Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Official Report 910KB pdf

---

Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

We now begin our stage 2 proceedings on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill. We are joined for this item by the Minister for Housing and his officials, as well as by Graham Simpson and Pam Duncan-Glancy.

First, for anyone who is watching, I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow during today’s proceedings.?Members should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced; the marshalled list of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be disposed of; and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.?Those documents are available on the bill web page on the Scottish Parliament’s website.

There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group.?I will then call other members with amendments in the group to speak to, but not move, their amendments, and to speak to other amendments in the group, if they wish. I will then, at my discretion, call any other members who wish to speak in the debate. Members who wish to do so should indicate as much by catching my or the clerk’s attention.

I will then call the minister, if he has not already spoken in the debate. Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and indicate whether he or she wishes to press or seek to withdraw the amendment. If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question on it.

Later amendments in a group are not debated again when they are reached; if they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away.?If a member wishes to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will immediately put the question on the amendment. If any member does not wish to move their amendment when it is called, they should say, “Not moved.” In that situation, any other member present may move the amendment. If no one moves it, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

If there is a division, only committee members are entitled to vote. Voting will be by a show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names.

The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section and schedule of the bill, and the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point. Finally, it is our intention to complete stage 2 scrutiny of the bill today.

Section 1—The register

The first group is on the cladding assurance register, additional work assessments and levels of risk. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 44, 45, 11, 47, 48, 12, 49, 13 to 16, 56, 57, 18 to 20, 60, 61, 21, 22, 64, 25, 27 to 29, 31, 32, 69, 70, 73, 74, 37 to 40, 81, 41 and 43. I point out that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 44 and 45, due to pre-emption.

As drafted, part 1 of the bill outlines the requirement for the Scottish ministers to maintain a cladding assurance register. An entry will be created in the register only after a single building assessment has been completed and any remediation work identified in that SBA has been completed to the satisfaction of ministers. That was to ensure that entries are made only once any such remediation work identified in the SBA has been completed.

However, I acknowledge that, during the stage 1 evidence sessions that the committee conducted, numerous stakeholders highlighted the multifaceted challenges associated with properties affected by potentially unsafe cladding, with issues pertaining to remortgaging, buying, selling and insuring such properties being of particular concern. The committee’s stage 1 report highlighted that there were concerns that the existing points of entry to the cladding assurance register might not adequately address those challenges, and that there was a growing consensus among stakeholders that supported the point of entry on to the register always being the completion of a single building assessment, including when a need for remediation work is identified.

In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill, I made a commitment to review the Government’s position on point of entry. After careful consideration, I agree that changing the entry point for buildings on to the cladding assurance register in cases in which the SBA identifies a need for remediation work would be a worthwhile change. That approach seeks to enhance transparency and might assist decision making in property transactions, while ensuring that any change is aligned with the overarching objective of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of occupants residing in buildings with cladding. It responds positively and directly to a recommendation that the committee made in its stage 1 report.

The change is delivered by amendments 10 and 11, which will ensure that an entry on to the register is always created immediately after the SBA has been completed. That change creates a need to adjust section 1 to make it clear how the completion of works will be recorded. Government amendment 12 does that by confirming that an entry is to be updated

“as soon as reasonably practicable after the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that”

the work is complete. However, amendment 12 has an additional aspect, to which I will now turn.

Amendment 12, along with the remaining Government amendments in the group, also adds to the bill the concept of additional work assessments. Our approach to cladding remediation is centred on the process of a single building assessment and, specifically, on the works that are required to eliminate or mitigate risk to human life related to the external wall system.

Cladding assessment and remediation can be a complex engineering project. We must allow for a scenario in which additional relevant risk and associated works to address that risk are identified after the single building assessment has been completed, without going back to square 1. For example, that could occur when an issue becomes apparent after a cladding panel has been removed from a building during the course of planned remediation and it exposes a problem that was not evident in the original SBA. We do not want to create any unnecessary barriers of process that would delay the completion of necessary work.

Through the amendments, we also seek to ensure that all required works are documented, completed and captured in the cladding assurance register, thereby ensuring that the golden thread of information from assessment to completed remediation is maintained.

We must also ensure that the rights of owners are protected. We have therefore reflected existing procedural safeguards, including 21 days’ notification of and appeal against newly discovered work being conducted, unless the work is urgent. I ask members to support all the Government amendments in the group.

Mark Griffin’s amendments seek to amend the language of the bill, specifically in relation to a “risk to human life”. In doing so, they touch on the central purpose of the bill and of the cladding remediation programme. As such, his amendments propose changes in a number of places throughout the bill, but we are required to discuss them here due to amendments 44 and 45 being pre-empted by my amendment 10, which I have already discussed.

10:30  

My assumption is that Mark Griffin’s amendments, taken together, intend to replace the current references to risks that are directly or indirectly

“created or exacerbated by a building’s external wall cladding system”

with broader references to “any risks” that are created or exacerbated by that system.

I do not support such an approach. The current language makes it clear that the risks to be addressed may be either directly caused by the cladding system itself or indirectly influenced by it. Not being clear on that point could risk narrowing the focus of the single building assessment to risks that are directly attributed to the cladding system alone, with the result that secondary or indirect risks that impact on the risk to life could potentially be overlooked. Ultimately, such a narrowing of the assessment could have the effect of leaving remediated buildings at a higher risk level post remediation than the bill currently allows for. I urge Mark Griffin not to move the amendments, as they might increase the risk to owners and occupiers in affected areas.

I want to touch on amendment 49, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to remove section 1(3)(b) from the bill. That provision relates to the cladding assurance register and, specifically, the ability of the Scottish ministers to include in the register any information that they consider appropriate, in addition to that required to be included by section 1(3)(a) and—if my amendment 12 is agreed to—new paragraphs (aa) and (ab).

The Government’s intention with the existing provision is to retain flexibility in terms of what can be added to the cladding assurance register, to allow us to add further information to the register, if required, as it is operationalised.

I have already committed to working with stakeholders including the Association of British Insurers and UK Finance to ensure that the register can be of maximum value to them as they consider their ability to lend on and insure properties with potentially unsafe cladding. It is imperative that we have the ability to capture the data that will allow the register to operate as effectively as possible.

Although I appreciate that certainty as to what can be added to the register is an attractive prospect, on balance, the Government’s position is to retain such flexibility. I urge Miles Briggs not to move amendment 49.

In conclusion, I ask members not to move their amendments in this group.

I move amendment 10.

I have a number of amendments in the group, which, at this point, are all probing amendments. I appreciate the engagement that the minister has had with me ahead of stage 2 and that which we will have ahead of stage 3, as we seek to finalise the bill.

As the minister said, all my amendments in the group seek to change the language in the bill so that it clarifies that issues that are raised through the single building assessment must link directly to life-critical risk. However, taking account of the minister’s points, I am happy not to move the amendments and to continue discussions with him prior to stage 3.

Amendment 49 is my only amendment in the group; it, too, is a probing amendment. The minister has clarified—this is important for developers—what works will need to be undertaken and the detail that will be in the cladding assurance register beyond the single building assessment. My specific concern is in relation to additional information that might come forward with regard to orphan buildings, and that potentially resulting in a delay for funding for related works.

Has the minister taken any advice on that issue? It has already been highlighted that limited funds will be available for works on orphan buildings. Will the requirement to provide more and more information create a situation that could limit the scope for the Government to progress works on orphan buildings? For those of us who represent people who live in such buildings, we do not want that to happen.

Shall I respond to that, convener?

I will just check whether anyone else wants to come in first. As no one does, I invite the minister to respond.

We have spoken to the ABI and UK Finance about that. I come back to Mark Griffin’s point. We have had discussions all the way through the process, and we will continue to do so. We had a quick chat yesterday to talk about that. I am happy to pick up that point, but we have had discussions with stakeholders about that.

Given that we are at stage 2, it is important that we have clarification on that, especially in relation to orphan buildings. Although they are not being looked at in two separate categories, it is important that we try to make sure that it is clear that work on such buildings will be supported. I am happy not to move the amendment at stage 2, but I would appreciate engagement ahead of stage 3.

I will write to you.

Do you have anything else to say to wind up, minister?

I have nothing further to add.

I remind members that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 44 or 45, due to pre-emption.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

The next group is entitled “Single-building assessments—content, definition, and effect”. Amendment 46, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 51 to 53, 82 to 84, 42, 85 and 86. I call Mark Griffin to move amendment 46 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments to get more detail, as per what we heard at stage 1 about what a single building assessment would look like and other content around that. However, I have discussed the matter with the minister in advance and I welcome continuing into stage 3 on the design of the single building assessment.

Amendment 46 will provide a starting point for discussions, based on the report that the SBA should produce, highlighting the products that are used in the context of a ban. By mandating that that data be made available, Parliament would be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that the Scottish context in the PAS—publicly available specification—is not used to allow combustible materials to remain in situ on buildings that are over 11m high. The amendment would require the Scottish single building assessment to include information on the type of products that are present and their Euroclass ratings.

