Official Report 299KB pdf
Agenda item 8 is consideration of the Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Today, we will hear evidence from Hugh Henry MSP, Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I welcome to the committee the minister and two officials from the Scottish Executive, Lorimer Mackenzie and Paul Stollard.
Thank you for this opportunity to give evidence. As you have indicated, convener, my evidence comes at the end of the committee's involvement in stage 1; members have carried out a fair bit of work already. It is right to thank the organisations and individuals who have assisted the Executive in the preparation of the proposals. A huge amount of work has gone into the bill, including a significant amount of consultation. We value and have benefited from the views that have been expressed by a wide range of organisations. That has helped us to produce a bill that I hope meets the needs of all those with an interest in building standards. Building standards impact on each and every one of us, although they might not be the most obvious thing that we think about.
I thank the minister for his statement, in which he explained clearly the direction that the Executive is taking with the bill. I am new to the bill—this is the first time that I have been involved in the committee's discussion on building regulations. I was impressed by the fact that 800 people were consulted and that the Executive received 191 responses. That is a good model for how ministers should consult—perhaps others should look at how you conducted that exercise.
I will ask the officials to respond to that point in a moment. The bill explicitly identifies for the first time the achievement of sustainable development as a central aim of the building standards system. We want to create a more efficient and flexible system that is better able to deliver on sustainability objectives, now and in the future. We have recently displayed our commitment to high standards of energy efficiency in Scotland by raising those standards in an amendment to building regulations. We have the highest standards for thermal insulation and energy efficiency in the United Kingdom. However, as Bruce Crawford suggested, we cannot afford to be complacent. He pointed to the wider issues of climate change, which will impact on us. It is clear that we will need to consider those issues in relation to our planning system and building standards. One of the officials may be able to say more about climate change.
Any measures that may be required to allow us to react to changes in climate and achieve the standards to which Bruce Crawford alluded would be introduced in accordance with the regulations that will flow from the bill. The fact that sustainable development is one of the purposes of the bill will allow building standards to evolve to meet needs as they arise, whether they relate to flooding or to other risks. That will be done through regulations and guidance; such measures would not feature in the bill because they already fall within the purposes of the bill. Regulations are subject to rigorous consultation, and if any are introduced to meet future needs, they would be the subject of consultation with interested parties, ranging from users of buildings to the professionals who build them.
Fiona McLeod and Robin Harper both want to follow that point up. They will ask their questions first; then I will allow the minister to answer them together.
You have spoken about a lot of measures coming through regulation stemming from the bill. You are making it clear that you will reduce technical standards from statutory standards, which must be met under building regulations, to guidance, which merely should be met. That ties in with some of the questions that the Disability Rights Commission raised.
The minister observed that our standards of thermal insulation are higher than those in the rest of the UK. Does he agree that they are still relatively low in comparison with those in the rest of northern Europe, which should provide the comparator for Scotland?
I will take the second question first. We recognise the achievements that have been made in other parts of Europe and that more could be done in Scotland. We are trying to change progressively, or incrementally, and we can take satisfaction from that, without being complacent. I am concerned about the matter. I have discussed it with officials. Apart from Robin Harper, a number of members have spoken to me about the issues that are involved, which we will continue to scrutinise. Where we can make improvements, we will. There are obvious implications for the building industry, local authorities and the Executive, but Robin Harper is right: technically, more could be done. I am sympathetic to doing more when that is possible, but I do not underestimate the associated difficulties.
The expanded functional standards will still set a minimum that must be met and that the courts will be able to enforce. That minimum will be no lower than that which we set at present through regulation. The guidance that will accompany the regulations will, where possible, give developers, builders and architects a number of options to on how to comply with the standards. The standards will have the force of law and will be slightly more expanded than the current regulations.
The minister has already touched on disability issues so he might have addressed most of my question already. Is he saying that the building regulations will refer to the specifically designated purposes that were requested by the Disability Rights Commission? Has he had any direct discussion or correspondence with the Disability Rights Commission about its concerns? If not, will he do so?
