Hansard

I welcome much of what the cabinet secretary had to say in his speech, and his recognition of the Finance Committee’s recommendations and the concerns expressed by stakeholders. It is important to take a step back and consider the context, because land and buildings transaction tax was levied for the first time last year, and when the cabinet secretary set out his quite comprehensive plans for the tax—well over a year ago now—it was a matter of a couple of months before he had to think again and bring new proposals back to the Parliament, to respond to George Osborne’s proposals for stamp duty land tax. Although I would observe that that was probably the fastest change of tax policy in history, I do understand the cabinet secretary’s desire to have a similar fiscal position in Scotland to that in the rest of the UK.

Now we are being presented with the land and buildings transaction tax supplement. Yes, it was indeed the self-same chancellor, George Osborne, who introduced that in his autumn statement—a new 3 per cent supplement for stamp duty land tax—and the cabinet secretary moved quickly to copy it. There is now to be a land and buildings transaction tax supplement of 3 per cent on purchases of additional residential properties for those transactions over £40,000.

I know and accept that there are strong arguments for us to have the same fiscal regime both north and south of the border. Our housing markets are similar and they can and will be influenced by each other, but there are times when we might choose to do things differently. There are obviously times when we want to respond very quickly, so that behavioural responses to tax changes are minimised. That has implications for consultation with stakeholders and for scrutiny by this Parliament, and I know that it has not been an entirely satisfactory process for stakeholders, or indeed for members of the Finance Committee, because of the speed at which things have been done.

I hope that the Government and the Finance Committee will consider that in the future so that we get the balance right. I think that it is an issue that we will want to return to, because I can foresee circumstances in which that could happen time and again, and I do not think that any of us want a situation in which speed means bad legislation with unintended consequences.

In that context, I draw members’ attention to the House of Commons Treasury Committee report—not something that I read often, but it is now on my list. It is fair to say that members of that committee are not at all enamoured by the stamp duty land tax supplement and there is a strong suggestion from them that there should be no rush to implementation because of its complexity and because of the possibility of unintended consequences. They also feel that it would actually be detrimental to the buy-to-let property market and they recognise the importance of that sector for labour mobility, which is a point that I will return to in a minute.

I am not sure—and I do not know whether the Deputy First Minister is any clearer than I am—whether there is a possibility that George Osborne might delay implementation, or indeed substantially change the proposal, but it raises some really interesting questions. Given that the Scottish Government has aligned itself with the proposal from the UK Government, does that mean that the introduction will be delayed in Scotland if it is delayed in the rest of the UK, or does the Deputy First Minister intend to proceed regardless? Perhaps it provides an opportunity to think things through, but in any event we need stability and certainty, not chop and change.

I know that there are real issues that the Government must grapple with, but we will decide on the Scottish budget for 2016-17 tomorrow. Assumptions have been made about the revenue that will be generated by the supplement, but we will have no idea what the UK Government’s response to the Treasury Committee’s report will be until at least mid-March. That is my understanding.