Official Report 743KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21101, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button and I call Ivan McKee to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have around seven minutes.
17:35
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and I welcome the evidence and insights that were provided by the Scottish Property Federation, Homes for Scotland and developers, both before and after the introduction of the bill.
The committee’s stage 1 report made no recommendation on the bill. It recognised the need for further funding, while raising concerns about the potential for the levy to depress house building figures and requiring a balance between revenue generation and impacts. To put that need for balance in context, it is helpful to set out the scale of the work that we are undertaking.
The cladding remediation programme will undertake work to address the estimated 1,260 to 1,450 residential buildings in Scotland of 11m or more in height that require work to alleviate external wall system life safety fire risks. Following its pilot phase, in which critical Scotland-specific issues relating to assessment and consent were addressed, the programme is now progressing with building assessments at pace, and grant offers were issued to 473 buildings by the end of 2025.
In the next few years, the programme will significantly ramp up its activity in assessments and remediation in line with our 2029 target to resolve every high-risk residential building over 18m identified with unsafe cladding.
Will the minister confirm how many building remediations have been completed and whether he is satisfied with the progress rate?
As the member will know, a significant amount of work had to be done before the work commenced, but, as I have indicated, that work is now ramping up, as will the funding requirement. In the first year of the levy’s operation, the spending review has allocated £115 million to cladding remediation. The Scottish Government has rightly stepped in to marshal the necessary work to protect and repair Scotland’s housing stock and to ensure that it is properly funded. I am sure that members across the Parliament will be supportive of that work.
Undertaking that vitally important work comes at a sustained and significant cost to the public purse. The programme’s costs are forecast to be between £1.7 billion and £3.1 billion over the expected 15-year lifetime of the programme. Faced with the need to ensure that Scotland’s public finances are sustainable, the Government has proposed through the bill that a contribution to those costs be made by the residential property development industry, just as the previous Conservative and current Labour Governments have done in England. During its 15-year lifespan, the levy will raise an estimated £450 million for the programme, meaning that the levy will form only a contribution to the overall funding requirements.
Those who have called for the levy not to be introduced would have to be honest that the consequences for future Scottish Governments could include higher taxes that would be borne by the general public, less money for hospitals, schools, roads or, indeed, less money for affordable housing. As far as possible, I have looked to ensure balance and that any costs that arise from the levy do not restrict the supply of house building.
When introduced, the bill contained protections for those parts of the sector that could be most impacted, including exemptions for social and affordable housing, island house building and an annual levy-free allowance to protect Scotland’s small and rural house builders. Thanks to members and stakeholders, the bill was amended at stage 2 to increase the levy-free allowance to 29 units, which will remove around 85 per cent of developers from the scope of the levy entirely. That supports a healthier and more diverse house building sector. The universality of the allowance also ensures that medium-sized developers will see a sizeable share of their activity exempted, which will strengthen their capacity to invest in future projects. The increase of the threshold to 29 units will also benefit development in rural areas, removing up to 89 per cent of units from the levy in classes 4 and 6 of the urban-rural classifications, depending on developer behaviour.
Also included in the bill at stage 2 was a duty for ministers to introduce a minimum 15 per cent discount on brownfield development, which will ensure that the additional costs of building on previously developed land are taken into account. Moreover, the bill includes delegated powers to allow for further exemptions and reliefs to ensure that the levy keeps pace with an industry that is subject to a wide range of external factors.
As I set out stage 2, the Scottish Government will consult on proposals for a brownfield relief of at least 50 per cent, and a further relief for conversions. We will also use the opportunity of consultation to consider other support measures, such as payment flexibilities for build-to-rent or purpose-built student accommodation developments. Through further engagement with our industry partners, the Government is committed to getting the balance right. Ensuring that the levy remains frictionless and fit for purpose requires reporting and reviewing mechanisms, and that is why the bill contains provisions for reports on the operation of the levy at least every three years.
The changes that have been made by the Government and agreed by the Finance and Public Administration Committee at stage 2 mandate clear periodic reporting that ties spending directly to the cladding remediation programme, giving industry confidence in the operation of the levy. The Parliament asked for stronger reporting provisions, and the Government heard that call and acted. I am pleased that the amendments on that were agreed to.
