Chamber and committees

I take John Mason’s point. What I am exploring, and want the minister to respond on, is the general defence of the approach that he has taken. It is not for me to defend why the Government has taken that approach. I do not necessarily think that it follows that, because this happened in England, it has to happen in Scotland. I do not agree with the member on that. Our very different housing market and circumstances have formed the basis of much of the approach of the committee and the evidence that it took. I would like to hear the minister defend in some detail the approach that might be taken.

John Mason is right in that there is a significant challenge to be faced when it comes to raising finance to deal with cladding remediation. However, my view is that that is not the limiting factor of the rate of delivery of cladding remediation in Scotland. Certainly, at the moment, there is money in the bank that came through Barnett consequentials but has not been spent. The question is whether substantive issues are preventing the Government from dealing with the situation.

The possible introduction of a levy with unknown rates and at an unknown date is deeply destabilising for a market that needs certainty in order to plan and make decisions for the long term. Across the sector, house builders are making decisions about where to build and how much to build, and they cannot do that with the uncertainty of a levy hanging over them. My amendment 16 seeks to give some certainty to the sector so that it can get on and build now. It would give a firm guarantee that any construction or conversion work that was begun before 1 April 2028 would not be subject to the levy. That would mean that more homes would be built now, rather than house builders choosing to sit it out for two years and waiting to see what a future Government might or might not do. It would be particularly good to get the minister’s reflections on how he sees that dynamic impacting the sector.

At his appearance before the committee on 18 November 2025, the minister stated:

“the commencement date for the levy will be deferred by one year, to April 2028.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 November 2025; c 42.]

Amendment 16 would keep the Government to that commitment. Clearly, Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 19 has a similar intention, so I will be interested to hear the debate and the Government’s response.

I move amendment 16.

Perhaps the position was accepted in tone rather than in words, minister, but I will correct myself in that regard.

This is an approach that the Government has developed. One of the committee’s concerns has been about the entirely arbitrary nature of the £30 million figure; it is a target that the Government has set itself, and many of the amendments that we are discussing in this group are trying to deal with what Michelle Thomson has described as hitting some fantasy target.

I think that the minister has put on the record that he does not intend to support the amendments.

Amendments 23 and 24 would require ministers to complete the sensitivity assessment and then publish indicative rates—in that order—before regulations that set the rates come into force. The amendments would also ensure that the Government keeps the minister’s commitment to bring into force regulations that set the rates at least 22 months after the indicative rates are published.

This morning, colleagues have covered a fair bit of ground in relation to our recommendation on the sensitivity analysis. I understand Michelle Thomson’s decision to withdraw her amendment 51 and her intention for doing so, given the assurances from the minister. I am a little concerned about some of the minister’s language around possibilities in the sensitivity analysis. We, as a committee, want that to be as strong as possible. Our recommendation was informed by a significant body of evidence that came from the sector, which cited serious concerns about the potential impact of the levy on house building, given the years-long grip of the housing emergency.

The detail of the impact on different geographical areas is critical. The issue came up when John Mason raised the situation in Edinburgh, the country’s economic hotspot. Differential impacts would result from a national rate.

To be fair, cabinet secretary—

I do not think that we are.

So there is an opportunity to set out an agreement on that at this time.

But it is contingent on the decision, cabinet secretary.

I am sure that it will, but we previously heard a commitment to a one in, one out approach. We are not going to see one out before the election.

Yes, I am sure that it will.

Lastly, in your budget statement, you mentioned a commitment to colleges and to college capital and you referred to the project that is being planned for Dundee and Angus College. However, that project is not in the delivery phase, and it is not in that mysterious area of development. Frankly, it looks as if it is in the deep long grass of the future. Despite highlighting the project’s importance, do you admit that there is no money in the budget for it at all?