Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 15 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1422 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

What about in rural areas?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

With regard to putting a bit of an extra tax on hotels, is there a danger—it may be an unintended consequence of Mr Mason’s amendment—of harming the tourist trade, which is already struggling?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

I thank the minister for amendments 3, 5 and 6, which will introduce further consultation with the sector. I have absolutely no concerns about that.

It will be no surprise to members to learn that I lodged amendment 46 because I am keen to have super-affirmative procedures to ensure that, when ministers seek to amend regulations that modify the types of building involved and the tax exemptions, we have as much scrutiny as possible. The clear outcome of our stage 1 scrutiny and report was that there is a need for better quality data to provide information that allows us to understand the impact of the levy. That is why I mentioned behavioural changes earlier. As a result of this process, the housing market will have significant changes placed on it. I want to ensure that additional scrutiny is in place through the super-affirmative procedure. That is why, in due course, I will move amendment 46.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

Yes, of course.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

Yes, I do. If I remember correctly, the minister and several witnesses made that point to the committee. However, it is impossible to legislate on that, given that we will not know what will be uncovered until the cladding remediation actually takes place. It is difficult for an amendment to deal with that eventuality, because we do not know what the circumstances might be. With my amendments, I am simply trying to reflect what the committee decided on the basis of the evidence that we took.

Moreover, when you

“intervene in the market, to stimulate or speed up delivery where build-out is not progressing at pace”,

to use the Government’s wording, charging the levy at a higher level if a development is not built to an agreed timeframe will rather cut across the purpose of a bill that, in our consideration, we have been assured will put in place a tax for meeting any building safety expenditure. That is the reason for amendments 34 to 36.

I move amendment 34.

12:45

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

The minister and I talked about that when we met to discuss the issue. Will he give a commitment that, prior to stage 3, he will work with me to ensure that we sort out the definitions and address the sector’s concerns that there might be some mission creep?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

I have nothing further to say, except that I am grateful to the minister. We can discuss the issue further in order to find something that suits everybody’s intentions and which will ensure that some of the unintended consequences that might occur do not.

Amendment 34, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 to 16 agreed to.

Section 17—Cancellation of registration for levy

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

Amendments 62 and 66 are about an extension of the provisions in the bill. For the reasons that Craig Hoy has just given, we need to try to give the sector some certainty and a commitment that we will not let things go further down the road without holding to account the delivery of the building work that is being undertaken. If we were to allow that to happen, we would be in a circumstance of considerable uncertainty. That would be a difficult situation that none of us wants to get into.

Some of the witnesses that we heard from at stage 1 were very much in favour of sunset clauses to ensure that the situation cannot go on for ever or be shifted down the line without such a commitment being made.

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

Can you explain what that specific issue is?

Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 10 February 2026

Liz Smith

My amendment 20 seeks to exempt from the levy the conversion of historic buildings, mainly because projects of that nature are not really speculative. They tend to be a more expensive way of producing new homes, and, most importantly, through the conversion of historic buildings into new homes, they deliver a wider public benefit, which the Parliament has discussed in other ways regarding historic buildings. It is important that we encourage the bringing back of vacant or underused buildings into productive use. If the levy were to be applied, that would risk discouraging the reuse and investment that aligns closely with the preservation of our heritage, and amendment 20 is designed to try to avoid that.

My amendment 41 is a straightforward consequential amendment to amendment 20, as it provides a definition of “historic building” by reference to existing statutory designations.