Chamber and committees

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.

I will press the amendment.

On amendment 51, I was particularly keen on the aspect of monitoring or assessing impact across different local authority areas. I do not yet have clarity on whether the Government’s intent is to produce almost a single national figure, or whether there will be detail on the differential impact in relation to viability in different parts of the country. That was a key feature of the evidence that the committee received, with concerns raised about whether different parts of the country will be rendered non-viable for house building. I believe that the committee would be keen to see the sensitivity analysis addressing that issue.

Can we have assurances from the minister that there will not just be one top-end figure for the whole country, and that we will get detail about what the impact will be in different parts of Scotland?

Would the member recognise that the figure for revenue is an arbitrary figure that the Government has arrived at of its own making? It is not related to the challenges in the cladding sector as a whole. We have seen no evidence that there is a relationship with what is required. We know that a big amount of money is required over time, but the figure of £30 million is an arbitrary one.

Given that my comments will be the first at stage 2, I will set out a little bit of the context for the bill.

We had a considered debate at stage 1, and I take on board some of the comments that the minister made at that point. Scotland has been in the grip of a housing emergency for years, and even the Scottish National Party Government acknowledged that, back in May 2024. However, although almost two years have passed since then, little has changed. House building figures from December 2025 showed that the numbers of new-build starts and completions are both falling. Social sector starts have hit their lowest point since records began in 1997, and affordable housing completions are down 23 per cent.

All of that has real consequences. Statistics that were published just last week show that the number of children living in temporary accommodation is at a record high of 10,480 for the period reported. The number of open homelessness applications is also at a record high, and rough sleeping is at its worst point in two decades. That is the context in which the Government has introduced the bill, and we should all recognise that.

In its evidence sessions on the bill, the committee heard repeatedly about the potential for the levy to damage what is an already precarious house-building sector in Scotland. The possible introduction of the levy with unknown rates and at an unknown date is destabilising for a market that needs certainty to plan and make decisions for the long term.