A seminar was arranged with the Disability Rights Commission to seek disabled people's views on access issues—officials have already outlined the consultation proposals. At that seminar, delegates' views were facilitated through a series of workshops. I have been told that the exercise was well received by the groups that attended. If we can do more, and if more consultation is required as we go through the stage 2 process, we are more than happy to engage in that way.
Last week, the committee heard from the Disability Rights Commission. I think that it said that it had concerns about having detail in the regulations, but that it accepted the reasoning behind our approach. At the event that the DRC held on our behalf in Dundee—which, incidentally, was attended by Gil Paterson, who is the Equal Opportunities Committee's reporter on disability—the view was expressed that we need to keep in touch with interested disability rights groups and disability access groups and ensure that, when we put together the guidance and the regulations that flow from the bill and will flow throughout the new system, we consult such groups to get the right solutions. However, the DRC accepted our broad approach.
I am happy with that answer, convener, and would like to move to my next question, which relates to the extension of functional standards to the external features of large developments, such as footpaths and street lighting. That extension received support during early consideration of the bill. Do you support that proposal? What are your reasons for supporting or opposing the proposal?
We are attempting to ensure deliverability and consistency. I am not clear whether there is a major issue relating to footpaths, but if there is an issue that we need to address, we can do so as we approach stage 2. I have not identified a particular problem in that respect.
We already cover certain areas that are connected with buildings, such as access for people to walk to them, access for fire appliances, drainage of car parks and services that must go to buildings. Under the bill, we will continue to cover those areas, so how one reaches and leaves a building safely will be covered.
Are you talking about a footpath between the front door of a flatted development and the pavement, for example?
Yes.
I understand from the early representations that we received that the question relates to the development of entirely new estates. What is your view on extending functional standards to cover all the infrastructure that connects the different parts of such estates and connects estates to the outside world? I think that that was the issue that emerged in representations.
The bill is not intended to cover such areas. It does not include anything on roads, access or services to the land, street lighting or signage.
Robin Harper and Des McNulty are trying to ask questions. Robin can ask the first question.
Just before he does, I should say that if Angus MacKay has a concern that we need to consider before stage 2, we will certainly do that. To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, I say that at the moment that is not our intention.
The specific concern is to do with when, as Angus MacKay outlined, builders complete the building satisfactorily but do not complete the lighting, paths and so on in an estate. That presents problems in the future for the owners. That issue has been raised with us.
That is an understandable concern. Before I became a member of the Scottish Parliament, I was a councillor in a community that started from nothing and has been built over the past 30 years. I am well aware of the persistent problems that arise from the issue that has been outlined. We must consider the planning issues. It is a bit more difficult to judge whether it is right to include provisions on the matter in a bill on building standards. I will reflect on that and we will come back to the committee.
I will pursue the point that the minister just made. Would it be considered a function of standards to provide for safe play areas for children in large estates?
Not necessarily. Planning authorities currently consider that matter. I know from direct experience that when the local authority of which I was a councillor insisted on such play areas, it proved to be the usual road to hell paved with good intentions. In some cases the play areas went in and worked well but, after several years, when the children had grown older, the areas became a magnet for older children and we received complaints about youngsters hanging about there to drink and cause bother. We then received petitions from people wanting the play areas to be removed. I could take the committee on a tour of several estates where such facilities became a source of constant irritation and, in one case, violence between neighbours. Although the intentions are right, I do not underestimate the problems. Planning authorities consider the matter closely, but I hesitate to specify such provision in a building bill.
I will amplify the point. Three areas of concern affect people most. One is the lack of a proper penalty system when contractors fail to elevate footpaths, lighting standards and so on to an appropriate level. There is a question as to whether that should be dealt with in the bill.
