Seòmar agus comataidhean

We would have to consider that, if that were to happen. I cannot pre-empt what another committee will say with regard to amendment 230. If that amendment was not agreed to, we would have to consider that point before stage 3.

I appreciate and understand the purpose of the amendments on the timing of commencement of the bill’s provisions. I understand any member’s desire to see progress on the delivery of the new duties and to avoid a loss of momentum. However, those objectives would be better met by supporting Mr Doris’s amendment 230 on commencement.

I hope that Mr Balfour will understand why I oppose amendment 1031, in his name, and amendment 1075, in the name of Mark Griffin. I share Mr Balfour’s desire to see progress, and I am happy to report back to the committee on the homelessness prevention pilots when that information is available. We might be able to pick that up outwith the bill process. Mr Balfour has made a very relevant point. However, my strong preference is for that not to delay commencement of part 5. Similarly, I do not see any need to delay commencement pending a review of the costs of the ask and act duties. However, I appreciate the relevant points that Mr Griffin and Mr Balfour have made, and I am happy to engage with both of them before stage 3.

Finally, I ask Mr Griffin not to move amendment 1076, which would impose a backstop date of 31 December 2028 for commencement of part 5 of the bill. I hope that Mr Griffin will agree that that is not necessary, given the amendment that Mr Doris has lodged, which will fix a backstop date for commencement with reference to royal assent and will therefore avoid any difficulty in timing should royal assent be delayed for any reason. The timing of the interim statement, as set out in amendment 1076, might also create difficulties in relation to the Scottish elections next year.

Yes, of course.

Apologies, convener, but I am not finished yet.

You make a really important point. You are right: if somebody goes in and addresses the issue with antifungal paint, it might do the job for a short period of time, but the mould will just come back again very shortly afterwards.

One of the keys things in the consultation—you picked up on the point—is about working with local authorities on the technology in that area and ensuring that what we do is more sustainable and long term. It should not just be a case of doing a paint-over job because, within a year or two, the problem will come back, so that will not solve the situation in the medium to long term. It is very much about working with local authorities on ensuring that the technology that is coming forward—there are various initiatives in that regard—leads to longer-term, sustainable action. We will be consulting the regulator and local authorities on that issue. Again, I can come back to the committee on that.

As you said, it is something that the regulator reports on, and we will be discussing the matter with the regulator. I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to add anything.

You make a really important point. You are right: if somebody goes in and addresses the issue with antifungal paint, it might do the job for a short period of time, but the mould will just come back again very shortly afterwards.

One of the keys things in the consultation—you picked up on the point—is about working with local authorities on the technology in that area and ensuring that what we do is more sustainable and long term. It should not just be a case of doing a paint-over job because, within a year or two, the problem will come back, so that will not solve the situation in the medium to long term. It is very much about working with local authorities on ensuring that the technology that is coming forward—there are various initiatives in that regard—leads to longer-term, sustainable action. We will be consulting the regulator and local authorities on that issue. Again, I can come back to the committee on that.

As you said, it is something that the regulator reports on, and we will be discussing the matter with the regulator. I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to add anything.

I am happy to write to you to try to provide more clarity on that. As I said, there is complexity in that the buildings are all slightly different. We all want the remediation to be concluded, progressed and moved on as soon as possible. I am happy for Alan Johnston to drop you a note on the specific points that he mentioned in his contribution.

I have regular meetings with colleagues on the various states of programmes in the pilot and on any other issues that come up. I will bring in Alan Johnston on the point about day-to-day work.

When the new UK Government came in, one of the key things for me was to ensure that there was a four-Government response, which is really important. Initially, we had a discussion with the UK Government minister to say that we needed to work together more closely. We also had a meeting before the Grenfell inquiry report came out. In addition, I think that an intergovernmental meeting is coming up.

The issue of cladding, and Grenfell in particular, is being discussed at ministerial level. We have all given our reassurance that those discussions will continue, which has been welcomed. Officials are working very closely on the approach.

It has all been very constructive. We can write to the committee when the contract is agreed.

As part of our response to the Grenfell inquiry, we pulled together a group of experts in the sector to look at our response and to address the issues. That was an issue that the group picked up. We remain confident about our position going forward. We will engage with the UK Government and other Government colleagues as well as the sector as we progress with our response to the Grenfell inquiry.