Chamber and committees

I am sure that the answer is yes, but I assume that the Government is also looking at transport policy and housing policy, which are all part of making work more attractive to people.

Would you like to see the framework properly inflation related?

When we had the academic panel in, there was a lot of discussion of the problem about forecasting. The witnesses were quite willing to accept that there is a difficulty with forecasting when one Government is looking at two sets of figures and the other Government is looking at one set of figures. Can we do something about that in the next fiscal framework, or is the situation just a fact of life?

Good.

I am sure that we will have the political debate on the fiscal framework at a much later time. However, an issue on which I think that the committee is agreed has been brought to us—namely, the difficulties caused by the gap or lag in the timescales for the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts.

The Scottish Government has to be at the behest of both the OBR and the Scottish Fiscal Commission, whereas the Treasury requires the OBR forecasts to make its policy statement. Can that complication be resolved? Can we get over that problem? Would you like to see it resolved as we move from the fiscal framework that was introduced in 2016 to the framework that will be introduced in 2024, or whenever it happens?

Thank you.

I understand the need to raise revenue, particularly in the current difficult economic circumstances. I also understand that you believe that the policy has one principle behind it—to help first-time buyers. I might not agree with that, but I understand the context for the policy.

However, I agree with the concerns that have been raised by the convener, Michelle Thomson and Daniel Johnson, who have made it clear that we do not have much evidence on behavioural change. There is an expectation, even on the part of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, that there will be some behavioural change. Michelle Thomson was right to suggest to you that, in order to be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government is on the right track here, we need to have some evidence on behavioural change.

You have said that what the Government is doing needs to be considered in the macroeconomic context. That is true. One of the factors in that macroeconomic context is that the Scottish working population is not as big relative to the total population as we would like it to be from the point of view of improving productivity and so on. To what extent are you comfortable that the policy effects of the tax change will not have a detrimental effect on the mobility of the working population because of the difficulties to do with the housing stock? Specifically in relation to populations in rural areas, where we have pretty serious issues with housing, are you convinced that the increase in the ADS will not have a detrimental effect?

I accept that the tax will raise revenue—that is clear from the evidence that we have had so far. I will come back to the issue that Michelle Thomson asked about. The assessment of what is likely to happen in the housing market as a result of this change is that it will have potentially have quite serious effects. Obviously, we have the evidence that has been presented to the committee and we also have strong anecdotal evidence that people are withdrawing from the market.

My question is to ask the Scottish Government about the potential detrimental effects of the removal from the market of quite a number of landlords who have extra dwellings that can support the economy. I come back to the point about the rural economy because, in some cases, there is a danger that, if too much of that activity comes out of the market, not only could it have a damaging effect on the mobility of the working population and repopulating difficult areas for the rural economy, it could have a considerable effect on tourism. We cannot afford to have any detrimental effects on those aspects of the economy. What evidence are you considering on those aspects of the economy? Finally, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government over those likely effects?

For clarity, when is that likely to be?

Finally, I will pick up on the convener’s point that there are some inconsistencies in this approach. It is unfortunate that the reform to the additional dwelling supplement issue is happening at the same time as the review; it is almost a case of putting the cart before the horse. You are undertaking a review process, so would it not have been better to do it the other way round?

I understand the point about raising tax revenue. It is incumbent on all parliamentarians to recognise the importance of that. However, the proposed legislation will result in a lot of unintended consequences that have not been thought through. I find that pretty difficult, because such issues are important to the future of Scotland. On that basis, I will abstain on the vote.