Chamber and committees

Does remedying that need legislative intervention?

I recently completed an extension on my home, and I advise anybody who is watching not to do that while you are living in the property. The building standards team is coming round today and, hopefully, I will get a completion certificate. All the way through, I have taken photographs and worked with my architect and builder.

Was there a wholesale failure of the building standards process when the buildings were being built? If you are saying that the material that is on the outside of them is just one part of a whole series of unfortunate issues with a lot of those properties, where is the onus on the building standards system to prevent buildings being built in such a deficient way?

The Scottish Government is raising more than ever through land and buildings transaction tax, and now we have the additional dwelling supplement, so some taxes in Scotland are specifically about property. Presumably, there could be hypothecation through such a mechanism—which would mean that, effectively, those who interface with the housing market in Scotland are taxed, rather than, necessarily, a first-time purchaser who has had no connection with the remediation work that was required.

It would argue that it is doing so at present. Submissions from Homes for Scotland and others show that, when it comes to the total amounts that they are paying in, what they might be required to put into the levy is significantly less than what they might actively be paying now.

My last point is on the definition of “rural”. There is an exemption for island properties. There seems to be a case for rural properties, too. I do not know whether either of you has a view as to how we might help the Government to get to a definition of “rural” in order to be able to advocate for an exemption—which you highlight as being an issue in relation to rural properties, particularly when it comes to affordability, given that less development might happen in rural areas. I think that you identified that, Mr Henderson, because of the lower margins in developing in rural areas.

Fine. Mr Henderson, different submissions to the committee have taken different positions on the fairness, equity and proportionality of such a scheme, given that it seems to be falling on a relatively small number of shoulders. However, at the end of the day, it will probably be house buyers who will pay some of the remediation costs for prior builds.

You have said that you recognise that there are some issues with proportionality, and you mention the case of leaseholders. Given that there is a significant variation of opinion in the range of submissions that we have had, if it is to be a permanent part of the landscape, as you identify, would the best way to deal with it be through general taxation rather than a specific tax that falls only on a certain section of the construction industry?

I said to Liz Smith that, under the Scottish Government’s current definition, Gilmerton, on the fringes of Edinburgh, is a rural area, although it is mostly under concrete now.

You are both very close to the industry. You said that you think that this levy, or tax, depending on how you look at it, will probably have to remain in some form and function into the future. What is potentially the next cladding scandal that we should be alert to at the moment? Is there something that the industry is already looking at and getting a bit concerned about—potentially in relation to safety, Mr Henderson?

Good morning. Mr Drummond, in your submission, you mentioned what you might find when you remove the cladding, and you called it “known unknowns”. At this point in time, on roughly what percentage of buildings that have cladding that needs to be remediated do you anticipate that you would find that further works need to be undertaken—for safety or wind and water tightness, for example?

As we start to look at more buildings, we will find that shortcomings and deficiencies might be present in other buildings that do not have cladding. To what extent should the fund be for remediating what is effectively sloppy or, perhaps, dangerous workmanship? As it is, those who are in buildings that have the cladding might see further such remediation work, but those who do not have the cladding will effectively have to live with a dodgy build. Is that what will happen?

On how we got here, the finger has been pointed at disreputable builders, but there are other professional services that wrap around those firms, so I want to talk about your own code of conduct. You said that there are situations whereby clerks of works and architects are not present throughout the build phase, but surely, if you are commissioned to design a building, your industry’s code of conduct will say something about making sure that you go right through the cycle of the construction process. What does it say about that?

Surely, morally, architects cannot take a large fee—or perhaps a small fee, depending on the nature of the building that they are working with—and then say, “I have designed the building, and I will walk away from it now.” Do you not have a moral obligation to stay throughout?

We will come to some of the detailed issues in a moment, but, when he was giving evidence to us recently, Andy Witty from Colleges Scotland said, in respect of the tax base:

“You grow the tax base by having more people working and getting them to a working position quicker.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 16 September 2025; c 7.]

What is the Scottish Government’s strategy to increase the tax base in Scotland?