Chamber and committees

Yes. We agreed the legal definition in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, which was recently passed by Parliament, so the amendment relies on existing legislation.

My concern about the impact on the housing market and how we work through the housing emergency could be alleviated if the Government were required to carry out and publish such assessments. That is why the amendment calls for reviews of the effect of the legislation to be carried out in relation to the impact on the housing emergency and, critically, on private capital investment in new-build residential development. It is crucial that those assessments are linked to the housing emergency declared by the Scottish Government and with the definition in legislation that was recently passed by Parliament.

Further, amendments 60, 61, 63 and 64 propose that all required reports and assessments under the legislation must evaluate the levy against an all-tenure housing target, with delivery measured through completion events under building standards. The intention is to hardwire housing supply outcomes into levy governance, so that the policy is assessed not only on revenue raised but on whether the levy risks undermining housing delivery at a time when Scotland is facing a housing emergency, with fragile development viability and falling investment confidence.

I hope that the Government accepts the need to balance the levy’s impact with the impact on the housing market and will consider the amendments favourably.

My amendment 49 in this group, and my amendments in later groups, seek to address concerns that the committee raised in its stage 1 report and which were raised in the chamber during the stage 1 debate.

The context of the introduction of this bill is the Government’s declaration of a housing emergency, and its impact on our constituents with regard to the homelessness figures, the number of kids in temporary accommodation, open homeless cases and the perilous state of the housing market, given the current number of starts and completions.

Amendment 49 is an attempt to address a crucial, and key, part of the drivers of support for the house building industry—first-time buyers. I am concerned that the levy could have a disproportionate effect on entry-level housing that young people are increasingly reliant on, particularly in rural areas. The latest figures from Lloyds show that the average age of a first-time buyer is now 31, and the impact that that has on our economy, our population and generally—

The Government policy is that there should be a 10 per cent yearly increase in house building. Given the very low base that we are at, that is a modest target. If the Government were committed to hitting it, it, it would accept hardwiring it into legislation.

The minister should be reassured that Labour MSPs will vote and act in line with the desires of their constituents and what best suits the people of Scotland. He may have taken the route of least resistance in the development of the bill by copying existing legislation from elsewhere, but I do not think that that is an appropriate route to take. Scotland has a different and a distinct housing market and we should take the opportunity to reflect that in the bill, as amendments in this group would do.

The Scottish Government has now lodged an amendment to extend the levy’s lifespan to 15 years, with the possibility of a further extension to that period. I am concerned that, contrary to the findings of the consultation and the recommendations of the committee, the Government’s amendment would give it the power to ensure that the collection of the levy can continue long after its stated purpose of providing funds for remediating buildings has been fulfilled. That would be contrary to the purpose of the legislation and damaging to the housing sector’s confidence in being able to increase the supply of new homes.

I worked with the Scottish Property Federation in developing amendment 65 and I agree with its concerns about the levy going beyond the initial 10-year framework. That extension will leave the industry with a distinct fear of mission creep, a point that was touched on earlier in relation to the purpose of the levy.

I add my support to the amendments in the name of Craig Hoy and Liz Smith that attempt to limit the scope of the levy. There are concerns that the bill will leave open the possibility that the levy will remain in place in perpetuity as a source of revenue for the Government, rather than following its stated purpose, for remediating buildings that have dangerous cladding.

Okay. Thanks for that.

Good morning. What is the Government’s thinking on those councils that, using the 2024 act, have done the consultation and are now going through the 18-month wait period? Is the Government giving any consideration to waiving the consultation requirement or shortening that 18-month period for councils that decide to move away from a percentage-rate approach and use any new powers that might be available to go for a flat rate?

It is good to hear that the Government is open to that. However, can I push you on one of the scenarios that you set out? If a local authority adopts a flat rate and it needs to go through a regular process of updating it for inflation, should that be exempt from a more detailed consultation process?

Good morning. The amendments that I have lodged in this group and the later group intend to encapsulate the broad consensus on particular issues that we achieved in the stage 1 debate, and they reflect some of the recommendations that the committee made in its stage 1 report. I am grateful to the member in charge and the minister for taking the time to discuss these issues in advance of this morning’s committee meeting.

I ask members to support amendment 9 and the other amendments in my name in this group. Rather than the direction of travel that Sue Webber has proposed that would, in the first instance, remove the criminal offence ground as a trigger for recall, amendment 9 would retain the criminal offence ground as a trigger for recall but would revise the threshold. Amendment 9 would remove the limitation that the criminal offence ground would apply only when a member receives a sentence of imprisonment of less than six months.

