Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendment was drawn up in consultation with the sector, because it feels that, as things stand, we do not have sufficient data to ensure adequate scrutiny of the likely behavioural changes in the marketplace. In several other aspects of Parliamentary processes, we have not had—in my view, anyway—sufficient use of the super-affirmative procedure to check that there has been adequate consultation with relevant stakeholders. That is the purpose of amendment 46.

I hope that the committee will bear with me, as this is an important group of amendments that raises significant issues. I welcome the minister’s amendments, and we support all the amendments from other members, including those lodged by Michelle Thomson and Mark Griffin.

As I have mentioned, the Parliament is being asked to hand over a substantial range of powers on the setting of the levy without having a clear understanding of its impact on the housing market at a time when, as Mark Griffin and Meghan Gallacher have pointed out, a housing emergency has been declared under other legislation. A clear outcome from our stage 1 deliberations and our report was the need for much better quality data and information to understand the levy’s impact, including on the housing market, given the current circumstances. In the absence of a clear commitment from the minister in the stage 1 debate to producing a sensitivity analysis, I am supportive of placing a clear and detailed reporting requirement in the bill.

Amendment 37, like amendment 9 in the name of the minister, would give effect to the committee’s recommendation that a report under section 45 be prepared every three years, while amendment 38 seeks to set out what those regular reports should address in respect of the new-build housing market and the wider housing sector, including the Government’s all-tenure housing ambition, and to interconnect the nature and design of the levy, the rates and the cladding remediation programme that it seeks to fund. That mirrors Michelle Thomson’s requirements in amendment 51 with regard to the independence sensitivity assessment, and the issues that arose during our stage 1 scrutiny.

Amendment 39 would also introduce a requirement for the levy to be assessed for compliance against the Scottish Government’s principle of good tax policy making, as defined in the “Framework for Tax 2021”. Finally, amendment 40 is a technical amendment.

At this stage, I want to raise with the minister an issue that was brought to our attention last week. Immediately after the deadline for lodging amendments passed, the Scottish Government produced another document entitled “Accelerating home building in Scotland: a consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery”. That could lead to the levy having considerable reliefs or supplements

“to intervene in the market, to stimulate or speed up delivery where build-out is not progressing at pace”,

as the Government’s language has it. I find the timing of that publication, given the possible further implications for behavioural change, not helpful, particularly given that, as I have said, the deadline for stage 2 amendments had passed by then. However, I will come back to the point a little bit later.

I accept that that is the situation, but the fact is that the Government has been slow in providing some of the moneys for cladding remediation. Moreover, as Mr Mason will remember, the committee made it very clear in its stage 1 report that the proceeds of the levy should be used only for cladding remediation. That is the purpose of my amendments.

Thank you, minister, for the engagement with me on this matter last week. To what extent has the Scottish Government carried out any study of the behavioural changes that have happened since the bill was published? Are you aware of some of the behavioural changes that are likely to take effect in relation to the exemptions that Michelle Thomson is talking about?

Thank you.

The amendments in this group are supported by Homes for Scotland. Just as important, they seek to give effect to paragraphs 146 and 147 of our stage 1 report, in which we recommended that the proceeds of the levy should be used only for cladding remediation. I do not accept the minister’s reasoning that a restriction in the bill would add to costs and complexity.

As colleagues will recall, we discussed at length the importance of ensuring that the levy will fund only the cladding remediation programme and that it will be time limited through the sunset clause that several members have referred to. Being clear about the use of the proceeds is, I think, imperative if the bill is to be improved—

Professor Bell, I want to ask you about the fiscal framework in relation to what you said about difficult timescales. I think that we are all agreed that the current situation has not been satisfactory. I am commenting not on what the fiscal framework says, but on the timescale, which has been knocked about like a political football from time to time. Do you feel that having clarity about the timescale and perhaps reforming the fiscal framework would help?

Like Mr Mason and the convener, I understand the logic of keeping the tax in line with the aggregates levy in the first year because of the complexity of the BGA adjustment. I get that. However, if it is the case that people in the sector are arguing, for the reasons that the convener set out, that they might want the tax to increase in years to come, is that not also a reason for considering different rates in different parts of Scotland? The logic is that, if there are different elasticities of demand between England and Scotland, there will also be different elasticities of demand between different parts of Scotland. Will the Government examine that?

On that point, it would be helpful if the Government considered that, because it strikes me that the fund is being closed largely for economic reasons, whereas those who have expressed their concerns to the committee are looking at the social impact—particularly if, as the convener said, their projects relate to youth engagement in the local community and so on. Those projects have a very important impact when it comes to stimulating community engagement, particularly if they are in a disadvantaged area. Losing them is a potential problem, so it would be very helpful if the Government was to consider introducing a replacement fund in order to ensure that infrastructure provision is not lost altogether.

I am not sure that I will watch them online.