Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I will take Michelle Thomson’s intervention, too.

I thank the minister and Ms Thomson for those comments. I am glad that the Government accepts the principle, and that it seems to accept that there is a risk to a fundamental part of our housing system. I am not wedded to any particular mechanism, whether it be an exemption, a relief or even a potential reimbursement, because it would be relatively simple to document this sort of thing as a house went through the legal completion process. I look forward to discussing with the minister between now and stage 3 whether there is a way to protect this crucial part of the housing market.

My amendments 49 and 60 would require the Government to carry out and publish a series of assessments of the effect of the levy on the housing emergency and on housing supply before implementation. As recent Government stats show, there is a hugely concerning 8 per cent drop in all sector new build completions and a 5 per cent fall in starts. Although I believe that we should achieve viable funds for the implementation of cladding remediation, I do not think that we can lose sight of the impact on the housing industry and the housing market, particularly in the context of the housing emergency and how we can build a way out of that.

Yes. We agreed the legal definition in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, which was recently passed by Parliament, so the amendment relies on existing legislation.

My concern about the impact on the housing market and how we work through the housing emergency could be alleviated if the Government were required to carry out and publish such assessments. That is why the amendment calls for reviews of the effect of the legislation to be carried out in relation to the impact on the housing emergency and, critically, on private capital investment in new-build residential development. It is crucial that those assessments are linked to the housing emergency declared by the Scottish Government and with the definition in legislation that was recently passed by Parliament.

Further, amendments 60, 61, 63 and 64 propose that all required reports and assessments under the legislation must evaluate the levy against an all-tenure housing target, with delivery measured through completion events under building standards. The intention is to hardwire housing supply outcomes into levy governance, so that the policy is assessed not only on revenue raised but on whether the levy risks undermining housing delivery at a time when Scotland is facing a housing emergency, with fragile development viability and falling investment confidence.

I hope that the Government accepts the need to balance the levy’s impact with the impact on the housing market and will consider the amendments favourably.

My amendment 49 in this group, and my amendments in later groups, seek to address concerns that the committee raised in its stage 1 report and which were raised in the chamber during the stage 1 debate.

The context of the introduction of this bill is the Government’s declaration of a housing emergency, and its impact on our constituents with regard to the homelessness figures, the number of kids in temporary accommodation, open homeless cases and the perilous state of the housing market, given the current number of starts and completions.

Amendment 49 is an attempt to address a crucial, and key, part of the drivers of support for the house building industry—first-time buyers. I am concerned that the levy could have a disproportionate effect on entry-level housing that young people are increasingly reliant on, particularly in rural areas. The latest figures from Lloyds show that the average age of a first-time buyer is now 31, and the impact that that has on our economy, our population and generally—

The Government policy is that there should be a 10 per cent yearly increase in house building. Given the very low base that we are at, that is a modest target. If the Government were committed to hitting it, it, it would accept hardwiring it into legislation.

The minister should be reassured that Labour MSPs will vote and act in line with the desires of their constituents and what best suits the people of Scotland. He may have taken the route of least resistance in the development of the bill by copying existing legislation from elsewhere, but I do not think that that is an appropriate route to take. Scotland has a different and a distinct housing market and we should take the opportunity to reflect that in the bill, as amendments in this group would do.

The Scottish Government has now lodged an amendment to extend the levy’s lifespan to 15 years, with the possibility of a further extension to that period. I am concerned that, contrary to the findings of the consultation and the recommendations of the committee, the Government’s amendment would give it the power to ensure that the collection of the levy can continue long after its stated purpose of providing funds for remediating buildings has been fulfilled. That would be contrary to the purpose of the legislation and damaging to the housing sector’s confidence in being able to increase the supply of new homes.

I worked with the Scottish Property Federation in developing amendment 65 and I agree with its concerns about the levy going beyond the initial 10-year framework. That extension will leave the industry with a distinct fear of mission creep, a point that was touched on earlier in relation to the purpose of the levy.

I add my support to the amendments in the name of Craig Hoy and Liz Smith that attempt to limit the scope of the levy. There are concerns that the bill will leave open the possibility that the levy will remain in place in perpetuity as a source of revenue for the Government, rather than following its stated purpose, for remediating buildings that have dangerous cladding.

Okay. Thanks for that.

Good morning. What is the Government’s thinking on those councils that, using the 2024 act, have done the consultation and are now going through the 18-month wait period? Is the Government giving any consideration to waiving the consultation requirement or shortening that 18-month period for councils that decide to move away from a percentage-rate approach and use any new powers that might be available to go for a flat rate?