I note the concern from some stakeholders that the bill is in contravention of the housing emergency declaration. Our housing emergency action plan sets out that
“Having a safe, warm and affordable place to call home is central to a life of dignity and opportunity.”
Homes that are impacted by unsafe cladding cannot be said to meet that criterion. As the revenues that are raised will be spent on efforts to rehabilitate existing stock, the levy is intended to support the alleviation of the housing emergency, rather than exacerbating it. Given the scale of the funding challenges and the need to minimise any disruption in house building, the levy is a small but necessary contribution to the remediation of Scotland’s cladding-affected housing stock.
I reiterate the built heritage concerns. We already know that VAT is a major impediment to the development of derelict listed buildings, and we know that the removal of business rates exemption relief is another impediment. Will the minister take close note of how the measures could affect the viability of, and the conservation deficit faced by, heritage building renovation projects?
Absolutely. The member will obviously be aware that VAT is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Labour Government. Regarding the points that he has made, we are absolutely seized by the need to consider the impact on historic—and indeed all—conversions, and indeed on brownfield developments. That is why the reliefs are set at a minimum of 50 per cent, with scope to increase them.
I again ask members to consider the implications for public spending over the lifetime of the programme were the levy not to be agreed to, and I remind them that there will be ample opportunities to review the levy’s operation over its lifetime.
I urge members to vote to pass the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill be passed.
17:42
I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech:
“Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.”
It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building standards, especially so that the people who are engaged in the new-build sector fully recognise and adhere to their responsibilities. It is also right that there is a legislative process to ensure that for the future.
However, the question that we as parliamentarians continue to face is whether the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill is the right procedure and whether the levy is the right measure. Conservative members—and, I suspect, several members in other parties—have had serious doubts. That is not because improving building standards is not the right thing to do; it is because, throughout the process, witnesses and stakeholders have expressed considerable concern in their evidence, including about the fact that far too much of the important detail could be left to secondary legislation.
As colleagues know, and as I pointed out in the stage 1 debate,
“it is unusual for a committee not to fully endorse the general principles of a bill.”—[, 8 January 2026; c 66-67.]
However, the Finance and Public Administration Committee did not endorse them at stage 1, which I think was for good reasons—because there was concern about the extent of the negative externalities.
As the committee convener said during the stage 1 debate, the major issue is the likely impact on the housing market, which, as we all know and as Michael Marra set out earlier, has already faced significant challenges. The most significant concern among witnesses and members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee was the fact that the bill could actually reduce house-building capacity, because it would make certain sites unviable and would thereby have a detrimental effect on the ability to deliver much-needed affordable housing.
I think that it was the member’s Conservative Government that actually brought in equivalent legislation in England, where I presume it will have a similar effect. Would it not have been better to charge a bit more in corporation tax?
The member is correct that it was the Conservative Government, but the housing markets are completely different north and south of the border. As I said earlier, we must look at the particular levy being proposed, rather than at what has happened elsewhere.
There are different but nonetheless related issues about the potential effects on rural Scotland, where depopulation has already caused significant problems. I was satisfied by the minister’s work to address some of those concerns via amendments at stage 2, but a number of factors still remain because rural housing is a complex issue. As we know, rural house prices are often particularly high in proportion to local incomes and there is a shortage of housing that is suitable for families, which means that, sadly, many families choose to move away. The fact that that is combined with infrastructure issues is a matter of considerable concern.
There is likely to be a disproportionate effect on smaller developers and I do not think that anything will convince me otherwise.
More than 85 per cent of developers will not pay any levy at all and 89 per cent of development in rural areas will be exempt from the levy. How does the member square that with what she has just said?
As I indicated earlier, I was pleased with the amendments that we agreed at stage 2, but there remains a percentage of developments in very rural settings that will be affected and the evidence that we took causes considerable concern. I am greatly worried by the rural dimension.
