Chamber and committees

The Government’s decision to support a percentage rate raises concerns with regard to what that might mean and how it will be interpreted at council level. If the rate is set at 5 per cent—I think that is the rate that the Scottish Government is currently proposing—will that lead to a sliding scale on which different councils can appeal? That might lead, in turn, to different councils deciding to charge different rates, which I think is the concern that has been expressed by two of the key councils for tourism activity—the City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council. Could the minister clarify that?

I thank the organisations that have provided briefings, our committee clerks for their support on the report and the witnesses who have given important evidence on how this issue has impacted on their lives, as the convener said.

The bill is technical and, as is the case with all framework bills, the devil will be in the detail of the guidance and ministerial direction that come from it. I put on record that I am concerned and not confident that the bill is the only solution for the householders who are affected. Although the Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, we are concerned about the Government’s limited progress to date. The bill as drafted may not provide the solutions that home owners are desperately seeking to finally deliver the surveys and provide the framework in which any potential combustible cladding issues can be resolved.

As an Edinburgh MSP, I have been working with affected home owners since the start of the process. We must ensure that they are at the heart of the bill. Almost seven years since the tragedy of Grenfell tower and almost three years since the Scottish Government began its building assessment process, we have seen little progress on surveying buildings and progressing mitigation schemes.

For many home owners who are resident in the 105 developments that are in the cladding remediation programme, this has not only been a stressful time; their lives have been put on pause. In many cases, home owners are unable to insure or sell their property, or to make plans. They have the added stress of not knowing what will happen to their homes or even being kept informed of what is to happen. That must change, and the bill must be the start of a better process towards delivering a sustainable solution to cladding remediation in Scotland.

As I stated, it is concerning that the Scottish Government has failed to make any substantial progress. The committee’s report is clear about that—we say that progress has been concerningly slow. To date, of the 105 buildings that are in the programme, only two have had any remediation work undertaken or mitigations put in place. That is in sharp contrast to England, where more than two fifths—42 per cent—of the 1,608 buildings that the UK Government has in scope have had work either started or completed. That is why we need there to be progress. It is understandable why industry witnesses who have given evidence to the committee have expressed their significant frustration at the slow progress in Scotland and at the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government.

In the time that I have this afternoon, I want to highlight a number of important issues on which changes need to be made to the bill swiftly at stage 2. The committee has heard clear calls for the scope of the single building assessment to be defined in the bill, and a key ask has been made of ministers to ensure that the SBA aligns with the PAS 9980. From what I have heard, ministers have accepted that that must take place, especially for businesses operating across the UK.

A UK-wide scheme should have been developed, with the Scottish Government a part of that. However, it is important that the Scottish ministers now drive forward the scheme in Scotland.

Concerns have also been expressed about the cladding assurance register. I note Propertymark’s briefing for MSPs, which states:

“It is important that the Cladding Assurance Register is freely and easily available.

The risk of not doing so is that the Register will fail to motivate building owners to remediate properties, especially where the cost of works is high.

Ensuring that the Register is freely and easily available also allows residents to play a role in enforcement, further motivating building owners to remediate properties and avoiding situations where local authorities do not have the capacity to investigate compliance.”

The issue of compliance is lacking from the bill.

Another important area is the right to recourse. As the committee’s work demonstrated, the UK Building Safety Act 2022 and the legislation that was introduced to address cladding remediation in England give a right to recourse, in relation to responsible developers, over 30 years, so that suppliers and other actors in the supply chain that share liability can be held accountable. In Scotland, under the bill, that window currently stands at just five years, so the Scottish Government should consider alignment with the UK legislation.

Issues relating to orphan schemes, which have been mentioned, are important. I have met people who live in such schemes in Edinburgh, and they are deeply concerned that they will find themselves at the end of the queue for remediation work, so the Government must prioritise orphan schemes, which no longer have a developer responsible for them.

The responsible developers scheme is really important. The committee highlighted the need for more detail on the scheme and for that to be included in the bill. Ahead of stage 2, there needs to be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder engagement on what the scheme should look like. I highlighted a number of issues during the committee’s stage 1 work, particularly in relation to buildings that are not within the scope of the bill. I continue to have concerns regarding student accommodation. I know that many student accommodation companies are already undertaking work in this area, which is welcome, but the Government must consider including not only student accommodation developers but hotels in the scope of the bill. The UK Government included them south of the border so, if we are to appropriately address the cladding issue in Scotland, we should seriously consider including them at stage 2.

