Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be beneficial for me if the minister could confirm on the record whether the Scottish Government thinks that a revaluation exercise is necessary after 34 years. If it does, how does it intend to go about that exercise?

The member is talking about a wider piece of work that needs to happen, and I always welcome more work being done on tax policy. However, we should recognise that a significant piece of work was done on this in 2015, on a cross-party basis but led by the Scottish Government. That was not the first time that the issue had been revisited since 1991. As we have heard this morning, everyone agrees that the system is absurd and that revaluation needs to happen in some way, shape or form, but no Government has ever held a vote on it. If the Parliament does not agree to do so at this opportunity, there certainly will not be another opportunity before the next election.

Can you clarify, then—I do not know whether committee members are aware of it, but I am not—what the timescale is for processing those consultation responses? Is the minister indicating that the Government intends to collate those consultation responses and come to a view ahead of stage 3 and, therefore, it would be able to lodge amendments at that point? If amendments are not lodged at stage 3 of this bill, there is no other legislative vehicle for making those changes in this parliamentary session.

My amendments in this group cover a lot of the same ground as those lodged by Pam Duncan-Glancy and Graham Simpson. That those of us reaching a consensus on this point span the whole ideological spectrum, from me and Maggie Chapman to Graham Simpson and Edward Mountain, is an example of how strong consensus is on the need to improve students’ living conditions.

My amendment 540 gives tenants in student residential tenancies the right to bring their tenancy to an end after 28 days’ notice. It is a copy and paste of the temporary provisions from the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020, thus the anomalous-looking 7-day provision for existing tenancies. Given the volume of work for the legislation team to do on the bill, I thought that it would be quickest at this stage to copy and paste the 2020 drafting in order to test the principle of bringing student tenants’ rights closer to those of other tenants. If the principle is agreed, I will tidy up the amendment at stage 3 and remove the now superfluous 7-day provision.

Bringing in that right would prevent tenants in student halls from, in essence, being trapped in their tenancies when they no longer need them, as Pam Duncan-Glancy said. For example, they might need to leave their studies due to illness, a change of family circumstances or sudden caring responsibilities. It is very rare that a student has to leave their accommodation because of a positive change in circumstances. Those who have to leave are already experiencing some difficulty.

The Scottish Government consulted on the issue in July last year. As far as I am aware, the Government has not yet published its response to that consultation—certainly not anywhere that I could locate. If the principle is agreed, I also want to work with the Government ahead of stage 3 in order to capture some of the other issues that were explored in that consultation, such as the issue of students paying fines or fees for ending a tenancy early. The impact on the PBSA business model is a legitimate concern that can be addressed, and it is entirely achievable to provide some compensation to a student who leaves before Christmas, for example, so that they do not have to pay for the full year.

My amendment 548 mandates ministers to publish a set of model terms and conditions for student residential tenancies, which would cover the topics that are listed in the amendment as a minimum. The list is not exhaustive, and ministers would have the power to make some of those provisions mandatory for relevant tenancies. That mirrors the existing model tenancy agreement that exists for the private rented sector, so the amendment continues the theme of equalising students’ experience of housing with that of other private renters.

It would guarantee a minimum standard for student residential tenancies, and it delivers on one of the Government’s own PBSA review group’s recommendations. The amendment would tackle a number of the issues that were commonly raised in that review, such as cooling-off periods, data sharing, information support and so on, and it would bring student tenants’ rights closer into line with those in private tenancies. For example, we would all consider a 24-hour notice period for maintenance and inspection to be completely legitimate. It also addresses issues such as the need for a notice of rent increases and a cap on deposit amounts.

I note the other amendments to apply rent control provisions to student tenancies. My amendment 548 would enable the Scottish Government to set a mandatory condition on rent affordability, particularly in relation to available student support. For example, it could mean that the rent in PBSA is no more than 30 per cent of the basic Student Awards Agency for Scotland living costs loan.