We had extensive engagement on the bill. The Finance and Public Administration Committee found that a high percentage of the stakeholders who gave evidence to us were concerned. What bothers me most is that they pointed to the fact that the levy could have a detrimental impact on an already troubled housing market. Many of them pointed to the issue of uncertainty. The purchase of land for development often happens years in advance and the uncertainty about the effects of the bill is making things much more difficult. Stakeholders welcomed the Scottish Government’s decision to delay the implementation of the levy, but pointed out that that will not solve the entire issue of uncertainty.
No one wants to pay more tax, least of all the building sector. Conservative members continue to have concerns that the behavioural change that is likely to result from the levy will be harmful to a key sector that is tasked with infrastructure development and therefore with stimulating economic growth. We acknowledge that the minister listened to the committee’s concerns at stage 1 and lodged some helpful amendments at stage 2, but the Conservatives still have deep-seated concerns.
17:48
On 4 September 2024, John Swinney said:
“Keeping residents and home owners safe is our priority, and we are taking action to protect lives by ensuring that the assessment and remediation of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding is carried out.”—[, 4 September; c 26.]
At that point, seven years on from the Grenfell disaster in which 72 of our fellow citizens perished, remediation had been completed on precisely zero buildings in Scotland. Based on the latest available statistics, from November 2025—and the minister refused to demur from those statistics today—that figure still stands. Eight years and nine months on from that fire, not a single building remediation in Scotland has been completed. In contrast, in England, 1,938 remediations had been completed by November 2025. That shows the Scottish Government’s utterly shameful record of incompetence.
The reason that work has not been completed on a single building in Scotland is not that we do not have a building safety levy. The Scottish Government has failed to spend even a fraction of the almost £100 million provided by the United Kingdom Government for the purpose of cladding remediation. The Scottish Government has now admitted that those funds, which were intended for such remediation, were used to fill budget gaps across Government. It is up to the Scottish National Party Government to explain why it has taken so long to act, leaving people in Scotland at risk of fire and death in their own homes. If we wound back the clock to the day after the Grenfell disaster—15 June 2017—I do not think that we would imagine that our country could possibly be in this position.
There are specific structural differences in the housing and building sector in Scotland that make remediation challenging—that is without dispute. If the SNP wants to do something to speed up the process, those are the areas on which legislation could be brought in, and the Parliament should be looking at them. An additional tax on house building will not change any of those differences—none of them.
The critical point is that this levy comes at the worst possible time. Scotland is still in the grip of the SNP-made housing emergency, which the Government acknowledged nearly two years ago but has done precious little about since then. More than 10,000 children are still stuck in temporary accommodation, and house-building rates are at record lows.
It is estimated that the levy will add an additional £3,500 to the cost of building a new home. In evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, house builders were clear that the levy will render house building unviable anywhere outside Edinburgh and the Lothians. Those are the repercussions that nobody on the Government benches or, in particular, the Green benches seems to be willing to tackle. On that basis, and in an unprecedented step, as Liz Smith described, the committee made no recommendation on the general principles of the bill. That gives a clear indication of the committee’s serious misgivings about the viability of the levy in its current form.
I am sorry to say that the bill has not been greatly improved by the amendments lodged either at stage 2 or at stage 3, and the minister has refused to support many sensible amendments that sought to analyse the levy’s impact on the house-building market and to introduce exemptions in specific cases.
The minister has also repeatedly failed to commit to the independent sensitivity analysis of local areas that the committee recommended and on which several members lodged amendments. That does not give confidence to the Parliament, the sector or the thousands of Scots who are without a home to call their own that the SNP Government takes seriously the mess that it has made of Scotland’s housing system and the further damage that the levy could do if it is not introduced carefully.
17:52
I will begin with a wee reminder of why the bill is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that the house-building industry collectively puts right the failures for which it is collectively responsible, because it cannot be relied on to do so itself. It would be fundamentally unjust if clearing up the failures of the house-building industry fell solely to the public purse.
Are there options for doing that other than through a levy? It might be satisfying—I would certainly find it satisfying—if we could go after the specific developers who have caused the most problems, but we all know that that is not realistic, because the most irresponsible of them will be long gone. It is possible, in principle, that an insurance scheme might work, but to be effective it would need to have been in place for many years in the past, and it would not be workable to introduce one now.
