Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024

Official Report 1016KB pdf

---

Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is stage 3 of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 36A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. Members should also note the updated procedural notes for group 3, which were circulated with the timed groupings.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—The register

Group 1 is on information to be provided in registers and reports. Amendment 9, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 14, 43 and 44.

Despite the Scottish Government’s reports, we still do not understand the true extent to which combustible materials have been used in buildings in Scotland. The single building assessment is an opportunity to help to address that. The Scottish Government’s first high-rise inventory, which was published in 2020, did not request or detail the Euroclass ratings of materials that were used, which makes it impossible to know whether those materials are combustible. Despite the Government agreeing to consider recommendations to address that, no changes were made to the 2021 survey.

Further survey work following the last iteration of the high-rise inventory will form part of the register of safe buildings. A key part of determining whether a building is safe is—and must be—knowing what materials have been used and the make-up of the external wall system. Since the launch of the single building assessment, the Scottish Government has always maintained the position that it is engaging with residents in those buildings that are affected by combustible materials.

In 2022, the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, Shona Robison, stated:

“If cladding is assessed to be high risk, home owners will be invited to discuss the assessment and to agree to actions that will be required to make their building safe.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2022; c 14.]

The Scottish Government has since maintained that it would be open and transparent and engage with those residents who are affected. How can that be the case if it is not willing to detail to residents or owners the materials with which the building is constructed? The Government should also clarify what detail will be made available and what the reason is for not outlining which materials have been used in the construction of the external walls.

The argument that was set out by the minister at stage 2 was that releasing information might be

“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”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 April 2024; c 37.]

Surely, the Government must be working with those institutions, engaging with that sector ahead of the bill and working to define what the single building assessment process will be. That engagement should have mitigated any risk. If it does not, it begs the question of whether the Scottish Government has listened adequately to the concerns that have been raised. We have real concerns about whether the SBA process and the bill will have the desired effect if residents simply are not told what their building is made with.

On amendments 14 and 44, house builders in Scotland believe that the creation of a cladding assurance register, in principle, is appropriate as a record of what properties have been remediated. However, there is a lack of clarity about what information is to be provided in the register and who should be responsible for the remediation. Is it the developer or a home owner who might not have maintained a building?

With much of the process hanging on the key concept of the SBA, it is essential that all parties that will be impacted by it have full clarity at the outset of what a Scottish SBA is, its specification, what it looks like and the standards that it is assessing. However, none of that detail for such a key policy proposal is provided in the bill. We should give residents and developers much more clarity about the details that should be contained in an SBA and an idea of how the register would be used in practice. Amendment 9 would clarify who has responsibility for carrying out the actions that are set out in the SBA.

Not all risks that are identified will be because of the construction of the building. Given the fact that some buildings are decades old, the risk might have emerged through a lack of maintenance or adaptation. The minister’s opinion was that the process in the bill would give people that information, and he offered to pick that up and discuss the SBA process when it is completed. He also reiterated that the SBA process currently includes developers and stakeholders.

We welcome that assurance, but it does not go far enough. If the key concept in the bill is the single building assessment, we feel that far more information should be included, and we seek to do that through my amendments.

I move amendment 9.

Amendments 9 and 43 seek to add technical detail to the bill. Mark Griffin and I have had a number of discussions in and outwith the committee on that point and on many others. However, the purpose of the bill is to facilitate delivery of the cladding remediation programme. It is not appropriate for the bill to set out the technical detail of what the SBA report must contain. Those standards will be set by the SBA specification, which the Scottish ministers will issue. As I said at committee, we are in discussions with developers at the moment.

It is also not appropriate for the cladding assurance register to make information about the type and Euroclass rating of the cladding and insulation on the building publicly available, particularly before the building has been remediated, which is what amendment 9 would require. It is important that the type of cladding and its associated risk is seen within the wider context of the SBA and not in isolation. Adding that detail to the cladding assurance register and the meaning of the SBA in the bill would provide only a partial view. Therefore, I reject amendments 9 and 43 and urge members to do the same.

On amendments 14 and 44, determining responsibility for assessment and remediation is not part of the SBA, nor is it appropriate for the relevant technical expert who is undertaking the assessment. 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. It is important to reiterate that point. The Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract will set out what we expect of responsible developers and, in the case of buildings for which we have responsibility, that is what the Government will do. I do not accept that the amendments would enhance what is in the bill; they would only distract from the purpose of the SBA.

The issue that Mr Griffin’s amendments are concerned with has already been dealt with as part of the opening contract discussions, which are continuing with the developers at the moment. Therefore, I reject amendments 14 and 44 and ask members to do the same.

I call Mark Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 9.

When it comes to the basics that people who live in such buildings are asking for, they want to know what their building is made of. There is an obligation on the Government, through the course of the assessment, to tell residents that basic information; it must be transparent and open with them about what their home is made of.

On the other amendments in the group, as I said, the committee’s stage 1 report agreed that the single building assessment was the key concept in the bill. We do not feel that it should be left to regulations; there should be far more clarity and certainty for the developers who are, potentially, picking up the bill and for the residents who are currently in those buildings. It should not be left to scrutiny at regulation level, which is not at the level of full legislative scrutiny.

I will press amendment 9.

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

As this is the first division of this stage, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

14:41 Meeting suspended.  

14:47 On resuming—  

We will proceed with the division on amendment 9. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Group 2 is on levels of risk. Amendment 10, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 11 to 13, 15, 16, 19 to 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45 and 46.

All the amendments in the group, except amendment 42, attempt to make it clear that issues that are raised through the single building assessment must link directly to a life-critical risk. The amendments seek to replace the bill’s current references to risks

“that are (directly or indirectly) created or exacerbated by the building’s external wall cladding system”

with broader references to “any” risks that are created or exacerbated by that system. The amendments 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 a life-critical risk.

At stage 2, the minister indicated that he would not support that approach. He said that it

“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.”

He added:

“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.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 April 2024; c 31.]