I know that you have said that you will reflect on the matter, minister. Do you want to add anything further?
I do not think so. This issue causes anguish throughout the country. I will repeat the point that I made—I am not sure that this bill is the place to address the issue. If we can do something about it, we will certainly come back to you. We will reflect on that important concern.
The committee has heard concerns about the relationship between continuing requirements and other health and safety legislation. One example was about how continuing fire safety requirements will relate to existing fire safety regulations. Another issue is the role of verifiers in assessing continuing requirements after the issue of a completion certificate. Will the minister clarify how the continuing requirement system will work in practice?
I will bring in one of my officials.
Certain measures will be included as part of the design solution to fulfil the standards that will require maintenance beyond the completion of the building. Examples could be a boiler or sprinkler system that needs to be maintained or a septic tank that needs to be desludged. Section 2 will simply ensure that if it is brought to a local authority's attention that those continuing requirements are not undertaken, the local authority will have the power to take action. There is no power to do that under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959.
I have two questions on health and safety. The first relates to the possibilities in the bill for minimising the risk of injury to children. Two per cent of children presenting at the accident and emergency department of Glasgow's royal hospital for sick children—about 11 a week—have isolated finger injuries, most of which are caused by crushing and jamming of fingers in doors. Some are so serious that they lead to amputation, and a high proportion of those injuries happen to children under the age of five years old. I am told that a substantial number of the injuries would be avoided if the building standards required the use of safer forms of hinges on doors, and mechanisms could be introduced to achieve that. Is the minister prepared to consider introducing an amendment to deal specifically with reducing the risk of such finger injuries? Are there other opportunities in the bill to examine minimising the risk of other injuries to children?
Des McNulty is right to identify the contribution that building regulations can make to improving the health and safety of people in buildings. They already do so, and one example is that they set standards for the safety of stairs so that construction causes no hazards to users. We would be willing to examine solutions, and we could use regulation, but we would have to be persuaded that any suggested solutions could be adequately implemented. We would want to go out to proper consultation. Bruce Crawford mentioned extensive consultation, and we want that to continue. We would want to ensure that we are not imposing something that cannot be delivered. If there are potential solutions and things can be done to improve health and safety, we will look to regulation, but we will engage in consultation before acting.
I will welcome anything that can be done to implement the International Organisation for Standardisation guidelines on child safety, for example. I am happy to speak to the minister and his officials about how to develop the issue.
I am well aware of Des McNulty's long-standing interest in the issue and his campaigning for some of the victims of exposure to asbestos. I have worked in the Clydebank area and I know about the huge damage that asbestosis and mesothelioma have caused to his constituents. That tragic situation should be considered carefully when any decisions are taken that will have a future impact.
In its evidence to the committee, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland indicated that a substantial proportion of properties in Scotland might fail to meet the building standards assessment standards. Do you agree that that is a concern for home buyers and sellers and, if so, do you have any views on how to address that concern?
Some concerns have been expressed that we might try to force owners to upgrade existing buildings. That is not our intention. There has been discussion of whether the building standards assessment will replace letters of comfort. I am not aware that the concerns that you outlined will impact in the way that you suggest.
We envisage that the building standards assessment will fit into roughly the same niche that letters of comfort sit in at the moment. I live in a flat that was built in 1826. No one will expect it to meet 2005 building regulations and that was never the intention of the building standards assessment. An assessment will take place when an owner asks for it. We envisage that that will happen when a property is being sold, for example. An assessment is likely to have the same trigger as letters of comfort. It will be triggered by a buyer's surveyor indicating that certain work should be checked, because it looks dodgy.
The building standards assessment might draw a distinction between regulations that are to do with safety, such as whether the building is structurally sound and has enough fire exits, and regulations that are to do with energy performance, sustainable development or access to the disabled. It would be unreasonable to expect an 1826 flat to meet the requirements of the latter regulations. There might be an imperative to do work with regard to safety regulations but, in regard to the other issues, only an assessment of the situation would be done.
