Plenary, 20 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, February 20, 2003

Official Report 630KB pdf

---

Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Resumed debate.

We pick up our consideration of amendments at stage 3 to the Building (Scotland) Bill. I shall allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division following the debate on the first group of amendments. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. For all other divisions, there will be 30 seconds.

Section 20—Occupation or use without completion certificates

Amendment 16 is grouped with amendments 17 to 21, 39, 40, 46 and 51 to 55.

This group of amendments deals with the unlawful occupation of buildings and with situations in which people are removed from buildings because of danger or potential danger to them. The intention of the provisions is to remove people from buildings in which they may be in danger, but to permit them to return once the danger is past.

The amendments provide that, where people have been removed from a dangerous building or because work undertaken by a local authority might endanger them, the local authority must notify them when the danger is past and they may reoccupy the building. The provision means that people who find themselves in such situations are kept out of the building for the shortest possible time.

The amendments make consequential amendments to the offences provisions and to the provisions that protect tenants' rights in respect of rents. They also provide for a sheriff to have more discretion when deciding whether to grant notice of removal in cases in which there is less urgency.

I move amendment 16.

I apologise to members for the comments that I am about to make, which should have been made during the debate on the amendments in group 5.

Amendment 40 gives teeth to the proposed new section after section 38A in respect of the evacuation of a dangerous building and its occupation. To fine people for not leaving a building after it has been declared dangerous would seem to be to take a heavy-handed approach. I seek an assurance from the minister that that sanction will not be overused and that it will be adopted only as a last resort.

I can certainly assure John Scott that the intention is that the power will be used only as a last resort. I also assure him that we will monitor carefully the ways in which the power is used by local authorities. The power needs to be included in the bill to ensure that people are protected. It is clear, however, that it should be used only in circumstances in which there is a real danger to individuals. The Executive amendments in the group try to ensure that that power would be in place for the shortest possible time.

The enforcement powers are required to make the bill effective. We will, however, be conscious of the danger that John Scott highlighted and we will monitor the situation closely.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Amendments 17 to 21 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

After section 20

Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Continuing requirement enforcement notices

Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 24—Building warrant enforcement notices

Amendment 26 is grouped with amendments 27 to 34.

I will again be brief. Amendments 26 to 34 will amend section 24 to provide for the building warrant enforcement notices to cover not only the construction of buildings, but the demolition of buildings and the provision of services, fittings and equipment.

I move amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendments 27 to 34 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 26—Dangerous buildings

Amendment 35 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 27—Dangerous building notices

Amendments 36 and 63 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 30—Procedure regulations

Amendment 38 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 38A—Evacuation of buildings

Amendment 39 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

After section 38A

Amendment 40 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 42—Appeals

Amendments 41 to 45 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 43—Penalties for offences

Amendment 46 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Section 45—Criminal liability of trustees etc

Amendment 47 is in a group on its own.

Amendment 47 simply extends the list of offences for which section 45 provides a defence for those who have only a limited interest in a building and insufficient funds to comply with a notice. Defences will now cover all issues of non-compliance in respect of notices.

I move amendment 47.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Section 48—Crown application

Amendment 48 is in a group on its own.

Amendment 48 defines the term "owner" in relation to Crown buildings and provides that the decision of Scottish ministers on the ownership of a Crown building is final.

I move amendment 48.

Amendment 48 agreed to.

Section 51—Interpretation

Amendment 49 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1

Building regulations

Amendment 50 is in a group on its own.

Amendment 50 will amend paragraph 4 of schedule 1, which lists matters that building regulations may exempt from the provisions of the regulations. The amendment adds conversions to those matters. That is consistent with section 1(1), which sets out matters for which building regulations may be made.

I move amendment 50.

Amendment 50 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Mr Kenny MacAskill]—and agreed to.

Amendment 64 is in a group on its own.

I lodged amendment 64 in response to Robert Brown's members' business debate on Thursday 13 February. In that debate, Robert Brown and others eloquently drew attention to the problem of lead soldering being used illegally to connect piping in housing developments. Up to 75,000 homes that have been built since 1987 may have had illegal lead solder used in them, and the occupants have been subjected to unnecessary and damaging levels of lead in their water as a result.