Through amendment 53, the bill would focus on the key concept of a single building assessment, as outlined in the explanatory notes. With so much of the process hanging on that key concept, it is essential that all parties that will be impacted by it have full clarity at the outset about what a Scottish single building assessment is, its specification, what it looks like and what standards it is assessing. None of that detail is provided in the bill but it is important detail that we should define. We should give people—residents and developers—more clarity about the details that should be contained in the SBA.

Will you take an intervention on that point?

I will.

Amendment 53 says:

“Each single-building assessment report must state who is responsible for carrying out any remediation work”.

What level of detail would you expect in that? Are you talking about identifying companies or types of tradespersons? What are you driving at, in that amendment?

Thank you for that intervention. It would not be the company or tradesperson who would be responsible for carrying out the principal work, but the organisation or the corporate body that is responsible for commissioning, inspecting and ensuring that the work is up to an appropriate standard. That is the reference in amendment 53.

Amendment 82 is similar to amendment 53 and provides more detail on responsibility for the required works that are highlighted in the single building assessment.

I turn to amendment 83. The current guidance does not allow for tolerable risk in buildings. Each element that is included in the scope of the single building assessment can be categorised only as high risk or no risk. By implication, that means that most developments over 11m high will potentially default to being categorised as high risk. Again, we took evidence on that issue at stage 2. That could make things worse for home owners even if there are no life-critical issues that require remediation. The amendment seeks to remedy that by including a further category of risk that is defined as “tolerable”.

Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that information on the types of products that are present and their Euroclass ratings will be included in a building’s entry in the cladding assurance register, which will be publicly available. That will allow scrutiny of the SBA process and an understanding of the types of materials that are used in the external façades of the buildings in question. More generally, the amendment follows a number of written questions on the SBA process that I have lodged, through which I was looking for more detail up front for residents and people who will be responsible for scrutinising properties that they are looking to move into.

I turn to amendment 85. The bill provides a specific definition of buildings that fall within scope that includes a requirement on their height, but its wording would allow that to be amended by regulations at a future date, including to add buildings of heights lower than 11m. For consistency, amendment 85 seeks to prevent the Government from being able to alter the height specification of the buildings that will fall under the legislation. It seeks to allow the height specification to be aligned with the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, which stipulate that a

“relevant building”

is

“a building having a storey, or creating a storey (not including roof-top plant areas or any storey consisting exclusively of plant rooms) at a height of 11 metres or more above the ground”.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my amendments.

I move amendment 46.

I invite Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 51 and other amendments in the group.

My amendments in this and other groups are intended to address issues that I have heard about from residents who live in the Glasgow region, and which are, no doubt, also of concern to people across the rest of Scotland.

Amendment 51 seeks to introduce an oversight and advisory committee on the continued development and improvement of single building assessments. Amendment 52 seeks to create an independent reviewer who will be tasked with approving the key stages of the development of single building assessments. Amendment 86 is, I suppose, what we would call a tidying amendment. It seeks to ensure the timeous setting up of the committee that is proposed in amendment 51.

Residents in Glasgow—and probably, as I said, across the rest of the country—have felt quite distanced, in some cases, from the development of single building assessments and the processes. Residents associations in the region have raised concerns with me about conflicts of interests in relation to buildings with dangerous cladding, and they believe that occupier and owner voices in the process are essential to balancing such conflicts. I share that view. Occupier and owner voices are essential in the single building assessment development process to ensure that there is transparency and a system of checks and balances. In developing my amendments in the group, I considered that the Government must include owners, occupiers and representatives in the development of the building assessments.

Amendment 51 seeks to create a specific committee for single building assessments. It would require ministers to consult people on the development and continued improvement of the single building assessment under part 2 of the bill. Where problems were identified with the SBA system, the committee could consult ministers and the required changes could be made. The amendment provides that membership of the committee must include owners and occupiers in buildings that are covered by the legislation as well as organisations that represent them, and it provides that ministers may identify other members of the committee as appropriate. Further, it would require ministers to try, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, to include disabled people and their representative organisations in that committee, given the number of disabled people who died during the Grenfell tragedy.

10:45  

Further to amendment 51, amendment 55 has been lodged because residents have raised concerns about the current plan that only developers would create the single building assessment. Residents think that that would create a conflict of interests; I, too, am worried about that. The current plan means that the developers who are responsible for constructing a building would be chiefly responsible for ascertaining whether that building is a fire risk.

Amendment 52 would create an independent reviewer who would be responsible for approving the arrangement of the single building assessment, the single building assessment report and any subsequent works that were identified in it. It is my view, and that of the residents whom I have consulted, that that would add transparency and their voice to the process. Scottish ministers would have the power to determine the necessary expertise of the reviewer, but I suggest that that person should have expertise that is relevant to the issue that we are facing, which is fire safety and building development. That is essential to ensuring that the reviewer can adequately address the fire risks that are identified through the building assessment. In my opinion, amendment 52 would introduce checks and balances and transparency to the system that is currently proposed.

Put simply, amendments 51 and 55 would give occupiers and owners a voice in the development of the single building assessment. They seek to address the concerns that residents raised with me about potential conflicts of interests. I believe that the amendments would alleviate many of the concerns about developers having sole responsibility and would add the necessary checks and balances. I hope that the Government will support my amendments.

As I said earlier, amendment 86 is a tidying amendment to ensure that the proposed committee would be up and running timeously, in line with commencement of the legislation.

I note for clarity that amendment 55 is not in this group. I heard some rustling of papers.

I invite the minister to speak to amendment 42 and other amendments in the group.

I will touch on the point about amendment 55 when we move to that group, Ms Duncan-Glancy. I note that reference.

I will begin with amendment 46. The cladding assurance register is designed to provide a reliable source of information on the condition of relevant buildings, including information on what remediation work, if any, the SBA states must take place in a building. The SBA itself will contain information on the different types of cladding that are used in a building. It is also possible that the register entry in relation to any remediation works that are required in a specific building could refer to the types of cladding that are used in the building, where that is relevant to the entry on remediation works.

We do not consider that it would be of benefit to have the register include the types of cladding that are used in a property, as is proposed by amendment 46. Remediation work to bring a building up to a tolerable risk level will not always include the removal of cladding in its entirety. There is therefore a risk that providing information about the types of cladding that are used in a specific building could work to the detriment of homeowners if insurers or mortgage providers were to use that information to refuse on a blanket basis to insure or to lend on that building, even when the SBA has concluded that the presence of a degree of cladding within the building is acceptable in that context.

I therefore invite Mark Griffin to seek to withdraw amendment 46 and I ask members to object to the amendment if it is pressed.

Minister, Mr Griffin’s amendment 46 simply asks for owners and occupiers to be given the fullest possible information about what the property is actually built of. Is that not reasonable? You are surely not arguing that that is unreasonable.

In my opinion, the process in the bill would give them that information. I would be happy to pick up on that and to chat with Mr Griffin about the SBA process when that is completed, but I think that we have the process in place. I have discussed the matter with you, Mr Simpson. The SBA process currently includes developers and stakeholders. We are due to complete the process by the end of May and I hope to come back to the committee about the particular point. I think that we have in place a process to deal with the matter.

If it is okay to move on, convener, I will turn to amendment 52, which proposes the creation of an independent reviewer to bring a degree of independent assurance to the assessment and remediation process. I do not disagree with the principle of ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect owners and residents, but I ask members to consider the relevant measures that we have already built into the bill.

Regardless of whether a single building assessment is instructed by the Scottish ministers or a developer, it must be carried out in accordance with the standards that are specified by the Scottish ministers and by a person who is authorised by them. That will ensure not only that there is a consistent approach to assessment, but that an assessment is always completed by a suitably qualified and competent individual—for example, a fire engineer with professional registration.

Before I make my point, I clarify that the arguments that I made earlier related to amendments 51 and 52. I mixed up amendment 52 and amendment 55 but—I hope—not my arguments. I hope that that is clear.

Residents are particularly concerned that the bill’s current provisions allow a developer to have almost sole control over the single building assessment for a particular development. Which aspects of the bill can mitigate those concerns?

I have a little bit more to say, so I will move on, but I will, I hope, pick up the points that you have mentioned.

Works will be considered to be complete only when the cladding assurance register is updated accordingly, which will require that works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Scottish ministers. Work is under way to develop a robust compliance and assurance framework to support that through the cladding remediation programme. That touches on the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy referenced, but I am happy to pick up points about completion of the SBA process.

I remind members that we always seek to undertake works with the consent of owners. If that is not possible, they have a right of appeal to the sheriff court, except in circumstances in which work is considered to be urgent because of there being an immediate risk to life, in which case such notice as the circumstances permit will be given.