The housing improvement task force report stated that 26 per cent of owner-occupied homes suffer from critical disrepair. Do you have figures for the number of buildings in the independent rented sector that are in a similar state of critical disrepair? How do you propose to address the problem in the public and private rented sectors?
I am not aware of the figures and I do not know whether they exist. If they do, we will make them available to you.
I presume that building regulations are set in place not only to ensure that buildings, during and after construction, are kept in safe and proper order but to provide a certain quality of life for people living in them. If that is the case, is there—or could there be—any capacity in the regulations to make provision with regard to minimum standards that should apply in relation to houses in multiple occupation and the effect that those properties have on immediate neighbours, particularly in tenemental properties? I have a particular constituency interest in this matter, as there are a large number of HMOs in Edinburgh, particularly in the Sciennes, Marchmont and Polwarth areas.
We would draw a distinction between dangerous buildings and defective buildings. Clearly, there are steps that we would have to take in relation to buildings that are deemed to be dangerous.
At the moment, the HMO licensing scheme is accompanied by benchmark standards, which were issued as guidance by the Executive and have been widely used by local authorities—but not by all of them—in pitching the level at which they license. However, when new work is done, rather than work on existing buildings, that new work already has to meet the technical standards; for example, new fire doors or a new alarm system must meet the technical standards. Where people are improving or converting buildings to be used as HMOs, it is certainly the intention that they will have to meet the technical standards as set out in the new guidance. Problems arise where the guidance is being applied retrospectively to properties that are already being used as HMOs and are licensed as they exist. That is why we produced the benchmark guidance.
We know that there is a huge problem in Edinburgh, and we think that what we have done has contributed significantly to improving standards and tightening requirements.
Will the minister write to me again with further details on the specific issues that have been covered?
Sure.
That would be helpful.
The distinction depends on whether a licence is being renewed or the use of a building is being changed to become an HMO. Where there is a change of use, certain parts of the existing regulations will come into force. I do not, without copies of the regulations in front of me, want to be more precise about exactly which parts, but certain parts would come into force. We can provide the committee with guidance on that. If a building is already in operation as an HMO and a licence is either being applied for or being renewed, we produce benchmark guidance for that purpose, which some local authorities use to set their licensing conditions.
We will reply to Angus MacKay with the information that he seeks. If members have specific examples, by all means write to us and we will follow them up.
Thank you.
I would like to ask about the verifiers and certifiers that would be created by the bill. The policy memorandum outlines concerns about the operation of approved inspectors in England and Wales. What are your concerns about that system of approved inspectors and how have those concerns affected the development of the Building (Scotland) Bill?
Private sector verification already exists in England and Wales. Some of the respondents to the consultation stressed the advantages of improving the professionalism of building standards and providing more choice for the public and industry. They also argued about flexibility and consistency. We have given some thought to the verification and certification process.
In his opening statement, the minister stressed that verification in Scotland, whether it is in the public sector or the private sector, should be for the public benefit rather than for a specific client. That is a key feature of the bill. It is unlike the system of approved inspection in Wales, where verifiers are employed by an applicant for a warrant and there is a level of commercial discussion about fees and the like.
What would need to change to make private sector verifiers acceptable in relation to transparency, accountability, consistency, impartiality and the underpinning issue of public interest?
We need objectivity that is underpinned by very clear guidelines and regulations. If we specify from the beginning that the public interest needs to be served, private sector verifiers will know what they have to do. We will give them very clear rules within which they can operate.
Given the foregoing discussion about verifiers, why does not the bill specify a system for the appointment, monitoring and auditing of private sector and local authority verifiers?
That is another issue that will benefit from consultation. We are in close contact with consumer organisations and with the public sector and private sector bodies that have given evidence over the past few weeks. The criteria for verifiers might evolve in line with sectoral needs. If we tried to stipulate them in the bill, they would be too rigorous. After all, it has been 40 years since the previous Building (Scotland) Bill, and we do not want to come straight back to Parliament to amend such criteria. Our idea is to set regulations for the procedure.