The minister did not engage any further on the amendments, so I assume that the Government still sees no merit in taking them further.

The Government’s approach to the content and scope of the single building assessment is far too vague. It seeks to take as much detail as possible on what is required out of the bill and leave it to be finalised in regulations while it waits for the conclusion of the SBA task and finish group. However, the policy memorandum states:

“engagement with partners suggests that there would be a clear benefit in providing further technical detail and guidance on the Single Building Assessments”.

It is essential that all parties that will be impacted have full clarity at the outset about what the single building assessment is, its specification, what it will look like and what standards it will assess. The minister’s assessment at stage 3 goes some way towards that, but residents and developers deserve more clarity about the details of the SBA.

The minister assures us that the outcomes of the task and finish group will be finalised and published by July 2024 but, in practice, that means that we are debating the merits of the assessment, which is the key focus of the bill, without being aware of those key details. My amendments in group 2 seek to add clarity on some aspects of the assessment and ensure that actions that are outlined by it must be focused on the most pressing issues, which may be a matter of life and death to residents.

Amendment 42 seeks to clarify the definitions in the bill. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s stage 1 report states:

“the Single Building Assessment is the foundation of the Cladding Assurance Register, however, with a binary process that does not recognise tolerable risk there is the potential to include buildings within the cladding remediation programme that are fundamentally safe, thereby exacerbating financial and practical issues for those living in those buildings. The Committee recommends that the concept of tolerable or medium risk is incorporated into assessments”.

Leaving a definition of tolerable risk out of the bill would mean that most developments over 11m would automatically default to being high risk, which would make matters worse for home owners, even if there were no life-critical issues that required remediation. Amendment 42 seeks to clarify the situation by providing detail and context to the concept of tolerable risk in the cladding assurance register.

It is welcome that the Government has agreed that tolerable risk will form part of the single building assessment process, instead of the initial process to have binary designations of “safe” or “unsafe”. The minister disagreed with my amendment 83 at stage 2 and said that tolerable risk would not be assessed in that way in the SBA. He stated:

“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.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 April 2024; c 39.]

However, the bill does not do that. It does not require a ranking of the risk or the degrees of nuance. As such, there is no way to assess whether each risk is tolerable. The bill is silent regarding situations where, following a single building assessment, a building is ascribed a tolerable risk, or amber rating, and what that means for the building’s future management. Residents and developers who are looking at the bill have very little detail on its workings and are being expected to take assurance from the Government that unpublished findings will address their concerns before the bill passes at stage 3.

The Government has had seven years to consider how to make the bill work. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to expect more detail on how the assessment will affect developers and residents, which should be on the face of the bill.

I move amendment 10.

Before I touch on the amendments, I make the point that I have met Mark Griffin on a number of occasions—and, at the committee, too, I offered to meet him—to discuss them. That offer goes ahead once the bill is passed and as the cladding programme moves forward.

First, I will speak to Mark Griffin’s amendments in group 2 that relate to the language that is used in the bill. That covers the majority of the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 42, to which I will return.

Mark Griffin’s amendments in the group mirror those that he lodged at stage 2. They seek to amend the language of the bill specifically in relation to the risk to human life. In speaking to his stage 2 amendments, Mark Griffin clarified that their purpose was to ensure that

“issues that are raised through the single building assessment must link directly to life-critical risk.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 April 2024; c 32.]

I stated at that time that I could not support the amendments, as the wording in the bill is crucial to its purpose, and that to change it could increase the risk to owners and occupiers in affected areas.

I remain of the view that the current language should be kept. That is because it is clear that the risks that are to be addressed may be either directly caused by the cladding system or indirectly influenced by it. If the bill did not make that clear, the focus of the single building assessment could be narrowed to the risks that are directly attributed to the cladding system alone, with the risk that secondary or indirect risks that impact on the risk to life could, potentially, be overlooked.

I stress the important point that the change from “risk” to “any risk” would be grammatically and legally unnecessary. Such changes could leave occupiers of remediated buildings at a higher risk post remediation than the bill currently allows.

I ask Mark Griffin not to press amendment 10 or move the other amendments in the group. If he presses them, I ask members to reject them.

Amendment 42, which is also in Mark Griffin’s name, mirrors a stage 2 amendment that was, ultimately, not moved. Mark Griffin clarified that that amendment would counter a binary high-risk or low-risk assessment. However, as I have repeatedly put on record, remediation work will bring buildings to a tolerable risk standard. That is the approach on which the SBA standards are based, and that is the right place for discussion of tolerable risk. It is not appropriate for a bill to refer to “tolerable risk” without any further context or explanation.

In addition, at stage 2, I pointed to the unintended practical effects of such an amendment. It would require the single building assessment to set out whether each risk that was identified during the assessment process was “tolerable”, but that is not how tolerable risk will be assessed in the SBA process. The SBA will identify all risks and will state which of those risks should be addressed—and how—in order to bring the risk that is posed to human life as a whole down to a tolerable level. As such, there will not be a way of assessing whether each risk is “tolerable”. Tolerable risk must be assessed in the round, after taking into account the risks as a whole that are identified in relation to a building and how those risks may be mitigated. Therefore, the way in which amendment 42 is expressed would not allow an SBA to be conducted in the way that is required.

Furthermore, members will be aware that the SBA standards are in development. In my view, they will be the best place in which to deal with the questions of how tolerable risk is defined, in discussion with developers.

I therefore invite Mark Griffin not to move amendment 42, and I ask members to reject it if it is moved.

I call Mark Griffin to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 10.

In pressing amendment 10, I again make the point that the amendments in group 2 and in the previous group are on a continuous theme of providing more detail about the key concept in the legislation—which is, as the committee and the Government have set out, the single building assessment. We are leaving all that detail to further discussion and publication post stage 3 agreement of the legislation. Given that we are seven years down the line, the Government has missed the opportunity to give much more clarity to residents and developers about the process of assessment and remediation. We seek to rectify that through amendments in group 2 and in the previous group.

