Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a few things there. When it comes to moving money about—particularly capital money—you cannot just throw a switch to move £100 million from here to there. Projects have to be in place to support any such move.

Much of this is demand led—that applies to the example that you cited of the heat in buildings programme. A number of factors would have affected where any underspend that had been identified would have been redeployed; after all, there is a whole range of other investments that are made, which are based on priorities but also very much on whether there are projects ready to deploy those funds in the time period in question.

The specific issue that you highlighted would have been the subject of a conversation between the cabinet secretary and the relevant portfolio minister, and I was not specifically involved in it. However, if you want specifics, I can seek more detail on what was proposed.

I will let officials comment on that. I am not sure what the adjustments are as a percentage of the total pension bill. If I am not mistaken, the biggest adjustment this year is the £300-plus million figure from DEL to AME on certain pensions. That figure is affected by a range of factors, including the number of people who retire. People may choose to retire early or to make other decisions.

As you said, the funding is to be used to support climate investments for the future. The numbers that you mentioned are big in the context of the ScotWind budget, but they are relatively small in the context of the overall capital programme.

I thank the committee for its engagement and scrutiny on the bill so far. I have had good engagement with individual members on their proposed amendments, and that has been very welcome. I am keen that we continue in that constructive spirit today.

On Michael Marra’s comments, we all understand—I hope—that there is a requirement to fund the cladding remediation programme over the lifetime of the requirement for those works. The cost is significant. As we know, it runs into billions. The funds that will be applied from the levy will form only a part of that. The money has to be found from somewhere—if not from this route, from elsewhere in the Government’s capital budget and, potentially, even from the affordable homes budget. Not having the levy and finding the money from elsewhere is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Funding would have to be found from another of the Government’s capital budgets.

I do not think the bill is unviable. It is absolutely viable.

We have carried out the impact assessment on that, and we will continue to update it, depending on where we get to with the various amendments to the bill that are being debated now and will be considered at stage 3. We are aware of the profile of the sector and of the impact that any of the amendments would have on the market—which we will discuss as we move through the amendments—and the impact that the exemptions would have on the remaining tax base. We have done quite a bit of work to understand that, and we have done the impact assessment across the whole sector.

Amendments 1 and 2, in my name, are minor technical adjustments to the wording of section 4. The changes clarify the position for buildings that have parts with different uses. Only those parts of a building to which the definition applies will be considered as dwellings or other accommodation for the purpose of the levy. I believe that all interested parties would welcome that minor change.

Amendment 4 makes a change to the definition of the taxpayer for the levy, namely the owner of the property at completion. The Scottish Government has tested that definition with Revenue Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland, which identified that, in specific cases, it is possible that more than one person could be considered the taxpayer. For instance, if the tax point were to occur during the period when the property had been sold but the title had not yet been registered, that would risk uncertainty for taxpayers in such cases. Amendment 4 therefore seeks to remove any such uncertainty by providing a clearer definition.

Amendments 16 and 19 both seek to introduce a form of transitional provision, and the Government cannot support those amendments. We recognise the need for developers to have advance certainty of what their liability to the levy will be, and that is why I took the decision to move the commencement date of the levy back one year, to April 2028. I have also committed to publishing the first set of indicative rates for the levy in June 2026. That will give developers 22 months of advance certainty of their levy liabilities, and that is provided in lieu of potential complex transitional provisions.

My view is that delaying the commencement of the levy and publishing the first set of indicative rates 22 months ahead of time already provides sufficient notice for developers to plan their affairs accordingly. Amendments 16 and 19 would only add complexity and would depress much-needed revenues. I urge the committee not to support those amendments.

I am happy to discuss the issue further in the context of conversions more widely, because I absolutely agree that we should seek to find ways to support such conversions. I simply think that there is a specific issue with the amendment with regard to it being targeted at listed buildings.

I already indicated in my response to Michelle Thomson that we understand the intent behind the amendments. The issue is that, as drafted, they would require the developer to know in advance who they were going to sell to, which, obviously, is not always going to be the case. However, we are very happy to work with you and Michelle Thomson to see whether there is some other way in which what is being proposed can be given effect to.

I should also clarify that, when I mentioned LBTT earlier, it was in the context of things that we were already doing, and I apologise if that was not clear. As for the levy, we are happy to sit down and see whether there is a way to do this, but members should bear in mind that, if this leads to 22 per cent of sales coming out of the tax base, there will be a corresponding increase in the levy applied to other units.

Will the member give way?

As I said, within the capability of access to appropriate data, we would want to provide information that could help in assessing the impact of the levy. As I have indicated, a range of factors affect the housing market, so picking out the impact of the levy in isolation would prove challenging. However, I repeat that I am happy to engage with members in advance of stage 3 to give more information and assurance on that point.

I note that the UK Labour Government does not require a similar assessment to be carried out for its building safety levy in England. I also remind members that, as in other areas, the Scottish Parliament will have the ability to take stock of the levy scheme at any point, including when regulations are made or changed. I have no doubt that ministers will receive feedback once the levy is operational and will adjust as required.

I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendments that have been lodged by Michelle Thomson, Liz Smith and Mark Griffin. However, I ask them not to press or move those amendments but instead to take the opportunity to discuss with me ways in which the potential impacts of the levy can be measured and reported on as part of the strengthened three-year reporting requirement under amendments 9 and 10. Members across the Parliament will want to ensure that any policy that we enact has the desired effect, and I welcome suggestions on ways in which those impacts might be effectively monitored and assessed once the levy is in place.