The sector has always claimed that its terms and conditions are already adequate, but the PBSA review and our inboxes show that the reality is quite far from that. It is important that we put in place some statutory provisions, and the bill is the only legislative vehicle with which to do that in this parliamentary session. Non-statutory model terms and conditions would go on to gov.scot and immediately be forgotten. I have lodged the amendments because we are 15 months on from the publication of the PBSA review recommendations and I see no evidence of progress, particularly on anything that would require statutory provision. As I said, this is the last vehicle with which we can do that.

My amendment 549 mandates ministers to publish a model complaints procedure for student residential tenancies, which may be made binding. It clarifies and standardises a tenant’s right to complain and make other representations to their landlord. It is another amendment that delivers on one of the PBSA review group’s recommendations.

My amendment 559 is consequential to my amendment 548. My amendment 560 is consequential to my amendment 549. Any regulations that would be made under provisions introduced by those amendments would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I should say at the outset that I have tried to keep this as concise as possible, but it will be a lengthy contribution. Members will be glad to hear that amendments of mine do not come up again for a number of groups so, at the current rate of progress, they will probably not need to hear from me again for a few weeks.

I will start with my amendments on council tax revaluation. I imagine that members of the committee will be more aware than anyone else in Scotland of just how discredited our council tax system has become after 34 years. We are long overdue to make progress on it. My party believes that an outright replacement is required, but views vary and the bill is not the right vehicle for that. It is, however, an appropriate opportunity to make progress on a genuinely technical but fundamental issue—the valuation roll.

Regardless of our position on whether taxes are too high or too low and whether they catch the right people or the wrong people, we all agree that it is ludicrous for the system to have reached the point at which most people in Scotland now pay the wrong rate of council tax. The amendments would allow the Parliament to finally resolve the issue that has been caused by the continued use of the 1991 valuations.

Amendment 462 would make it explicit that, when council tax bands are varied under section 74 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the number of bands can be changed. That empowers ministers to follow the Welsh Government’s recent addition of bands to make its council tax system more proportionate and progressive.

As well as individual property values changing in the past 34 years, the range of values of residential property in Scotland has widened significantly. It is not proportionate for a house that is worth 15 times less than another to pay just three times less in council tax, as is currently the case with the average property values in band A versus band H. Updating the valuation roll but sticking with the existing set of bands would be a job half done, which is why I have lodged amendment 462.

The key amendments in the group, however, are amendments 463 and 464, which would mandate that ministers undertake a council tax revaluation exercise, with updated values to come into force no later than 1 April 2029—the 2029-30 financial year. Amendment 463 would mandate regular subsequent five-yearly revaluations. Amendment 464 would mean a one-off exercise.

My preference is very much for amendment 463, because I do not want us to resolve the issue now and then have to wait another 34 years while the problem repeats itself. However, I have lodged both amendments, because I recognise the inherent difficulties in the situation and the reason why it has taken us 34 years, and I am keen to seek the Parliament’s view on that. The amendments also specify that ministers can make transitional arrangements to make any changes in household council tax liability more manageable. There is particular reference to those with low and fixed incomes.

Amendment 478 is consequential on amendments 463 and 464 and would apply the affirmative procedure to any regulations that are made under those provisions.

As far as I and the Scottish Parliament information centre have been able to tell, the Parliament has never voted on the question of revaluation. I do not think that the issue should have become as political as it has. Fundamentally, I do not think that it is as politically fraught as we all fear. It is right that we debate and disagree on the fundamental questions of reform or outright replacement of the council tax, but we all agree that using accurate data is appropriate. We would not tolerate a system of income tax where most people were paying the wrong rate, and it cannot be justified for council tax either.

I am sure that the Government will say that an engagement exercise is under way, but no one disagrees with revaluation. We have done consultation, listening, working groups and cross-party agreements previously, but they have not moved the issue forward, because the Parliament has never had the question put to it or the opportunity to vote on it. After 34 years of the problem getting worse and coming to a stage that I suggest is now intolerable, I want to give the Parliament the opportunity to address the technical aspect. If we do that, it will give us more space to address the more substantial areas of appropriate political disagreement.