I press amendment 10.

15:00  

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendments 11 to 13 not moved.

Section 3—Power to arrange single-building assessment

Amendment 14 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 14 disagreed to.

Section 6—Power to arrange remediation work

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Group 3 is on definitions, powers to determine or modify meanings, and minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 4 to 7, 47 and 8. I point out that if amendment 4 is not agreed to, I cannot call amendments 5 and 6, and if amendment 5 is not agreed to, I cannot call amendment 6, due to pre-emption. I call on the minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group.

The group mainly consists of a number of minor and technical amendments. I will speak to the amendments in my name first.

Amendment 1 will make a minor change for consistency of language with other sections of the bill—namely, references will be to “a” building rather than “the” building.

Amendments 4 to 6 will have the effect of moving the definition of “additional work assessment” into a section of its own. The substance of the definition will not be changed.

Amendments 7 and 8 are technical but important amendments that will allow the legislation to adapt to learning from the cladding remediation programme about the types and configurations of buildings that are affected by unsafe cladding. That is important because there is a wide variety of configurations of buildings that the programme will affect, and the amendments will introduce additional functionality to respond to operational circumstances.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. There is already a power by regulation to change the type of buildings on which a single building assessment can be carried out. Amendment 7 will simply allow the Scottish ministers, by regulation, to clarify the type of building that an SBA applies to, should the need arise.

Amendment 8 will allow the Scottish ministers to determine any question that arises as to whether any particular configuration of structures joined together constitutes one building. For example, if a wholly commercial building of 11m or more in height is attached to a smaller wholly residential building, and both have cladding, there might be a need to determine that the whole structure constitutes one building. However, there might be other examples where it would be safer and more informative for the cladding assurance register to treat two conjoined structures as separate buildings. Amendment 8 will allow ministers to deal sensibly with such situations.

I do not support amendment 47, in the name of Mark Griffin, because it would take away flexibility in the future to assess, remediate and place on the cladding assurance register buildings under 11m that might be affected by unsafe cladding. Our risk-based approach has consistently outlined the current scope of the programme as being buildings that are 11m or more 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 of 11m and over, and the bill is reflective of that scope. However, should future ministers want to change the scope, it would be possible, subject to due consideration and through appropriate regulations. We do not want to limit flexibility by stating the height in the bill, so I reject amendment 47 and invite members to do the same.

I move amendment 1.

I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 47 and other amendments in the group.

Section 26 of the bill confers power on the Scottish ministers to

“modify section 25 so as to change the types of building in relation to which a single-building assessment may be carried out.”

That includes power to amend the last three of the criteria. For example, in relation to the height criterion, regulations could specify a height lower than 11m. Use of that regulation-making power could therefore expand or restrict the scope of the buildings that could be entered into the cladding assurance register in future.

The bill provides a specific definition of buildings that fall within scope, which includes a requirement on their height. However, section 26 allows that to be amended by regulations at a future date, including by adding buildings of heights lower than 11m.

Amendment 47 seeks to prevent the Government from being able to alter the height specifications of the buildings that will fall under the legislation. House builders believe that, for consistency, the height specification definition should align with the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, which state that a relevant building should be

“at a height of 11 metres or more above the ground”,

not including

“roof-top plant areas or any ... plant rooms”.

The minister has argued that the SBA is for buildings of 11m or more, and the bill is reflective of that scope. If ministers want to change the scope in future, that would be subject to due consideration through appropriate regulations. The minister has said that he did not want to limit the flexibility by stating the height in the bill.

I do not think that the Parliament should grant ministers the ability to make those changes, which could bring a countless number of homes and properties into the programme. The current position has resulted in a bill whose provisions will be subject to regulation and uncertainty after it has been passed. Developers and residents will find it difficult to act on the obligations under the bill if it is not consistent with existing legislation and if height requirements can change in the future.

As I have set out, my amendments in the group are minor and technical in nature but are nonetheless important in ensuring that we deliver as effective a bill as possible. I therefore ask all members to support my amendments.

I have set out my position on Mark Griffin’s amendment 47, but I reiterate that our risk-based approach determined that the bill and the associated cladding remediation programme should focus on buildings that are 11m or over in height. However, it is prudent to allow for that scope to be changed in the future through regulations, which would, of course, be subject to due consideration and scrutiny. Amendment 47 would remove such flexibility entirely. As such, I ask all members to reject it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Group 4 is on personal emergency evacuation plans. Amendment 17, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 18 and 22.

In the Grenfell tower tragedy, 41 per cent of the disabled people who were in the tower died. My amendments in this group aim to ensure that that does not happen again. I know from bitter experience, as do many members across the chamber, that, too often, disabled people are forgotten and that they tend to pay the highest price—none higher than the price that was paid by disabled people in the Grenfell tower disaster.

In almost all walks of life, disabled people can be left out by default, and we have to fix that by design, which is what my amendments attempt to do. The disproportionate number of disabled people who died in Grenfell tower is a tragic example of how disabled people are forgotten and the impact that that can have. During my time in the Parliament, I am committed to ensuring, in every way that I can, that disabled people are never forgotten.

Amendment 18 states that disabled occupiers of a building in which remediation works are required are entitled to request that a personal emergency evacuation plan be carried out. It sets out that the Scottish ministers would be responsible for ensuring that PEEPs were conducted and that they would run only from the point at which remediation works were identified as being required until the point at which the cladding assurance register was updated to show that the remediation works had been completed. Amendment 17 provides that remediation works should commence only once those plans are in place.

In recognition of the fact that some detailed work will need to be done in that regard, including with residents and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I lodged amendment 22, which offers the Government and other members in the chamber an alternative approach to achieving a similar aim. The amendment gives the Scottish ministers the power to introduce regulations to create personal emergency evacuation plans to ensure that disabled people have a plan, if they require one, to safely evacuate a dangerous building.

