 The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion 10795, in the name of Derek Mackay, on land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amounts Scotland bill. Can I ask any member who wishes to speak in this debate to press their request to sweet buttons now and I call on the finance secretary to speak to and move the motion in his name? Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is part 2 in this afternoon's act, probably far more consensual than the previous subject. It is a shame that Mr Simpson has departed the chamber because he has inspired the BBC to come up with characterisation and images of me coming from Dickens books. I hope that there will be no such conjuring up of more impressions of me in this debate, because that will show what a reasonable person that the finance secretary is. Just short three years ago, the land and building transaction tax came into effect in Scotland, alongside the Scottish landfill tax. The first new national Scottish tax is introduced by the Scottish Parliament in more than 300 years. Subsequently, in 2016 this Parliament approved legislation to introduce the LBTT additional dwelling supplement, a 3 per cent additional rate of tax applied in relation to certain house purchases. The supplement applies where, at the end of the day, that is the effective date of the transaction, a buyer owns more than one dwelling and a buyer is not replacing a main residence. Where the additional amount is paid, the legislation provides that it can be reclaimed when a main residence is being replaced and the sale of the previous main residence occurs within 18 months of the purchase of what then becomes a current main residence. The introduction of the original LBTT legislation and subsequent additional dwelling supplement were important milestones in Scotland's tax journey, but it is important to acknowledge and recognise that there will be, on occasions, a need for change. Taxes, of course, are complex and it is inevitable that amendments will, at times, be required or, indeed, be desirable to improve operation of for other reasons. Reflecting that fact, the Scottish approach to taxation is founded in part on effective engagement and partnership working with stakeholders. It was as a consequence of that engagement, including with MSPs, that introduced secondary legislation last summer to address a specific issue that had been highlighted in relation to the treatment of married couples, civil partners and cohabitants. It referred to as an economic unit in the ADS legislation. The order that was approved by this Parliament in June 2017 addressed the scenario where a couple jointly buy a new main residence, but only one of the couple's names was on the title deeds of their shared previous main residence. Its effects were to ensure that relevant couples either did not have to pay the additional dwelling supplement or could reclaim repayment of the supplement when their previous main residence was sold within the 18-month period. Although the order addressed the issue of transactions occurring after it came into effect, it could not apply to transactions that occurred previously. Members of the Finance and Constitution Committee and stakeholders raised that as a concern during the scrutiny of that order. The Scottish Government agrees with that view and has therefore brought forward this bill to deliver parity for all taxpayers, regardless of the effective date of their transaction. It is single-minded in its focus and scope, serving solely to give retrospective effect to the provisions of the 2017 order. I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee for the scrutiny of the bill and welcome their support for the general principles of the bill. I recognise that stakeholders have raised a number of other issues around the additional dwelling supplement and the approach to devolve taxes more widely. I welcome their input and engagement and take seriously the points that they have raised. I assure you all that, although it is outwith the scope of the bill, those issues raised in the submissions will be considered. However, many of the asks would involve a much more significant amendment to the legislation and will require further attention on the issue of group relief specifically. I intend to bring forward a consultation on draft secondary legislation that is intended to address for future transactions the concerns that stakeholders have raised. That will deliver parity of approach between LBTT and SDLT in this area. Murdo Fraser. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way and I welcome what he has just said about group reliefs. I do not know if he is familiar with the law society briefing that has been issued in relation to the stage 1 debate today, but he does in that. A number of other examples of areas where people buying houses together might inadvertently become liable to the additional dwelling supplement. I wonder if the Scottish Government has any plans to look at those areas as well to see whether they are required to be addressed by legislation. I appreciate the intervention. I do not want to give any further views today wider than the purpose of the bill and that is what I have said already. Other than to say that I will reflect on all those submissions and give due consideration to it. I think that there is a very strong argument in the Parliament. Maybe this is an issue that the budget pro-seff review group has assisted us with. Westminster has the ability to refine tax legislation as appropriate. We do not have that function in the Scottish Parliament and I think that there is an increasingly strong case to have such a function to address these kind of things without the legislative route that we otherwise have to go through. I think that that is certainly worthy of consideration. In conclusion, I am taking action on the specific technical issue as a result of that engagement and not least from Murdo Fraser to be fair. The bill is therefore in that context non-contentious and I will hope that it will be supported across the chamber and across the tax community. All other considerations on land and bound transaction tax will be considered in a timely and appropriate manner as part of our overall approach to the planning and management of devolved taxes. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the land and bound transaction tax relief from additional amount bill and I look forward to this afternoon's debate and I am very curious as to how we will fill the next 40 minutes. Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. How long did I get, Presiding Officer? Five minutes, Presiding Officer. Five minutes. Okay, thanks, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to speak as the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee and I put on record my thanks to my fellow committee members for the constructive manner in which they went about their deliberations on the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount Scotland bill. I also want to thank the clerks, particularly Alan Hunter, who supported the committee so well during our deliberations. If only other aspects of the committee's workload were so straightforward to navigate, on the characters from Dickens, perhaps on this particular occasion Derek Mackay is Samuel Pickwick, who said to have been benevolence personified, entirely a human, incredible and decent and determined. As far as this bill is concerned, perhaps that is the most appropriate character from Dickens. I better now get on with my contribution. By way of background, following the devolution of certain powers over taxation, there is the result of the Scotland Act in 2012, a predecessor committee scrutinised plans to introduce the land and buildings transaction tax from April 2015. As far as the implementation of LBTT, a number of changes have been made to the act, with perhaps the most significant being the introduction of additional dwelling supplement in April 2016. That meant that individuals or couples purchasing a second residential property would be liable to pay an additional tax charge. Exemptions, yes, were put in place to ensure that such buyers were not inadvertently left out of pocket. For example, by legislating to entitle people to claim a refund where they temporarily own two dwellings while waiting for their original property to be sold. However, it became apparent that the legislation had been drafted too tightly. That had the unintended consequence that couples in certain economic circumstances were treated as a single economic unit when determining whether the supplement should be levied, but not when determining whether it should be reimbursed. I know that this is an issue that has been raised with MSPs across the country. To address this anomaly, the Government laid a statutory instrument that the committee considered and endorsed in June last year. At that time, the cabinet secretary confirmed that it was not possible for the secondary legislation to apply retrospectively, meaning that a small number of couples who had already paid the supplement were unable to claim it back. The cabinet secretary undertook to consider other legislative vehicles to affect this change. The bill that we are debating today is the direct result of that undertaking. Although the committee fully supported the policy intentions of a bill that was understandably narrow in scope, a number of additional issues were raised by stakeholders in written evidence. I will briefly address some of those comments and suggestions. A recurring point was that the data that was provided to Revenue Scotland did not allow it to proactively identify taxpayers eligible to claim reimbursement of the supplement. The cabinet secretary acknowledged this and explained that the legal world would be well aware of the bill and would raise awareness among clients. Although Revenue Scotland would also publish information on its website to raise awareness and explain how to go about submitting a claim, however, the cabinet secretary accepted the fair point that attempts should be made to identify eligible taxpayers. The committee therefore invited Revenue Scotland to consider further steps that it will take to identify such people. I am grateful for its considered response, explaining that, although it is not possible to do so, it intends to use a wide range of communication activity to raise awareness of the change. The committee is also mindful of the potential impact on the overall LBTT tax take of refunds arising from the bill. Although the impact is likely to be relatively small, we have invited the Government to provide updates on the number of repayment claims that are made and the amounts that are repaid. I put in record the committee's appreciation of the constructive engagement that we have had with the cabinet secretary and the officials in supporting our scrutiny of the bill. I welcome the comments that the cabinet secretary made in his opening speech and the contents of his letter on 5 March in response to the committee's stage 1 report, as well as his letter today to the committee on issues of group relief consultation announcement, which I think that we would all welcome. The committee recommends the general principles of the bill to the Parliament. Thank you very much. I now call on Murdo Fraser to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by reminding members of my register of interests and that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Following on from the convener, I fear that we might be in for a contest this afternoon to see who can come up with the Dickens figure who the cabinet secretary most corresponds to. I give you, Presiding Officer, Mr McAlber from David Copperfield, who has described us always in debt yet recklessly cheery and blindly optimistic. Beat that, if you can, colleagues. I, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, very much welcome the introduction at stage 1 of the lands and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount of Scotland's bill. The finance secretary knows that I have constituents who were caught in the very circumstances that the bill attempts to redress. Without giving their names, it might be helpful to the chamber if I narrated the circumstances of that case as an illustration of why this legislation is important. In the case of one of my constituents, we had a young couple who had recently married. They lived in a property that the husband had owned prior to the marriage and therefore was in his sole name. The wife did not own any property herself. In time, they decided to move to a larger property that was purchased in their joint names, as would be the normal practice. The entry date for the new property was a few weeks prior to the entry date for the sale of the existing one, so there was a short overlap—nothing unusual in that—and that led to them paying an additional dwelling supplement on the purchase price. If I recall correctly, the sum involved was in the region of £13,000, which represented a very substantial financial commitment. Nevertheless, they fully expected that the sum would be refunded to them after the sale of the first property in the normal way, as they were only second-home owners on a short-term and inadvertent basis. I am sure that members can imagine their horror when they discovered that Revenue Scotland were claiming that the additional dwelling supplement was not repayable in their case. They had never budgeted for an additional £13,000 and had no idea how they would meet that additional charge. The problem was that, as the cabinet secretary has pointed out, the way that the original legislation was drafted, only the husband was treated as replacing a main residence. Because the wife did not have her name on the title deeds of the original property, she was not treated as replacing a main residence, and therefore on the strict interpretation of the legislation, ADS could not be reclaimed on the sale of the first property by the husband. Now, it is quite clear that this was never the policy intent of the original legislation. ADS was introduced essentially as a revenue-raising measure to produce tax from those buying a second or more properties, either for investment purposes or as a holiday home or other residence. It was never intended to be a tax on those simply replacing their main place of living. Yet, due to what is essentially an error in the way in which the original legislation was drafted, couples such as my constituents were inadvertently caught by it. I drew my constituents' case to the finance secretary's attention, and I am sure that other members did in similar cases. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government acted very swiftly. A statutory instrument was brought in last year to resolve the problem for new purchasers after June 2017. However, primary legislation was required in order to give retrospective effect to those who were caught for the period from the introduction of ADS from 1 April 2016 until the end of June 2017, and hence we have the bill before us. It is a timely and very welcome bill and will be much appreciated by the individuals caught in the situation that I have just outlined. There are two other minor issues that I would like to raise in relation to the bill before us. First, we have to make sure that all those who would benefit from the bill are aware of its passing. This is an issue that I raised with the cabinet secretary when he came to the Finance and Constitution Committee, and indeed the convener has just referred to this in his opening speech. I think that there is a particular case for Revenue Scotland to engage with the Law Society of Scotland, who will be best placed to be aware through their member companies of the cases affected to ensure that everyone is aware that this legislation has been passed and those who need to reclaim ADS are able to do so. The other point relates to separate issues in connection with LBTT, which were raised in evidence to the committee by the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. There are a number of other areas where some adjustments to the LBTT ADS regime would be beneficial, for example in relation to the transfer of investment properties within pension funds or in relation to LBTT group relief, where we are dealing with share pledges. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has published a letter this afternoon indicating that he is prepared to consult on this, and I think that that is something that takes us forward in a very helpful fashion. There has also been a suggestion that an annual finance bill in the Scottish Parliament could be introduced dealing with a minor tidying up of matters such as this, and I think that this is something that the Scottish Government should be considering and would be very welcome. In closing, Presiding Officer, let me just reiterate that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill before us at stage 1 this evening. I hope that it will become law as quickly as possible, and I know that there are constituents of mine who will be very grateful. There have been a number of heated debates and exchanges over the past couple of months, mainly over the budget between myself and Mr Mackay, but let me make clear at the outset on the debate that I fully support the proposals that have been brought forward in relation to land and building transaction tax, and I commend Mr Mackay for his approach in listening to stakeholders and the issue raised by committee members—principally, Murdo Fraser—and bringing forward some corrective action. It is very welcome. Clearly, the purpose of land and building transaction tax is to lewi a tax on those who are purchasing property. In setting up the original legislation, the approach that was taken was to treat couples, those in civil partnerships and those cohabiting as one domestic unit in order to seek to ensure that people weren't participating in tax avoidance. That seemed to be a reasonable approach. However, as other members