Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have the floor.

I will press the amendment.

On amendment 51, I was particularly keen on the aspect of monitoring or assessing impact across different local authority areas. I do not yet have clarity on whether the Government’s intent is to produce almost a single national figure, or whether there will be detail on the differential impact in relation to viability in different parts of the country. That was a key feature of the evidence that the committee received, with concerns raised about whether different parts of the country will be rendered non-viable for house building. I believe that the committee would be keen to see the sensitivity analysis addressing that issue.

Can we have assurances from the minister that there will not just be one top-end figure for the whole country, and that we will get detail about what the impact will be in different parts of Scotland?

Would the member recognise that the figure for revenue is an arbitrary figure that the Government has arrived at of its own making? It is not related to the challenges in the cladding sector as a whole. We have seen no evidence that there is a relationship with what is required. We know that a big amount of money is required over time, but the figure of £30 million is an arbitrary one.

Given that my comments will be the first at stage 2, I will set out a little bit of the context for the bill.

We had a considered debate at stage 1, and I take on board some of the comments that the minister made at that point. Scotland has been in the grip of a housing emergency for years, and even the Scottish National Party Government acknowledged that, back in May 2024. However, although almost two years have passed since then, little has changed. House building figures from December 2025 showed that the numbers of new-build starts and completions are both falling. Social sector starts have hit their lowest point since records began in 1997, and affordable housing completions are down 23 per cent.

All of that has real consequences. Statistics that were published just last week show that the number of children living in temporary accommodation is at a record high of 10,480 for the period reported. The number of open homelessness applications is also at a record high, and rough sleeping is at its worst point in two decades. That is the context in which the Government has introduced the bill, and we should all recognise that.

In its evidence sessions on the bill, the committee heard repeatedly about the potential for the levy to damage what is an already precarious house-building sector in Scotland. The possible introduction of the levy with unknown rates and at an unknown date is destabilising for a market that needs certainty to plan and make decisions for the long term.

I take John Mason’s point. What I am exploring, and want the minister to respond on, is the general defence of the approach that he has taken. It is not for me to defend why the Government has taken that approach. I do not necessarily think that it follows that, because this happened in England, it has to happen in Scotland. I do not agree with the member on that. Our very different housing market and circumstances have formed the basis of much of the approach of the committee and the evidence that it took. I would like to hear the minister defend in some detail the approach that might be taken.

John Mason is right in that there is a significant challenge to be faced when it comes to raising finance to deal with cladding remediation. However, my view is that that is not the limiting factor of the rate of delivery of cladding remediation in Scotland. Certainly, at the moment, there is money in the bank that came through Barnett consequentials but has not been spent. The question is whether substantive issues are preventing the Government from dealing with the situation.

The possible introduction of a levy with unknown rates and at an unknown date is deeply destabilising for a market that needs certainty in order to plan and make decisions for the long term. Across the sector, house builders are making decisions about where to build and how much to build, and they cannot do that with the uncertainty of a levy hanging over them. My amendment 16 seeks to give some certainty to the sector so that it can get on and build now. It would give a firm guarantee that any construction or conversion work that was begun before 1 April 2028 would not be subject to the levy. That would mean that more homes would be built now, rather than house builders choosing to sit it out for two years and waiting to see what a future Government might or might not do. It would be particularly good to get the minister’s reflections on how he sees that dynamic impacting the sector.

At his appearance before the committee on 18 November 2025, the minister stated:

“the commencement date for the levy will be deferred by one year, to April 2028.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 November 2025; c 42.]

Amendment 16 would keep the Government to that commitment. Clearly, Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 19 has a similar intention, so I will be interested to hear the debate and the Government’s response.

I move amendment 16.

Perhaps the position was accepted in tone rather than in words, minister, but I will correct myself in that regard.

This is an approach that the Government has developed. One of the committee’s concerns has been about the entirely arbitrary nature of the £30 million figure; it is a target that the Government has set itself, and many of the amendments that we are discussing in this group are trying to deal with what Michelle Thomson has described as hitting some fantasy target.

I think that the minister has put on the record that he does not intend to support the amendments.

Amendments 23 and 24 would require ministers to complete the sensitivity assessment and then publish indicative rates—in that order—before regulations that set the rates come into force. The amendments would also ensure that the Government keeps the minister’s commitment to bring into force regulations that set the rates at least 22 months after the indicative rates are published.

This morning, colleagues have covered a fair bit of ground in relation to our recommendation on the sensitivity analysis. I understand Michelle Thomson’s decision to withdraw her amendment 51 and her intention for doing so, given the assurances from the minister. I am a little concerned about some of the minister’s language around possibilities in the sensitivity analysis. We, as a committee, want that to be as strong as possible. Our recommendation was informed by a significant body of evidence that came from the sector, which cited serious concerns about the potential impact of the levy on house building, given the years-long grip of the housing emergency.

The detail of the impact on different geographical areas is critical. The issue came up when John Mason raised the situation in Edinburgh, the country’s economic hotspot. Differential impacts would result from a national rate.

To be fair, cabinet secretary—