Chamber and committees

We want to reflect on those operational issues. I am open-minded about what approach to take. We want to collect the levy in the most efficient and effective way possible, but we want to consider the approach further.

I have just met with respondents and I listened to those concerns. We could not have a situation in which developers contributed to the cost of remediation of orphan buildings in England and Wales but not in Scotland. I would find that difficult to defend. Michael Marra made the point that developers might feel that they are being taxed twice. However, someone has to pay for the remediation of buildings where there is no developer, and it is not fair that that falls exclusively on the public purse. It is important that there is a developer contribution in recognition of the fact that there is a problem and that a solution must be found to remediate those buildings.

I also made the point that developers’ contribution is just that—a contribution. It will not fund the programme for remediating orphan buildings. That will still require a significant investment of taxpayers’ money—public money.

There are also the single building assessments that developers are taking forward, and the work that the public sector is taking forward on its own buildings. We are focusing on those buildings for which there is no ownership or responsibility. I think that the pace will increase and that a number of buildings will be rapidly assessed as being okay. Not every building will require the same input of time, effort and remediation. We will be able to clear those buildings and give them the green light, and then we will be able to focus remediation on the buildings that require it. I do not think that it is fair to just say that 100 buildings a year would take 14 years. That is a very blunt tool.

Once we are up and running with the SBAs, I think that they will gather pace, particularly for more straightforward buildings. We want to be transparent about this and we will give regular updates on what the pace is once we have the systems fully up and running.

—what lies behind that.

We will come back to you on that specific point.

All £97 million has been received. What we will spend is dependent on what is required. Some of our spend is on the immediate safety measures that have had to be put in place—for example, waking watches—but the big spend will be on remediation after SBAs have been completed.

Inevitably, there will be a lag in the increase in spend, but every penny of the consequentials that we have received will absolutely be spent, and we will have to add to that.

We will come back with that.

It is May 2025.

The business and regulatory impact assessment will look at the impact on the sector. That will probably be more of an issue for developers that have sole responsibility for the remediation of a building, because that will be the bigger cost, whereas the levy will be a contribution to a bigger pot. We have talked about the £10 million threshold for developers that sign up for the remediation of their buildings, because we understand the position of SMEs that might not have the wherewithal to do that, as it would not be viable. That is why we landed on the £10 million figure.