Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

I have nothing further to add.

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.

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.

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 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.

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—

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.