Chamber and committees

I am happy to write to the member on that point with regard to the work that has been undertaken so far. I am happy to discuss that—I know that we have discussed it previously, not specifically in relation to student accommodation but for other settings.

I come back to the amendments. The committee has heard much about the need to increase the pace of progress on cladding remediation, and I am committed to delivering that. Any dilution of its focus will limit progress and have an impact on residents and owners who are already affected by the on-going risks from potentially unsafe cladding. As I mentioned, I offer to write to Mr Briggs. I therefore ask him to seek to withdraw amendment 1. If the amendment is pressed, I urge members to reject it. However, I am happy to pick up the issues that he has raised in relation to it.

I turn to amendments 4 and 80, in the name of Miles Briggs, and amendments 6 and 9, in the name of Graham Simpson, regarding annual reporting. I stress that I support the principles of open and transparent government—in fact, I have already given the committee a commitment to move to regular reporting on the progress of the cladding remediation programme. These amendments all go further, however, and would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the progress and impact of the legislation and the cladding remediation programme itself.

Amendments 4 and 80 focus specifically on the impact on industry. Amendment 4 focuses on the construction industry, and amendment 80 on industries that are affected by the legislation in relation to an economic analysis of the programme. Although I support the amendments’ aims in principle and am actively working to ensure that a developer’s ability to pay is factored into the separate development work that we are undertaking through the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, I cannot support amendment 4’s requirement to produce an annual report that focuses solely on the impact of the construction industry.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 80, which would require annual consultation and economic analysis. That would be burdensome and would require specialist input in terms of economic analysis at a cost to the Government. We are already working with developers to consider the ability to pay as part of the development of the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, and I have committed to consult on any responsible developer scheme ahead of secondary legislation. As such, we can demonstrate an active commitment to work collaboratively with the industry.

The reporting requirements do not take into account home owners and residents, who are at the heart of our approach to cladding remediation, and in considering both progress and impact they must remain first and foremost in our minds. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 4 and 80 and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3 to develop an amendment that reflects not only the interests of industry but those of the constituents whom we seek to serve.

I make the same offer to Graham Simpson in relation to amendments 6 and 9. Again, I am supportive of the principle, but we must ensure that the focus and detail of any such report is correct. As drafted, amendment 6 does not align with the meaning of the single building assessment at section 25 and it would therefore be undeliverable without a significant shift in the scope of the bill.

I say to Miles Briggs and Graham Simpson that we should work together and get this right ahead of stage 3.

I ask Miles Briggs to withdraw amendment 1 and ask that other amendments in the group not be moved. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I ask members to vote against them.

In my opinion, the process in the bill would give them that information. I would be happy to pick up on that and to chat with Mr Griffin about the SBA process when that is completed, but I think that we have the process in place. I have discussed the matter with you, Mr Simpson. The SBA process currently includes developers and stakeholders. We are due to complete the process by the end of May and I hope to come back to the committee about the particular point. I think that we have in place a process to deal with the matter.

If it is okay to move on, convener, I will turn to amendment 52, which proposes the creation of an independent reviewer to bring a degree of independent assurance to the assessment and remediation process. I do not disagree with the principle of ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect owners and residents, but I ask members to consider the relevant measures that we have already built into the bill.

Regardless of whether a single building assessment is instructed by the Scottish ministers or a developer, it must be carried out in accordance with the standards that are specified by the Scottish ministers and by a person who is authorised by them. That will ensure not only that there is a consistent approach to assessment, but that an assessment is always completed by a suitably qualified and competent individual—for example, a fire engineer with professional registration.

That is why I am coming back to you, because I am aware of the situation in the building that you are referring to. There are different situations in different parts of Scotland with different buildings, so we are trying to take that on as a whole in the discussions that we are having. I am aware of the specific point that you make, as we prepare for stage 3. There are different situations in different buildings in the country, which we hope to pick up on in all parts of the country. I am happy to have that discussion, which we are having on the specific building that you mentioned.

Lastly, I move on to non-Government amendment 2, in the name of Miles Briggs. The Government is sympathetic to the principle of the amendment as it accords with our usual practices of open and transparent government. Sharing the results of the SBA will promote understanding of the process and the works that are to be carried out, and enable homeowners and occupants to organise themselves accordingly.

However, I have some technical concerns regarding the drafting of the provision and how it would operate in practice, such as in cases where the remediation is developer led, given that the amendment places an obligation on ministers. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 2 and to work with the Government to refine it ahead of stage 3. If the amendment is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, seeks to establish a register of contact details for owners and occupiers, to enable them to be notified of works to be carried out on their building and in the event of a fire, so long as remediation works have not been carried out. Such a register would be maintained by a factor, a residents committee or other such persons as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate.

Graham Simpson’s amendment is likely to be reflective of common practice in multi-residential properties across Scotland. Factors, for example, no doubt often maintain such lists as part of their routine business and best practice. I appreciate the comments that Mr Simpson has made, and I will come on to them.

However, I have significant concerns about data protection—

We have indicated that we are willing to work in that regard and to take into account the aspects that have been raised. We will reach out to you to arrange further discussions. If you require further clarity before that, we will pick that up with you. I also say to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs that communication is important, as can be seen from what Mr Simpson said about the incident that he was involved in.