have outlined, we have gone into a situation in which, if people were seeking to claim relief for additional dwelling supplement, where they had purchased a property and sold a property in the previous 18 months, they were caught in consistent treatment. That was unfair, and it is against the principles of fair taxation. In addition to the changes that were brought forward by the order last year, the bill addresses those caught in the retrospective nature of this prior to May 2017. That seems to be a reasonable approach. I am encouraged by the fact that it has been well supported by stakeholders who engage in the issue, including the law society and those who participate in the relevant forum. In terms of the financial impact, the financial memorandum states that it will have an impact of between £655,000 and £1.55 million. Although that is relatively small, in terms of the overall budget, it will have an impact on the budget, and it will be interesting to understand from the Cabinet Secretary where that will be drawn from. I think that some of the responses that have been made in relation to the consultation on the take-forward of other issues in terms of how we could, as a Parliament, better manage taxation. It is right to look at the fact that, particularly as we now have increased tax powers, we may get more of the technical issues that will come up that require tidying up. The idea of an annual tax bill seems to be a reasonable one to look at, where we can make sure that we tidy up any unintended consequences. That is a necessary measure today. I commend the work that has been done by the Finance, Committee members, witnesses and clerks. I commend the Cabinet Secretary for Appropriate Legislation to correct the loophole and ensure that those who have been caught unfairly by the way in which the original legislation was drafted can now seek appropriate redress. I move to the open debate, and I call Willie Coffey to be filled by Bill Bowman. The title of the bill may well prove to be almost as long as the time taken to consider and approve it the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount to Scotland bill, as the cabinet secretary, convener and members of reminders, seeks to correct an unintended consequence of the original bill when it was introduced. The LBTT tax came in in 2015, replacing stamp duty land tax in Scotland, and it means that a percentage of the value of a house is payable in tax, and that percentage varies depending on the value of the house. The additional dwelling supplement, or ADS, came in in 2016, and its purpose was to charge an additional 3 per cent of the value of the house if it is a second home. The intention was that ADS would apply if one spouse owned an existing home and the other spouse bought a second home, but it was not to apply if the buyer was replacing the original house. The unintended consequence here, of course, was that the ADS was still being charged to certain couples who bought another house replacing the original house, because only one of their names was on the title of the first house. That was not the policy intention behind the ADS tax, and it is greatly important that, as a Parliament, we listen to how the well-meaning action we can take be improved and act accordingly. The bill simply seeks to correct that and allow a retrospective claim to be made for the return of that ADS tax in those cases, so we require a new bill to correct the problem. The financial memorandum accompanying the short bill estimates that there is likely to be an increase of somewhere between 2 per cent and 5 per cent of joint buyers indicating an intention to claim the tax back, provided that they are able to dispose of their original property within 18 months. On average, the value of each ADS transaction is thought to be around £8,000 or so. Overall, the cost is estimated, as James Kelly pointed out just a moment ago, to be somewhere between £600,000 and £1.5 million and, as I understand it, to be met within existing resources. It will not involve a huge impact on the costs in the Scottish budget but a very welcome measure, no doubt, for those people affected by it. On the overall impact of the LBTT tax and its performance, we are seeing that over 90 per cent of home buyers pay less tax or no tax at all compared with the predecessor stamp duty tax. It has helped to keep over 25,000 houses out of tax altogether by setting a threshold of £145,000, which means that there is no charge until that figure is reached. We ought to welcome the progress that is made through the LBTT as it involves home buyers paying a fairer amount of tax and gives them a helping hand in saving money in this regard. At the upper end of the market, data from Revenue Scotland tells us that house sales are continuing to rise annually by about 18 per cent. The Scottish Government is committed to monitoring the performance of the tax across all the bans. I note from the cabinet secretary's announcement that the Government intends to consult on group relief, an issue that was raised by quite a number of the stakeholders involved. In summary, the bill is a welcome correction to an unforeseen effect that unintentionally but unfairly taxed some house purchases, and I am pleased to support the motion from the Scottish Government to address that and allow those house buyers to reclaim the tax that they paid and the purchase of their house. Thank you very much. I call Bill Bowman to be followed by Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interests with respect to my membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. I will warn also that there will be some repetition of what others have said in my speech. I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the bill forward. It is both welcome and necessary. It was an anomaly in the additional dwelling supplement that saw it chargeable when spouses, civil partners and cohabitants jointly replaced a home owned by just one of them. It is right now that we apply last year's action to end