Amendments 542 and 543 are on council tax arrears. Amendment 542 would require ministers to review the scale and impact of council tax arrears and state what action they intend to take as a result. I want to give the Government a bit of a nudge to address the issue. In England, council tax arrears are written off after six years, but in Scotland it is 20 years, and that 20-year clock resets every time the individual with arrears engages with the system. Essentially, the process is never-ending. Every time that someone engages with the system, as they are obliged or pressured to do, that 20 years resets itself. Other forms of debt in Scotland are typically written off after five years, so that is a major discrepancy. The Robertson Trust has done a substantial report on the issue, which I sent to members, although that was just last night.

Amendment 543 would require ministers to review the impact of joint and several liability for council tax arrears on domestic abuse victims and survivors, and to state what action ministers intend to take. Through my casework, I am familiar with the situation, as I am sure others are, of survivors of domestic abuse ending up having to pay off the arrears debt of their abuser. We can all agree that that is completely inappropriate, but the system allows that to happen, and it is happening. I encourage the Government to review that and look at ways in which we could resolve it, because it could probably be resolved through some relatively simple measures.

Moving on from council tax to land and buildings transaction tax, amendment 465 would mandate that ministers extend LBTT liability to open-ended investment companies in a way that mirrors the liability of unit trusts. OEICs are a type of investment fund that is similar to a unit trust. The power to apply LBTT to that particular form of company was included in the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Act 2013, but the regulations to activate the provision were never brought forward.

Amendment 467 is almost exactly the same, but it refers to residential property holding companies. RPHCs are just a tax avoidance scheme, and it is particularly odd that the Scottish Government gave itself the power to apply LBTT to them in the 2013 act via regulation but, in the 12 years since, it has not brought forward those regulations. I am keen to understand the Government’s position on that. I do not see any justification for exempting those two company types from paying the same tax that anybody else would pay when buying a property. Any time any of us has bought a property, we paid LBTT, and quite rightly. I cannot understand why RPHCs, which are a notorious tax avoidance scheme, do not have to pay because the regulations have not been brought forward—well, by and large, they do not have to pay, although there will be situations where they might have to for other reasons.

Amendment 547 would mandate that a new LBTT band be created for properties that are sold at the starting rate of £1 million or more. For example, just down the road from here, Newliston house is on sale at offers over £3 million if you want just part of the estate and offers over £15 million if you want the whole estate. I do not think that anyone purchasing that should be purchasing it at the same rate of LBTT as they would pay on a townhouse in the new town, for example, at £800,000 or £900,000. The system requires a bit more progressivity in it.

Amendment 466 would remove the current LBTT exemption for foreign militaries. In post-war Scotland, only one Government has had a significant presence in Scotland and that is the United States. It can more than afford to pay LBTT if it is purchasing any additional property, regardless of the views that some of us might have about whether we would want it to do so.

On the additional dwelling supplement, amendment 468 would require ministers to introduce a relief or exemption for the purpose of an additional property when it is to be used by someone who does not have the capacity to take on the obligations of home ownership but is able to live in the property. That could be done with reference to the receipt of disability benefit such as disability living allowance. The amendment is the result of casework that I have been engaged with, and this is clearly not the kind of situation that the additional dwelling supplement is designed to catch. At the moment, it typically catches individuals who purchase property on behalf of family members who have the ability to live independently but not the ability to be the home owner.

Amendment 469 would let ministers set a scaling rate for the additional dwelling supplement, so that the owner’s liability would be greater for the third or fourth property, and so on. It would progressively tax those who are most able to purchase additional property, seeking to discourage the accumulation of large portfolios.