A levy is the option that will work, even if it were not for the matter of trying to align with the other UK nations. A levy is clearly a more effective way to do it. It baffles me that some people are arguing that we need more rapid progress on the remediation programme but that we do not want the money from a levy in order to pay for it. Remediation is the responsibility of the industry, and it has a responsibility to pay for it; a levy is a mechanism to ensure that that happens.
We undoubtedly need to respond to the housing emergency.
Will Patrick Harvie give way?
I will make a little progress, and I will let Mr Marra in in a moment. I am responding specifically to some of his comments.
The housing emergency should not be presented as only a numbers game. The numbers of new builds matter, but so does their quality. As for the criticism of industry lobbying points that I made earlier, those were challenged by Michael Marra as though he thinks that, somehow, the Greens do not get it. He seems to have forgotten that it was the Greens who took the boldest steps to address it through the rent freeze and the long-term rent controls—something that Labour figures such as Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have long called for because they recognise that the housing emergency goes far beyond Scotland and affects their constituents, too. That clarity has, sadly, been lacking in Scottish Labour’s position.
Does the member recognise, though, that the number of housing completions is at a record low—the lowest level since records began—and that supply is critical to ensuring that people have houses that they can buy or rent and, frankly, to live in?
There are many reasons why there are challenges in improving and increasing that supply, but supply is not just about numbers—it is also about type. We have far too much support, not just from Opposition parties but from the Scottish Government as well, for forms of house building that serve the interests of landowners and developers, including super-rich build-to-rent organisations that build properties that are put out to rent at the high end or the luxury end, when we should be building the affordable homes that we need.
Action is needed on the housing emergency, but, whether it is on addressing rent levels for existing homes, ensuring that we are building the right homes for the future or fixing the mess that the house-building industry has created and ensuring that it fits the bill, we need to have the nerve to stand up to industry lobbyists and not the desire to cave in to them. That is the kind of action that the housing emergency demands of us all.
17:56
That contribution shows why tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across Scotland are delighted that Patrick Harvie is no longer a housing minister in this Government. He almost single-handedly starved Scotland of £3.4 billion of investment in housing. Everybody who wants a home should make sure that Patrick Harvie is never in government again.
Of course we need to remember where this idea came from—the appalling tragedy at Grenfell—but we also need to remember the anxiety that residents who are trapped in properties surrounded by dangerous cladding now feel. They feel incredibly anxious. I know many of them, and that is why I feel particularly strongly that this Government has put us in a bind by introducing a bill that was so flawed that it has had to introduce extensive exemptions for numerous sectors. That has undermined the very bill that it is trying to pass.
Surely the minister must understand that the sector sees the bill not in isolation but as part of a cumulative impact on the sector. The issues around the housing emergency, the home energy standards, accessibility, all the various taxes and regulations and the problems with planning come together to create that impact on the sector. The minister referred to that in his speech, but he seems to be blind to the impact that the bill is having on the sector.
I know why Willie Rennie is going down the track that he is going down, but he knows very well that this is not something that is unique to Scotland—it is happening across the rest of the UK as well.
My question is: if we were not raising the money through the building safety levy, which part of the Scottish Government’s budget would he propose that we take it from?
Liz Smith was right. The housing sector in Scotland is different, and the market is different. We have been starved of investment, so we need to act incredibly sensitively over the next period. I would have more sympathy for the Government’s position if it had powered on and used the £100 million sum of money that it received from the UK Government to tackle some of the cladding issues that the home owners are desperate to get resolved.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take an intervention from Màiri McAllan.
In this debate, it is worth remembering that we are talking about a contribution to what could be billions of pounds of public money to rectify something and keep our residents safe. Surely members can understand that that is an important contribution to make.
Does Willie Rennie appreciate that we can both foster confidence and investment—as we have been doing with record budgets, greater confidence, a delivery agency and clear exemptions to encourage investment—and work with developers to ensure that key issues of public safety are addressed? I hope that members will support that.
