Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.