Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Griffin, perhaps we could write to the committee—if that is okay, Jess—when we have a more accurate date.

On that particular point, I note that there are a small number of cases—it is not wide ranging. There is on-going monitoring; I will bring in either Jess Niven or Craig McGuffie on that particular point. Again, they were more involved in the operational day-to-day discussions.

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.

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.

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.

Shall I respond to that, convener?

I will write to you.

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 reject the amendment if it is pressed.

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

A commonsense approach.

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.