Hansard

Like my Labour colleague James Kelly, the minister and other members across the chamber, I make clear my support for the bill that we will vote on today. I welcome the fact that the minister and the Government have listened to and have, by introducing the changes in the bill, acted to address concerns that were raised by Murdo Fraser and others. As I have said before, it is unusual to introduce and pass retrospective legislation, but in this case it is absolutely the right thing to do, because the bill will correct unintended unfairness.

As other members have said, the additional dwelling supplement was introduced to raise taxation revenue from people who were buying additional properties as an investment opportunity or as holiday homes. Taxing people who are just replacing their main home was not intended and goes against the principle of fair taxation, as James Kelly said. At the time, the Scottish Government’s intention was clear: it wanted to levy an additional tax on people who purchased a property who already own another property. Rightly, the Scottish Government recognised that a situation can often arise in purchase of a property whereby an individual or a couple become, for a short period, the owner or owners of two properties. That is why, as has been said, a period of grace of up to 18 months was introduced. However, as members have said, it has become clear that, in trying to ensure that married couples, civil partners and cohabitants do not move property between individuals for tax-avoidance purposes, the unintended consequence to which I previously referred has been created.

I echo what other members have said today and previously: if Parliament decides that retrospective legislation is needed to address that unfairness, it would be pointless if the intended beneficiaries of that legislative change were unaware of their entitlement to claim a refund. I therefore reiterate that measures need to be taken to ensure that people are aware of the moneys to which they might be entitled.

Everyone accepts that the easiest way to address such anomalies is secondary legislation. Unfortunately, as we know, retrospective legislation cannot be effected by secondary legislation unless there is a specific expressed power, which, in this case, does not exist. Hence, the bill.

Although the bill is unusual, it is straightforward, it has unanimous support and it will address a small but significant unfairness. I will therefore join other members in supporting the bill at decision time.