Seòmar agus comataidhean

When we talked about the number of applications to the fund, one would assume that you may have been keen to get shovel-ready projects to show that the scheme was working. You have to admit that it is quite concerning that nearly half of that budget has not been spent, given the need—because of the budget imperative—for you to reform at pace and at scale.

Yes—if you could. Equally, I do not have a detailed understanding of it, but one operator has told me that they are compensated fully for one of the two schemes, but a fixed amount is provided for the other scheme. I do not know whether that relates to the under-22s scheme or the over-60s scheme, but there may be a similar overspend that has to be absorbed by bus companies. Mr Harvie might be aware of how it operates. It would be interesting to see whether that relates to one specific scheme or whether it is just a general oversubscription against forecast.

Looking at these amendments, I would say, as I said in the chamber last week, that we are very unhappy with the budget in its totality. It is hard to argue against these measures, cabinet secretary, but the risk that you are now running in many respects—for example, in relation to social care—is that, although you have found additional money at this stage in the budget process, it is rather like the burglar who robbed you blind two years ago returning to offer you some of your goods back and expecting you to be grateful.

The ultimate issue in relation to the budget—I am thinking of rates relief, for example—is that this is, in many respects, too little, too late. If we look at this year’s local government settlement, although we welcome additional funding for social care, which will deal with some of the crises that we are seeing in health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards, we think that it will be insufficient to deal with the challenge that councils face in delivering social care. As we have just been discussing in relation to preventative spend, many of the problems that we are seeing throughout, say, the health service, which also faces issues in this budget, are being made worse by the crisis in social care. We question whether the prioritisation in the budget is sufficient.

Overall, I repeat what I said last week in the chamber. We do not object to these individual measures, but the budget in its totality still does not pursue the right priorities for Scotland, and it contains misplaced priorities.

It is not just the concept that they are opposed to; they are saying that the practicality of it is significant. Mr Marra has referred to the principle of it, which is that some of the construction operators have had no interface with cladding at all and are saying that they would have to pay for the sins of others in the industry. Would you accept that there is a flaw in the design of the proposed levy?

A lot of the devil in the detail will be in the secondary legislation. Presumably, you do not want the penalty regime to be disproportionate, but you want to ensure that it is a disincentive to anybody to misbehave. How far are you down the road of constructing what the penalties would be to ensure that they are proportionate and that the industry has some foresight of them?

I presume that failure to register would be one of the things that would attract a penalty.

The principal tax that you collect at the moment is land and buildings transaction tax.

Some estate agents say that they are now advising customers early on in the process, even before viewing, about the burden that LBTT and potentially ADS will put on the transaction. However, when you speak to some conveyancing solicitors, there is still a sense that they are only as good as the information that the client gives them.

You are saying that you think that your compliance costs and your recoveries are quite good, where you have anticipated something. However, if, for example, someone is buying what appears to be their first property in the UK and happens to own a bolthole in Slovenia, what capacity do you have to find out whether ADS should apply to that? I assume that you will not trawl the land registry in Slovenia.

Fine. With regard to exemptions, if there is a greater number of exemptions or a wider scope for them, the levy will bring in less income. Given that there is an acute rural housing crisis, we have heard from several stakeholders that exempting one part of rural Scotland—for example, the islands or hard-to-reach geographical territories—will not take account of the fact that the levy could have significant consequences in other rural areas. You mentioned thresholds in the levy, but would it not be simpler to identify a definition of rural Scotland and to exempt that entirely?

Last week, Scottish Land & Estates put forward what it thought would be a good working model for a definition of rural Scotland. Would the Government be prepared to look again at the exemption to give clarity and surety to areas where there is an acute housing problem?