Amendment 493 would allow for the setting of a surcharge for companies for purchasing dwellings. That would allow ministers to align LBTT in Scotland with the 17 per cent company rate for stamp duty in England. It is unusual that, although the LBTT system that we have created in Scotland is a bit more progressive than stamp duty in England, that step was missed out. There is more flexibility in the English system, because it can distinguish between an individual and a company. It would be useful to have that flexibility in the system here, regardless of the debate that we might have through annual budgets about the appropriate rate to set for individuals or companies and being able to distinguish between the two. LBTT and ADS are relatively blunt instruments.

Amendment 544 would allow ministers to apply a further surcharge to ADS in the rent control zones that the bill would establish. It would therefore disincentivise the purchase of properties in areas where there is acute housing pressure, which is particularly relevant. The reason for the amendment is to deal with the circumstances in rural and island communities, where short-term lets and holiday homes are they key drivers of the local housing crisis. I point to Lochranza on Arran, which Katy Clark and I represent, where around 40 per cent of houses in the community are either short-term lets or holiday homes. That is the driver of the housing crisis in that area, and it results in young people having to leave the community that they were brought up in because they are simply unable to find a home for themselves.

Amendment 519 would require councils to state whether they want the surcharge created by amendment 544 to be applied to a rent control area when they are recommending that it be designed under section 2. It would allow ministers to consider the local context, and reflects the fact that the measure would be more appropriate in some rent control zones than in others, in particular where holiday homes and buy-to-let, short-term lets are the main driver of the issue.

Amendment 545 would allow ministers to apply a further surcharge to ADS, but this time in national parks, and to have regard to the view of the national park authority when doing so. It recognises the unique pressure on communities in our national parks from second homes, buy-to-let landlords and properties that are being acquired and used as short-term lets in particular. At the moment, the national average is that about 1 per cent of properties are second or holiday homes, but in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, the figure is five times as many, in the Cairngorms national park, it is 12 times as many, and in some communities—Braemar is probably the clearest example—it is 20 times as many.

Both national parks have set out in their strategic planning documents—in the Cairngorms, it is in section 7 of the partnership plan—the significant negative impact of that and the pressure that it puts on communities who actually live in the parks. Similar comments can be found in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park’s housing strategy.

Amendment 546 would let ministers apply a further surcharge to ADS when the buyer is not ordinarily resident in Scotland. That seeks to tackle overseas property speculation. The UK has now become the world’s number 1 destination for overseas property investment, which is essentially property speculation from outside the country. It is a huge problem UK-wide.

At this point, I flag up that Revenue Scotland does not collect that data for Scotland, so we rely on UK-wide figures and anecdotal examples. That is another area that should be addressed—although not in the bill—and I encourage the Government to start collecting data on overseas buyers of property, in particular those from tax havens. The number of properties in Scotland that are being bought in what are recognised by the UK as tax havens has doubled in the past couple of years, and we should disincentivise that.

Amendment 193 moves us on to a different topic entirely, which was raised with me by local government colleagues. It would allow for housing revenue accounts for the purpose of accounting for council housing to budget for transfers from the local authority’s general fund. That is a pretty simple matter of fiscal empowerment for local authorities if they want to top up their council housing budgets to allow for extraordinary investments, if they have a particular reason for doing so.

Amendment 194 would remove the requirement for ministerial approval for local authorities to transfer from the general fund to their housing revenue account. I am not aware of a single instance in which ministerial consent was withheld when it was requested, but that requirement has created a lot of confusion in some local authorities. I have heard from officers who believed that transfers were not possible because of it. In any case, even when it is possible, ministerial consent being required for what are often routine transfers is just a huge waste of everyone’s time—the officers involved, the councillors, the minister and his officials. We should trust local government to manage its own finances and its own risks on this.

Amendment 459 would impose an non-domestic rate surcharge and prohibit NDR relief or exemptions for short-term lets. Again, reflecting on the experience of some of the communities that I represent, Airbnb-style short-term lets for tourists are driving local housing crises and pushing young people out of fragile rural and island communities.

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?

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?