that anomaly retroactively. I also want to echo Murdo Fraser's point regarding advertising this change. I appreciate that Revenue Scotland cannot identify those affected and will advertise the change on their website as discussed. That does not seem wholly sufficient, no, and I wonder if at some point the cabinet secretary can clarify whether any third parties such as professional bodies or estate agencies have been contacted about notifying the public more of this change. As welcome as this latest fix is, it only scratches the surface. The Law Society of Scotland have highlighted several additional anomalies with ADS in their submission to the finance committee. One of those additional anomalies regards couples who are separating. When one partner goes on to buy a new home, relief is not available. Equally, there is no relief for couples who were not previously living together prior to purchasing a joint property. Now, neither situation seems fair and those caught up in such cases might feel they are being penalised for circumstances that may be outside their control. Neither is it fair that the SNP's land and buildings transaction tax contains no dependent dwelling exemption, as stamp duty land tax does for buyers in the rest of the UK. It is more than reasonable to consider that purchasing a property with another connected to it should be considered as an overall single transaction rather than as a purchase of an additional residence. However, we should not address those issues in isolation. The bill is welcome, but it is narrow and cumbersome, representing a lot of time and effort in ending one relatively small but significant anomaly in a specific aspect of one particular tax. A case of deficient SNP legislation leading to a deficient fix leading to yet another fix, a new approach is needed. Perhaps the cabinet secretary alluded to that in his speech. Is it not fair to reflect that Parliament is a whole past this legislation, and the right thing for government to do is engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders in where possible to remedy any issues that require to be remedied? To take any other course of action would have meant that there was not recourse and a satisfactory resolution for those that have been caught up by this, which is not necessarily a matter of parliamentary fault, arguably legal interpretation or enforcement, whatever it happens to be, surely Parliament is doing the right thing this afternoon. Thank you for that intervention. Parliament is doing the right thing, but it is a method of dealing with doing the right thing that I am going to come on to here and ask about. Revenue Scotland could play a more prominent role in raising administrative policy changes, mirroring the relationship between HM Treasury and HMRC. As mentioned, the establishment of an annual finance bill would allow this Parliament a formal opportunity to review and revise tax policy, a position backed by respected bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Scottish Property Federation and the Law Society of Scotland. Surely the finance secretary would prefer his legacy to be that of reforming finance secretary when the time comes for a legacy. The very issue that we debate today demonstrates the need for a formalised review process. As the Scottish Property Federation noted, there was a very little opportunity for detailed scrutiny of additional darling supplement legislation. Perhaps a timely reminder for the SNP of the dangers of rushing legislation through this Parliament only for it to come back and hit them later. An annual finance bill would signal that this Parliament is serious about using its evolving tax powers in a considered and fair manner. The Parliament is maturing, its approach to tax policy must mature too, so let me finish to say that when we take decisions on how much of people's hard-earned money to collect from them and how to spend it for them also, they must have confidence in our decisions. The public, we serve, deserve no less, thank you. I wish to record my support for this bill and I will repeat what Bill Bowman said about repeating others and the likelihood of that in my speech as well. The cabinet secretary and others have set out the details of what the bill will achieve. It is, of course, unusual to introduce and pass its respective legislation, but in this case it is absolutely the right thing to do. It corrects an anomaly and an unintended unfairness introduced by the Land and Building Transaction Tax Act 2020. At the time, the intention of the Scottish Government was clear that it wanted to levy an additional tax on those who purchased a property in Scotland and who already owned another property. Rightly, the Scottish Government recognised that, often in the purchase of a property, a situation can arise where an individual or a couple for a short period become owners of two properties. That is why, as has been said, a period of grace of up to 18 months was introduced, whereby if the person, a couple purchasing a second property, then disposed of their first property, they were able to reclaim the additional amount of LBTT that had been paid. However, it has become clear, as has been said, that in trying to ensure that married couples, civil partners and cohabitants do not move property between individuals for tax-avoidant purposes, the anomaly or unintended consequence to which I previously referred has been created. The Parliament has legislated for a situation in which spouses, civil partners and cohabitants are liable, as would a single purchaser be for the additional taxation when jointly buying a home to replace a home that was owned by only one of them. As has been said by members, they were subject to the additional dwelling supplement, if only one name was listed on the deeds. Unlike a single person or a couple who were both listed as owners of the original property, those who were not listed as owners of the original property but were listed as joint owners of the new property, not only became