As is the case with my amendments 17 and 18, my intention is that the personal emergency evacuation plans will remain in place only until cladding remediation works have been registered as being completed. That is why, in addition to the general regulations relating to the provision of PEEPs, amendment 22 will ensure that any PEEP that is arranged will expire upon the cladding assurance register being updated to indicate that the remediation works have been completed. That was necessary in order to bring the amendments within the bill’s scope.

There is a wider question about the evacuation of disabled people from buildings during emergencies, and I hope that we can address that general issue at some point in this parliamentary session. However, in order that my amendments could be brought within the bill’s scope, the provisions will cease to apply after a building has been fixed.

In short, if members cannot agree to amendments 17 and 18, which require ministers to take specific action, I would like them to support amendment 22, which would ensure that disabled people’s safety is a key consideration in the bill, as the Grenfell tragedy proved it must be.

Amendment 22 would keep the door open to create, working with the Government, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, disabled people’s organisations and residents in buildings, a strong system of evacuation plans with the safety of disabled people at its core. Crucially, each of the amendments, should they pass, would also require that the Government make it known that disabled people have that right. That particular point was made because the issue of data sharing was brought up at stage 2. The amendments would require disabled people to self-select and ask to be given support to identify the evacuation process for them.

I hope that I have addressed all the concerns that the Government and others have raised and that members will be minded to support these crucial amendments.

I move amendment 17.

15:15  

I will speak briefly in support of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 22, which, as we have heard, provides for personal emergency evacuation plans.

As we heard from Pam Duncan-Glancy, 41 per cent of the people who died in the Grenfell tragedy had a disability and needed support to evacuate, but the fire service did not know that. I am speaking in support of the amendment and will not rehearse its detail, but I think that it is well designed and thoughtful, and I seek assurances that the Scottish Government will accept it for an essential part of the remediation programme.

I am fully supportive of the amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy made a powerful case for them at stage 2, although she did not press them at that point because the minister said that he would work with her. I think that he has done so, and we have arrived at this point.

If a person can imagine that they are disabled—most of us cannot imagine that—and they are in a block in which there is a fire, how would they get out unless they are on the ground floor? First of all, somebody has to know that there are disabled people in the block. That needs to be addressed. Perhaps it is up to the disabled person themselves to alert somebody, but some sort of scheme needs to be in place.

I am very sympathetic to what Pam Duncan-Glancy said about not limiting the approach to blocks with cladding. We should look beyond blocks with cladding and have personal evacuation plans in place for disabled people full stop.

I am fully supportive of the ambition behind the amendments, and I hope that Parliament will support them.

I am grateful to Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising an important issue and for other comments that have been made on the area this afternoon. I appreciate the time that Pam Duncan-Glancy has devoted to working collaboratively with me and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety on fire safety issues for her constituents and, obviously, disabled people.

I know that Ms Duncan-Glancy’s questions were prompted in part by the Grenfell experience and the disproportionate impact on disabled people there. I whole-heartedly share her concern, and I can assure her that work is taking place across the Government and in partnership with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and other stakeholders to ensure the safest built environment for all residents.

Following stage 2, I corresponded with Ms Duncan-Glancy and met her to discuss the topic on a number of occasions. I have been very open with her about my view that PEEPs, as proposed in her amendments, may not deliver the comfort or assurances that she is seeking.

PEEPs were a significant feature of the Grenfell inquiry as a result of the high proportion of residents with disabilities who lost their lives in that fire. Following phase 1 of the inquiry, the Scottish Government’s Grenfell inquiry fire safety working group concluded that PEEPs could not feasibly be implemented in all residential buildings in Scotland. Despite the failings at Grenfell, evidence shows that the likelihood of a fire spreading beyond a flat or a compartment on fire is minimal. As such, the stay-put policy is likely to be employed in the buildings that are of interest to the bill.

Should the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service decide that evacuation of a building is required, it would be responsible for that, and it would evacuate those at greatest risk initially. Existing robust fire safety measures will apply, and there is comprehensive fire safety guidance from the Scottish Government for fire assessment in high-rise buildings and special residential circumstances.

I firmly believe that the best way to safeguard all residents of buildings affected by unsafe cladding is to ensure that remediation works proceed at pace following a single building assessment. We must focus on bringing buildings to a tolerable risk level for all as quickly as possible.

Although I know that this is not Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intention, if anyone in a building requested a PEEP, amendments 17 and 18 could prevent remediation works from proceeding at all until that document was prepared. The impact and effect of that could be risk to human life remaining for longer than necessary. I am also conscious that there is no qualification of the meaning of “premises” in amendments 17 and 18, which could leave the provisions open to interpretation and create further delays and confusion. The provisions would therefore hinder the speedy remediation of buildings that would benefit every occupant, including disabled people, whereas a PEEP might have little real benefit in the context of cladding remediation.

I draw members’ attention to the amendments that we will consider later on engagement with owners and occupiers, which were prompted by discussion at stage 2 with Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs. Of particular relevance is amendment 46, which relates to post-assessment engagement specifically on remediation work and will provide an opportunity for wider engagement and discussion ahead of and during remediation works. I can commit here today that, for the buildings for which the Scottish ministers are responsible for arranging remediation, we will use that engagement to specifically consider, with residents with disabilities, the information and guidance that they need to feel safe and secure in their homes throughout the remediation process. Where a building is being remediated by a party other than the Scottish ministers, I will use my best endeavours to ensure that members of the responsible developers scheme engage with owners and occupiers in a similar fashion.

Although I support the intention behind amendments 17 and 18, I remain concerned that the practical application of PEEPs may not be feasible in the operational situations that we are discussing. However, I would greatly welcome the opportunity to work with Ms Duncan-Glancy to ensure that our operational cladding remediation programme best meets the needs of disabled people, including the potential role of PEEPs. We have mentioned that on a number of occasions. For that reason, I am supportive of her amendment 22, which says that ministers may make regulations regarding the development and provision of PEEPs for disabled occupiers of buildings to which an SBA applies.

