Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 25 April 2013
25 Apr 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
That is helpful, and it is probably the right way to go about it, so I am even more encouraged on licences than I was to begin with.
Before I get too carried away, I have to say that I was discouraged—as I have expressed in committee a number of times—to hear about the timing of the announcement of the bandings and rates for LBTT. I was not heartened by that at all.
The original plan was to announce them in September 2014, for operation in April 2015. I judge from evidence to the committee that that has led to some uncertainty in the business community, given the absence of any indication of what the rates and bandings will be.
What the cabinet secretary said today—which is similar to what he said in committee—was that there was a range of views that spanned from one week before to two years before. However, that does not reflect what the committee heard, and I invite him to look again carefully at the evidence to the committee from the commercial sector.
I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about the residential sector, as there was evidence from that sector relating to a timescale of one week before. However, almost without exception, every witness from the commercial sector stated that a date of September 2014 would not give the business and commercial sector enough time.
There was a range of views, but they varied between a year and 18 months before September 2014; they did not go up to April 2015 and they were not spread evenly. It was clear to me that the strong view of the business community—from the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, the Scottish Building Federation and many others—was that the announcement should come sooner than September 2014. I think that the sector will be discouraged by what the cabinet secretary has said on that today.
My third item, sub-sale relief, took up a huge amount of the committee’s time. It is an important part of the economy, but I accept that it has in the past led—as I am sure it currently does—to tax avoidance, and the Government must strike a balance between those two aspects. As far as I can recall, no one who gave evidence said that sub-sale relief should be kept exactly as it is, but there was a strong view in the commercial sector that the relief’s wholesale removal was a bit of an overreaction and that there ought to be some exemptions.
I was encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s comments on forward funding, and I hope that progress is made through an amendment at stage 2. However, there are elements of sub-sale relief that are not forward funding and which many or most still consider to be legitimate commercial transactions. I ask the cabinet secretary to look at the subject again to see whether there are areas other than forward funding that could be protected via sub-sale relief without allowing the relief in its entirety to remain as it stands—I accept that it leads to a degree of tax avoidance.
There is a balance to be struck, but I am slightly concerned that, taken together with some of what we have heard today, removing the relief tips the balance slightly away from being competitive. I hope that that issue can be revisited.
Before I get too carried away, I have to say that I was discouraged—as I have expressed in committee a number of times—to hear about the timing of the announcement of the bandings and rates for LBTT. I was not heartened by that at all.
The original plan was to announce them in September 2014, for operation in April 2015. I judge from evidence to the committee that that has led to some uncertainty in the business community, given the absence of any indication of what the rates and bandings will be.
What the cabinet secretary said today—which is similar to what he said in committee—was that there was a range of views that spanned from one week before to two years before. However, that does not reflect what the committee heard, and I invite him to look again carefully at the evidence to the committee from the commercial sector.
I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about the residential sector, as there was evidence from that sector relating to a timescale of one week before. However, almost without exception, every witness from the commercial sector stated that a date of September 2014 would not give the business and commercial sector enough time.
There was a range of views, but they varied between a year and 18 months before September 2014; they did not go up to April 2015 and they were not spread evenly. It was clear to me that the strong view of the business community—from the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, the Scottish Building Federation and many others—was that the announcement should come sooner than September 2014. I think that the sector will be discouraged by what the cabinet secretary has said on that today.
My third item, sub-sale relief, took up a huge amount of the committee’s time. It is an important part of the economy, but I accept that it has in the past led—as I am sure it currently does—to tax avoidance, and the Government must strike a balance between those two aspects. As far as I can recall, no one who gave evidence said that sub-sale relief should be kept exactly as it is, but there was a strong view in the commercial sector that the relief’s wholesale removal was a bit of an overreaction and that there ought to be some exemptions.
I was encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s comments on forward funding, and I hope that progress is made through an amendment at stage 2. However, there are elements of sub-sale relief that are not forward funding and which many or most still consider to be legitimate commercial transactions. I ask the cabinet secretary to look at the subject again to see whether there are areas other than forward funding that could be protected via sub-sale relief without allowing the relief in its entirety to remain as it stands—I accept that it leads to a degree of tax avoidance.