liable for the additional tax but, unfairly, cannot reclaim that tax if the original property is disposed of within 18 months. It is only fair to not just address that anomaly but for all future purchases but to compensate those who have been unfairly charged since the ADS was introduced. Everyone accepts that the easiest way to address such anomalies is by the use of secondary legislation. Unfortunately, retrospective legislation cannot be affected by secondary legislation unless there is a specific express power, which in this case does not exist. Hence the bill, which has cross-party support and the support of key stakeholders. While I support this bill, I also want to highlight some of the wider concerns that are addressed to the committee by those key stakeholders. As we have heard, the Law Society of Scotland has highlighted this bill and will not address other changes to LBTT, which they believe are urgently required. I accept that there is no opportunity to do this here but I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on what the Law Society has said and that he will come back to Parliament with suggestions about how that can be looked at in the future. I referred earlier to anomalies and unintended consequences. It is therefore worth reflecting also on another relevant issue raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Law Society, the Scottish Property Federation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland, that there should be a way of addressing technical issues that occur in our new devolved tax system. As James Kelly and others have said, the idea of an annual Scottish finance or tax bill is a good one. Again, I would ask the cabinet secretary for commitment that the Scottish Government will fully consider that. If the Parliament decides that retrospective legislation is needed to address the anomaly, it would be pointless if the intended beneficiaries of that legislative change are unaware of the entitlement to claim a refund and accept arguments against engaging an expensive publicity exercise on that. However, I hope that Revenue Scotland can bring forward detailed proposals about how those affected will be identified and notified, as has been said as well. The legal world and the Law Society have an important role to play here. Two of those involved will inevitably have instructed a solicitor. I suggest that the Law Society be encouraged to encourage its members to identify clients through fit their relevant profile in the identified time period and to contact those clients to make them aware that there has been a change that could bring benefit to them. While that is an unusual bill, it proposes to have retrospective impact that is straightforward, has unanimous support and will address a small but significant unfairness, and therefore support the committee's recommendations that the Scottish Governments will not be supported. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I start, I would like to draw members to my register of interests with respect to rental of property. I will keep it very short and give you some time back at the risk of repeating what everyone has said up to now and what has been an extremely consensual debate. It makes a welcome change, a bit of a respite, from the usual debates in this place involving matters financial and constitutional that are more akin to multidimensional trench warfare. It is nice this afternoon to get what is the equivalent of, perhaps, a bit of a break to go and play football in the snow before hostilities resume again tomorrow with the debate and the committee on the continuity bill. I turn to the bill itself. Obviously, it tidies up in anomaly with respect to retrospective relief. The original legislation about additional dwelling supplement provided that couples would be treated as one economic unit to avoid the potential for tax avoidance with individuals moving property between themselves. It clearly did that, but it created a specific anomaly whereby if the old property was in the name of one of the individuals and the new property was in both names, it fell liable for the tax. Effectively, treating them as one economic unit where ADS was payable but not when the ADS was being repaid. It is welcome to see that the Government has listened to the concerns that have been raised in the cabinet secretary's bill to address that anomaly. The total tax reclaim, which has been mentioned by Mr Kelly, comes to somewhere. Estimates vary between £650,000 and £1.5 million approximately, which clearly is not a significant number in the scope of the Government's finances. However, as Mr Fraser mentioned, if individuals are concerned, that could be a significant amount of money, and they will be very glad to see that coming back to them. Clearly, other issues have been raised through the scope of the consideration of the bill. As has been mentioned, it is good to see that group relief is having consideration by the cabinet secretary with the opening of a consultation on that matter, and other anomalies raised by the Law Society will hopefully get some review as well. Bruce Crawford I wonder whether the member agrees with me in regard to an annual finance or tax bill that perhaps Bill Bowman should go off and read the budget process review group, which covered the area quite extensively. In fact, it was recommended to the Government that it examined, indeed, the finance bill, and it brings forward any recommendation by the end of the current session. Indeed, the cabinet secretary responded quite positively to that suggestion. Ivan McKee That was exactly the next point on my list of points here. I think that the finance bill would be something that would be very welcome to be considered, and let's see if that is something that is possible. It is a shame that Mr Bowman did not get the memo about the suspension of hostilities with his remarks earlier. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is great to see the Government listen to this issue, to take it on board and to bring forward the required changes to make that effective. The committee, the Finance and Constitution Committee and its entirety welcomes the bill. There is consensual support for it, and I am glad to see the bill passed in due course. James Kelly Bill Bowman and Neil Bibby both commented that Ivan McKee was concerned that they might be repeating some of the points that others have made. I feel about sympathy for those of us who have not spoken twice in this debate. It is a real danger that we could be appearing on UK Goldstone. Obviously, there has been a strong element of consensus in this debate, which is right, because the anomaly in the original legislation is being corrected by the legislation that has been brought forward by the cabinet secretary and those who have been unfairly affected. That goes through. We will be able to claim appropriate retrospective relief. In terms of some of the issues that have come up, people have raised the issues brought up in other responses from the law society and other organisations. I am looking to try and extend out the areas that are covered by the legislation in terms of group relief. Bill Bowman gave the example of couples that have been separated. That should be looked at seriously. However, I would give an element of caution. Ultimately, this is a tax-raising measure, and taxes have to be raised fairly. If there are unfairnesses in the system, I expect those to be ironed out. However, we do not want to get into a situation in which we build on so many exemptions that we lose the effectiveness of the tax-raising measure, which is ultimately to contribute towards the budget that everyone feels so strongly about no matter what their point of view on it is. In terms of the awareness campaign, that is something that Murdo Fraser raised at the committee. I appreciate that it is potentially difficult, because looking at the analysis, it potentially only affects between 76 and 189 people. It is quite a small number, so I can understand the caution from the cabinet secretary in terms of Revenue Scotland or anyone else launching a major advertising campaign. I suppose what needs to be done is some innovation there, in that a lot of these bodies will know the particular individuals who may be affected by this and can communicate to them. I think also social media could be used quite skillfully. Those of us who use it as part of our political campaigning are well aware that if you look at Facebook, you can put a small money behind Facebook advertising and that can reach a wide audience. That might potentially be something for Revenue Scotland to look at. The other main point that came out at the debate that I raised in my original contribution, Neil Bibby, underlined that it was perhaps a need for an annual finance bill to deal with technical tax changes. I think that that makes good sense. Overall, it has been a consensual end to the afternoon, if it was not a consensual start to the afternoon. Certainly, from those benches, we support the Government's approach in that. Thank you very much. I call Alexander Burnett to wind up for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would firstly like to extend my thanks to my fellow committee members for the constructive conversations that we have had on the bill and look forward to continuing our work with them as we scrutinise this piece of legislation. In addition, I would like to echo the thanks of our convener. We have been extended to our clerks and to those who have submitted evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee. Before I continue, I would like to note members to my register of interests, particularly the businesses that I own, which deal with the purchasing and leasing of residential properties and businesses and are impacted by LBTT. Turning to the bill itself, the Scottish Conservatives agree with and welcome its introduction at stage 1. As many have pointed out today, the need for this bill is that it is the consequence and another example of an SNP Government pushing through bad legislation, requiring further legislation to correct. The irony of that, as we argue over the timings proposed by the SNP for the continuity bill, makes it particularly topical. It would appear from evidence taken that this will not be the last piece of correcting legislation that is required. As my colleague Murdo Fraser noted, this legislation is required to correct the injustice brought on many constituents who are simply starting a home together. As has been pointed out, many experts noted during discussions over previous legislation that they had grave concerns over the impact of a bill on the housing market and other potential consequences. Those concerns have been borne out by facts. The estate agent Aberdeen Considine's own analysis last December, which showed that selling prices in Glasgow's east end had risen by 20 per cent in the last quarter. As the times reported just last Friday, it has led to first-time buyers without the extra capital being consistently outbid by buy-to-let investors from China and the Middle East. Whilst not wanting to deter international investment, legislation brought in by this Scottish Government should not be to the detriment of its own residents looking to make a life and home of their own. However, the bill also brings forward the opportunity to consider the wider issues that we face with LBTT. The Law Society noted that there will continue to be regular issues that arise in relation to the implementation of devolved taxes and that they would encourage Revenue Scotland and the Scottish Government to work together in a policy partnership to ensure that the Scottish tax system is responsive and fit for purpose as it develops. It is stated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland that there is a good case to be made for care and maintenance measures in the existing tax law, so that if stakeholders find parts of the legislation that do not work is intended, there is an opportunity to revisit the