In the light of the measures that I have outlined, I do not believe that an independent reviewer is necessary, why is why I ask members to reject amendment 52 if it is moved. We must avoid unnecessary delays in progressing with assessment and remediation.

On amendments 53 and 82, assigning responsibility for remediation work is not part of the SBA and is not an appropriate task for the experts who undertake the assessments. The purpose of the SBA is to comprehensively assess the risk to human life that is directly or indirectly created, or exacerbated, by a building’s external wall cladding system. Responsibility for remediation work will be attributed after that work is identified in the SBA, when contractors will be engaged to carry out the remediation work. Amendments 53 and 82 would distract from the purpose of the SBA rather than improve the bill, so I ask members to reject the amendments in the event that they are moved.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for lodging amendments 51 and 86, on a committee for single building assessments, which bring a key point to the attention of the committee. Home owners and residents must remain firmly at the heart of cladding remediation. We should, and we will, ensure that lived experience is considered, as we develop, implement and improve our approach to cladding remediation.

However, it is important for residents who are affected by such issues that the cladding remediation programme can be progressed as quickly as possible. It is inevitable that placing that aspect of the process on a statutory footing would delay, rather than speed up, the programme. I therefore propose to engage directly with Ms Duncan-Glancy to consider how best to build lived experience into our operational programme. I wrote to her last night about engaging with her as we move towards stage 3; I hope that she has received that correspondence. She has my commitment that we will consider how best we can ensure that everything that we do is informed by the lived experience of owners and occupiers, including those with disabilities.

On that basis, I ask that Pam Duncan-Glancy not move amendments 51 and 86 and that she agrees to meet me to consider how best we can embed lived experience in the cladding remediation programme.

Amendment 83 would require that the SBA sets out whether each risk that is identified during the assessment process is tolerable. That is not how tolerable risk will be assessed in the SBA. After all the risks have been identified, the SBA will state which of those risks should be addressed and how, in order to bring the risk as a whole that is posed to human life down to a tolerable level. As such, there will be no way to assess whether each risk is tolerable; tolerable risk must be assessed in the round, taking into account the risks as a whole that have been identified in a building and how they might be mitigated. The way in which amendment 83 is expressed would not allow an SBA to be conducted in the way that is required. In any event, the standards in development are the best place to deal with questions about how tolerable risk is identified. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move amendment 83, and I ask members to reject it if it is moved.

Amendment 42 is a technical amendment to bring the definition of “building height” into line with the definition that we expect to be proposed for the single building assessment standard, which, in turn, draws on the definition that is contained in the PAS 9980 standards that are used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An updated definition of building height will therefore support consistency between SBA assessments in Scotland and PAS 9980, and it will provide greater accuracy and clarity for all interested parties.

On amendment 85, our risk-based approach has consistently outlined the current scope of the programme as being buildings that are more than 11m in height. That is based on a risk assessment of capability to fight a fire, reflecting the reach of ground-mounted water jets and the use of specialist height appliances. The SBA is for buildings over 11m, and the bill is reflective of that scope. If ministers want to change the scope in the future, that would be subject to due consideration through appropriate regulations. We do not want to limit flexibility by stating the height in the bill. I reject amendment 85 and invite members to do the same.

Before I invite other members to speak, I ask members to request interventions through the chair. As no other member wants to speak to the amendments, I call Mark Griffin to wind up.

I appreciate the minister providing the Government’s response to the amendments in the group that I lodged. As I have said, they are probing amendments, and I look forward to working with the Government on the detail, as we move forward.

The single building assessment is such a crucial part of the bill that there should be clarity for residents and developers about what is contained in the SBA. I note that the Government intends to conclude the work by the end of May. I look forward to discussions with the minister about how we could incorporate some of the detail in the bill ahead of stage 3, so I seek permission to withdraw amendment 46.

Amendment 46, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 12 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Offence of providing false or misleading information for the register

Amendment 13 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

We move to the next group of amendments, which is on communication and consultation. Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 55 and 2.

Members will know that I was recently evacuated from the flat that I rent in Edinburgh. They will also know that everyone who was there that night got out okay, which is the most important thing.

The flats where I was living have cladding, and I know that the owners have been in discussions with the developers about that, so those owners are very much in the scope of the bill.

One thing that struck me at the time of the fire was that there was no list of who actually lived there. Such a list would not have told us who was there during the fire, but it would have been helpful—especially afterwards. We had police going around asking for names and contact numbers of everyone who got out. They did that twice, yet the contact details were never used; they should have been used to provide updates to people. Communications were initially poor, although they have definitely improved.

No one appears to be in charge. We have a residents’ forum, which is very useful, but not everyone is necessarily aware of it or on it. Factors deal with owners, as they should, but I have long thought that factors should deal with anyone who is living in a development for which they are responsible. Tenants, of which I was one, should not have to rely on an owner who they might never have met to inform them of a building’s fire safety status. Communication is key.

11:00  

My amendment 5 would require that a register be set up of the owners and occupiers of the buildings in the cladding assurance register. That way, everyone would know if work was to be carried out. It would also mean that, should there be a fire, there would be an invaluable central record of information.

I would say that the current system is haphazard—but for the fact that there is no system. Wider issues with tenements are being looked at by the Scottish Law Commission and the tenement maintenance working group, which I convene. If members are interested, they can attend a joint meeting of those groups on 8 May, from 6 o’clock, in committee room 5.

The other amendments in the group should also be supported. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 55—yes: it appears in this group—says that ministers must consult with owners, occupiers and residents committees before arranging a single building assessment. However, of course, you first have to know who those people are, so amendment 55 works well with my amendment 5. Miles Briggs argues that the same people should be told the results of an assessment and be informed about any on-going work. There is no reasonable argument to be made against any of the amendments in the group, but no doubt the minister will have a go.

I move amendment 5.

Amendment 55 is in a similar vein to my amendments in the previous group. The previous group was about a committee for all SBAs and having an independent reviewer. Amendment 55 specifically introduces a provision to make it mandatory for ministers to consult the occupiers and owners in a building before a single building assessment is undertaken on that building under the legislation. Again, that would add the owner/occupier voice to the process.

The amendment has been produced very much in response to a group of residents, of whom I know the minister is aware, who felt that their voice was not fully taken account of in the development of the single building assessment. In some cases, things such as a waking watch were put in place without much consideration for the residents and without giving them advance communication. Although it was necessary at the time, residents felt that that was particularly difficult and that they should have been a bit more involved. Amendment 55 seeks to guarantee that owners and occupiers will have a voice in the creation of single building assessments that are relevant to their building.

This goes to the heart of what was said by those who gave evidence to the committee and those who are angry that we have not seen any real progress in Scotland on the issue. They have faced an information vacuum. That is not fair, and needs to be addressed. That is why I have lodged amendment 2, which seeks to introduce a duty to inform by calling on the Scottish Government to inform occupiers of buildings of the results of the single building assessment and give residents on-going information that they will want to be made aware of.

We do not have a timescale for when all the assessments and works that may be needed will take place, but it is important that those who live in those buildings are put at the heart of that. That is why I want amendment 2 to be passed and for it to be put in the bill that the people who live in those buildings should know what is going on and should be given the information that they are entitled to. That has not happened to date.

I hope that the Government will accept amendment 2 today or take it forward as a working amendment at stage 3, because those who are affected need to be put at the heart of the bill. That is what I tried to achieve through my work on the committee and through the stage 1 debate, when all that was highlighted.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, could provide a lot of good additional information. Properly collating the information on residents who own their property or who rent it would add value. As communications are taken forward, those who rent—they are not owners but are occupiers—should be given the same information. I see no reason for any difference.

Since no other members wish to speak to those amendments, I will ask the minister to speak.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, seeks to establish a register of contact details for owners and occupiers, to enable them to be notified of works to be carried out on their building and in the event of a fire, so long as remediation works have not been carried out. Such a register would be maintained by a factor, a residents committee or other such persons as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate.

Graham Simpson’s amendment is likely to be reflective of common practice in multi-residential properties across Scotland. Factors, for example, no doubt often maintain such lists as part of their routine business and best practice. I appreciate the comments that Mr Simpson has made, and I will come on to them.

However, I have significant concerns about data protection—

The minister says that it is common practice to keep in communication with everyone who lives in a building, and he says that factors do that routinely. Factors do not do that routinely. Factors deal with owners, and owners might not live there. That is the reality of the situation, and that is what my amendment 5 seeks to rectify. It is certainly not common practice. People who are renting are not generally communicated with.

I will come on to that. I appreciate the comments that you have made. I met residents from flats in the area that you stayed in, I spoke to them directly about the issue and I will have a follow-up meeting with them on that point.

As I said, I would have significant concerns about data protection if that practice was to be placed on a statutory footing, and I will touch on that in a wee second. The implications need to be fully explored, and, regrettably, in the context of the bill, we do not have enough time to do that.