We are looking at policy development and also engaging with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and working closely with Pam Duncan-Glancy and the groups that she works with. The issue is an important one that would benefit from fuller consideration, including operational scoping of the potential use of PEEPs. I am happy to commit here today to work not only with Pam Duncan-Glancy—

Can the minister give an indication of the timescale that he is considering with regard to the reach-out discussion and consultation, and then coming back with proposals?

Ms Duncan-Glancy and I met this morning and talked about that. We would be looking to arrange that as soon as possible. It is an incredibly important part of the work that we need to do, so I will be reaching out to Ms Duncan-Glancy in the next few days on that point.

I am happy to commit today to work not only with Ms Duncan-Glancy but with disabled people and other relevant stakeholders to seek to collectively deliver an effective solution that does not limit our ability to take forward remediation without delaying all cases where risks to human life that are related to the external wall cladding system are identified.

In that context, it would be helpful to have the option of regulations, if required. I therefore ask Ms Duncan-Glancy to withdraw amendment 17 and not move amendment 18 and to instead work with me to take forward the approach that is set out in amendment 22.

I thank the minister for his engagement between stages 2 and 3. I also thank colleagues from across the chamber for their support for the amendments. I have had discussions with the minister and said that I would be content with the approach that is set out in amendment 22, given that a lot of the measures would be in regulations, although I have to say that I am a little concerned about some of the statements that have just been made about the limitations of what might be involved. I was not fully aware that those limitations would be part of the regulations.

I am a bit concerned that the minister mentioned that there could be limitations in terms of a PEEP being in place and the timescales for that. I am also a bit concerned about the worries that the minister has mentioned about the practicability of putting in place evacuation plans. When we had our discussions, my understanding was that the detail needed to be worked out in regulation, not that some of those things would be off the table. I would welcome an intervention from the minister now, if he would care to make one, to reassure me. Otherwise, it would be in my interest to press amendment 17 and to move amendments 18 and 22.

If the minister wants to make an intervention, I would be keen to take that.

The member will know that I wrote to her on the issue recently, and nothing has changed from that. In the discussions, nothing is off the table. The main thing that we are looking at is the much broader discussions with the member and with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, for example. We are not going in with any limitations. We wrote to the member on that particular point, so she has my reassurance in the area.

I thank the minister for that reassurance. Members may not have seen that correspondence, but, suffice to say, it is a bit more detailed and reassuring than what we have heard on the record in the previous few minutes.

On that basis, I will move amendment 22, but I will not press amendment 17 or move amendment 18.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 6

Amendment 18, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, has already been debated with amendment 17. I call the member to move or not move the amendment.

On the basis of the commitments that I have had today and, previously, in writing, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 18 not moved.

Section 7—Power to arrange urgent remediation work

Amendments 19 and 20 not moved.

Section 8—Power to evacuate

Amendment 21 not moved.

After section 9

Amendment 22 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Appeal against arranged remediation work

Group 5 is on appeals against the arrangement of remediation works. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is group with amendment 3.

Amendments 2 and 3 will have the effect of removing section 10(5) and introducing a new subsection, thereby making alternative provision. As originally drafted, the aim of subsection (5) was to ensure that appeals, which could hold up life-critical remediation work, were dealt with quickly. However, stakeholders representing the courts raised concerns that it might not be practical to determine an appeal within 21 days, so the provision could lead to unintended consequences.

Amendment 2 responds to concerns by changing the requirement to determine the appeal within 21 days to a requirement that the court must hold a hearing within 21 days. The court would have the option either to determine the appeal immediately or to continue the appeal to a later date. In deciding whether to continue the appeal and when, the sheriff must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the effect of continuation of the appeal on the carrying out of potentially life-critical work.

Amendment 2 therefore strikes the right balance in ensuring that appeals that might hold up potentially life-critical work are determined quickly, while giving the courts sufficient flexibility to deal with the appeal appropriately, depending on the circumstances. I ask members to support the amendments.

I move amendment 2.

I note that no other member has pressed their request-to-speak button. Do you have anything to add in winding up, minister?

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

After section 19

Group 6 is on independent oversight. Amendment 23, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendment 29.

Amendment 23 seeks to introduce an independent reviewer for the single building assessment. The independent reviewer would be responsible for approving the arrangement of the SBA and the SBA report, and the arrangement of any work that is to be carried out, as identified in the report.

Amendment 23 would also allow Scottish ministers to make regulation concerning the expertise and reimbursement of the reviewer, and any such regulation would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 29, which is also in my name, seeks to amend section 20 of the bill to ensure that the responsible developers scheme includes detail on

“independent oversight of the development and delivery of single-building assessments.”

Again, that is to ensure that any developer who is responsible for conducting an SBA has sufficient independent oversight to ensure that the SBA covers all bases. In discussions with residents, particularly in developments in Glasgow, which is the region that I represent, it was made clear to me that they are seriously concerned about the potential for a conflict of interests, especially in circumstances in which the people who are responsible for fixing the building might have built it in the first place and could identify the remediation that is needed.

15:30  

Residents have made it clear that they would like independent scrutiny of the SBA process in the bill and it is important that we avoid any conflict of interests. Past experiences of residents have soured relations between the parties involved, so it is no wonder that there is deep distrust. I am hopeful that the bill and amendments can remedy that.

In any event, I believe that there have to be sufficient protections in the bill to ensure that those who are responsible for identifying and fixing issues are held to account and that there is an added layer of protection against any conflict of interests.

I hope that the minister will support amendments 23 and 29. If he cannot, I invite him to put on the record today why he believes that the bill is already equipped to mitigate any conflict of interests.

I move amendment 23.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for amendments 23 and 29 and for the engagement that I have had with her on them. Amendment 23 seeks to introduce the role of independent reviewer to bring a degree of independent assurance to the assessment and remediation process, whereby those activities are instructed by the Scottish ministers. Amendment 29 would require that similar provision about independent oversight of delivery and development of SBAs is made in the regulations that create the responsible developers scheme.

