution to housing supply—three issues that are medium to long-term concerns for the committee.

Amendment 32 would provide a limited, controlled and safe mechanism that prevents that outcome, while retaining clear safeguards through evidential requirements that would be imposed on developers before Revenue Scotland considers any potential reductions or removals.

Amendment 44 is simply consequential to amendment 32. It would ensure that regulations that govern the operation of viability-based relief are subject to the affirmative procedure. Given that it is those regulations that determine who pays the levy and in what circumstances, it is appropriate that the Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the framework that governs their use.

On that basis, I cannot see why the minister does not just go for a full exemption, which would make the future far more certain for an uncertain aspect of Scotland’s housing market. The evidence that we have heard is that the levy will reduce the number of homes that are delivered in rural areas. When that happens, the minister should be mindful that the overall revenue that is available to the public purse is likely to fall rather than increase, particularly in rural communities.

I also want to draw attention to some recent research on the effect of depopulation on rural communities. One of the causes is the lack of access to affordable housing. Anything that challenges the housing market in those areas could accelerate depopulation, particularly of young and working-age individuals.

My amendment 42 is consequential to amendment 21. It defines “rural area” with reference to the Scottish Government’s sixfold urban rural classification, which is an objective and well-established framework. I understand what the minister said: the framework is subject to change and does not rest on a statutory footing. I am therefore open to discussing with other stakeholders and the minister how my proposal could be incorporated into the bill to provide a degree of certainty and permanence.

Amendment 42, as it is presently worded, uses categories 4 and 6 in order to target the exemption at areas where viability pressures are most acute. I deliberately excluded category 5 in order to reflect what organisations, including Scottish Land and Estates, say best represents the scale, pattern and delivery challenges in category 5 areas. Taken together, my amendments ensure that the levy is targeted in a way that reflects the evidence that was heard by the committee and avoids severe and unintended consequences for rural housing delivery.

11:15