However, again, I note that the maintenance of such lists is likely to be common practice, and, as we have touched on, would no doubt be advantageous in the scenarios that Graham Simpson refers to in amendment 5.

As part of the operational aspects of the cladding remediation programme, where the Government is involved in remediation, it will encourage adequate communication with residents via factors or residents associations.

All that being said, I urge committee members to reject amendment 5.

I will come on to the other amendments and how we will progress with those. Moving on to amendment 55, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, I will state again to the committee and to those owners and residents of buildings within the scope of the cladding remediation programme that, where the Scottish Government is involved in the remediation of buildings, our communications must improve. I previously updated the committee that we are working on an improved communications protocol; we are ensuring that we engage fully with owners and residents, ahead of ministers arranging for a single building assessment to be carried out.

As a result, I am of the opinion that we can have some sympathy with the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 55. However, the amendment does not cover the situation where developers are in charge of the remediation of buildings, and it appears to me that the consultation with owners and occupiers should be conducted by the party in charge of remediation. Therefore, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 55 but, instead, to work with me to refine the details ahead of stage 3—I would say the something similar to Graham Simpson. If amendment 55 is moved, I ask committee members to reject it.

Thank you for that, minister. I appreciate the willingness to talk more about that, and I appreciate your reaching out in your letter to offer that.

However, you just made a point about developers leading the single building assessment and ministers not necessarily being the people who do the consultation. That is part of the concern that I am trying to address. Residents are worried that, with developers having sole control over the single building assessment—as they see it—they will not have the opportunity to have any input.

If the minister does not support amendment 55, could he clarify how he envisages that conflict being addressed?

That is why I am coming back to you, because I am aware of the situation in the building that you are referring to. There are different situations in different parts of Scotland with different buildings, so we are trying to take that on as a whole in the discussions that we are having. I am aware of the specific point that you make, as we prepare for stage 3. There are different situations in different buildings in the country, which we hope to pick up on in all parts of the country. I am happy to have that discussion, which we are having on the specific building that you mentioned.

Lastly, I move on to non-Government amendment 2, in the name of Miles Briggs. The Government is sympathetic to the principle of the amendment as it accords with our usual practices of open and transparent government. Sharing the results of the SBA will promote understanding of the process and the works that are to be carried out, and enable homeowners and occupants to organise themselves accordingly.

However, I have some technical concerns regarding the drafting of the provision and how it would operate in practice, such as in cases where the remediation is developer led, given that the amendment places an obligation on ministers. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 2 and to work with the Government to refine it ahead of stage 3. If the amendment is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.

I do not have a lot to add. I was initially disappointed with the minister’s comments, but I am sure that I heard him say that he was offering to work with me and others ahead of stage 3. If the minister is able to provide some clarity on the extent of that and whether we will get to a point where he accepts my principle that all those living in a building should be communicated with, I think that I could accept what he is offering. If he wants to intervene to clarify that point, I am happy to take the intervention.

We have indicated that we are willing to work in that regard and to take into account the aspects that have been raised. We will reach out to you to arrange further discussions. If you require further clarity before that, we will pick that up with you. I also say to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs that communication is important, as can be seen from what Mr Simpson said about the incident that he was involved in.

I am happy to engage with you before stage 3, Mr Simpson. If there are any specific points that you want to talk about, you can contact my colleagues or me so that we can try to address them. We have shown willingness to discuss the points that have been raised, which are all related. I am happy to clarify matters and have a meeting to see how we can progress that as we move towards stage 3.

I thank the minister for that intervention. However, I will not be looking for clarity; I will be looking for a meaningful amendment at stage 3 that covers the point that I have raised. I am prepared to give the minister a chance—I hope that I do not regret it. He likes his meetings, but if we are to have a meeting, it has to be a meaningful meeting with action at the end of it and an amendment or two that addresses the points that were made by me, Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs, or a combination of those points. We need action. It cannot just be a meeting for the sake of having a meeting.

On that basis, I will go with the minister on this occasion and seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 5.

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 3

The next group of amendments concerns liability for costs of assessment and remediation. Amendment 50, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 54, 59 and 62.

I lodged the amendments after having been in communication with various home owners in the affected buildings across Scotland with regard to some of their concerns about future costs that they might face. I lodged the amendments in order to see where the Government is with regard to ensuring that the bill clarifies that owners and residents of buildings that are affected by cladding issues will not be held liable for the associated costs.

We also need to consider the management of those costs. We know that, for many of the buildings that might be seen as having a tolerable risk, there may be additional costs around on-going management which, at present, would be part of a factoring bill. Residents want clarification about what that will mean. I do not think that any of us wants to see a situation in which that becomes a licence to print money, with home owners facing annual additional costs on their factoring bill for the inspection of, for example, any cladding that the Government has decided is tolerable, under the single building assessment.

I lodged the amendments to see what the minister’s thoughts on that are, as I said, and to point towards a potential stage 3 amendment that would clarify the situation for home owners who, through no fault of their own, are living in those buildings with cladding and are worried about additional costs that the Government might place on them with regard to the management of their buildings.

I move amendment 50.

11:15  

It would not be appropriate for the bill if amendments 50, 54, 59 and 62 were passed. There is a variety of circumstances in which cladding is managed, assessed and remediated. Amendment 50, in particular, makes no distinction as to the characteristics of the buildings, so liability would be excluded for any owner, including owners of hotels, residential care homes and so on. In practice, that would prevent such owners from being able to arrange single building assessments and remediation.

Amendment 54 would amend a section dealing with ministerial powers, so an exclusion of liability of costs for owners does not make sense in this context. In addition, those who instruct a single building assessment or work would be liable to pay for it under any ordinary contract arrangements. There should be nothing to stop owners instructing their own SBA and remediation work if they want to do that, but amendment 54 would have that effect.

The effect of amendment 59 in a section relating to ministerial powers is unclear. An SBA contains a fire risk assessment, and issues may therefore be identified that are the legal responsibility of owners—to keep common passages clear, for example. It would not be appropriate for the bill to exclude liability for that, and such a provision could have significant unforeseen consequences regarding the safety of buildings.

Amendment 62 is redundant, as section 7 relates to ministerial powers, and an exclusion of liability for owners does not make sense in that context.

For all those reasons, I ask Miles Briggs to seek to withdraw amendment 50 and not to move the other amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

As I have said, this group is a set of probing amendments. The minister did not comment on the rationale behind why I lodged them, which specifically relates to the future management of cladding. The bill is empty regarding situations following a single building assessment, where a building is ascribed a tolerable risk, or amber, and regarding what that means for the future management of those buildings.

I would be happy to work with the minister towards stage 3 amendments, as home owners want that clarification as to who, potentially, will be paying the costs. As I said during the stage 1 debate, much of the work that the committee has done suggests that a lot of the future maintenance of buildings is not included in the bill, and there are secondary factors that we need to consider. That might be in the context of a specific factoring bill for the buildings that will be identified and then rated in different ways, with the on-going maintenance of any cladding that is seen to be tolerable.

I wonder what the minister’s thoughts are on that. Is there scope for amendments around that at stage 3?

We have talked about this matter previously as regards amendment 50 itself, and it falls within the scope of the bill. You have mentioned a factoring bill, and I am happy to pick up that point with you, as it is important regarding the scope of the bill and how such provisions fit in. I am also happy to pick up on the other amendments as we go through the SBA process, both during the passage of the bill and after the bill is passed. I can give a commitment to have a discussion about it once the SBA process moves to completion.

Specifically on amendment 50, I am happy to pick up on the issue around the factoring bill, as you discussed.

Amendment 50, by agreement, withdrawn.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to move or not move amendment 51.

On the basis of the minister’s commitment to discuss the issue at stage 3, I am minded not to move the amendment, although I will be looking for significant commitments allowing the committee to oversee the development of single building assessments. That also applies to other amendments in the same group, to which I will come in a moment.

Amendment 51 not moved.

I call amendment 52, also in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy.

I will not move amendment 52, on the same basis—that I am happy to engage with the minister between now and stage 3 to see how we can further strengthen the bill to ensure that there is independence, that the conflict of interest is removed from the bill and that owners and occupiers have sufficient voice not only in the development of the single building assessment in general, but in relation to their own buildings specifically. On that basis, I am happy not to move amendment 52.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Section 3—Power to arrange single-building assessment

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 54 not moved.

Amendment 55, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, has already been debated with amendment 5. Pam Duncan-Glancy, will you move or not move the amendment?

I will not move it on the basis that there is a commitment from the minister to discuss the matter between now and stage 3.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

After Section 3

Amendment 14 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Power to require information for single-building assessment and the register

Amendment 15 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to arrange remediation work

Amendment 16 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Amendment 57 not moved.

The next group of amendments is on fire safety measures. Amendment 17, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 58 and 66.

Thanks, convener. There is a bit of a pattern developing already, and we will see whether that continues.