I acknowledge your point that the system for appointing, verifying and monitoring verifiers cannot be set out in the bill and that it should come through guidelines. However, can you point out where the bill says that that will happen before any verifiers are appointed?
The bill says that ministers may appoint verifiers. We envisage following a model similar to the NHBC system in England and Wales, in which letters of appointment contain the conditions of that appointment. The bill does not contain a requirement to that effect, but it is our intention to use the letters of appointment in that way.
I think that Fiona McLeod might find what she is looking for in the first paragraph of schedule 2, which states:
So such terms would be defined by guidance.
Indeed.
Would that guidance come before Parliament?
It would not come before Parliament.
That would be for ministers to deal with.
The industry would be consulted on the guidance, but the guidance would not come before Parliament. However, Parliament could be consulted, for example if, for example, a couple of organisations were competing to undertake a particular verifying role. The terms under which an organisation could be appointed might depend on its expertise in a particular environment. Specialised determinants involving technical detail could be involved and Parliament might be asked to decide which organisation to use.
The Construction Industry Council is responsible for the appointment of approved inspectors in England and Wales. Do you envisage a similar role eventually for the Scottish Construction Licensing Executive in relation to approved certifiers of design or construction?
The Scottish Construction Licensing Executive is a new organisation, which was set up earlier this year. We are observers on its board and are watching its development with great interest. The Scottish Construction Licensing Executive could usefully be involved in the approval of certifiers, but not verifiers, of construction for particular trades. As I understand it, the Construction Licensing Executive includes plumbers, electricians, decorators, builders and a couple of smaller groups. We could have discussions or an agreement with the Construction Licensing Executive to build on that, depending on how it evolves over the next two years.
Thank you. Returning to the issue of fire, several witnesses, such as the Fire Protection Association, have asked that a duty be imposed on verifiers to consult the relevant fire authority when an application for a warrant includes an innovative design that does not follow technical guidance. How do you feel about that proposal?
We had lengthy discussions on those issues with the Fire Brigades Union and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association—CACFOA. Those organisations are content that we set up procedural mechanisms for consulting them on projects about which they might have concerns. We would allow them to determine what those projects would be because the vast majority of warrant applications are for things such as garden sheds, kitchen extensions and minor jobs in which the FBU and CACFOA have no interest.
Thank you. That was helpful. The committee has heard concerns that extensive use of self-certification of design and construction could, because of a fragmentation of responsibility, increase the risk of structural failure in major buildings. What is being done to ensure that such risks are minimised?
The provisions in the bill allow in theory for a complete building design to be self-certified by one designer, although we anticipate that that will not be permitted in the foreseeable future. Designers would have to demonstrate competence over a range of specific disciplines. We expect that individual designers would normally only be permitted to certify specific parts of a design, like structural engineers in the present system. However, auditing procedures would certainly be needed to enable problems to be identified and dealt with in ways for which the current system does not allow. That could allow wider use of certification. Perhaps Paul Stollard or Lorimer Mackenzie could add to that.
On structural failure, which has been raised with the committee, we do not use the term self-certification, we talk about certification by approved certifiers. The key in that phrase is "approved": there is no suggestion that someone would be allowed to certify just because they are a member of the Institution of Structural Engineers, for example. A separate register of people who showed competence in particular types of structures would have to be set up. Those people would be allowed to certify those structures, but their work would be audited. They would not merely be appointed at the beginning of their working life and approved for the rest of it; rather, their work would be audited and sampled regularly. There would still be a third-party verification, but it would be done by the central body and would be a sampling process.
We are concerned about fragmentation of projects. Although individual competent professionals would certify a project, we are worried about the holistic overview. Although each bit of the building might be adequately designed, the whole building might not work. That is our fear.