There is a balance to be struck, but I am slightly concerned that, taken together with some of what we have heard today, removing the relief tips the balance slightly away from being competitive. I hope that that issue can be revisited.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a stage 1 debate on motion S4M-06294, in the name of John Swinney, on the Land and Buildings Tra...
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney)
SNP
The Scotland Act 2012 devolves responsibility for taxes on land and property transactions and disposal to landfill to the Scottish Parliament from April 2015...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Con
I am a member of the Public Audit Committee, which has been looking into the Auditor General for Scotland’s report on Registers of Scotland’s IT system. Para...
John Swinney
SNP
I would describe the position as work in progress. As I set out to Parliament last June, Registers of Scotland will be the collection organisation for the ne...
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
SNP
I am pleased to highlight key areas that the Finance Committee considered following its stage 1 evidence taking.The Scotland Act 2012 devolves a range of tax...
Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Lab
The land and buildings transaction tax is, I believe, Scotland’s first new tax in 300 years. It stems from the conclusions of the Calman commission, establis...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Ken Macintosh
Lab
I hope that Mr Mason can demonstrate a sense of humour.
John Mason
SNP
Does the member accept that, if the overall indication is that the effect will be broadly neutral, the room for manoeuvre is not huge? The position is not th...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
Indeed. I was just about to suggest to the cabinet secretary that, if he indicates to the committee and to Parliament when he has agreed on a date, so that w...
John Swinney
SNP
The point that I advanced at the committee is that I was not persuaded by a relief for a property transaction whereby the purchaser got the benefit of an inv...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s approach. I have sympathy for the non-renewal of a scheme for which there were no successful applications in Scotland.Howev...
Mike MacKenzie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Does the member accept that, given the progressive nature of the tax, the proposed measure would help those who are further up the ladder more? Those are the...
Ken Macintosh
Lab
Mr MacKenzie raises an interesting point about our desire as a country to reduce carbon emissions. If carbon emissions on larger homes are greater, we need t...
Gavin Brown (Lothian) (Con)
Con
The Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill and we will vote for it at decision time. Much of the bill and much of what the cabinet...
John Swinney
SNP
I confirm that there will be an indication of the licences that are included in the scope. The bill will specify which licences will be covered rather than s...
Gavin Brown
Con
That is helpful, and it is probably the right way to go about it, so I am even more encouraged on licences than I was to begin with.Before I get too carried ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
We now move to the open debate. I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. We are a bit tight for time, so I give Mr Hepburn up to six minutes...
Jamie Hepburn (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome this stage 1 debate. The bill is, of course, the first of three bills arising as a consequence of the Scotland Act 2012, and I look forward to scru...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
You have 30 seconds.
Jamie Hepburn
SNP
The block grant will be reduced on a one-off basis for LBTT. We have to get that right. I say to Mr Macintosh that how fairly the Treasury plays on the matte...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to take part in this landmark debate, in which we are considering a tax bill for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament. I hop...
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
SNP
Although it closes a loophole, on 21 March 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, with immediate effect, there would be a 15 per cent stamp du...
Malcolm Chisholm
Lab
That is a fair point and I would not disagree.Ensuring that there is no tax avoidance is an important aspect of the bill. The general provision, which will b...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
It is encouraging that there is widespread welcome for the replacement of SDLT with a simpler and more progressive tax, and especially for the replacement of...
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)
Lab
Given that John Mason has expressed his excitement about today, will he express some contrition about opposing the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 201...
John Mason
SNP
That question is not quite on subject. Given that Calman proposed a system of block grant reduction that would have damaged Scotland, I have to say that I am...
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
This is not the first time I have taken part in a stage 1 debate in which there has been very little to say that has not been said already by the time I have...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I rise as a former member of the Finance Committee. Although I was not part of the stage 1 deliberations on the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland)...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
I, too, welcome today’s stage 1 debate on the first of a series of bills that are being introduced as a result of a number of tax-raising powers being devolv...