I once again share a group with Pam Duncan-Glancy, which is always a pleasure. I have one amendment in the group, but given that the group is on fire safety measures, it is pretty fundamental to the bill. If the convener will allow me to remind the committee of its recommendation in paragraph 73 of its excellent report, it says:

“The Committee notes the Scottish Government’s expressed ambition for the Bill is to address cladding issues and in so doing encourage speedier remediation. However, the Committee heard in evidence concerns about wider fire safety issues broader than cladding and would welcome a response from the Scottish Government on how it plans to tackle these issues in the future. It would appear to the Committee from the evidence it heard that the problems of obtaining building insurance and also resolving issues relating to lending and selling affected properties will persist if these wider fire safety issues are not resolved or managed.”

That is very sensible stuff, and it is that issue of wider fire safety issues that my simple amendment seeks to address. The minister, in his response to the committee on that point, said:

“Whilst additional risks related to building safety or fire prevention may become evident during the process of assessing and remediating unsafe cladding, it’s important that we recognise that there are broader systems and legislation in place to manage these where they fall outside the scope of the Cladding Remediation Programme.”

I am not exactly clear what he means by that, but, in any case, my proposed amendment to section 6, which I now invite members to look at, merely adds the words,

“including any associated fire safety risks”.

Section 6(1) would then read:

“The Scottish Ministers may arrange for work to be carried out that is identified in a single-building assessment report as being needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life that are (directly or indirectly) created or exacerbated by the building’s external wall cladding system, including any associated fire safety risks.”

That is within the scope of the bill, but in some ways it alleviates the committee’s justified concerns. People cannot look at just one part of a building when assessing fire risk. If a building has cladding, other things become linked, such as escape routes, alarm systems, the lack of sprinklers or otherwise—I could go on. My amendment is narrowly worded—the convener rejected an earlier effort—and I invite the committee to accept it.

Amendment 66, which is Ms Duncan-Glancy’s substantive amendment in the group, calls for a risk assessment to be done for any occupier with a disability. She and I have discussed that. That throws up a number of issues but, in essence, she is right. I might respond to what she has to say once I have heard it, and I will come back on what the minister has to say. I hope that he will be as positive as he has been so far.

I move amendment 17.

Amendment 58, which is in my name, builds very much on what we have just heard from my colleague Graham Simpson about the need to address other fire safety issues that may be identified in the development of a single building assessment. The minister will be aware that residents of buildings with flammable cladding have raised concerns with me about the fact that other issues have been picked up in assessments that have been made available by independent fire engineers. They fear that, as the bill stands, those other issues would not be considered or would not be part of an assessment. Amendment 58 would mean that any works that a single building assessment identified as having to be completed to mitigate the fire risk of dangerous cladding must be done in line with fire safety guidance, in the hope that broader safety and fire safety considerations might be taken into view.

Amendment 66, which is in my name, is specifically about disabled people. In the inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy, it was found that 41 per cent of disabled people who lived there died in the fire. I am determined that we ensure that that never happens again, and I think that there are mechanisms in the bill for us to do that.

In the event of a fire at a building with flammable cladding, there is presently a risk that no specific plans are in place to ensure that disabled people get to safety. I want to do everything that I can—I am sure that other committee members and the minister also want to do everything that they can—to mitigate that risk by ensuring that any works that are identified by a single building assessment under the legislation are followed up by having a specific assessment of the risk to disabled people in the building, including how they would be expected to escape.

The Grenfell tragedy taught us many lessons, and we all have to work to ensure that this never happens again. As I have said, one of the starkest lessons is how fatal it can be when disabled people’s particular issues are not necessarily provided for.

Amendment 66 seeks to give ministers the responsibility to ensure that, when a specific risk assessment is undertaken, disabled people in the particular building are considered so that they know that, in the event of a fire or an evacuation, there is specific support and a plan to help them to get out. The amendment seeks to revert to ordinary standard procedures once the building has been remediated, so as not to bring it outwith the scope of the legislation. Given what we have learned from Grenfell, the amendment is particularly important, and I encourage members and the minister to give it serious consideration.

I will speak first to amendment 17, which seeks to amend section 6. Section 6 refers to the building’s external cladding system as the basis for the Scottish ministers to arrange for work that is identified in a single building assessment, where such work is needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life. Amendment 17 would add

“any associated fire safety risks”

to that of the cladding system. As such, it would broaden the scope of the cladding remediation programme.

I recognise the amendment’s positive intent but, on balance, my position is to retain the focus on the cladding system. The bill’s narrow focus is imperative to ensure that the multiresidential buildings that we have identified as being at most risk of causing harm because of unsafe cladding are remediated as swiftly as possible. For good reason, wider fire safety is outwith the scope of the cladding remediation programme and the bill cannot address it. On that basis, I urge Graham Simpson not to press amendment 17, and I urge the committee to reject it if it is pressed. However, I acknowledge the points that he has raised, and I am happy to write to him on the wider fire safety aspect or meet him.

11:30  

Amendment 58 seeks to amend section 6 by requiring any works that are carried out under the section to adhere to the latest fire safety guidance. That should always be the case, and I have concerns about the drafting of the amendment. There is a lack of clarity about whose guidance is to be followed. That question is left open, which prompts additional uncertainty about what should be considered the latest fire safety guidance.

The position on fire safety guidance is clearly set out in the bill, and the single building assessment process will be the place for a qualified person to assess fire risk. That should not be covered by an amendment, so I ask the member not to move the amendment and, if it is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.

Amendment 66, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, raises the important question of how we ensure the safety of building occupants with a disability when a building has an identified risk following a single building assessment. Although I have great sympathy with the amendment’s intention, I am concerned that the amendment might be unworkable because of the sensitive personal data that ministers would be required to collect and store. That needs to be carefully considered, not only here today but among the full range of partners that can contribute to developing and operationalising an appropriate solution. That is why I will not be able to support amendment 66 today. However, I would like to discuss it further with Pam Duncan-Glancy, and I very much hope that she will work with me on her specific points.

I ask Graham Simpson to withdraw amendment 17. I said that I would contact him in writing about the wider fire safety issues. I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendments 58 and 66. If the amendments are pressed, I will ask committee members to vote against them.

Does Graham Simpson want to press or withdraw amendment 17?

I listened with interest, as I always do, to Pam Duncan-Glancy. She has raised very important issues. Committee members can imagine that, if there is a disabled person in a block of flats, unless they are on the ground floor, they could struggle to get out of a burning building when the lifts are out of action. How do they get out? You just dread to think about it. It would be an awful situation. Pam Duncan-Glancy raises a really important issue.

The minister makes a fair point about sensitive personal data, but I would have thought that, if a system was in place whereby disabled people could declare themselves disabled, some kind of register or list could be kept, so that you would at least know that there was a disabled person in flat 1, 2, 3, 4 or wherever it was, and plans could be put in place in the awful event of a fire breaking out. I think that that is what Pam Duncan-Glancy is getting at.

I am disappointed that the minister has offered only to write to me. I enjoy reading his letters, but I am looking for something a bit stronger than just writing. I am happy to receive his correspondence, but it sounds as though we are probably never going to agree on the issue, so although I look forward to his letter, I will press amendment 17, on the basis that he has not offered to work with me for stage 3. I might as well give the committee a vote.

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 17 disagreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Does Pam Duncan-Glancy wish to move amendment 58?

On the basis of what we have just heard, I will not move amendment 58, and I undertake to work with the minister on it.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Power to arrange urgent remediation work

Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.

Amendments 21 and 22 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 62 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Power to evacuate

The next group is on the power to evacuate. Amendment 63, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 23, 24 and 65.

The bill gives ministers substantial powers, so my two amendments in the group are about ministers acting reasonably. We need to look towards how ministers will exercise their powers and look at potential grounds for legal challenge that overreach might bring forward. My amendments would set it out in the bill that ministers should act reasonably in exercising their powers under section 8.

I move amendment 63.

I will speak to amendments 23 and 24 in the group. Occupants may be required to evacuate from premises when there is a substantial risk to life due to a building’s external wall system. However, the risk may not be shared equally by all occupants who are required to remove from that building; often the most significant risk will be to those who are higher up a building. It is therefore important that the evacuation power is available in relation to premises whose occupation would create a substantial risk to others, even if the lives of the occupants of those premises were not themselves at risk. For example, if the continuing occupation and use of ground-floor commercial premises is putting the lives of others in the building at risk, we must be able to act decisively and instruct removal from the ground-floor premises in order to prevent risk to those higher up in the building. Government amendments 23 and 24 seek to address that and other similar situations, and I ask members to support them.

I turn to amendments 63 and 65, in the name of Miles Briggs. As a matter of public law, it is clearly the case that the Scottish ministers must act reasonably and proportionately in exercising any of their powers. Any exercise of the power to evacuate will be based on robust evidence that there is no alternative or mitigation. That will be specific to each unique development and set of circumstances. Adding the word “reasonable” would not enhance the bill or change the law in any way, and it is entirely unnecessary. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 63 and not to move amendment 65. If the amendments are pressed, I invite members to reject them.

