Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Members should have the usual papers for the next item. I shall move straight to the first group of amendments, on building regulations and broadband communication technology, and call Kenny MacAskill to speak to amendment 1.
Section 1—Building regulations
In speaking to amendment 1, I want to ask three questions. What are we trying to do? Why are we trying to do it? How can we achieve it? My fourth point will be my response to what I understand to be the minister's position—if I am wrong he will, no doubt, correct me.
First, what are we trying to do? The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Scottish economy can compete in the 21st century. That is accepted throughout the chamber and by all parties; I am certainly not suggesting that there is any monopoly on the desire to ensure that broadband is rolled out. We must ensure that broadband is rolled out as speedily and as well as possible. The SNP believes that the bill is one method of doing that.
Amendment 1 is to some extent not party political. It is an industry amendment. Those who have been advising and assisting me come not so much from the ranks of my political party, but from those who represent the interests of people trying to roll out broadband technology in the commercial world. In particular, I record my thanks to David Flint of MacRoberts Solicitors and to Polly Purvis of ScotlandIS.
Why are we trying to achieve the aims? Although it is clear that there is, among those who have political power, a desire to see broadband technology being taken up, and among the populace a desire to use broadband, significant difficulties are being experienced by many in trying to achieve that end. Hardly a member will not be aware of the difficulties, and the problems are not restricted to rural areas or to old houses; they encompass all of our communities—those that are adjacent to major urban conurbations and those in much more rural areas. It is not simply a matter of not having access to broadband technology; some people have the additional problem of being able to gain access only at an unaffordable price. Both elements must be addressed.
The SNP believes that the bill is an opportunity to balance the current debate about strategy. Do we achieve roll-out of broadband technology by stimulating take-up or by providing the right infrastructure? It is a matter of balance. We are stimulating take-up, as can be seen in television advertisements, albeit that they come from the commercial sector, including companies such as BT. However, we are also required to ensure that we roll out the infrastructure for those who want the opportunity to use broadband—those who are excited and ignited by that desire.
We need a strategy and, in many respects, we concur with the Executive's strategy. Aggregation of the public sector is sensible and it is the way in which we must proceed. However, when I discuss that with members of the industry, the subject is seen as a no-brainer. We have an opportunity at the outset, as we build developments—whether commercial or residential—to ensure that we do not replicate the mistakes that we have made previously. In the past, we have seen a short-term approach being taken, with short-term savings being made, but we have ended up having to pay more. We can now ensure that we lay the foundations at the beginning.
How will we achieve our aims? We are trying to make it clear from the outset that as a legislature we believe that Scotland's future is about being a high-tech, rather than a low-wage, economy. That means that we must acknowledge the importance of rolling out broadband technology, which must be included in any new construction, whether residential or commercial. We must recognise that to achieve that, we will have to empower the Executive in due course. We must also recognise that what might be appropriate for urban Scotland might not be appropriate for rural Scotland, and that what should be compulsory for a certain number of houses in an urban development might not be appropriate for Wester Ross.
We must recognise that technology will be different in the future. In many areas of urban Scotland, we might insist upon the use of fibre optics, but that would be unaffordable for some areas of rural Scotland. However, it could be ensured that some form of wireless technology is provided. Moreover, we must accept that the rate of change in technology is fast. Since the Parliament has been in situ, we have seen changes in ADSL; its ability to deliver broadband technology has improved. We should therefore empower not just the people but the Executive so that as things change and develop we ensure that we see delivery throughout the country.
I shall now comment on what I understand to be the Executive's position, which is that it is prepared to accept amendment 2, but not amendment 1. We welcome that because it will allow us to pursue our aims. My view is best explained in an e-mail that I received from those who have been advising me. They say:
"an explicit reference is an opportunity to distinguish broadband as more than just a convenience and would help reinforce the Executive's commitment to strategies such as Connecting Scotland: our broadband future."
I accept that if we proceed by simply accepting amendment 2, but not amendment 1, we can deliver. In support of amendment 1, however, I say that it would put the imprimatur of this legislature on the fact that we want to ensure that broadband is rolled out. More important, it would show that we see broadband as being important for our economy and our society as we compete in the 21st century world. Agreement to amendment 1 would lay down a marker and make it clear that Parliament wants Scotland to compete with other nations, whether Singapore, Finland or wherever.
I move amendment 1.