The reality is that buildings are already designed by a variety of professions and subcontracted specialists. We acknowledge that reality and, by introducing requirements for certifiers to take account of how their work fits into a building, we can address the problems that you mention. Verifiers will need to have an overview, as at present. The new system could be developed to cope with new ways of designing and constructing buildings.
I stress that we consider the verifier's role to be key. The verifier's job is to ensure that all the certificates—all the different parts of the building—are put together to make a whole. If a structural engineer has designed part of a building, how that part is assembled on site is equally important. The engineer might have a design certificate, but the verifier will need to ensure that, when that part of the building is built on site, it is built in accordance with that design certificate.
I am not sure that that will necessarily work. We have complicated buildings now, and a lot of larger building organisations are, in effect, management companies rather than construction companies. The system that you are introducing will lead to fragmentation of responsibility between each professional group that is conducting its part of construction at the time that the building or group of buildings is being built. Verification will also be done at that level. The question of whether an overarching requirement exists for building safety to be inspected holistically is unresolved.
There will be one only verifier for a job, so that verifier will cover the job and have the holistic view.
I do not think that that was entirely clear to the professional bodies that we consulted and which spoke to us on this issue a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps that needs to be clarified.
We will go back and talk to some of the bodies to ensure that we allay any concerns.
We are getting conflicting evidence. Apparently, you are totally happy with what is being proposed, but others are not. We have to decide on that matter and write a report, so we need the issue to be cleared up. We would welcome that.
We will go back and talk to those bodies that have concerns, but there has been consultation. We have already sought to address some of the concerns with many of those who are engaged in the process. Perhaps Paul Stollard could give more details.
The committee heard evidence from the architects and from the RICS, who broadly support the principle. The Institute of Civil Engineers expressed some concerns. We have had discussions with the chief executive of the Institution of Structural Engineers, which has been supportive of the ideas that we propose. I do not think that the Institution of Structural Engineers has given written evidence to the committee. It is that body that would be most likely to be involved in the matter.
It would help the committee if you could respond to some of those points in writing.
We can spell out for the committee whom we have spoken to and the views of the individual bodies. The committee could then decide on balance which approach it believed to be the most appropriate.
I will ask the clerks to the committee to liaise with your department to get that information. Obviously, we will need it pretty speedily, given our timetable for consideration of the bill.
We will ensure that that happens.
It might be useful if the officials read the Official Report of our discussions with the people to whom I referred, because we had a fairly extensive debate on the issues and it would be useful to clear up the points.
Another issue that seems to have caused a bit of confusion—given what the Executive is saying and what people think will actually happen—is who applies for a building warrant. Currently, agents can apply for building warrants, but the surveyors thought that from now on it would be the owner of the building, and only the owner of the building, who could do that. Last week, the building control officers were taken aback by that. They seemed to think that they could continue with the system in which an agent can act on behalf of an owner. Do we need to define what the word "owner" means, so that it has a wider definition, or do you intend it to mean simply the owner of a building?
We have taken steps to address that issue.
We are aware of the concerns about owners and tenants who have responsibility under leases to undertake work. We are looking at how we can refine the definition of owner to address the concerns. We use the example of Ocean Terminal, the owner of which might be an organisation that does not have an interest in precisely what the shops in Ocean Terminal are. The shops that occupy the units have the responsibility for fitting them out. We want to examine the definition of owner to ensure that it covers those who actually have responsibility for the work. That is the commonsense approach.
How will you clarify the definition of an owner? Will you make that clear in the schedules?
No. We are considering lodging an amendment at stage 2. We are talking to all the organisations that have given evidence to the committee, because we have had concerns about the issue for a while.
If the committee has any specific worries, we would welcome its thoughts on the matter. We will talk to a range of people about it.
What is wrong with the existing system?