No other members wish to speak to the amendments in the group.

Amendment 63, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 64 not moved.

Amendment 25 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 65 not moved.

The next group of amendments is on notices. Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 33 and 34.

Section 8 refers to the ministerial power to evacuate, while section 16 refers to giving notice when the recipient’s address is unknown. In both cases, there is an obligation to display a notice

“on or near the premises”,

and amendments 26 and 34 simply clarify that such notices must be displayed “conspicuously”, in line with similar provisions that are made in legislation elsewhere.

Amendment 33 further amends section 16 to the effect that a notice that is displayed is taken to be received 48 hours after it is put up. It is important to be clear when notice periods start and finish as, in the absence of owner consent, it is only after the required period of notice that a single building assessment and remediation work can begin. It is thought to be reasonable to deem a notice to be received 48 hours after it is displayed.

I move amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 2, in the name of Miles Briggs, was debated with amendment 5. Does Miles Briggs wish to move the amendment?

Given what the minister said about some technical issues that he has with my amendment and given his willingness to discuss it in order to bring it back at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Section 10—Appeal against arranged remediation work

The next group of amendments is on appeals against arranged remediation work. Amendment 7, in the name of Graham Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.

Amendment 7, which is the only one in the group, deals with section 10, which allows for appeals to a sheriff against arranged remediation work. The view of property managers who have spoken to me is that, as a sheriff is a layman in technical terms, even when they act on a professional witness’s advice, they are unqualified to interpret and singularly determine or make an order on what are often vastly complicated as-built technical challenges. As I agree with that assessment, my amendment says that sheriffs should nominate a panel of experts and take their views into account when dealing with such appeals. I invite the committee to support what is, I say to the minister, another commonsense amendment.

I move amendment 7.

11:45  

Amendment 7 would require a sheriff to appoint a panel of technical experts with knowledge and experience of remediation work and take into account their views when making a decision on an appeal.

I recognise the positive intent of Graham Simpson’s amendment as, often, matters may be technical and expert advice might assist the court. However, appeals under section 10 would carry a great degree of urgency, as they would be brought forward in cases in which a single building assessment, which was produced by appropriately qualified professionals, had identified the need to act promptly to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life. A requirement to appoint a panel of experts would almost invariably add to the time that it takes for a court to consider an appeal in what may be life-critical matters.

That is not to say that there is no role for technical experts in some cases, and parties may instruct their own expert witnesses. However, it is not proportionate to require a sheriff to nominate a panel in every case, and I would have concerns about the impact of amendment 7 on judicial independence and on the court’s ability to deal with cases as it sees fit.

The Government’s informal engagement with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, ahead of stage 2, suggests that it shares at least some of those concerns. In addition, how the arrangements would work in practice is unclear, and there are questions about the cost, size and composition of the panel—including whether the membership was agreeable to both parties, for example—as well as the impact on court rules.

For those reasons, I ask Graham Simpson not to press amendment 7. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.

I always think that it is useful for people to listen to the arguments that are presented at stage 2 and be prepared to change their minds, even if they have a voting intention in front of them—and even if they moved an amendment. I have listened to the minister’s arguments, and he has persuaded me, so I will not press amendment 7.

A commonsense approach.

That is what we need more of, minister.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11—Authority for carrying out assessment or work

Amendments 27 to 29 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Warrant authorising use of force to effect entry

Our next group is on warrants authorising the use of force to effect entry. Amendment 30, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Section 12(6)(c) currently includes justices of the peace as judicial office holders to whom application may be made for a warrant authorising the use of reasonable-force entry. Amendment 30 will delete that reference. Given the urgency attached to such warrant applications, we want to make sure that the process runs as smoothly and quickly as possible. It is understood that, in practice, such applications are likely to be more speedily dealt with through an application to a sheriff or summary sheriff, and the bill should therefore direct applicants accordingly.

I move amendment 30.

Since no other member wishes to speak to amendment 30, I invite the minister to wind up.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Offence of obstructing assessment or work

Amendment 31 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Offence of failing to assist with assessment or work

Amendment 32 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Giving notice where recipient’s address is unknown

Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed.

After section 17

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to move or not move amendment 66, which has already been debated with amendment 17.

On the basis of the minister’s undertaking to speak with me between now and stage 3—I have sought and am seeking assurances that we will work together to do something in the bill that will protect disabled people where flammable cladding is found on a building—I will not move amendment 66.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Power to establish scheme

The next group is on the responsible developers scheme. Amendment 67, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 68, 71, 35, 3, 72, 36, and 75 to 79.

I hope that members will follow my train of thought throughout this group of amendments—there are quite a lot of them. These are probing amendments that seek important clarification from the Government on how the responsible developers scheme will operate. The bill does not set that out clearly in a number of areas.

Amendment 67 seeks to amend section 20(1), which would empower the Scottish Government to create several responsible developers schemes. I am interested to understand why several schemes would be needed and how any resources that are provided would be administrated within those schemes.

Amendment 68 seeks to ensure that developers and those in the supply chain make proportionate contributions towards remediation.

Amendments 71 and 72 seek to address issues with regard to paying fees into the scheme. There is no clarity on how much those will be. As we move to stage 3, we need to know how that aspect will operate.

Concerns have also been expressed about the opportunity for a right to appeal. It is important that we consider anyone who will be excluded from the scheme and what impact that could have. That needs to be clear in the bill. My amendment 78 seeks sufficient detail on the right to appeal that may be created through regulations.

All of us have accepted the need to create the right environment for developers to fix cladding and to fund remediation works that might take place. That is important. Amendment 79 would remove powers to create a prohibited developers list. There is concern about what effectively blacklisting companies in Scotland would mean. For some small and medium-sized enterprises, that could be hugely damaging—it could put them out of business.

Through my amendment 3, I am keen to probe the Government’s position on turnover. In the rest of the UK—in England—SMEs with an annual turnover of £10 million have been excluded from the scheme. We know that housing completion rates have been low recently and the impact that that can have on rural and island communities, where most housing is being developed by SMEs. What impact assessments have been carried out on how the bill will impact on those SMEs? I take on board that a limited number of SMEs are exposed to the buildings that are included in the first phase of work.

I hope that these probing amendments are useful to help us to consider the unintended consequences on developers. I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3 to iron out some of the detail, but I think that it would be useful to have clarification on the scheme and on any unintended consequences that might lead to developers being blacklisted.

I move amendment 67.

I appreciate Miles Briggs’s comments. For general context, I note that I have had a number of meetings with Homes for Scotland, particularly about the SME concerns that have been raised. Those concerns will be considered as part of the SBA process as it continues and as things move on to the responsible developer scheme.

I will speak first about my amendments 35 and 36. Amendment 35 requires the Scottish ministers to consult before making regulations to establish a responsible developers scheme. That consultation would primarily be with those concerned with the construction or development of buildings, but would also include any persons that the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. I trust that the committee will welcome the amendment, which responds to concerns that were raised during the stage 1 process about the lack of detail on and lack of consultation regarding the responsible developers scheme.

Requiring consultation on the detail of the responsible developers scheme before developing secondary legislation signals our intention to work collaboratively and to undertake a full consultation with developers, including SMEs and other interested parties. Developers play an important part in Scotland’s economy by providing safe and high-quality homes and we want to work with them to ensure a proportionate and collaborative approach to delivery of the cladding remediation programme.

Amendment 36 clarifies the definition of a “developer” in section 21(6) and is also part of the Government’s response to concerns that were raised during the stage 1 process regarding some of the definitions in the bill.

I move to amendment 67 and will also touch on the remaining amendments in the group, which are all in the name of Miles Briggs. In doing so, I ask members to keep in mind the Scottish Government’s clear policy objective that developers must play their part in making buildings safe. The Scottish Government expects developers to commit to identifying, assessing and remediating buildings in Scotland, as they have done in Wales and England.

Amendment 67 amends section 20 of the bill and appears to aim to remove the Scottish ministers’ ability to set up more than one scheme. My position is that it is important for ministers to be able to respond to the needs of homeowners, developers and other stakeholders and that, following consultation, we will be in a better position to determine precisely what is required. The bill therefore retains the ability to form more than one scheme, which would enable us to accurately and sensitively design schemes for different sizes or types of developers, in line with their needs. I therefore ask the member not to press amendment 67.

Amendment 68 seeks to amend section 20 by changing the purpose of a scheme from requiring a person in the industry to “address or contribute” to the costs of addressing issues covered by the bill and the cladding remediation programme to requiring that they should instead

“make a reasonable and proportionate contribution”.

I am concerned that that apparently slight change in wording could have the effect of diluting the policy aim that I stated earlier, which is that developers must play their part in making buildings safe.