As I have discussed with Ms Duncan-Glancy, I do not agree with the principle of ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect owners and residents and to limit any potential conflict of interests arising by remediating parties. I believe that there are sufficient measures in the bill and I will put them on the record today.

The single building assessment standard is being developed by independent specialist fire safety engineers, with the document going through an industry-wide review process. It is due to be finalised this month.

Whether a single building assessment is instructed by Scottish ministers or a developer, it must be carried out in accordance with the standards and by a person who is authorised by the Scottish ministers. That will ensure not only that there is a consistent approach to assessment, but that it is always completed by a suitably qualified and competent individual, such as a fire engineer with professional registration. In all cases, the outcome of that assessment will be a single building assessment report, which will also be peer reviewed.

Additionally, work can be considered to be complete only when the cladding assurance register is updated and works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Scottish ministers. Work is now under way to develop robust compliance and assurance processes to support that within the cladding remediation programme.

I should also clarify that remediation works will have the normal protections of building certification. If the works require a building warrant, that will need to be applied for and to meet current building regulations. Once the works have been completed, they will be subject to verification of their completion certificate by a verifier in accordance with the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.

Finally, I remind members that we must avoid the unnecessary delays in progressing with both assessment and remediation that I believe amendment 23 would introduce. An independent review before arranging an SBA, producing the SBA report and work commencing would draw out the timetable for works being done and could hold up conducting urgent remediation work on immediate risks to human life, as set out in section 7 of the bill.

I do not believe that an independent reviewer is necessary in the light of the measures that I have just outlined. However, I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for raising an important point. We have agreed again to continue to discuss discussions beyond the bill as we move towards the remediation programme, and to build on that. Based on the assurances that have been offered here today, I ask her not to press amendment 23 but to keep on discussing the matter with me, and I ask members to reject it if it is pressed.

I thank the minister for that response. He will know, as I do, that people who live in the buildings are keen that a process is in place to ensure that there is no conflict of interests between the people who built the building, the people who decide what should be fixed in it and the people who fix it.

I am reassured by some of the comments that the minister has made on the record and am therefore content not to press amendment 23. I remind the minister of the commitments that he made to residents, when he met them a week ago, to ensure that their voice will never again be forgotten in the process, that they can be assured of a conflict of interests being mitigated and that, when determining the responsible developers scheme, the minister will make sure that addressing any conflict of interests is a key part of it.

On the basis of the reassurance that I have sought and that I think I have heard today, I will not press amendment 23.

Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.

Group 7 is on engagement with owners and occupiers. Amendment 24, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is grouped with amendments 25, 26 and 32.

Our debate on this group will be in a very similar vein to the points that were raised in the previous one. Given some of the assurances that we have heard, and in relation to amendment 24 specifically, I hope that we can bring owner and occupier voices much more to the fore in the process.

Amendment 24 will ensure that there is engagement with owners and occupiers of dangerous buildings prior to the commencement of the single building assessment. It will provide that ministers with responsibility

“must ... use their best endeavours to ensure”

that engagement is undertaken, so that owners and occupiers can be informed that the assessment will be conducted and will have the opportunity to ask questions about it. I think that that will help with their concerns around conflict.

Amendment 24 will ensure that owners and occupiers of the buildings concerned can remain informed—something that residents have told me has not been the case in the past. From having waking watches imposed on them without any further information to being told that they had to decant their cars from their car park without any information on where they should decant them to, owners and occupiers, particularly in the Glasgow region but across Scotland, have had no opportunity to have their voices heard adequately. My amendment 24 is intended to address that. Owners and occupiers of buildings have the most important voices, and it is crucial that they are heard.

I am pleased to see amendments 25 and 26, in the name of Miles Briggs, which will ensure that owners and occupiers are kept informed about the results of any single building assessment that is carried out and that they have the opportunity to ask questions and find out more about what is happening in and at their homes. Those amendments will also ensure that owners and occupiers are consulted regarding any remediation that is required to be undertaken.

Owner and occupier voices must be added to the bill. If lessons to this date have taught us little, they must have taught us that. For too long, their point of view has not been taken into consideration at the forefront, and they have been pushed from pillar to post. Amendment 24 and the other amendments in the group offer a strong opportunity to put that right, to give owners and occupiers a voice and to make the cladding remediation process as transparent and engaging with those people as it possibly can be. I urge members to support the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 24.

Members who represent constituents who live in the 105 buildings and developments that are affected will have heard from home owners and residents that communications to date have not been adequate on the Government’s cladding remediation programme. People whose properties are affected by unsafe cladding must be given access to the outcome of the single building assessment, and there must be clear and meaningful engagement with them ahead of any remediation works taking place on their homes. The minister has acknowledged that communications must improve, and I welcome that, together with his commitment to ensure that the matter is urgently addressed beyond the passage of the bill. I thank the minister for his co-operation on my amendments 25 and 26, which build on amendment 2, which I lodged at stage 2.

Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that ministers inform occupiers and owners of the outcome of the single building assessment, and amendment 26 will require ministers to do so further ahead of any remediation works taking place, except in urgent circumstances, where the duty to engage is limited to what is practicable.

Taking my amendments 25 and 26 together with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 24, ministers will be required to ensure clear and consistent communications on the cladding remediation programme throughout a building’s journey from assessment to remediation. I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by members across the chamber. I know that the people affected have been desperate for communications to be specified in the bill, so I very much hope that that will improve the experience of many of my constituents. I intend to move amendments 25 and 26, and I support all the other amendments in the group.

I begin by thanking Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs for their co-operation on the amendments that they have lodged in this group. Those amendments reflect the stage 1 process and the evidence that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee heard on the importance of engagement with owners and occupiers, as well as the positive nature of the stage 2 process and the commitment to work together to develop such amendments. With that in mind, I can say that the Government will be able to support the amendments in this group, but I will comment briefly on the matters that they raise.

