Seòmar agus comataidhean

On whether such a target can be met, I come back to the point that some factors are within Government control and others are outwith Government control. That does not change the fact that a target is helpful. However, I do not think it possible, in the real world, to legislatively hardwire, as Mark Griffin suggests, the outcome as opposed to the action.

Finally, on the proposed assessment against the framework for tax, the tax framework is a statement of the policy of the Government of the day, and I am not aware of any other legislation on tax or levies that requires a statutory assessment of that kind; it seems out of kilter with the more general approach.

I wonder whether the line of argument that John Mason is using would actually have been a stronger defence of his suggestion during the debate on the first group, which was that something such as corporation tax would be a better tax to raise revenue for the purpose of building safety than a building levy. To follow that logic would be to argue that a building levy is not the right approach in the first place.

I agree with the general argument that the bill might apply in a different way in different settings, including on brownfield land. However, as I understand it, the bill already allows for flexibility in setting different rates for different land types. Why is it better to specify in the bill what the relief should be than it is to allow for different rates? Is the member not suggesting a less flexible means to achieve the same objective that the bill already permits?

To be honest, I am not sure how either proof or disproof of a claim of that kind could be relied on. Again, we need to be realistic: any industry that is faced with a levy like this is going to want to pay a lower rate, and to want as many reliefs, allowances and exemptions as it can lobby for.

As a final point, I am still unclear as to why the brownfield relief is a better way of achieving what John Mason is asking for than setting different rates. I ask the minister to respond to that point and clarify his view on what would be the best and most effective way to achieve an objective that I think we all share. That would be helpful.

Preferably to someone who has an answer. [Laughter.]

Thank you, convener—I wanted to speak before the member winds up. First, I acknowledge that I was not part of the committee during its stage 1 inquiry, but I have some background familiarity with the issue. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the purpose of the levy is to ensure that the industry as a whole contributes to putting right the mistakes that have been caused by the industry as a whole.

There are a limited number of ways of doing that. We could take an insurance approach, but that would work only for the future. We could try to recoup money from specific developers for specific buildings that need remediation, but that clearly would not work for those who have simply walked away from their responsibilities. Unless anyone wants to suggest a different way of raising the revenue, or requiring that the public should pay the cost, a levy of this type is necessary. I note from the stage 1 debate that some members supported the principle of the levy, but not the specific levy, and I find that a little frustrating.

I recognise some of the potential impacts that members of the committee are concerned about, but, to be honest, it is not unusual for any industry to predict disaster in relation to any tax or levy that they are expected to pay. While this is not the place for discussion of wider housing policy, I point out that there are other options available to Government to reduce the cost of providing housing and to ensure that house building meets social need instead of serving vested interests. For example, there was a previous policy commitment to a mechanism for land value capture resulting from planning or infrastructure investment; that commitment seems to have disappeared.

Anyway, all of that being my position, I tend to take a sceptical approach to exemptions. I think that the Government amendments seem fine, and I am broadly opposed to most of the others. I am more sympathetic to the argument for removing the exemption for hotels, as has been proposed, and I welcome the fact that the Government is open to coming up with some other solution to that.

I hope that, in those discussions, there would be some consideration for the risk that, by retaining the exemption as it currently stands, we would create a perverse incentive for developers to propose developments ostensibly to be operated as short-term letting businesses, not build-to-rent under long-term tenancies, and then subsequently decide to get planning permission for change of use and sell the apartments off, thereby avoiding the tax. The current approach risks bringing in that perverse incentive.

Given that there could be differential impacts on different parts of the country, as well as different market conditions, land types and what have you, I have a question in my mind as to whether a sensitivity assessment that is worthy of that name can be conducted before the Government has published indicative rates or before it even says whether there will be different rates for different parts of the country. Surely, the Government setting out its approach to rate setting would be the start of the process of figuring out what the impacts might be, rather than the other way around.

Will the member give way?

First, I make the general point that every relief that we choose to add into the system would complicate it and require rate changes elsewhere in order to maintain revenue. Although a case can be made in isolation for any particular relief, it cannot be seen in isolation, as it would have a knock-on effect on the rest of the system. We need to consider that if we want the system to work—I acknowledge that some people probably do not want it to work—as the Government is proposing. If the levy is going to exist, that would be a consequence of bringing in additional reliefs.

I do not think that there is any suggestion that the levy is going to raise more than we require for the remediation programme. If we accept that the revenue is required, anything that reduces it in one place will have to be compensated for elsewhere, either within the levy or, ultimately, if the member would prefer, through taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services, or other forms of investment.

I will move on. On the point about smaller projects, it seems to me that the very purpose of the levy-free allowance is to address that concern. I think that there is a fair argument as to whether we address the concern about small developments through an allowance or through a relief, but I find it hard to see why we would do both.

With regard to both the question of a viability-based relief and the argument for a multiyear approach to the allowance, I would raise a question: although a levy is not technically a tax, do we take the same approach to any other form of revenue raising? If people had the option to carry their personal tax threshold for income tax from year to year, we would see a significant drop in revenue. We do not do that, and I do not see why we would do it in relation to the levy-free allowance in this case. On viability, is there any other tax where we say to the taxpayer, “Actually, if you think this is too much for you to pay, you just don’t have to”? Either we think that the levy is a legitimate way of raising the revenue that is required from the industry that is responsible for the fact that the remediation programme is necessary, or we do not.

12:30