The stated aim of the responsible developers scheme is for developers to address and contribute to the buildings that they have developed. The provision as it stands allows for flexibility in the subsequent regulations as to how developers will be involved in remediation. The consultation that precedes the making of regulations will allow for that issue to be explored in more detail and I would not wish to reduce the mandate of that consultation by reducing flexibility at this point. l therefore ask the member not to move amendment 68.

Amendment 71 seeks to amend section 20 of the bill by removing the option that a scheme set up by the subsequent regulations may

“require members, or persons seeking to become members, of a scheme to pay fees”.

Although I can understand why some would like to see that excluded from any future scheme, it is important that that remains an option for the Scottish ministers, because it requires consideration of the impact of the cladding remediation programme on the public purse and allows ministers to require, for example, that admin fees be paid as part of that scheme. In that context, I again refer members to the policy objective that I stated some moments ago.

I acknowledge that there will be strong views regarding any such fee, which will form part of the Government’s consultation. However, my position is that it is important to separate that question from the question whether the Scottish ministers should have the option of requiring fees from scheme members. I therefore cannot support amendment 71. I urge Miles Briggs not to move it and committee members to reject it, if it is moved.

Amendment 75 relates to conditions of membership and inserts the words “reasonable and proportionate” into the existing provision that requires scheme members to make financial contributions in respect of single building assessments and the carrying out of work identified in such assessments. l am concerned that that change could limit the scope of how scheme members will contribute to the scheme and I consider it unnecessary at this point. I again point to the consultation process to flesh that out, and I am concerned that adding that wording to primary legislation would limit what is possible in the regulations.

I turn to amendments 76, 77 and 78, which concern the right of appeal and change the potential for regulations to provide for a right of appeal to a court or tribunal, to a requirement that they should do so. Amendment 78 seeks to add procedural details that should be covered in the regulations. That seems to be a reasonable proposition, but I want to fully consider the impact that amendment 78 might have on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and what other options would be available and consider that that would best be explored via the consultation process.

Amendment 3 would insert a requirement into section 21 on eligibility for membership, requiring that membership of a responsible developers scheme would be restricted to developers with an annual turnover of more than £10 million.

By way of background, the Scottish Government is currently engaged in a detailed discussion with a wide range of developers, including smaller developers, on the detail of the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract. The intention is that there will be a close alignment between that contract and the schemes.

One of the key themes in those discussions is developers’ ability to pay. We have established a task and finish group that is focused on ability to pay, which is engaging closely with developers in Homes for Scotland on financial thresholds, the contribution of smaller developers and the arrangements for firms that may find themselves in financial distress.

12:00  

Amendment 3 would, again, reduce the flexibility of the regulations that would create the scheme. We do not wish to put such a figure on the face of the bill, as we may require to amend it in order to ensure the fairest settlement for all parties. Again, reducing the flexibility of the scheme prior to consultation is undesirable. That is the same approach that was taken in the United Kingdom Building Safety Act 2022, which left such details to regulations that formed the UK Government’s responsible actors scheme.

Amendment 72 seeks to amend section 21 by adding in that eligibility for the scheme will be dependent on a person having a connection to a building that is described by the regulations as posing a risk to human life that is created or exacerbated by problem cladding. However, since section 21(6) of the bill already defines problematic cladding as a cladding system that directly or indirectly

“creates or exacerbates a risk to human life,”

the amendment would have no effect on the bill, other than to confuse matters. As such, in the interests of simplicity, I ask members to object to the amendment if it is moved.

Finally, I will speak to amendment 79. I welcome the approach taken by the majority of developers concerned, in taking responsibility for their part on the programme. Many are keen to get on with the job and, indeed, aspects of the bill are there expressly to help them to do so. At the same time, it is important that any responsible developers scheme carries an accountability mechanism so that those who are responsible are not disadvantaged compared with those who are not. Considerable development has gone into those sections, which, again, take a similar approach to those that were enacted by the Westminster Government.

Amendment 79 would remove section 24, which establishes that the responsible developers scheme may contain, in effect, sanctions against any person who is included on a prohibited developers list. Section 24 is crucial to the operational integrity and, thus, deliverability of the scheme. Acknowledging that regulations will be subject to consultation, my position is that section 24 must remain in the bill in order that the Government can introduce an element of sanction to the scheme. I recognise the desire of Miles Briggs and other members for more detail on the scheme. However, in view of the Government’s stated intention to consult, I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 67 and not to move amendments 68, 71, 3, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79.

As no other members wish to speak to the amendments in the group, I call Miles Briggs to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 67.

The minister touched in his comments on amendments 76 and 77, and I think 78, and some of the concerns around where a right of appeal is currently not strong within the bill. I do not know whether the minister is therefore minded to discuss that ahead of stage 3. For SMEs, there is concern about what will effectively become a blacklisting exercise by the Scottish ministers. There have previously been concerns about such practices taking place in Scotland and I am concerned about what that will look like, especially when SMEs will be included in all the legislation. I wanted to seek more detail on that.

On profit margins, there has not been clarity from the Scottish Government on what has already been taken into account as a UK-wide profit margin and where the Scottish legislation would take that UK-wide profit margin, again, rather than profits that are raised or secured only here in Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarification on those areas at stage 3, because none of us wants to see developers going out of business and not realising the resources that will be needed, specifically around orphan buildings. Driving up the number of orphan buildings is not in the interests of anyone.

Will the Scottish Government provide more detail on that at stage 3? I am happy to work with the minister on drafting workable amendments, specifically regarding amendments 76, 77 and 78.

I am happy to discuss with Miles Briggs the specific concerns that he has raised. As I said, there is the consultation process, which is already in place, and there are discussions with colleagues in Homes for Scotland and SME builders on some of the specific points that he mentioned. However, I am happy to discuss the points that he has raised before stage 3.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 68 to 71 not moved.

Amendment 35 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 3 and 72 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 73 and 74 not moved.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 not moved.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 79 not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

After section 24

Group 11 is on a reinsurance scheme. Amendment 8, in the name of Graham Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.

I cannot help reflecting on what a well-behaved committee this is. It is very quiet. I think that this is the only committee meeting that I have attended where Mr Beattie has not said a word, but we will see whether that continues.

Amendment 8, which is the only amendment in the group, relates to a reinsurance scheme and flows from my discussions with property managers. If there has been an evacuation, the co-owners could invalidate the terms of their buildings insurance, whether the policies are communal or individual, as there will be an unoccupancy clause requiring that premises be lived in or inspected at regular intervals. Insurers would not need any excuse to apply that clause, and the fact that the building had been evacuated would make renewal of an insurance policy—particularly a communal policy—extremely challenging, if not impossible.

Concerns about insurance renewal are a common theme, and they arise from concerns about the unintended consequences of all sections of the bill relating to co-owners being dispossessed of control of their premises. As I said earlier, I have some experience of that and have seen the anguish that it causes. In the event that the unintended consequences of any part of the bill result in the withdrawal of insurers from a property, it would seem reasonable for the state to give a guarantee of insurance via an underwritten scheme.

I am told that that issue was raised at a round-table meeting that was attended by the minister and others just before Christmas. The minister referred to talks about such a scheme at that meeting with his counterparts in other parts of the UK.

The bill makes no mention of insurance, which is, in my view, remiss. The committee’s report mentions insurance a number of times, though not this particular issue.

I have had some very useful feedback on amendment 8 from the Association of British Insurers. In the interests of time, I will not read out everything that it sent me, but I will read out a couple of sections:

“Insurers will need to understand the circumstances of any evacuations or extended periods when properties are unoccupied and these may run across renewal periods for polices. We are not aware of major concerns in this area, and cover should still be available in the market subject to conditions in policies to recognise properties are not occupied.

We do not understand how a reinsurance scheme as proposed”—

by me—

“would address concerns about cover being invalidated by properties not being occupied for an extended period of time, as a reinsurance scheme would relate to the affordability of a policy rather than the terms of cover. Therefore we do not support the proposal for Scottish Ministers to provide a reinsurance scheme.”

I thought that, for balance, it would be useful for the committee to hear that about my proposal. We have heard from the industry that it does not support amendment 8, but it has offered to work with me before stage 3 on a separate amendment on the issue of unoccupied properties.

Once again, I will be extremely reasonable and listen to the minister’s arguments. I will see what he has to say. If he wants to work with me and insurers ahead of stage 3, that would be very positive.

I move amendment 8.

Amendment 8 would require the Scottish ministers to create a reinsurance scheme via regulations to

“promote affordability and availability of insurance for an owner or occupier of a premise”

with unsafe cladding. There is dubiety about the meaning and effect of the provision. It is not evident what scheme would be created and what it would seek to achieve, and it is not clear at whom the scheme would be aimed, or how. As such, I am unable to make an assessment of the likely costs or affordability of any such scheme.

I will take into consideration what Mr Simpson said about working with insurers, but I do not support amendment 8 based on its unclear drafting in relation to the aim and preferred outcome of such a scheme. Legislation should be drafted clearly and precisely. The lack of clarity is also relevant when considering the potential costs of such a scheme, as they cannot be quantified, which makes amendment 8 difficult to support.