The dangerous practice of using lead soldering has been going on for so long that I, and others, thought that it had long since stopped. It is outrageous that the practice continues, which is why it seemed appropriate to take the opportunity that the bill offers to stamp it out. Amendment 64 is couched in terms that would allow the Executive to introduce such regulations as it sees fit, presumably after consultation, and the amendment could neatly and effectively stop overnight the illegal practice of using lead soldering. I look forward to hearing responses from the minister and other colleagues.

I move amendment 64.

I pay tribute to John Scott's work. His amendment is one of the good outcomes of the members' business debate on the issue. To have an issue debated one Thursday, which, by the following Thursday, Parliament is able to legislate on, must set some sort of record. It also sets something of a record in terms of the responsiveness of the public legislature to immediate problems.

The lead soldering issue is extremely important and difficult. I was astonished to discover, as John Scott was, the extent of the problem in new houses, which has come about through illegal activities by plumbers. That relates to the economics of plumbing and the fact that lead soldering is used for central heating and the like. John Scott's technique of giving a power to ministers to deal with the issue by using building warrants and completion certificates could be an effective way of stamping the problem on the head. Unfortunately, it would not address what has happened in the past, but if the minister moves swiftly it may mean that we will be able to do something about the problem in the future. It will also ensure that the threat to people's health that is caused by lead soldering will be eliminated over time.

I support John Scott's amendment. He and I attended the meeting with Scottish Water when the problem came to light. Illegal soldering by builders and plumbers is a problem not just in new-build houses, but in new-build public buildings such as hospitals and schools. That causes great concern, so I hope that the minister will accept the amendment. I congratulate John Scott on lodging it.

I shall be brief. I want to stress the necessity of John Scott's amendment, and ask that it be accepted. The issue was raised back in May 2000 when it was the subject of oral questions to one of the minister's predecessors, Iain Gray. Mr Gray admitted that although byelaws existed, they were not being enforced. Here we are, almost three years down the line, and we have seen no change. Please, minister, accept the amendment.

As a former member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I am well aware of the background to the concerns that John Scott hopes to address with amendment 64. Members who participated in the members' business debate on water supplies and lead pipes, secured by Robert Brown on 13 February, spoke persuasively about the need to address those problems.

Scottish Water must meet the requirements of the European drinking water directive. I am advised that there are no lead water mains in Scotland and that, as part of its £1.8 billion investment plans, Scottish Water replaces lead communication pipes in conjunction with its mains rehabilitation programme.

I am encouraged by the advice, which was provided by my colleague Allan Wilson during the debate, that the drinking water quality results for 2002 show that only 45 of 2,800 regulatory samples taken throughout Scotland failed to meet the tighter standards that the Scottish Executive has introduced.

Nevertheless, during the members' business debate, members heard concerns about the illegal use of lead solder in connecting domestic water pipes. Despite the fact that such activity is prohibited under 1986 byelaws, some plumbers might have been using lead solder because it appeared to be cheaper and easier for them to do so. With the bill, we have the opportunity to find better prevention and enforcement measures. Amendment 64 will allow us to use building standards to help to enforce water requirements, and will explicitly add to the list of matters for which building regulations may make provision measures to ensure that pipes will not be fitted in a way that contravenes Scottish water quality regulations.

The Scottish Executive will consider how it can use building and procedure regulations to promote and enforce compliance and thereby prevent water contamination from that source. We will consult relevant agencies and interested parties at an early stage and incorporate the findings into the appropriate regulations.

I support amendment 64.

Do you wish to have another word, Mr Scott?

I just want to thank the minister for his consideration of my amendment.

Amendment 64 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Evacuation of buildings

Amendments 51 to 55 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

Schedule 6

Modification of enactments

Amendment 56 is grouped with amendments 57 to 61.

Amendments 56 to 61 are consequential amendments to other acts and are to be included in schedule 6.

I move amendment 56.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Amendments 57 to 61 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.

That ends our consideration of amendments. As it is quite clear that we are likely to finish early, I will look later on for a motion without notice to bring forward decision time.