Chamber and committees

Absolutely, and it is entirely arbitrary on that basis. It is not as if we have a 10 per cent population share, and therefore we have to raise 10 per cent of the levy. The question is whether this is appropriate to the housing market in Scotland and what the impact will be. The idea that we are working back from that arbitrary figure is part of the problem and it is what these amendments are seeking to address.

Meghan Gallacher touched on our amendments 16 and 19 that relate to the implementation date. It would be good if the minister would commit to having a conversation about that issue. My concern is about what will happen between now and 2028. The housing completion market in Scotland is at a sub-zero temperature and a further cooling of the market will result in the kind of social impact that Mark Griffin and I set out in our earlier contributions. We need to make sure that that will not happen. If the minister wants to make that commitment or otherwise, I invite him to make an intervention on that basis.

There are developments that have already been planned and that are under way. We have taken evidence about that from various house builders. I should say that Miller Homes is one of the groups that has been in touch with me on that basis in relation to amendment 16. It has plans in place, many of which were made years in advance, and it is now asking questions about how viable some of those developments will be. There have been concerns expressed to the committee about that, so we want to make sure that the policy is sensible.

There are two different amendments in that regard. We could vote for both of them, but if the minister were prepared to commit to having a conversation, I am sure that we could thrash out a compromise position that would give security to the marketplace. Is he prepared to—

It does not sound as though we will find any common ground on that point.

I will move on to some other parts of the debate. Michelle Thomson’s analysis of the balance between exemptions and raising revenue covered the rest of that area of the debate, including Liz Smith’s issues regarding conversions and Craig Hoy’s issues regarding rural areas. It is all about retrofitting the figure of £30 million into the bill. In the absence of an up-front sensitivity analysis—the committee has asked for that to be done and the minister has committed to doing it, but only after the fact—we are still, as we debate the amendments, working with an arbitrary figure without understanding the general impact of the amendments. That is the character of all these issues. The committee will be voting slightly in ignorance, but that is because of the way in which the Government has undertaken the work.

I understand Patrick Harvie’s logic, but I disagree with it, as modelling could be undertaken on a variety of options. I do not agree with the minister’s view on the issue either. Frankly, the regression analysis to control for different variables is not that complex. A fair point was made about the availability of the data sets and how detailed they are for different areas. That will be a constraining factor in how the analysis can be undertaken. However, there is nothing to suggest that different rates could not be modelled for their impact on different parts of the country, if data on those other variables is available. I therefore disagree with Patrick Harvie on that.

As I said, my amendments in the group seek to hold the Government to its commitment in relation to the 22-month period. I am also keen to ensure a specific sequencing of events, which I think is absolutely critical. First, the independent sensitivity analysis should take place, and then the indicative rates should be published, because that pre-modelling is critical. Then, after at least 22 months have passed, the rates can come into force. We have covered the problems that would be associated with, and the challenges of preventing, further cooling in an already sub-zero market.

In keeping with my amendments in the previous group, amendments 23 and 24 are intended to give the sector as much certainty as possible. There are more than 10,000 children who are living in temporary accommodation, and we must ensure that the bill will not have a negative impact on them getting the houses that they need.

I move amendment 23.

The minister’s argument against my amendments 23 and 24 seemed to amount to the fact that we have the same housing conditions as the rest of the UK, but that is simply not the case. We have a housing emergency in Scotland—the committee has been particularly concerned about that and about how we ensure that the levy is suitable for the perilous condition of the housing market in Scotland. It is in a terrible state at the moment, so we have to set rates on that basis.

I think that the amendments reflect the commitments that the minister has already made, but they are based on a logical sequencing. The points that the minister made about procedure do not amount to an argument at all, so I will press amendment 23 and will move amendment 24.

On amendments 25 to 29, I have sympathy with the logic and intent behind Mr Mason’s proposals. I also recognise that some of the Government’s approach—given the uncertainty and complexity that it would deliver into a fragile marketplace—is suboptimal. However, it is probably the more sensible approach in practice, given that the legislation must pass. For that reason, I intend to oppose those amendments.

Thank you, convener, and I thank all members for their contributions.

I want to start with the minister’s comment at the outset about this approach being foisted on the Scottish Government. We should be absolutely clear that that is simply not the case.

I am happy to get a clarification.

Let me complete my point, minister. This is about trying to find some sweet spot in order to raise a certain amount of revenue.

I understand the logic of some of this; what is being proposed seems to be 10 per cent of the UK levy, and it is essentially the money that might be available. The Government could quite easily, and equally, have set the target at £5 million, or £100 million. The question is: what figure does it feel that it is proportionate to raise?

I will take the minister’s intervention now.

I have the floor.