I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority. I therefore urge the Government to use caution. It should not charge ahead—because the sector sees a Government that is more interested in taxing than in delivering the programme. If the Government had moved ahead, spent that money and resolved more of the properties that are desperate for resolution, I might have had more sympathy.
Michelle Thomson—
I am concluding, I am afraid—I had only four minutes.
That is why we will not support the bill. It is a cack-handed measure that will knock confidence in the sector. That is why we will oppose it.
We move to the open debate.
18:00
I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infrastructure.
Given the volume of legislation that we have to get through this evening, I intend to make only a few brief remarks. I join those members who have stated that the decision that we make today will have real consequences for home owners, the housing market and our collective responsibility to keep people safe in their homes. That is fundamental.
I have been heartened by the fact that members from across the parties have engaged constructively. Even where there has been disagreement, we share a commitment to ensuring that homes in Scotland are safe, secure and fit for purpose.
It is a pity that the levy has not emerged from a Scottish policy design process. It has been foisted on us by the UK Government’s decisions on building safety funding and the UK-wide levy framework. That said, regardless of whether we agree with the framework, Scotland must respond, because doing nothing would risk leaving home owners and local authorities without the mechanisms that are needed for remediation.
I agree that the uncertainty that many home owners have been required to live with must have been extremely difficult. We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home. Whatever the disagreements about funding, the need to complete remediation is unquestionable, and I fully accept that it will cost billions over a multitude of years.
Through my role on the committee and having heard the debate, I recognise the concerns of members, developers and the wider housing sector. It is fair to recognise that the current market faces rising costs, tightening supply chains and pressures on affordability. Introducing a levy at this moment is therefore not ideal, and I think that the Government recognises that. I recognise and accept that the Government will monitor and mitigate any unintended consequences on supply and affordability.
To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.
The Parliament did not choose the circumstances that surround the levy, but we can choose a responsible response. With safeguards secured and a commitment to monitoring impact, we can take a step that protects home owners, advances cladding remediation and avoids, where possible, undue burdens on those who enter the housing market.
I will, therefore, support the bill, and I urge all colleagues to do the same.
I call Michael Marra to wind up for the Labour Party.
18:04
We on the Labour benches are unequivocal that the horrors of Grenfell must never be repeated. It is incumbent on Governments across these islands to ensure that people have safe homes to live in and that lives are not needlessly lost through the neglect of Government and industry, which failed in their duties to the 72 residents of the Grenfell tower.
At the start of his contribution, Patrick Harvie set out many things that I agree with in relation to where responsibility and culpability for those areas lie. We have had a public inquiry that drew stark conclusions. To take that a step further and seek to demonise anybody who is involved in the building of houses as some kind of malignant force in Scotland is a jump too far.
There is the issue of some of the language that has been used in relation to this bill and around the polluter-pays principle. Of course, there are members of the house-building industry in Scotland—small family firms, for instance—that have never built a building above two storeys or taken on any of the projects that are involved in this issue, and they are worried that they will be affected by a general levy across the sector. It is right that we make sure that we get the language for the specific Scottish sector correct in that regard.
I agree that we should be careful about our language, but suggesting that I have demonised anybody involved in the house-building industry is a hyperbolic use of language. However, even if Mr Marra does not support this specific levy, does he support the principle that the house-building industry needs to pay at least a significant portion of the cost of the remediation programme? What alternative mechanism does he propose to ensure that it does so? It will not do so voluntarily.
Mr Harvie will be aware that there are already specific taxes in this area on the house-building industry. The minister was right when he set out that we have a challenge in funding the large gap between the requirements in Scotland and what we need to raise, and we have to find vehicles to do that. I say to Mr Harvie that the nub of the debate today has been about whether, in the current circumstances of a housing emergency—which he has some culpability for—there is a mismatch between the need to raise that money and the vulnerability of a housing sector that is in a terrible, absolutely dreadful state.
We also have to ensure that we do not lose sight of the fact that there are two forms of social good in this work. Yes, there is the safety of people who are in high-rise buildings that require remediation, but there is also social good in people having decent houses to live in. It should not be the case that more than 10,000 children—a record number in Scotland—are living in temporary accommodation, so we must have a housing market that works. That is absolutely critical.
