Meeting of the Parliament 08 January 2026 [Draft]
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the stage 1 debate on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. I am aware of the issues, having been involved in parliamentary scrutiny in relation to cladding remediation, including the work that led to the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which, in turn, informed the bill that is before us.
Let me be clear at the outset: the Scottish Greens support the principles of a Scottish building safety levy—but it is cautious support. We recognise the moral and political imperative to address the cladding scandal and to ensure that the cost of putting right historical failures in building safety does not fall on the shoulders of residents who did nothing wrong. For years, countless people have been living in unsafe homes, surrounded by highly combustible materials, trapped in buildings that they know are dangerous but that they cannot afford to fix. The situation did not arise by accident: it is the product of a house-building system that has prioritised profitability over safety, enabled by a deregulation agenda that has consistently put corporate interests ahead of people’s lives.
The starkest illustration of where that can lead is the Grenfell tower fire. At least 72 people lost their lives because cost-cutting decisions were made. A less safe, more combustible façade was chosen because it was cheaper. That must never be forgotten in our deliberations today. Across the UK, house builders and those involved in the construction process have put lives at risk for decades. We must learn from those failures. We must properly fund cladding remediation, bring an end to the emotional toll of waking watches and give residents the peace of mind that their homes are finally safe.
Those most responsible for the scandal must pay to fix the mess that they created. While house builders are part of the picture, they are not the only ones: contractors, architects, suppliers and others have also played a role. The stage 1 report reflects evidence from Miller Homes and Bancon Homes that made clear the fact that responsibility is shared.
Although I recognise the points that the minister made about the constraints of the bill, I would welcome clarity from the Scottish Government on how it intends to address the gap in Scots law that was partly closed in England by the URS Corporation v BDW Trading case, such that responsibility for historical building defects rests with those who caused them instead of falling to the public purse or to residents.
We also recognise that the levy, as it is currently designed, would benefit from further fine tuning and that there are legitimate concerns about targeting and fairness. In particular, as others have said, we must ensure that the levy does not undermine the viability of house building in remote and rural areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, or place disproportionate burdens on community-led and non-profit housing initiatives that were never part of the scandal.
It is good to hear the minister’s comments that the Government will lodge amendments to ensure fairness and to remove the unintended impacts. I look forward to seeing other amendments that the Government has committed to lodging and to the sensitivity analysis that was recommended by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It matters that we get this right.
Finally, I caution against binary thinking. Safety and viability should not be set up as opposing forces. It must be possible to build homes that are safe, affordable and viable while funding the urgent cladding remediation work that residents so desperately need.
In short, we cautiously support the bill at stage 1. We recognise the necessity of action, we acknowledge the concerns that stakeholders have raised and we will work constructively to improve the bill. However, I have far less sympathy for the profit-seeking opposition of the large and highly profitable house-building companies that would prefer the costs of their past decisions to be borne instead by residents or the public purse. The Parliament must choose to stand with residents, with safety and with justice.