Chamber and committees

Okay. I want to look at a couple of other areas. One is tax debt; the other is pension contributions, which were dealt with in a section in the earlier report that we looked at.

We have explored tax debt before. On 31 March 2023, the UK tax debt was £43.9 billion, according to the National Audit Office report. However, we do not seem to have a breakdown of where that debt falls across Scotland, England and Wales. I suppose that this is a question for you, Ms Stafford: does the Scottish Government intend to build up an accurate picture of what the tax debt is in Scotland?

Why is it only an estimate, Mr Athow?

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?

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.

I thank the minister for that intervention. However, I will not be looking for clarity; I will be looking for a meaningful amendment at stage 3 that covers the point that I have raised. I am prepared to give the minister a chance—I hope that I do not regret it. He likes his meetings, but if we are to have a meeting, it has to be a meaningful meeting with action at the end of it and an amendment or two that addresses the points that were made by me, Ms Duncan-Glancy and Mr Briggs, or a combination of those points. We need action. It cannot just be a meeting for the sake of having a meeting.

On that basis, I will go with the minister on this occasion and seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 5.

Amendment 5, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 3

I cannot help reflecting on what a well-behaved committee this is. It is very quiet. I think that this is the only committee meeting that I have attended where Mr Beattie has not said a word, but we will see whether that continues.

Amendment 8, which is the only amendment in the group, relates to a reinsurance scheme and flows from my discussions with property managers. If there has been an evacuation, the co-owners could invalidate the terms of their buildings insurance, whether the policies are communal or individual, as there will be an unoccupancy clause requiring that premises be lived in or inspected at regular intervals. Insurers would not need any excuse to apply that clause, and the fact that the building had been evacuated would make renewal of an insurance policy—particularly a communal policy—extremely challenging, if not impossible.

Concerns about insurance renewal are a common theme, and they arise from concerns about the unintended consequences of all sections of the bill relating to co-owners being dispossessed of control of their premises. As I said earlier, I have some experience of that and have seen the anguish that it causes. In the event that the unintended consequences of any part of the bill result in the withdrawal of insurers from a property, it would seem reasonable for the state to give a guarantee of insurance via an underwritten scheme.

I am told that that issue was raised at a round-table meeting that was attended by the minister and others just before Christmas. The minister referred to talks about such a scheme at that meeting with his counterparts in other parts of the UK.

The bill makes no mention of insurance, which is, in my view, remiss. The committee’s report mentions insurance a number of times, though not this particular issue.

I have had some very useful feedback on amendment 8 from the Association of British Insurers. In the interests of time, I will not read out everything that it sent me, but I will read out a couple of sections:

“Insurers will need to understand the circumstances of any evacuations or extended periods when properties are unoccupied and these may run across renewal periods for polices. We are not aware of major concerns in this area, and cover should still be available in the market subject to conditions in policies to recognise properties are not occupied.

We do not understand how a reinsurance scheme as proposed”—

by me—

“would address concerns about cover being invalidated by properties not being occupied for an extended period of time, as a reinsurance scheme would relate to the affordability of a policy rather than the terms of cover. Therefore we do not support the proposal for Scottish Ministers to provide a reinsurance scheme.”

I thought that, for balance, it would be useful for the committee to hear that about my proposal. We have heard from the industry that it does not support amendment 8, but it has offered to work with me before stage 3 on a separate amendment on the issue of unoccupied properties.

Once again, I will be extremely reasonable and listen to the minister’s arguments. I will see what he has to say. If he wants to work with me and insurers ahead of stage 3, that would be very positive.

I move amendment 8.