Chamber and committees

I certainly will.

I realise that I had my housing hat on—I referred to the private rented sector when I meant the private, voluntary and independent sector.

I did not believe that I would make it to the session this morning; I am delighted that I have been able to do so. Thank you for giving me a moment to speak.

This is a really important petition, which has been lodged by Pregnant Then Screwed, on the overall childcare provision offering. I respect the response that the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise gave, but the sad reality is that many parents across Scotland are not receiving the provision that 1,140 hours is deemed to include. For example, in my local authority area—North Lanarkshire—children do not usually receive the 1,140-hour provision until the term after the one in which they turned three. That goes against the principle of there being free childcare provision from when a child turns three years old.

There are also issues in relation to capacity. Sometimes, parents are not able to receive childcare close to home. They do not receive their first, second or third option and are sent to other nurseries that might not be suitable for their needs or their working hours.

There are issues with the childcare provision roll-out as a whole. There are issues with the private rented sector, which does not feel like an equal partner when councils decide what is best to do with childcare provision funding. That is why we need a review. We cannot wait until the Parliament rises in March; something needs to be brought forward now.

I am delighted that groups such as Pregnant Then Screwed are working hard to press the Government to better childcare provision in Scotland. However, until the review is started, there is a need to keep holding the Government’s feet to the fire. I do not believe that the Government should be able to get away with this. We have had free childcare provision in Scotland for some time. It is the right moment to find out whether that is working for parents or whether substantial changes need to be made to make the childcare provision better.

My amendment 19 has been developed alongside Homes for Scotland, as well as a number of home builders who have been in contact with me about the levy. The amendment would exempt from the levy a new residential unit for which a building warrant application has been submitted on or before 1 April 2028. In effect, the amendment would provide a transitional arrangement for homes and projects that are already in development when the levy comes into effect.

I have already referenced the established principle to the minister, but I reiterate that home builders have been very clear that development does not start when the foundations are cut. Many years of activity and equity are invested in a development well before the building is constructed.

The “building control event” that is defined in section 3—the completion date—which establishes the liability to pay the levy, is simply too late in the development cycle for homes that are completed after 1 April 2028. In my view, the liability date ignores the investment already made in the land deal: ground investigations, planning costs and professional fees for design are all borne by the developer well before a building is completed. The minister has outlined the commitment to give 22 months’ notice of the rates from June this year. Already, many developers will have appraised and agreed land deals with no ability to account for the levy that will come into effect as of April 2028.

The application date for a building warrant is different from the building control event or completion date, and it better recognises the substantial pre-construction development and specification that takes place. A building might not be under construction by 1 April 2028, but considerable investment in its development will already have taken place. That is a really important point in my amendment 19.

I want to touch on Michael Marra’s amendment 16, which would prevent the levy being charged where works began before 1 April 2028. Although that is a welcome amendment, I believe that amendment 19, which I lodged and which would exempt from the new levy a new residential unit for which a building warrant application has been submitted on or before 1 April 2028, would provide clearer protection where development has already started, even if that is not visible on site.

I am disappointed that the minister has already indicated that he does not wish amendment 19 to be agreed to today. While he is in front of us, I want to say to him that, if there is an opportunity for him to meet me, Homes for Scotland and Michael Marra—given that we both have amendments in this field—that would be helpful in looking at various alternative amendments for stage 3. What the minister is proposing just now does not go far enough and, if we are trying to get the balance right between ensuring that house building projects proceed without being impacted by yet another levy or scheme that they have to pay into, he has to take that on board before we reach stage 3.

I will touch on my amendment 22, which would provide an exemption for housing

“intended to be used wholly or mainly for key workers”,

including those

“employed in healthcare … social care … education … emergency services … agriculture”

and

“forestry”.

Access to appropriate housing for key workers is essential to sustaining rural communities and local services across the country.

My amendment 43 is consequential to amendment 22. Together, the amendments would ensure that the levy does not make it harder to deliver homes for those people whom communities—rural communities, in particular—depend on most. That is another area in which further consideration is required by the Government and I am keen to speak to the minister about it in more detail between stages 2 and 3, if possible.