We welcome amendments 1 and 2 on the introduction of broadband. They represent a worthwhile idea, and Kenny MacAskill has said it all—perhaps more. We must consider the provision of future services, as well as existing ones. That broadband will be an essential service in the future is beyond doubt, and we support the principle that lies behind amendments 1 and 2. However, we feel that amendment 1 is in the wrong place, so we shall agree only to amendment 2.
We have used building regulations to address social inclusion issues for people who are disabled, and properly so. I welcome that. The extension of building regulations to cover business and social exclusion that would arise if we do not have access to broadband is another way in which we can use building regulations.
The Executive strategy of experiments in the Highlands and Islands and the Borders, based as it is on aggregated public sector demand that draws together all the demand that exists, can be augmented only by private sector aggregation of demand, which could flow from the amendments.
Broadband is being delivered in a variety of ways throughout Scotland. For example, the BT ADSL initiatives—which are confined largely to large conurbations and cities—are welcome but will never solve the problem. The new second technology—known as symmetric digital subscriber lines, or SDSL—will be available only in cities. Scottish and Southern Electricity plc has launched initiatives in Campbeltown and Crieff that are based on the delivery of broadband through the electricity supply. That approach is very much a bodge: although it works and is useful, it is associated with potential risks of radiation emission that are probably being managed.
Communities throughout the UK are starting to take the initiative on the matter—32 community ventures have to date been set up. For example, in Glasgow, people are fed up with the present arrangements and are starting to make their own. A Scottish amateur radio club is also promoting similar initiatives throughout the country. I mention those not merely because they are interesting but because, more fundamentally, they will lead to a proliferation of aerials and masts that will disfigure buildings if their construction is pursued in the absence of other initiatives. When we construct buildings and houses, it is important that we pay a small incremental cost at that point and that we build in the conduits that will enable cable to be installed later.
The issue in Scotland—as elsewhere—is the local loop. There is a lack of connection between the point at which the broadband service has to be used and the point at which it is aggregated into the large communication pipes that then connect to the internet and the rest of the world. Amendment 1 is useful and will address that issue. I am happy to support it.
Amendment 1 raises a very important point, although the intention behind it is perhaps covered by the phrase
"furthering the achievement of sustainable development"
in section 1(1)(c). That said, we must not lose sight of the fact that, as far as new build is concerned, it is very easy to think ahead and to make provision for the later installation of broadband technology. Building regulations can address that issue.
However, the roll-out of broadband through the copper-wire network and ADSL technology is only a short to medium-term approach. Any long-term approach will definitely require a fibre optic system, because of its greater capacity and symmetrical nature. In any case, we will certainly need a symmetrical system for business and commercial uses, because large amounts of files will have to be sent as well as received.
Section 1 refers to
"furthering conservation of fuel and power",
Given that, has the Executive thought about whether we can use the opportunity that is provided by refurbishment or extension of buildings to include as part of the whole deal energy conservation measures for the parts of buildings that are not being extended or refurbished? It would be a shame to miss such opportunities, although I appreciate that any such approach would be tricky.
Members have already mentioned that the two pathfinder areas for broadband are the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. However, I understand that there has to be a 50 per cent trigger for commercial companies to bring in broadband. Such a target cannot always be met, particularly in certain parts of the Scottish Borders. In such rural areas, commercial forces might not deliver in that respect.
However, broadband is as much a part of the commercial infrastructure as are good roads or railway links. That fact was reflected at a meeting that several members had this week in Eyemouth with the Federation of Small Businesses. As a result, I support Kenny MacAskill in his attempt to empower ministers in this regard because that would assist economic development where there is new build or, more important, where there are conversions. For example, such a conversion was carried out at the Ettrick Riverside business centre, which is struggling to deal with e-commerce.
The minister should also note that we are talking about a discretionary power rather than a mandatory power to make building regulations. On that basis and on the basis of Mr MacAskill's comments, I ask the minister to reconsider his attitude to amendment 1.
I am very grateful to Kenny MacAskill for lodging amendments 1 and 2 for consideration. I agree that broadband is an important issue for all the reasons that he has highlighted and I accept that it is appropriate to reflect that in the bill. As a result, I will be happy to agree to amendment 2, which will add broadband communication technology to the list of matters for which building regulations may make provision. The bill will, in that case, allow regulations to be made for the provision of services, fittings and equipment—which could include broadband technology—and would give practical effect to progressing the matter.