I turn to amendment 24, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, on pre-SBA engagement. I previously updated the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee that the Government was working on an improved communications protocol. I acknowledge the point that Miles Briggs made on that, and we need to do better in that regard. Ensuring that we engage fully with owners and residents ahead of ministers arranging for a single building assessment to be carried out will form part of that. I am comfortable, therefore, to commit the Scottish ministers to meeting the duty to communicate in those terms, and I ask members to support amendment 24.

I turn to amendments 25 and 26, in the name of Miles Briggs, on post-SBA engagement with owners and residents, I note that our improved communications protocol aims to improve engagement with owners and residents where we are remediating their buildings, as I touched on earlier. Again, I am comfortable to commit the Scottish ministers to meeting the duties that those amendments contain.

Amendment 32, in my name, provides that the regulations creating the responsible developer scheme can place a duty on ministers

“to use their best endeavours”

to ensure that members of the RDS engage with owners and occupiers before an SBA is carried out and during remediation work. I will also seek to secure that outcome through contracts connected to the RDS. That approach allows us to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that developers communicate and engage with residents in buildings that they are remediating. I ask members to support amendment 32.

I support all the amendments in this group. At stage 2, I made the point that communications are vital. Communication needs to take place not only with the people who own flats but with the people who actually live in a block.

As members will know, I lived in a block from which I was evacuated during a fire. After I first moved in, I became aware that, after a fire in the underground car park, some men were wandering around at night in orange jackets. They formed part of a waking watch. I discovered that only when I asked one of them what they were doing. After I moved in as a tenant, nobody told me that there was a waking watch. I think that anyone who lives in a block—not just owners but residents—should be informed of such things.

The amendments in this group are really good and potentially go some of the way towards tackling the communications issue. However, I caution Miles Briggs on one point. I am always uneasy about language such as “use their best endeavours” and “so far as practicable”, as that can allow the Government to wriggle off the hook a bit, but we will see where that goes.

Nonetheless, I think that the minister is serious about the issue. If he is serious about it and if he is kept in post—as he has been so far—we will perhaps be able to deliver on those aims together.

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 24.

Members have spoken clearly about the importance of engaging with both owners and occupiers, which my colleague Graham Simpson has just highlighted. One reason why that is incredibly important reflects the exact point that he just made about the men who appeared in his building. Some owners and occupiers have contacted me about that, including women who were surprised to see some men in their building as part of a waking watch on a particular day without any prior notice.

With regard to safety, not only for the building, and for security and peace of mind, I think that the amendments in this group are essential, and I urge members to support them. I press amendment 24 in my name.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Amendments 25 and 26 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

15:45  

Section 20—Power to establish scheme

Amendments 27 to 29 not moved.

Group 8 is on the responsible developers scheme. Amendment 30, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 31, 33, 36, 37 and 38.

I am pleased to open the debate on the group, which is focused on adding clarity to the provisions in the bill relating to future regulations on the responsible developers scheme. The lack of detail on the scheme in the bill has caused some concern among stakeholders. Although I welcome the minister’s commitment to consult ahead of any regulations being introduced, there is an opportunity to strengthen the bill with these amendments.

Amendment 30 would add provisions allowing processes for decision making on membership of the responsible developers scheme to be added to any regulations that establish the scheme. Given the potential consequences of developers being refused membership or having it withdrawn, the transparency of decision making is crucial, and that underpins the intentions of my amendments.

Amendments 36, 37 and 38 offer assurances to those who may become members of the responsible developers scheme that there will be a right of appeal against any decisions that may impact on them, such as membership of the scheme being refused or withdrawn, or a member being added to the prohibited developers list. Those decisions could have a significant impact on businesses and developers, and it is right that there should be a right of appeal.

My amendments 31 and 33 are similar to the probing amendments that I lodged at stage 2, and they would require ministers to set eligibility according to developers’ varying sizes and situations. In England and Wales, care has been taken to consider the exposure of builders that are small and medium-sized enterprises. As things stand, Scotland’s SME developers lack protection in the bill and lack certainty about the future direction of travel that the bill might bring. Should they be subject to the building safety levy, there are suggestions that small developers could be at risk of two new forms of additional taxation and charges.

I took on board the minister’s remarks at stage 2 and have adapted the amendments to take into account the sentiments in the minister’s letter to the committee. For example, the amendments require ministers to set regulations in relation to the size and circumstances of developers, as it was suggested that specifying the turnover of those businesses in the bill would reduce the flexibility of the regulations prior to work being done to consult on what those regulations should contain.

We know that we are not meeting building targets across Scotland and that our SME sector, which is so important to delivering the homes that we need in rural and island communities, is already under significant pressure. I therefore believe that the amendments provide the right balance.

I move amendment 30.

Amendment 30 states that the RDS regulations may specifically set out the decision-making process in respect of membership, including for loss of membership. It is our view that the amendment is acceptable and that it wholly and usefully sets out further detail of what we would expect to be contained in the RDS regulations.

Amendments 36, 37 and 38 set out that the RDS regulations “must” provide for a right of appeal in relation to decisions to refuse to allow a person to become a member of the RDS scheme, to cease that membership or to add a developer to the prohibited developers scheme. We are happy to accept the amendment, which ensures that developers will be able to appeal decisions that may affect their ability to conduct business. I am therefore pleased to be able to support Mr Briggs’s amendments 30, 36, 37 and 38.

Amendments 31 and 33 relate to the responsible developers scheme. Amendment 31 seeks to amend section 20 to enable the scheme to make allowances for different developers, particularly regarding their size. Amendment 33 has a similar aim in seeking to limit the scope of the responsible developers scheme to developers with a turnover above a yet-to-be-specified amount.

