Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member give way?

Although a 15-year period would be more appropriate than a 10-year period, and I will not vote against having a 15-year sunset clause, my personal view is that, in general, sunset clauses are better placed in legislation that is intended to be very short term, such as emergency legislation. Sunset clauses have become a more regular feature of legislation in recent years, but they are more appropriate for shorter-term questions.

When we are talking about a date that is three parliamentary sessions into the future, rather than set a sunset clause, we simply ought to leave it to a future Parliament and Government to decide whether they want to repeal the legislation in the normal way. However, the balance of views is clearly in favour of some kind of sunset clause, and so a 15-year period would be more appropriate than a 10-year period.

Speak for yourself.

13:15

On that last point about VAT, I want to reassure Professor Heald that some members of the Smith commission were equally sceptical about that proposal at the time, despite the conclusions of the report as a whole.

We have talked a little bit about taxes at local level, but I wonder whether we can expand the discussion from the tax side of things to look at the finances of the local versus the national public sector in Scotland. We have collectively failed to reform the major local taxes, as has been mentioned, and we have also put more responsibilities on to local government, often for very good reasons. However, that has been incremental over time.

We have moved forward with the integration of health and social care, which makes absolutely sound sense in theory but has not been unproblematic, to say the least, in its implementation. There is also a lot of discussion going on at Scottish Government level—or at Scottish budget level—about whether the Scottish Government’s finances are sustainable, at a time when at least some local authorities are, I think, much closer to a crisis point than the national Government is.

Have we ended up with a fragmented landscape across the public sector more generally that makes it impossible, or very difficult, to undertake coherent scrutiny of the Scottish public finances, as opposed to the Scottish Government’s finances? If so, what should we do about it?

It is not unusual for amendments to various bills at committee stage to aim to improve or strengthen the scrutiny process. If that is done in a proportionate way, that is fine. On the Government amendments in the group, I have no particular objection to specifying that the building industry needs to be consulted, although I am certain that that would have happened anyway, even if it was not specified in the bill. I cannot imagine that any Government—today’s one or any future one—would conduct a consultation on such an issue that did not include the building industry, but I have no objection to specifying that.

However, on amendment 46, I point out the extraordinary scale of scrutiny that Liz Smith proposes. As I read the amendment, it seems that the provisions would apply even to regulations that modify the methodology for calculating floor space. A length of parliamentary scrutiny is being proposed that is comparable to that for documents such as the national planning framework and the climate change plan, which are major documents that set out the broad swathe of Government policy over the long term.

If I remember rightly, when the original legislation on both those documents was proposed there was a 60-day parliamentary scrutiny process, which was subsequently increased to 120 days. A period of 90 days would be firmly in that ballpark, for what are pretty minor tweaks to the detail of the operation of a single levy.

As was the previous group on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, this is familiar territory. Many of our debates on bills involve discussions on how to improve assessments, reports or reviews of the legislation that we pass. However, when we take such action, we should ensure that it is clear, objective and deliverable, and that it will not unintentionally prevent the Government from exercising the functions that we are legislating to give it.

Some amendments in the group require assessments that are not only highly detailed but, by definition, subjective. Let us be honest: if we pass the bill and create the levy, there will always be disagreement between the Government and industry about the rate that should be set, and the industry will always make an effort to lobby for a lower rate and produce evidence to back up that view. The idea that a single objective assessment will answer the question about what the impacts will be is unrealistic; there will always be that difference of views, and the amendments in the group treat as objective something that will always be subjective.

Mark Griffin said that he wants to hardwire housing delivery outcomes. Probably most of us would agree that it would be great if we could do that. However, although a target in Government policy is always helpful in focusing minds and actions, there will always be factors that are outwith Government control. We have just come through a period of pandemic, Brexit, economic changes as a result of energy prices and a host of other factors that will always have an impact on something such as housing delivery. It is therefore not realistic to think that any legislation that we pass in the Parliament can hardwire outcomes in the way that Mark Griffin has suggested.

There is clearly room for a legitimate debate involving differences of opinion on the desirability of the growth of build to rent or PBSA, but does Michelle Thomson acknowledge that it is a matter of fact that, rather than small businesses and small developments, we are talking about large businesses that extract significant profit from the housing system?

I will follow up on some of the points regarding the national performance companies that were raised already. I do not think that there is any need for defensiveness on the issue. I think that everybody who is taking it seriously recognises that the £100 million was never going to be delivered in a single tranche and that, even for a portfolio with a rising budget, the demands rise every bit as quickly such that there are more ways in which that budget could be used than the money that is available. There will always to be pressures, even with a rising budget.

To me, the big issue is the lack of clarity about the trajectory for the future. I would love to see a funding increase for the companies in the current year, but, even if that is not possible, my understanding is that greater clarity about what is coming in the years ahead will help to avoid them being forced into some very damaging decisions. I put that argument to you in the chamber when I asked whether you would

“offer some concrete clarity about the funding trajectory”

and you said:

“I can give Mr Harvie that assurance. Those conversations have already been had with the national performing companies … I agree that they would wish to have as much clarity about that as possible, and that is what I want to give them.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2026; c 12.]

Last week, we heard recognition of that discussion from Steven Roth when he said:

“I am glad that”

Mr Harvie

“received that assurance from the cabinet secretary, because it gives us a bit of assurance, too.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe and External Affairs Committee, 29 January 2026; c 38.]

Therefore, I ask you specifically what assurance have you been able to give to the NPCs about what they will receive in the coming years? If the current Government is returned and continues with the funding trajectory that is set out in the spending review, what level of increase can they expect? How can they build that into their financial plans for the year ahead?

I am sure that you will keep the committee updated on the results of that work or on the progress in making something like that happen.

Finally, I want to ask for an assurance that, at your meeting with the board to discuss the situation, you will raise the possibility of the staff who have just lost their jobs being directly involved in the discussion and of your being able to contact them to at least explore the possibility that they could have a role in whatever comes next.

Thank you.