In trying to improve the system, our aim is to ensure that owners accept the liability for the work that is done. We want to make it clear that the responsibility for the building work and the maintenance afterwards lies with the owner. Concern was expressed that, if a builder applied for a warrant and departed, having finished the job, the owner might say, "This is not my responsibility. The builder did the work: you will have to pursue him." The owner already has the responsibility, under the 1959 act, but there is a lack of clarity because of builders' applying for warrants. We are happy for owners' agents to apply, but the owner will still carry the responsibility.
The bill does not specify any penalty for submitting a late application for a building warrant. Should it? Is it your intention that such a penalty should exist? Do you envisage another way of achieving it?
It would be a criminal offence not to apply for a warrant.
It is an offence to undertake work without a warrant: that is retained in the bill. However, to enable people to regularise situations either by default or because they have become aware of something afterwards, we are now allowing late applications. We would probably penalise late applications when it comes to considering the fees that are charged for warrant applications. A late application would clearly involve more work for the verifier—perhaps in trying to establish what work was done before and how it was done—and therefore, when we present the scale of fees, there may be a higher fee for a late application. People would be deterred from deliberately applying late because they would pay more.
Can you give an assurance that building standards registers will be available in such formats and at such a cost that they will be fully accessible to all?
We are considering carefully how we might do that. There is, for instance, an issue about whether the information should be available in Braille. However, there may be technical problems with doing that, regarding some of the plans and designs. We are considering a range of options. We want to make the information widely accessible and in forms that are appropriate for people with specific needs, but that will depend on the cost of preparation. In a sense, the costs are contained in the system. We would not want to prepare information in a format that excluded people. We are aware of the problem and we will come back to the issue.
Why does the bill not include a definition of what constitutes a defective or dangerous building?
As I said, there are differences in the definitions of dangerous buildings and defective buildings. Buildings that are dangerous require action. We believe that the provisions in the bill will strengthen the powers of local authorities to identify dangerous buildings and maintain their powers to enforce repairs where they are necessary.
What will all the fees and charges cost? Local authority representatives expressed concern that fees would have to be set at a level that would cover all the costs associated with running the building control system. Will you guarantee that the establishment of a national scale of fees will not have an adverse effect on local government finances?
Yes, we believe that we can. We know that COSLA and the building control officers have given evidence to the committee and that they have identified their new duties. We know that COSLA welcomes the Executive's review of fees and charges and it is clear that we need to discuss that with COSLA before implementation. There will always be concerns when new duties are imposed and when there is new work, but it is right to allow local authorities to recover costs. The more information that we get from local authorities as part of our review, the better the situation will be when we prepare our final proposals.
So your intention is that the fees will have a nil effect on local government finances.
Yes. The scale will have a nil effect on local government finances. However, there is a separate question about the level of the fees that are being charged.
Yes.
The central building standards body will be an important part of the structure. Why is that body's remit and membership not set out in the bill?
Part of ministers' responsibility is to consider some of the administrative issues to do with central standards and structures. We think that that should address the issues. I do not know whether any comments on that were made as part of the consultation.
The model of the agency or unit would be responsible to ministers and therefore part of the Scottish Executive. There is no constitutional difference between the model and the ministers, which is why there is no need for the membership to be stipulated in the bill. The consultations that were done last year and in March sought views on the establishment of a body because it was seen as an integral part of the system, although we made it clear to the consultees that its membership and remit would not feature in the bill. We got broad support for a body. The question that was put in the consultation in March referred to an agency, which people broadly supported. A decision is still to be made about the exact nature of the body and how it will meet the needs of the ministerial role. It will not be constitutionally separate from ministers. Ministers will always remain accountable for what it delivers.
That brings us to the end of our questions for the minister and his officials, whom I thank for their evidence. We can now move towards preparing our stage 1 report. I bring the public part of the meeting to a close, as we will take the remaining agenda item in private. I thank the minister and his officials and the press and public for their attendance and interest in the meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 13:10.