Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not moving a motion to annul the instrument, because the specifics of it are harmless enough. I just want to put on the record that the Scottish Greens do not believe that it is good value for the public purse to give £1 million a year to a private school when there are four state music schools in Scotland that would benefit greatly from that money.

I appreciate that it is not as simple as saying that the £30 million in the current financial year will achieve X per cent of the capacity increase that is required and that the £80 million will therefore achieve the remaining Y per cent. Nevertheless, is there a way of quantifying what has been achieved with that £30 million? I recognise that I am, in essence, doing post-budget scrutiny rather than the pre-budget scrutiny that we are here for this morning. However, if we are to be confident that we are going to get value for money out of the £80 million, it would be good to be able to quantify what has been, or is currently being, achieved with the £30 million.

You have talked a lot this morning about the wider policy intent around the additional dwelling supplement, and you mentioned second and holiday homes specifically and distinctly from the private rental sector. Will you expand on the Government’s policy intent around second and holiday homes?

The £34 million that will be raised will go towards public services, and we all recognise that that is needed more than ever during a cost of living crisis. We should not lose sight of the fact that the measure will raise a small amount of money during the remainder of this financial year, which will be important in closing a challenging gap in our public finances.

I associate myself with the comments that John Mason just made. Generational inequality is an issue. In the past, a lot of folk who were my age—28—or a little bit older or younger would have been able to own their own home. Previously, that would have been the norm, as John Mason said, but it is not the case for many of my friends from school and those whom I met during my brief time at university. There are a range of reasons for that, and the imbalance in the housing market, which favours buy-to-let landlords, is one of them. In a small way, this tax change will begin to redress that imbalance.

The change sits alongside other measures, such as the new powers that have been given to local authorities to regulate short-term lets. We need to take a range of other measures. However, as well as the primary consideration, which is raising revenue for public services at a time when we really need it, redressing that imbalance in power and the generational inequality in our housing market is a strong argument in favour of the modest change. We could have gone much further, but the change gets the balance right.

Thank you. That is all from me, convener.

On the point about council tax specifically, when Government is evaluating the net impact on public finances of any tax change or, in this specific case, the increase to the additional dwelling supplement and the effect that it will have on the housing market, do you take into account, for example, the fact that an owner-occupied house will contribute more because it gets no council tax relief and no NDR relief than it would get for a holiday or short-term let business and so on? Is the cumulative impact on public finances of those taxes that go to national and local government taken into account?

Finally, I want to go back to the convener’s original line of questioning about exemptions from the ADS and LBTT more widely for local authorities and other landlords. During the considerations that you have mentioned in relation to the ADS review, have housing co-operatives been considered as a model of housing ownership that I presume we want to encourage in Scotland but which do not currently have any exemptions or reliefs from either LBTT or the ADS specifically? Have they come under the purview of the ADS review or wider discussions about LBTT policy changes?

They make up a minuscule part at the moment, but if the Government’s policy intent was to increase the proportion of the housing sector that is co-operative, that might be a mechanism through which to do that.

Given that we have some communities in Scotland, particularly coastal and rural communities, in which between a third and a half—and, in a few instances, more than half—of the properties are second or holiday homes, which are therefore unoccupied most of the time, would you acknowledge that, once that proportion of a local community is reached, the net impact on the community is negative? Any economic benefit during tourist season is more than outweighed by the fact that the community is in some cases largely vacant for most of the year.

Without wishing to pre-empt the report, given that there has been consistent, on-going dialogue with survivors, do you have any indication of what the impact has been so far? Has there been feedback that shows a particular trend?