There is an established principle that regulatory treatment follows the rules in force at the time of a building or an application. We need to recognise the significant up-front investment in viability decisions made by house builders. That was my reason for lodging my amendment 19, working for Homes for Scotland. How does the minister intend to answer those issues if we do not consider passing amendments 16 and 19 in this group?

I will intervene to help the minister. The development sector needs certainty, and it also needs to be risk averse. However, the problem is that going down the route of putting measures in place that spook the market—as we did with the Housing (Scotland) Bill—could have an impact on the number of developments that will continue. We do not want that to happen, but it could happen if the amendments are not taken seriously.

The amendments would give security to the sector by saying, “You will not be hit by the levy if a development is already under way.” The development could be under way without a building being in existence, or it could be going through the housing development process that we discussed earlier. That point is important, and I hope that the minister will reconsider.

Again, given the contribution that we have just heard from Michelle Thomson, I believe that the Government needs to go back and consult the sector thoroughly on what reliefs or schemes could be put in place to support people in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. Although the minister has perhaps sought to mitigate some of the issues that the levy has brought forward, I believe that it simply does not go far enough to protect SMEs in this area, and that is the point that I am trying to make.

In rural and remote areas, SMEs deliver more than a third of new housing. We have already heard in relation to previous amendments that an exemption, or some type of relief, would help not only to protect but to increase the building of homes in rural and remote areas, which is, as we all know too well, another issue. That is why I have lodged amendment 33, and I hope that the minister will discuss it further with me with regard to what support we can give to SMEs in relation to the levy.

In the interests of time, I will focus my remarks on my amendment 33. Members of other political parties have an interest in it—Willie Rennie, for example, was concerned about the impact that the levy could have on SMEs. My understanding is that a vast number of SMEs believe that the levy will have a detrimental impact on their businesses. SME developers typically operate with lower margins—often less than 10 per cent—and they have cash-flow constraints. If the levy comes into force and no relief is put in place to support SMEs, they could be forced to pay the levy before they obtain full funds for the development.

I believe that, if the Government does not seek to intervene in this area, the levy could threaten the viability of smaller projects, which developers will potentially avoid, resulting in fewer homes being built. Given the housing emergency, as we have discussed, we cannot afford to have fewer homes built, in particular in the affordable homes sector.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I welcome that intervention from the cabinet secretary, and I agree. I am glad that we are having this discussion in the chamber today, where we are able to talk about it openly, and it will of course form part of the Official Report.

I again welcome the approach that the cabinet secretary has taken, and also the way in which we have discussed other ideas, such as extending our approach to cover different types of memorials and the review that he confirmed to me in a letter dated 26 January.

Although I remain absolutely committed to protecting war memorials and tackling the harm that is caused by desecration incidents, the Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill as drafted is not the most effective solution. Given the limited time that is left in this parliamentary session, and mindful that progressing the bill would require significant amendments, which have not been consulted on, I do not believe that it is right to push the bill to a vote today at stage 1. I do not want Parliament to be divided on what I believe is an important issue, especially when we are divided not necessarily on the principle but on the piece of proposed legislation that is before us.

I would much rather work with all parties to achieve the desired outcome. That is what our armed forces and veterans groups would expect from us, and I am keen to gather that consensus. I believe that, if the Scottish Government is true to its word and looks to legislate in this area—or if a Government of a different make-up chooses to legislate in this area—we could do something positive to reduce the number of attacks on our war memorials.

I will conclude by speaking directly to the armed forces and veterans groups who are the custodians of war memorials. Any attack on a war memorial, however large or small, is egregious, cruel, offensive and re-traumatising for everyone—for families who have lost a loved one in conflict and those who have served or are serving themselves.

The Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill might not be the answer today to prevent the mindless vandalism of war memorials across the country, but I will continue to work hard to ensure that better protections are put in place. The brave men and women whose names are etched into stone, who gave their lives for our freedom, deserve nothing less.

With that, Presiding Officer, I seek permission not to move the motion on the general principles of the bill. As soon as I return to my seat, I will write to the chief executive to withdraw my bill.