Chamber and committees

I have no issues with the instrument whatsoever; the Conservatives are very happy with it. However, cabinet secretary, I would like to probe a little bit further into some of the issues that arise from this kind of situation. In doing so, I go back to what you said at stage 1 of the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and, indeed, what the committee convener said at that time, which is that we have to ensure value for money. We get value for money if we have an effective impact assessment of the changes that we make to any of these things, and that, in turn, is determined by the data that is available.

You will be aware that, this morning, the Finance and Public Administration Committee has put out a very robust report on the need for much greater transparency and fiscal probity in the public finances. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the measurement of the impacts of changes that are made in the social security brief helps those most in need and that we have the right data to assess that?

I have no relevant interest to declare, convener, but I look forward to being on the committee.

Exactly, cabinet secretary. If the arithmetic is slightly different in England from what it is in Scotland, we need to understand why, because that is the important point to consider when, as a committee, we make any decisions.

The joint response to the consultation from both Governments made it clear that the levy is not expected to have any major impact on land prices. On what basis was that judgment made?

I understand your point. However, the joint response notes that the modelling for the building safety levy in England suggests that, rather than impacting on property prices, it will impact on the price of land. The two countries are different, for the reasons that Stephen Lea-Ross set out. We do not have the same set-up of land ownership. Again, from the committee’s angle, the more evidence that we have, the more helpful that is for our decision making.

I absolutely understand that. I am asking—

Yes. There were concerns in some of the written submissions that, because of behavioural change, the levy could have some impact on land prices. However, it was made clear in the Governments’ joint response that that is not the case. What evidence do you have that it will not have any major impact?

It is an important issue. The nature of taxation is that there are behavioural changes as a result of any tax change, and elasticities to go with that. From what you have set out, cabinet secretary, I am not particularly opposed to the tax, but I think that the committee would like to see the evidence on which statements are based. If the change is not to have any major impact, we would like to see the evidence on that.

Thank you.

It is about what was said in the Governments’ joint response.