On Ivan McKee’s point, it is slightly odd that the minister seems incapable of understanding that we should have Scottish answers for Scottish problems. Through stages 2 and 3, he has been keen to talk about what the Labour Government elsewhere is doing in this policy area. My job here—and the job of the Scottish Parliament—is to come up with answers for Scotland that are specific to the Scottish challenges that we face. That is the position that Scottish Labour takes with regard to the legislation that we are looking at today. It is absolutely critical that we deliver the right resources to ensure that we get this work done, and we have to do that timeously.
I agree with Michael Marra that we have to find the right resources to do that, but, given that a sum of billions of pounds will apply to the public purse, I cannot understand why he does not see that as a reasonable contribution. I wonder how he will explain to the people whom he represents that he was not willing to vote for something that made sure that remediation could progress and alleviated the significant pressure on the public purse that the programme requires.
I say to the minister—gently, if I can—that £100 million came to the Scottish Government to spend on remediation programmes. The Government has not applied that to remediation. It has spread it across other parts of its budget to fill the gaps and holes in that regard. This Government’s management of the capital programme in this country has been a disaster for years, and ministers should reflect on that.
On that basis, I close my remarks.
18:08
When we first debated the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill, I said that I would not support legislation that risked further damaging Scotland’s housing sector. At stage 2 and at stage 3 today, we had the chance to fix the bill, but those opportunities were missed. In my view, the Scottish Government has not engaged in the way that it should have done—constructively—with all parties on issues that have been raised not just by the relevant sectors but by house builders and home owners who have been impacted by cladding. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time.
We all agree that building safety is not optional and we all recognise the tragedy of Grenfell and why remediation is required on all affected buildings.
The real question is this: is the bill the right way to fund cladding remediation, or is it yet another knee-jerk response from a Government that has failed to act properly and at pace? In my view, it is the latter.
Will the member take an intervention?
The issues that Michael Marra raised demonstrate why we are so far behind the rest of the United Kingdom. It is utterly shameful that that £100 million of funding is being used to fill other budget gaps. He is right: this has nothing to do with a proposed new levy; rather, it shows the Scottish Government’s own incompetence.
Will the member take an intervention?
I think that two members have tried to intervene. I think that Ben Macpherson was first, so I will let him in first.
Many of my constituents have been affected by the challenges of cladding remediation. Does the member, on behalf of her party, accept any responsibility for the then Conservative UK Government—her Government—being so unresponsive and inconsiderate about recognising the fact that Scotland has a different property law system, which caused significant delay in remediation here in Scotland?
I genuinely believe that Ben Macpherson’s constituents will be wondering why his SNP Government has refused to spend a penny of the £100 million that was meant to be used for cladding remediation. Ben Macpherson should reflect on that.
Willie Rennie spoke about the intense pressure that the housing sector is experiencing. The minister spoke about what should be cut to fund the remediation of cladding if the levy is not introduced. Willie Rennie is right: we must tread carefully, build confidence in the sector and secure that investment. The Scottish Government should use the £100 million that should have been used in the first place to kick-start the cladding remediation. It should have done that years ago but failed to do so.
Homes for Scotland and the Scottish Property Federation have repeatedly warned that the levy will not simply be absorbed and that it will hit viability, stall projects and reduce the number of homes that could be built—all while we are in the middle of a housing emergency. Why would the Government risk fewer homes being built—fewer affordable homes at that—and fewer jobs across the construction sector?
During scrutiny at stage 2 and stage 3, Michael Marra and I proposed what I believe were sensible, targeted amendments to protect projects that are already under way. They reflected a simple established principle that developments should be judged by the rules in place when they begin, not hit with new costs after significant investment has already been committed. Those amendments were rejected. In doing so, the Scottish Government ignored industry warnings and chose not to mitigate the very risks that it has been repeatedly warned about. We have seen that before, particularly when it comes to housing—the same mistakes and the same refusal to listen, but the same consequences.