I am happy to engage with you before stage 3, Mr Simpson. If there are any specific points that you want to talk about, you can contact my colleagues or me so that we can try to address them. We have shown willingness to discuss the points that have been raised, which are all related. I am happy to clarify matters and have a meeting to see how we can progress that as we move towards stage 3.

We have talked about this matter previously as regards amendment 50 itself, and it falls within the scope of the bill. You have mentioned a factoring bill, and I am happy to pick up that point with you, as it is important regarding the scope of the bill and how such provisions fit in. I am also happy to pick up on the other amendments as we go through the SBA process, both during the passage of the bill and after the bill is passed. I can give a commitment to have a discussion about it once the SBA process moves to completion.

Specifically on amendment 50, I am happy to pick up on the issue around the factoring bill, as you discussed.

Amendment 50, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will speak first to amendment 17, which seeks to amend section 6. Section 6 refers to the building’s external cladding system as the basis for the Scottish ministers to arrange for work that is identified in a single building assessment, where such work is needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life. Amendment 17 would add

“any associated fire safety risks”

to that of the cladding system. As such, it would broaden the scope of the cladding remediation programme.

I recognise the amendment’s positive intent but, on balance, my position is to retain the focus on the cladding system. The bill’s narrow focus is imperative to ensure that the multiresidential buildings that we have identified as being at most risk of causing harm because of unsafe cladding are remediated as swiftly as possible. For good reason, wider fire safety is outwith the scope of the cladding remediation programme and the bill cannot address it. On that basis, I urge Graham Simpson not to press amendment 17, and I urge the committee to reject it if it is pressed. However, I acknowledge the points that he has raised, and I am happy to write to him on the wider fire safety aspect or meet him.

Amendment 58 seeks to amend section 6 by requiring any works that are carried out under the section to adhere to the latest fire safety guidance. That should always be the case, and I have concerns about the drafting of the amendment. There is a lack of clarity about whose guidance is to be followed. That question is left open, which prompts additional uncertainty about what should be considered the latest fire safety guidance.

The position on fire safety guidance is clearly set out in the bill, and the single building assessment process will be the place for a qualified person to assess fire risk. That should not be covered by an amendment, so I ask the member not to move the amendment and, if it is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.

Amendment 66, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, raises the important question of how we ensure the safety of building occupants with a disability when a building has an identified risk following a single building assessment. Although I have great sympathy with the amendment’s intention, I am concerned that the amendment might be unworkable because of the sensitive personal data that ministers would be required to collect and store. That needs to be carefully considered, not only here today but among the full range of partners that can contribute to developing and operationalising an appropriate solution. That is why I will not be able to support amendment 66 today. However, I would like to discuss it further with Pam Duncan-Glancy, and I very much hope that she will work with me on her specific points.

I ask Graham Simpson to withdraw amendment 17. I said that I would contact him in writing about the wider fire safety issues. I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendments 58 and 66. If the amendments are pressed, I will ask committee members to vote against them.

I will speak to amendments 23 and 24 in the group. Occupants may be required to evacuate from premises when there is a substantial risk to life due to a building’s external wall system. However, the risk may not be shared equally by all occupants who are required to remove themselves from that building; often the most significant risk will be to those who are higher up in a building. It is therefore important that the evacuation power is available in relation to premises the occupation of which would create a substantial risk to others, even if the lives of the occupants of those premises were not themselves at risk. For example, if the continuing occupation and use of ground-floor commercial premises is putting the lives of others in the building at risk, we must be able to act decisively and instruct removal from the ground-floor premises in order to prevent risk to those higher up in the building. Government amendments 23 and 24 seek to address that and other similar situations, and I ask members to support them.

I turn to amendments 63 and 65, in the name of Miles Briggs. As a matter of public law, it is clearly the case that the Scottish ministers must act reasonably and proportionately in exercising any of their powers. Any exercise of the power to evacuate will be based on robust evidence that there is no alternative or mitigation. That will be specific to each unique development and set of circumstances. Adding the word “reasonable” would not enhance the bill or change the law in any way, and it is entirely unnecessary. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 63 and not to move amendment 65. If the amendments are pressed, I invite members to reject them.

Section 12(6)(c) currently includes justices of the peace as judicial office holders to whom application may be made for a warrant authorising the use of reasonable-force entry. Amendment 30 will delete that reference. Given the urgency attached to such warrant applications, we want to make sure that the process runs as smoothly and quickly as possible. It is understood that, in practice, such applications are likely to be more speedily dealt with through an application to a sheriff or summary sheriff, and the bill should therefore direct applicants accordingly.

I move amendment 30.

I am happy to discuss with Miles Briggs the specific concerns that he has raised. As I said, there is the consultation process, which is already in place, and there are discussions with colleagues in Homes for Scotland and SME builders on some of the specific points that he mentioned. However, I am happy to discuss the points that he has raised before stage 3.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 68 to 71 not moved.

Amendment 35 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 3 and 72 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 73 and 74 not moved.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 not moved.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 79 not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

After section 24