law without the need for primary legislation. I note and welcome the cabinet secretary's letter to the committee shortly before the debate, introducing a consultation on group reliefs and hope that he will continue to be as receptive to other issues. In conclusion, we have a duty to pass bills here but work effectively and benefit our constituents to the maximum effect, the first time round. Whilst we support the consensus in passing this bill to the next stage, I would ask the cabinet secretary to cover in his closing remarks what his response is to the further amendments to the land and buildings transaction tax legislation that the law society and others have raised. I call on the cabinet secretary of finance to conclude the debate. Thank you very much. I will do so briefly by answering a number of points that have been raised. In terms of finance, I imagine within all the devolved taxes that the scale of the financial issue here is not of a scale that would give me any cause for concern, but, although Revenue Scotland cannot proactively pursue those who they think might be eligible for that refund, in a sense, the raising awareness of the issue and the solicitors and others, they can proactively go back to their clients and hopefully will provide redress to people. I suppose that Murdo Fraser, like many MSPs, will enjoy writing a letter to constituents to say, see that £13,000 bill that you were taxed with? Well, because of the consensus in Parliament, you are now no longer liable for that and can reclaim that back. What a dream for a Tory to write such a letter, but in fact any member who has had such a case raised can write back in those terms, so MSPs have a responsibility as well. In all seriousness, I appreciate the tone of the debate, the constructive suggestions and supporting the action that will be taken to ensure that we can address that issue. Having addressed it through the order, we can also address it retrospectively as well. I do not often hear the words from James Kelly that I commend Derek Mackay, but I liked it and hope that we can hear more of that in future. On that note, more than just this issue, if there is indeed parliamentary consensus that what we require is an annual finance bill to address some of the month-to-month, year-to-year finance issues, I think that that will be welcome. However, the finance committee convener is absolutely right. Bruce Crawford was absolutely right, but it was a recommendation coming from the budget process review group and something that I certainly welcome. However, it is a further welcome that parties across the chamber agreed on that point, including the mild-mannered Bill Bowman. In reference to some of the specific issues raised around why it does not capture every issue that is raised through the consultation, we also want to be very careful around tax avoidance and some deliberate behaviours to avoid paying tax. In whatever we do, yes, we engage, yes, we consult, but there was a clear reason to proceed with this bill and this very focused piece of legislation to address that anomaly. I think that the Parliament gave it due attention at the time, but sometimes there will be unforeseen consequences from legislation and its interpretation and enactment, and Parliament, of course, should have the right to return to that and address that. Also, all-position parties being mature enough to welcome the remedies when they have been found and found so swiftly and in a fashion of consensus and constructive approach. Again, from the committee, from stakeholders, I appreciate the response on this. Of course, we will return to the other matters that have been raised through the course of the consultation. The financial consequences have been set out. The number of people affected is quite small but significant for those people, and that is why we remedy that today. I look forward to doing so in just a few seconds' time. This is only stage 1. I look forward to the further stages of this debate and the recommendation of cross-party appeal to have yet another finance debate in the Scottish Parliament following on from the budget debates that we have had over the course of the past few months, but I am happy to move the bill this afternoon. That concludes our stage 1 debate. The next item of business is consideration of motion 10654, in the name of the cabinet secretary, on a financial resolution for the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount to Scotland Bill. I call on Derek Mackay to move that motion. The next item is consideration of business motion 10843, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau setting out a revised business programme. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 10843. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 10844, on stage 2 proceedings on the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland Bill. I ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau to move the motion. We come now to decision time. The first question is that motion 10794, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the local government finance Scotland order 2018, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 10794, in the name of Derek Mackay, is yes, 93, no, 23. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 10795, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the land and buildings transaction tax relief from additional amount Scotland bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next question is that motion 10654, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution for the LBTT relief from additional amount Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 10844, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on stage 2 of the UK withdrawal from the European Union legal continuity Scotland bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move to members' business, in the name of Mary Gougeon, on the leader programme. We will just take a few moments from members and ministers to change their seats.