I want to make it clear that sections 23 and 24 already allow ministers to make provisions by the regulations that are specified in Miles Briggs’s amendments. The responsible developers scheme will also be able to make provisions for different sizes—or other characteristics—of developer. As Miles Briggs knows, I have had discussions with a number of SMEs, and I will continue to do so.

I understand what Miles Briggs is trying to achieve, as this has been an important issue for him all along—as it has for other committee members, as well as stakeholders, throughout the bill process. Given that there is a clear consensus on the need to consider specifically the size of developers—which I see as a key component of the consultation that I have committed to ahead of any regulations being brought in on the RDS—I am content to support amendment 31.

Miles Briggs also feels very strongly about amendment 33, which touches on what has been an important issue during the bill process. Amendment 33 seeks to limit the scope of the responsible developers scheme to developers whose annual turnover is above an amount that is to be specified in regulations. I acknowledge the importance of getting that issue right, as the Government is cognisant of the potential impact on developers, including SMEs. Throughout the bill process, the Government has been clear that it is engaged in discussions with a wide range of developers—including, as I mentioned, SMEs—on the detail of the Scottish safer buildings remediation contract. The intention is to closely align the contract and the responsible developers scheme.

A key theme in those discussions is a developer’s ability to pay. A task-and-finish group was established on that issue and is working closely with developers and Homes for Scotland on a number of issues, such as financial thresholds, the contribution of smaller developers and arrangements for firms that might find themselves in financial distress.

There also remains the issue of whether turnover is the most appropriate measure to use—in England, the measure is operating profit—and the question of how group companies are treated. Those are important questions that connect directly to the wording of amendment 33.

Overall, I stress that we are still developing the policy approach on those issues, and we would like to consult stakeholders on that approach, including on the responsible developers scheme. I am pleased that developers are engaging with us on the topic and I am keen to conclude those discussions ahead of a formal consultation on the responsible developers scheme, aligning the two as closely as possible. Of course, I am happy to continue working with Miles Briggs—I have worked with him during the bill process and will continue to work with him after it. However, I am concerned that his amendment would restrict that possibility. I therefore ask him not to move his amendment 33, and I ask members to reject it if it is moved.

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 30.

I welcome the fact that the minister has moved on amendment 31. That is important. There are still many questions about the impact on SMEs, especially those that operate in England and Scotland, of profit being taken into account. I am content with what the minister has said.

I know that different working groups are taking forward work to develop the guidance, and it is important that that detail is provided earlier. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having a scrutiny role in that process is also important, so that we can make sure that we get it right and limit any potential for small businesses in Scotland to go under. That is one of the major concerns that have been expressed to us.

I press amendment 30.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

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

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 33 to 35 not moved.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendment 36 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendment 37 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 38 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

After section 24

Group 9 is on progress reports. Amendment 39, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 40, 48 and 49.

Members will be delighted to know that this is the final group: we have made swift progress today. Perhaps that is down to the way that the minister has worked collaboratively across the different parties—a lesson for the First Minister, perhaps.

I am here to learn. [Laughter.]

I am very pleased about that sedentary contribution from the First Minister. Mr Simpson, please continue.

In case members did not hear it, the First Minister said that he is “here to learn.” He can learn from the housing minister, who is now suitably embarrassed.

Amendments 39, 40, 48 and 49 relate to duties on the Scottish ministers to report on progress in the cladding remediation programme. They build on amendments that I and Miles Briggs lodged at stage 2, which were ultimately not moved.

Amendment 39 would require the Scottish ministers to report on progress with arranging and carrying out single building assessments and on progress with remediation work. The reports may also include such other information as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate.

Amendment 40 provides further detail on what information the reports must contain. That includes

“the number of buildings in relation to which a single building assessment is in progress and the number in relation to which remediation work ... is in progress”,

whether that has been arranged by Scottish ministers or by developers that are members of a responsible developers scheme.

There is also a requirement to provide quantitative information about changes to the cladding assurance register, including the number of times entries have been amended to show the completion of work. That will provide a very useful indication of the overall activity on cladding remediation.

The first reporting period will be the18 months after the proposed new section comes into force, and subsequent reports must be prepared each year after that. Amendment 39 would require that there be 10 reporting periods in total, but there is an option to increase the number by regulations.

Amendment 49 will allow proposed new subsection (4) in amendment 39 to be amended by regulations so that the actual commencement date is referred to.

Amendment 48 provides that regulations under the proposed new section will be subject to the negative procedure.

The amendments in the group would ensure that there is open and transparent information on progress with remediation, which is crucial to the owners and occupiers of buildings that are affected by unsafe cladding.

I move amendment 39.

I thank Mr Simpson for lodging amendments 39 and 40, which would place reporting duties on the Scottish ministers, and amendments 40 and 49, which set out technical matters.

I am, of course, in favour of open and transparent government, which the amendments support. The proposed duties focus on progress with the cladding remediation programme, including by developers that are members of the responsible developers scheme. The positive impact of the programme on owners and occupiers whose buildings are affected by unsafe cladding is at the heart of the reporting duties. I fully support the amendments in the group.

I invite Graham Simpson to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 39.

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 25—Meaning of single-building assessment

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

16:00  

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app, but I would have voted no.

Thank you, Ms Grahame. I will ensure that that is recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, could not connect to the app, but I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Mr Lumsden. I will ensure that that is recorded.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I, too, could not connect to the app, but I would have voted yes.

Thank you, Mr Balfour. I will ensure that that is recorded, too.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42 disagreed to.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

I point out that if amendment 4 is not agreed to I cannot call amendments 5 and 6.

Amendment 4 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 45 and 46 not moved.

I point out that if amendment 5 is not agreed to I cannot call amendment 6.

Amendment 5 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

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

Amendment 7 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 47, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 47 disagreed to.

Section 28—Interpretation of other words and expressions

Amendment 8 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 30—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 48 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 31—Commencement

Amendment 49 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, at this point in proceedings the Presiding Officer is required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections.

In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority for it to be passed at stage 3.