Individually, amendment 9 would solve a small but significant technical problem. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is possible for a sentence to be suspended, such that a member who is given it would not be imprisoned immediately. If a member received a suspended sentence of seven months, they would not be imprisoned, so removal under the bill could not bite, but the sentence would not be grounds for recall because recall on its own is limited to sentences of under six months. Amendment 9 would remove that oddity so that a member who was given a suspended sentence of any length would still face recall.

Taken in combination with amendment 84, which would remove section 25, on removal for offending, that would mean that recall would be triggered by all sentences of imprisonment, except those that would disqualify the member under existing legislation. As MSPs, we are already subject to provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 that would remove us from Parliament if we receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months and are imprisoned as a result of it. The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 already disqualifies anyone who is subject to relevant notification requirements or a relevant sexual harm or risk order from being or becoming a member of the Parliament.

As I said earlier, my amendments respond to the question raised in the committee’s stage 1 report about whether the bar for recall and removal on the grounds of criminal offence has been set at the right level. My amendments, if they are agreed to, would mean that recall would be triggered if an MSP receives a sentence or an order of imprisonment that does not result in disqualification. Given the earlier debate, it is crucial that only someone who has been tried and found guilty can be recalled. It is important that there should be no question of recall being triggered for anyone who is on remand.

09:45

In his concluding remarks in the stage 1 debate, Mr Simpson said:

“Members do not seem to like the suggestion that we reduce the jail term, if I can call it that, from more than 12 months to six months. If that is members’ position, why do we not get rid of that? Why do we not make this a recall bill and get it right?”—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; c 109.]

I have other amendments that address the removal of the rest of part 2 of the bill, on the removal of members of the Scottish Parliament, which, in concert with the amendments that I have just described, would render the bill a recall bill only. I think that that would be in line with the views and the general consensus of members in the stage 1 debate, but we will reach those amendments at a later stage. For now, I invite members to support the amendments in my name in this group.

I move amendment 9.

I will briefly conclude by saying that my amendments in this group are an attempt to articulate in legislation the views that were expressed in the stage 1 debate. On that basis, I press amendment 9.

Thank you, convener, for giving me the chance to speak to this group of amendments. I appreciate the support that Sue Webber has provided for the amendments in my name, including verbally in the committee. In conjunction with my previously considered amendments, amendments 85 and 86 would take out the provisions relating to the removal of members on the grounds of non-attendance. The stage 1 report and the stage 1 debate raised concerns about the bill’s provision on the removal of MSPs on the grounds of parliamentary non-attendance, and the committee was not persuaded that a requirement for physical attendance was the correct basis for removal of MSPs.

Sue Webber’s amendments in the group propose that the attendance provisions are retained and that virtual attendance will be considered sufficient. To my mind, that does not address the concerns that have been raised around monitoring, privacy and having a committee of MSPs making judgments on what does and does not constitute a reasonable explanation for non-attendance. My own experience, which I referred to in the stage 1 debate, is that I took off a substantial period of time to be with my daughter when she was born prematurely. I chose to share that publicly, but there may have been a reason that I would not have wanted to share it. My daughter is healthy, happy, thriving and at school now, but if the worst had happened and my wife and I had been in a period of desperate grief, I am not sure that we would have wanted to share that with the world at that point in order to justify my non-attendance, whether that was virtual or physical.

That would apply across the chamber. There are members who, for their own reasons, wish to share their personal experience—perhaps to raise awareness of particular issues—but, similarly, some MSPs choose not to share their deeply private circumstances. Although I agree that members of the public expect MSPs to be at work, there will be situations that prevent that from happening. I have a real concern that, as it stands, the bill would force members to disclose personal circumstances or, perhaps, the circumstances of family members for whom they act in a caring capacity. That is where my concerns stem from, which provides my motivation behind lodging the amendments.

Amendment 87 seeks to remove the minor inconsequential provision in chapter 2, which would no longer be relevant once the substantive provisions were removed. To reassure Ms Webber, amendment 90 would change the long title of the bill to read, “An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provisions about the recall of members of the Scottish Parliament.” That is purely because, if the amendments that we have previously accepted and agreed to alongside the four amendments in the group in my name—amendments 85, 86, 87 and 90—it would remove the removal functions of the bill, so the bill would become entirely a recall bill, which the long title should reflect. That is what amendment 90 proposes.