Chamber and committees

Is that in Scotland?

That is a serious issue.

It comes to a big number, and that money is not flowing to Alyson Stafford’s department. Ms Stafford, you must have a concern about that.

You should all be doing better on that, because it seems a relatively straightforward thing to do. You will know which employers are not paying what they should. However, I will leave that there, because I want to ask about pensions.

The section on pension contributions in the National Audit Office report says:

“Pension scheme administrators must identify Scottish taxpayers so that tax relief is correctly allocated. Pension administrators claim tax relief at source on behalf of their members and add this to their members’ contributions. HMRC’s Relief at Source (RAS) system automatically confirms the residency status of pension scheme members”.

Of course, we have to know where people live to ensure that the correct relief is applied at source.

The report goes on to say that the RAS system

“applies tax relief on pension contributions at the basic rate of 20% for all taxpayers. Scottish taxpayers paying a tax rate above 20% can claim the remaining tax relief through a Self Assessment return or by contacting HMRC.”

How many people know that they can do that or realise that it is an issue?

I hope that Mark Ruskell gets better soon, because he is obviously not too well.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that this will be entirely a matter for local councils and that there will not be the same disastrous blanket roll-out of 20mph limits that we have seen in Wales and which has had economically disastrous consequences for that country? Has she done any economic analysis for Scotland in the event that such an approach were to be adopted?

Will you take an intervention on that point?

Minister, Mr Griffin’s amendment 46 simply asks for owners and occupiers to be given the fullest possible information about what the property is actually built of. Is that not reasonable? You are surely not arguing that that is unreasonable.

That is what we need more of, minister.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Section 11—Authority for carrying out assessment or work

Amendments 27 to 29 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Warrant authorising use of force to effect entry

Members will know that I was recently evacuated from the flat that I rent in Edinburgh. They will also know that everyone who was there that night got out okay, which is the most important thing.

The flats where I was living have cladding, and I know that the owners have been in discussions with the developers about that, so those owners are very much in the scope of the bill.

One thing that struck me at the time of the fire was that there was no list of who actually lived there. Such a list would not have told us who was there during the fire, but it would have been helpful—especially afterwards. We had police going around asking for names and contact numbers of everyone who got out. They did that twice, yet the contact details were never used; they should have been used to provide updates to people. Communications were initially poor, although they have definitely improved.

No one appears to be in charge. We have a residents’ forum, which is very useful, but not everyone is necessarily aware of it or on it. Factors deal with owners, as they should, but I have long thought that factors should deal with anyone who is living in a development for which they are responsible. Tenants, of which I was one, should not have to rely on an owner who they might never have met to inform them of a building’s fire safety status. Communication is key.

My amendment 5 would require that a register be set up of the owners and occupiers of the buildings in the cladding assurance register. That way, everyone would know if work was to be carried out. It would also mean that, should there be a fire, there would be an invaluable central record of information.

I would say that the current system is haphazard—but for the fact that there is no system. Wider issues with tenements are being looked at by the Scottish Law Commission and the tenement maintenance working group, which I convene. If members are interested, they can attend a joint meeting of those groups on 8 May, from 6 o’clock, in committee room 5.

The other amendments in the group should also be supported. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 55—yes: it appears in this group—says that ministers must consult with owners, occupiers and residents committees before arranging a single building assessment. However, of course, you first have to know who those people are, so amendment 55 works well with my amendment 5. Miles Briggs argues that the same people should be told the results of an assessment and be informed about any on-going work. There is no reasonable argument to be made against any of the amendments in the group, but no doubt the minister will have a go.

I move amendment 5.

I do not have a lot to add. I was initially disappointed with the minister’s comments, but I am sure that I heard him say that he was offering to work with me and others ahead of stage 3. If the minister is able to provide some clarity on the extent of that and whether we will get to a point where he accepts my principle that all those living in a building should be communicated with, I think that I could accept what he is offering. If he wants to intervene to clarify that point, I am happy to take the intervention.