Talking about a lack of progress, I previously raised concerns about conflicting letters that were sent to home owners who are affected by cladding. I have now received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing—for which I am thankful—confirming that there was, indeed, a disparity. The Government claims that those letters do not guarantee funding, but that is not how the two letters read that I have in front of me right now. One implies certainty; the other creates doubt.
There are two different messages in those two letters, so there is no clarity, and it is home owners who are paying the price. People are stuck, unable to sell and unable to move on. Properties sit on the market for months, offers fall through and buyers walk away—not because they want to, but because they cannot risk the uncertainty. Who can blame them? There is no guarantee that remediation costs will be covered. There is only confusion, concern and the looming question of personal liability.
Will the member take an intervention?
Apologies. I am in my last minute, otherwise I would have taken the intervention.
What does the bill deliver? It will introduce a levy that will slow development, a policy that will reduce housing supply and a Government that will press ahead, despite clear warnings from the very sector on which it depends. At a time when Scotland faces a housing emergency, this is the wrong policy at the wrong time. For all those reasons, we cannot support the bill at decision time.
I call the minister to wind up.
18:14
At the outset, it is important that, as many members have done, we reflect on the tragedy of Grenfell and the lives that were sadly lost at that time as the reason why we find ourselves in a position of taking forward this remediation work.
A range of views have been expressed throughout the bill’s consideration, but I believe that there is consensus among members on all sides of the chamber on our commitment to safeguard home owners and residents from the dangers that unsafe cladding poses. Members agree that it is right for the Government to take action, through the cladding remediation programme, to safeguard home owners in and residents of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding and ensure that an event such as Grenfell is never allowed to happen again.
As the pace of the programme ramps up, the conversation must turn to how we fairly fund that vital work. Based on the programme’s cost estimates, it is clear that the Scottish budget will bear the brunt of the costs over the lifespan of the programme. However, given the scale of the efforts that are needed to rehabilitate Scotland’s housing stock, the Government believes that it is right for the residential property development industry to contribute to the work. That view is shared by the UK Labour Government and the previous UK Conservative Government, in the light of the England-only building safety levy commencing operation in October this year.
As I set out in my opening speech, the challenge in implementing a levy to help to fund the programme is one of balance. How do we secure the necessary funding while ensuring that the levy operates in as frictionless a way as possible across the house-building industry? That has been the crux of the debate on the bill, and I am grateful for the contributions of members from all parties on getting the balance right.
The Government has listened and has moved in line with a range of recommendations from members. Members asked for a sunset clause, and the Government has delivered that. Members asked for a closer link between the use of funds and the cladding programme, and that has been delivered to give the industry certainty on where the funds will be spent. Members asked for stronger reporting requirements, and the Government has delivered that.
As I said in my opening speech, I am pleased that the Government and the Parliament worked together to strengthen the bill. The Government has taken forward measures to increase the levy-free allowance to 29 units, which means that 85 per cent of developers will be exempt from engaging at all with the levy. Indeed, 89 per cent of developers in rural areas will not have to pay the levy.
We have taken forward business impact assessments. We have indicated flexibility in relation to build to rent and purpose-built student accommodation in the initial period. Today, we have agreed to amendments to potentially give relief to first-time buyers.
We have already delayed the bill’s implementation from 2027 to 2028. As I indicated earlier, that is almost two years later than the date on which the equivalent levy in England is being implemented.
We have taken considerable steps after listening to the industry and other stakeholders, and the bill now reflects the concerns that they raised with us.
The evidence and responses that the committee gathered, alongside the Government’s evidence, which was informed by two public consultations, have been very helpful. I am grateful to the committee and MSP colleagues for that engagement.
As I said in my opening speech, there is no free lunch when it comes to funding this vital work. The absence of the levy would mean either higher taxes for the general public or cuts to public spending, which, paradoxically, could have an impact on our affordable housing programme. I am sure that members would not want that. That would not feel fair or appropriate in the eyes of the Government or, I expect, members of the public.
I believe that the bill provides a strong fiscal measure to support the delivery of our cladding remediation programme and that it contains appropriate safeguards to give confidence to our house builders. I commend the motion in my name and very much hope that members vote for the bill at stage 3.
That concludes the debate on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.