However, I do not, for three reasons, believe that amendment 1 should be agreed to. First, the purposes of regulations that will be made under the bill, along with the bill's other main elements, are the product of lengthy and comprehensive consultation. The bill has attracted a large measure of consensus, not just among the various professional and business communities that are involved, but during the parliamentary scrutiny process. Uniquely, for such a significant and detailed bill, there were no divisions at stage 2. It would not be appropriate to make the change that is proposed by amendment 1 at this stage in the process, especially because amendment 2 includes broadband in the list of matters that regulations can cover.
Secondly, the list of purposes in section 1 has been drawn in general terms to encompass the bill's wider scope. However symbolic it would be to include broadband in that list, I believe that it would be inappropriate to add a specific purpose without then revisiting a much wider range of specific issues that might have an equal or even greater claim for inclusion. An obvious example is disabled access, which was discussed by the Transport and the Environment Committee at stage 2. That is a vital part of the building standards system and it is imperative that it remain at the forefront of the regulations. We shall continue to ensure that that happens; however, despite its importance throughout the range of building regulations, the committee accepted the argument at stage 1 that disabled access does not require specific mention. We want to adhere to such a principle.
Thirdly, the purposes for which building standards might be made are designed to be relevant for the bill's lifetime. The legislation on which the current system is based is 44 years old, and it is not inconceivable that the bill once enacted will similarly last for decades. I understand the wish to include in legislation a reference to important current technology; however, given the rapid speed of technological development, it is possible that such a reference will be overtaken by the market and might quickly become anachronistic.
I repeat that, for the reasons that I have given, I am happy to accept amendment 2 to give practical effect to what Kenny MacAskill seeks. However, I ask him to acknowledge that we are moving towards his position and to seek to withdraw amendment 1.
I am grateful for the minister's comments. I should point out that I am not about to make a tautological argument; instead, there is a matter of the emphasis that we should put in the bill.
I accept that all parties are trying to head in the same direction. However, we should make a bold public declaration at the outset about how we view matters. The minister's comments about the lifetime of the bill are actually an argument for including a reference to broadband in section 1. After all, amendment 2 would give the Executive the power to acknowledge changes in technology. It would be no more absurd to accept that broadband technology will change over 44 years—indeed, with improvements in ADSL, it already has—than to accept that there will be changes in the delivery of water and electricity supplies. We view those issues as fundamental; they have not been left out of previous legislation simply because technology might change. Indeed, in the period between the enactment of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 and the passage of this bill, the provision of other public utilities and supplies has varied enormously.
I will press amendment 1. My argument is not tautological. I simply want to put down in clear, bold black and white that this Government and legislature believe that broadband is just as vital as any other public utility as far as provision to residential or commercial developments is concerned.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 24, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 7—Verifiers and certifiers
Amendment 3 is grouped with amendments 4, 38, 41, 42 and 49.
This group of amendments follows amendments at stage 2 that will allow ministers to approve schemes and thereby entitle members of the schemes to act as approved certifiers. The amendments will align those provisions better with the provisions for directly approved certifiers. They will also make some necessary amendments to references to sections in the bill, following amendments that were made at stage 2.
I move amendment 3.
Amendments 3 and 38 are worthwhile amendments in that they will give ministers necessary powers to withdraw approval of schemes as well as to grant approval of them. We welcome those two amendments in particular, but we also welcome the other amendments in the group.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Building warrants: grant and amendment
Amendment 5 is grouped with amendments 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 22, 23, 24, 43, 44 and 45.
This group of amendments relates to the introduction of two new sections to the bill on continuing requirements. I advised the Transport and the Environment Committee at stage 2 that I would lodge the amendments at stage 3.
Amendment 22 is probably the most significant amendment. It will introduce a new section that will allow verifiers—the local authorities in the first instance—to impose continuing requirements in respect of any building for which a building warrant is granted, or a completion certificate accepted, where there has been no building warrant.
Section 2 will already permit building regulations to impose continuing requirements on all buildings. The reason for allowing verifiers to do so is that, under the new system, building warrant applications will be able to present a range of solutions in order to meet the requirements of the building regulations. Any continuing requirements that might be imposed will therefore relate to the particular solution that is presented and cannot be anticipated in building regulations. For example, where the owner of a rural house chooses to install a septic tank rather than go to the expense of connecting to mains drainage, it is crucial that the tank is maintained so that it continues to meet the requirements of the regulations. A continuing requirement might then be imposed to place a duty on the owner to carry out such maintenance.
