Seòmar agus comataidhean

The minister says that the proposed sunset clauses in amendments 15 and 47 are broadly similar. However, if we look in detail at the minister’s sunset clause, we find that the sun may never set, subject to regulations, so the levy could become part and parcel of the taxation framework. That concerns the industry, and the committee was clear that there should be a sunset clause with a legal backstop.

The financial memorandum for the bill that became the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 says that the anticipated expenditure on cladding remediation would be for a period of five to 10 years. Therefore, a sunset clause at 15 years, as proposed by the Government, with no legal backstop, is probably not in the spirit of the original legislation. For the industry to have confidence that the levy will not simply become another aspect of the business operating environment, it is important that there is a clear sunset clause in the bill, and 10 years is a reasonable time span.

Under my amendment 47, it would be possible, with good cause, and subject to parliamentary consent under the affirmative procedure, for that to be extended to 15 years. I believe that my amendment would give clarity and certainty to the industry. Any extension to the lifespan should take place only if there is a clear case and that clear case is put to Parliament, rather than have the levy continuing by default, which is in effect what a 15-year period would mean, given that the general consensus seems to be that the period should be 10 years.

In relation to amendment 45 and making the extension of the life of the act subject to the affirmative procedure, I note that that is similar to the minister’s amendment 14. However, having come relatively late to that particular amendment, I am minded to press amendment 45 as well, just to ensure that there is absolute clarity that it will have the same effect as the minister’s amendment 14. I will do that, unless the minister can say whether he has identified any difference between the application of my amendment 45 and his amendment 14.

If we are seeking to prevent future scandals of this nature, does the minister not accept that, in saying to the developers that this fund could be drawn on for the next 20 to 30 years—possibly in perpetuity—and that its scope could be wider, he is effectively giving them licence to misbehave in future? If he says, “This is for a specific purpose and for a specific period”, rogue operators will not be able to build something that might come to light in 10 or 15 years’ time as the cladding scandal mark 2. Indeed, being very specific might send a positive signal to the industry.

I think that I know what the answer to this question will be, but it will be useful to get it on the record. It might be one for you, Mr Boyle. What should be the committee’s view of the Scottish Government repeatedly using one-off revenues to fund long-term commitments? You referred to the spending review. Recently, when we put to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government the alternative set of figures for real-terms cuts to local government budgets in the years ahead, she said that something will turn up and that no Government ever sticks to a spending review. How do we get a Scottish Government to understand that the principle of budgeting by assuming that something will turn up is neither sensible nor sustainable?

The point is that the cladding remediation programme in the rest of the UK is significantly further along, so it has presumably been chewing through those initial funds—probably at a higher run rate than we have in Scotland.

It is regrettable that the minister is not minded to support my amendments 21 and 42, because they would provide an essential exemption for housing in rural areas. Evidence was repeatedly put to the committee at stage 1 that development viability in many rural communities is finely balanced. That reflects higher build costs, infrastructure constraints, smaller scale delivery models and weaker market values, which makes housing in those areas less attractive to many developers, whether large or small.

The evidence of that clearly highlights the national housing emergency: an accumulated shortfall of 110,000 homes since 2008 and 700,000 households living in some form of housing need. More recent figures show falling delivery—new‑build completions are down year on year and housing starts are beginning to decline. The problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where even marginal additional costs relative to the total build can be enough to prevent rural schemes from progressing at all.

Would Patrick Harvie accept this point? Property development is a very specific process. If a developer can prove that they will not embark on a development because of the levy, it is surely better if the levy is reduced and the Scottish Government gets the receipts that come from other routes—as we have identified—as well as a portion of the levy, rather than not getting it at all. If a developer can show Revenue Scotland that a development will not proceed because it would not be viable, it is surely better to take a reduced levy.

Dr Sousa has, to some extent, elaborated on the point that I was going to make.

Dr Bell, social security is associated with the term “demand led”. Given the concerns of this committee, the Auditor General and others about the sustainability of a demand-led social security model, what is the alternative? Presumably, the only alternative, unless we consider cutting other areas, is to start to ration welfare.

09:15

Good morning. I want to go back to the question of transparency and in-year transfers. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the key figures have been, in its words, buried “in an annex”, and this is resulting in “a recipe for confusion”. I also note that, because the Scottish Fiscal Commission has gone through the process of properly baselining all routine in-year transfers, it has described its account as “a more accurate picture”.

The convener mentioned the £606 million that has not been baselined in that way. Why is the Scottish Government so resistant to putting in the budget the sort of very clear picture that the SFC has now put together? Are we not left to conclude that this is a deliberate ploy by the Scottish National Party Government to artificially inflate some budgets and hide cuts in others?

But there is confusion now in local government, and it is causing real problems for councils across Scotland. They were told that in the budget they would get year-on-year real-terms increases, but the councils that I am speaking to are looking at quite considerable above-inflation council tax increases, because they do not believe that they will get the levels of funding that you say they will. That is the impact of the confusion that you are sowing.

History does not always foretell the future. You are saying that, in the run-up to the election, a UK Labour Government will find more money and spend more, which you will benefit from. Is that not a wing-and-a-prayer approach to long-term spending planning?

09:30

Analysts are projecting that there is a significant chance that the next Government might need some kind of emergency budget in 2026-27. Are you busy writing a “there is no money left” letter for your successor?