Chamber and committees

Complex is definitely the right way to describe it. We heard examples earlier of situations in which homes cannot be turned into long-term rental properties. There is a need to look at the various ways in which the overall aims and objectives can be perceived and dealt with.

My last question is on the proposed regulations applying to new tenancies from 2028, with a backstop of 2030. I am keen to hear witnesses’ thoughts on when the proposals should take effect, what the likely impact of introducing them will be, and whether a delay would be a help or a hindrance.

We have been talking about these proposed regulations for quite some time. I am hoping to get the witnesses’ opinion on whether they agree that the broad approach taken in the proposed regulations is proportionate and balances the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords.

Elaine, because you have been waiting so patiently, I will come to you first.

That is great. Thank you very much, Elaine. Aoife Deery had her hand up, so I will go to her next.

I will direct my questions to the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates, but I will give Anna Gardiner a break by going to CIH in the first instance.

Gillian McLees, is the approach that has been taken in the draft proposed regulations proportionate, and does it balance the rights of tenants and landlords?

That is helpful. Are there any further comments? Do any witnesses think that there is not a balance? I see that everyone is in agreement that there is—that is great.

My final question is about the minimum energy efficiency standards that will apply to new tenancies from 2028, with a backstop date of 2030. When should the proposals take effect and what is the likely impact of any potential delay to introducing the regulatory requirements? Should they take effect as soon as possible? That is what we heard from the previous witnesses.

That is certainly on the record. Thank you.

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?