Amendment 23 will introduce a new section that will allow continuing requirements that have been imposed by verifiers to be varied or discharged if they are no longer needed.
Amendments 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 24 and 43 to 45 are consequential to amendments 22 and 23. Variously, they will oblige a verifier to send a copy of any continuing requirements imposed by them—either through the building warrant or completion certificate—for registration on the building standards register; they will allow doubts between the verifier and the applicant about the need for continuing requirements to be referred to Scottish ministers; they will provide that any view that is expressed by ministers on such an issue must be taken into account by a verifier; they will allow a continuing requirements enforcement notice to be served on owners who fail to comply with such requirements; and they will allow a verifier's decision to impose continuing requirements or to refuse to vary or discharge them to be subject to appeal to a sheriff by the owner.
Amendments 6 and 13 will oblige verifiers to inform owners when continuing requirements have been imposed by verifiers. They will also oblige verifiers to inform owners of the granting of a warrant itself, subject to warrant or acceptance of a completion certificate. Amendments 7 and 14 are consequential to that.
I move amendment 5.
We welcome this group of amendments. Although they were not introduced at stage 2, the matters have been well discussed in evidence-taking sessions and I welcome the paragraph about those matters in the letter from the minister.
From our perspective, we welcome the flexibility of design that will be introduced into the building regulations by the new approach, but from that flows a need for continuing requirements; the amendments will address that need throughout the bill. We share concerns, however, that were expressed by representatives of the Scottish Association of Chief Building Standards Officers, who stated in their submission:
"The proposed continuous requirements provisions effectively places additional duties on the enforcing authority to maintain an interest beyond the completion stage."
I seek clarification from the minister today on how that burden on the enforcing authorities will be borne over the years. There will be a significant cost for the enforcement of continuing requirements. Although we welcome the intention and flexibility in the bill, it will come at a cost.
Specifically, we welcome the notification and recording processes in amendments 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13. Amendments 22 and 23 detail how continuing requirements will be enforced. We welcome the group.
The issue of continuing requirements is absolutely crucial. I echo John Scott's concerns about the burdens on local authorities and I ask for clarification on that.
I am pleased that there is a broad welcome from Parliament for the move on continuing requirements. As John Scott said, the matter was discussed extensively by the Transport and the Environment Committee and there was a strong impulse for continuing requirements from the various building agencies. I do not believe that the process of imposing continuing requirements will necessarily involve significant additional resources. I am reasonably optimistic that they can be managed within the framework that has been established to proceed with the bill as a whole. I regard the process as being part of normal enforcement responsibilities. The Executive will monitor the situation as the continuing requirements are introduced and we will be in continuing discussions with local authorities on that basis.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 11 and 15.
Amendments 8, 11 and 15 are designed to ensure that there is no doubt about which version of building regulations is referred to in each case throughout the bill.
I move amendment 8.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Section 12—Building warrants: reference to Ministers
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Section 13A—Building warrants: limited life buildings
Amendment 11 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Section 16—Completion certificates
Amendment 62 is grouped with amendments 25, 35, 36 and 63.
Amendments 62, 25, 35 and 63 will provide that, where local authorities undertake work in relation to various notices, they will record that the work has been done. That will ensure that there are no gaps in the records that are kept by the local authorities, and that the records are available to the public.
Amendment 36 clarifies that, where a local authority carries out work to comply with a dangerous building notice, demolishing a building will be an option only when demolition is necessary to complete the work that is required by the notice.
I move amendment 62.
Amendment 40 would give the bill teeth regarding the evacuation of dangerous buildings and their occupation. To fine people for not leaving a building after it has been declared dangerous seems to be a heavy-handed approach, however. That ultimate sanction must not, in my view, be overused and it should be adopted only as a last resort. I seek the minister's assurance that that will be the case.
The power is one that the local authorities need and it is up to them to exercise it responsibly. We will monitor the performance of the duties by local authorities. I think that John Scott has perhaps got ahead of himself with his comments.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Section 17—Completion certificates: acceptance and rejection
Amendments 12, 13 and 14 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Completion certificates: certification of construction
Amendment 15 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
That brings us to the point at which we decided to break.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—