12:15  

Members may wish to note that we have engaged with the ABI, which has indicated that it does not support the amendment. Instead, more pragmatic measures are preferable to the ABI. We will work with it and other stakeholders to define the detail that we would like to be in the cladding assurance register. We touched on the point about unoccupied buildings during our discussions. I urge the member to seek to withdraw the amendment. If he wants to keep us up to date on his discussions with the ABI, there might be an opportunity to discuss what comes from them, if he wants to lodge an amendment at stage 3. As I said, we have engaged with the ABI and we got similar feedback.

I will seek to withdraw amendment 8, on the basis of the comments from the ABI, which I am keen to work with ahead of stage 3. Indeed, I am keen to work with the minister if he is up for that. However, if he is not, I will keep in contact with him with regard to my discussions with the ABI.

Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.

The next group of amendments is on reviews and reports. Amendment 1, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 4, 6, 80 and 9.

There are three key amendments on reviews. The first, amendment 1, is on other buildings. I raised this issue with many people who gave evidence at stage 1, specifically in relation to buildings that are currently not going to be subject to single building assessment but where people sleep, such as hotels, care homes and student accommodation. Although such buildings have been included in other schemes and in other potential reviews, there is not a timescale for what that will look like in Scotland. Work is already on-going with regard to some student accommodation, but will ministers also review other buildings in that category, and will those that are higher than 11m be captured? It is important that we look at how that part of the scheme is managed by ministers.

Amendment 4 is on undertaking a review of the ways in which the act will impact on the construction industry. In my previous set of amendments, I expressed concern about the SME sector. Completions are at an all-time low, and that will potentially have an impact on our construction and home-building industries. Ministers must be mindful of what that will mean for the housing crisis and delivering homes for people across Scotland. Amendment 4 calls on ministers to undertake a review of the act and how it will impact on the construction industry.

Finally, amendment 80 asks ministers to undertake an annual review of the act. I suggest an annual review, but I am happy to discuss that with ministers. There is a lot in the act; the only thing that is not in the act is how long it will take for us to be able to say that we have addressed all of the cladding concerns in Scotland. That could be a decade away. Also not included is whether the act is effective or ineffective in helping home owners to ensure that their homes are properly reported on and made safe through remediation or management, as might be the case for those that are seen as being below a tolerable standard. We are at the start of that journey. Amendment 80 provides for a review of the act and its actions.

I move amendment 1.

This may be the last time that I speak in the meeting because, as members will be relieved to hear, we are almost at the end. The amendments in the group that Miles Briggs and I have lodged would introduce the requirement to—in the case of my amendment—produce an annual report of single building assessments.

Amendment 6 simply lists the things that the report should include. It is about transparency—we need to have that information. The Government may say that it is all too difficult but—as we have heard throughout the session—information and communication are key, so it is important, as is the issue that Mr Briggs raised.

Convener, I thank you for the way in which you have convened this meeting. We have rattled through it, so well done, everyone.

Thank you. If no other member wishes to speak to the amendments, I call the minister.

There are a number of amendments in this group. I will speak first to amendment 1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to provide that ministers undertake a review of the meaning of “single-building assessment” 12 months after royal assent, with a particular focus on extending single building assessments, under the provisions of the bill, to buildings that contain

“at least one room ... used ... as ... overnight accommodation or short-term dwelling”.

From the member’s previous contributions, I believe that that is with a view to bringing hotels and care homes, for example, within the scope of the bill.

I have been clear from the outset of the programme that the scope of the bill and the barriers that it aims to address concern the issue of consent, which is not applicable to non-residential buildings such as hotels and care homes, as those buildings have a single owner. We must remember that the main driver for the bill is the need to address barriers and challenges to assessing and remediating cladding in multiresidential domestic buildings.

Building safety is the responsibility of the building owner. Where there are clear owners and duty holders of non-domestic buildings such as hotels, we would rightly expect them to understand and assess any risks of their cladding and, where necessary, to take action to remediate unsafe cladding.

That is not to downplay the importance of safety in other buildings—far from it—but to recognise that the prime purpose of the bill and the powers that it contains is to address challenges that have been encountered in multiresidential premises.

I take on board what the minister has said so far in relation to a care home or hospital setting. Student accommodation, however, has increasingly been built for multiple occupancy, with four to eight students in what would otherwise be a mixed development and mixed tenancy. I am concerned that such buildings have not been included to date. What work has the Government undertaken around student accommodation in Scotland to look at the number of buildings that are potentially over 11m high and would fall within the scope of the bill?

I am happy to write to the member on that point with regard to the work that has been undertaken so far. I am happy to discuss that—I know that we have discussed it previously, not specifically in relation to student accommodation but for other settings.

I come back to the amendments. The committee has heard much about the need to increase the pace of progress on cladding remediation, and I am committed to delivering that. Any dilution of its focus will limit progress and have an impact on residents and owners who are already affected by the on-going risks from potentially unsafe cladding. As I mentioned, I offer to write to Mr Briggs. I therefore ask him to seek to withdraw amendment 1. If the amendment is pressed, I urge members to reject it. However, I am happy to pick up the issues that he has raised in relation to it.

I turn to amendments 4 and 80, in the name of Miles Briggs, and amendments 6 and 9, in the name of Graham Simpson, regarding annual reporting. I stress that I support the principles of open and transparent government—in fact, I have already given the committee a commitment to move to regular reporting on the progress of the cladding remediation programme. These amendments all go further, however, and would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the progress and impact of the legislation and the cladding remediation programme itself.

Amendments 4 and 80 focus specifically on the impact on industry. Amendment 4 focuses on the construction industry, and amendment 80 on industries that are affected by the legislation in relation to an economic analysis of the programme. Although I support the amendments’ aims in principle and am actively working to ensure that a developer’s ability to pay is factored into the separate development work that we are undertaking through the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, I cannot support amendment 4’s requirement to produce an annual report that focuses solely on the impact of the construction industry.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 80, which would require annual consultation and economic analysis. That would be burdensome and would require specialist input in terms of economic analysis at a cost to the Government. We are already working with developers to consider the ability to pay as part of the development of the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, and I have committed to consult on any responsible developer scheme ahead of secondary legislation. As such, we can demonstrate an active commitment to work collaboratively with the industry.

The reporting requirements do not take into account home owners and residents, who are at the heart of our approach to cladding remediation, and in considering both progress and impact they must remain first and foremost in our minds. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 4 and 80 and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3 to develop an amendment that reflects not only the interests of industry but those of the constituents whom we seek to serve.

I make the same offer to Graham Simpson in relation to amendments 6 and 9. Again, I am supportive of the principle, but we must ensure that the focus and detail of any such report is correct. As drafted, amendment 6 does not align with the meaning of the single building assessment at section 25 and it would therefore be undeliverable without a significant shift in the scope of the bill.

I say to Miles Briggs and Graham Simpson that we should work together and get this right ahead of stage 3.

I ask Miles Briggs to withdraw amendment 1 and ask that other amendments in the group not be moved. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I ask members to vote against them.

Miles, please wind up and indicate whether you wish to press or seek to withdraw amendment 1.

I listened to what the minister had to say, and I am happy to work with him at stage 3. I feel that there will be a black hole at the end of the bill if we are not able to take stock of how effective it has been. I hope that we can work to create a useful amendment at stage 3, especially with regard to amendment 80.

The minister has outlined this, and I welcome the fact that the committee can do annual health checks in the future, but that will fall within the committee’s work timetable. The time that we might have to do an annual piece of work might be limited, so the burden is on the Government to provide Parliament with updated information on how we are progressing with assessments and remedial work being commissioned, so that residents and the wider public in Scotland can see when the issue is being assessed and we get to an end point at which we can say that buildings in Scotland are safe and that the cladding problems have been rectified. That needs annual reporting back to Parliament beyond the committee.

With that said, I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3 on what I hope will be a proper workable amendment to bring the three amendments together. There are issues, but all three amendments could be brought together in an amendment at stage 3. In that case, I will not press amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 6, in the name of Graham Simpson, was already debated with amendment 1.

On the basis that the minister is prepared to spread some of his success at stage 3, I will not move amendment 6.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Amendment 80 not moved.

Section 25—Meaning of single-building assessment

Amendments 81 to 84 not moved.

Amendments 41 and 42 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26—Power to modify meaning of single-building assessment

Amendment 85 not moved.

Section 26 agreed to.

Section 27 agreed to.

Section 28—Interpretation of other words and expressions

Amendment 43 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 29 and 30 agreed to

Section 31—Commencement

Amendments 9 and 86 not moved.

Section 31 agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you.

The committee previously agreed to take the next item in private so, as that was the final public item on today’s agenda, I close the public part of the meeting.

12:30 Meeting continued in private until 12:32.