As I stated at the start of my speech, the devil will be in the detail of the bill. The bill must include provisions on information for residents who have been impacted. As the convener highlighted, so many people reported to the committee a complete lack of information being provided to them. In many cases, that has added to their stress, as they have been getting hearsay about their building rather than facts. I hope that the minister and those who will be responsible for taking forward this work will include in the bill a segment on key information, because the information to residents must be properly managed.

Ministers should also have reporting duties. Some people feel that their issues might not be resolved for another decade. That cannot be the case. Ministers must have a duty to report to the Parliament so that we can scrutinise how funds are being spent.

Absolutely. For so many people—whether it is those who gave evidence to the committee or our constituents—there is huge frustration about being kept in the dark for too long. Politicians talking about this is one thing, but the work to come up with solutions for the developers that will be tasked with making buildings safe and undertaking surveys must progress at pace. There must be constant reporting so that the issues are resolved and people can move on with their lives by selling their property, if they want to, or getting insurance.

Ensuring that people who live in the buildings have peace of mind is probably the most important aspect. We must never forget that, as many people have said, people’s homes are at the heart of the issue. As well as it being a stressful time for them, those affected feel that they have not been communicated with and that they have often been kept in the dark in relation to the issues affecting their homes.

It is clear from the committee’s evidence and discussions that there will need to be specific on-going management and factoring solutions for many buildings. Such issues are not within the scope of the bill, but the Government needs to take them forward.

Specifically, concerns have been raised about electric bikes and cars being stored or parked underneath buildings that have cladding issues. Ministers cannot ignore the management risk around that. Although that is not within the scope of the bill, I think that, as a result of the bill, ministers will need to introduce a factoring or safety management bill.

The UK Government has provided the Scottish Government with £97 million of Barnett consequentials to carry out assessments and remove dangerous material from buildings. On Friday, we learned from data that the Scottish Government published that it has spent only 7 per cent of that money, or just over £7 million, on identifying and removing dangerous cladding on buildings. That has been a failure to date by the Government. Scottish Conservatives will work hard and scrutinise the bill at stage 2. I hope that the Scottish ministers will work cross-party to make sure that the bill is as good as it can be for the people who we represent and who are looking to the Parliament for solutions.

The minister will have seen the briefing that the Association of British Insurers has provided to all members—specifically, its concerns about the on-going problems that will exist in obtaining buildings cover if we do not hear from the Scottish Government about resolving or managing additional safety issues. Beyond the bill, will the Scottish Government look to introduce a factoring, fire safety and management bill for those properties, which could help to solve that problem?

It has now been more than a year since the public inquiry into the matter closed. Why is it taking so long for that to report? What assessment have ministers made of potential cost increases for the project? Given that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have committed £300 million to the project, it is clear that the huge delay—we are now in the middle of this session of Parliament—will have cost implications. What does that look like, and when will ministers make that information public?

To ask the Scottish Government how much it will allocate through its budget to fund any potential cost increases related to improvements to the A720 city bypass grade separation of Sheriffhall roundabout. (S6O-03164)

Good morning, minister and officials. In your opening statement, minister, you said that renters and landlords do not need to know the detail behind this. What modelling has taken place on how many landlords will look to apply the upper limit of 12 per cent and what that would mean for the systems that are currently in place?

I understand. You mentioned the geographical element; in Edinburgh, new properties are coming on to the market with rents that are 25 to 30 per cent higher than they would have been prior to rent control. There is a real disturbance and a potentially dramatic rent increase, as well as a loss of properties, in the capital. What lessons have been learned from that and the lack of data and consultation in relation to future rent controls in the housing bill?

Finally, the Scottish Association of Landlords has accused the Scottish Government of “anti-landlord rhetoric” and of

“harming investment in private rented housing in Scotland”.

Today, it reports estimates of around 22,000 homes being lost from the private rented sector. How would you respond to that?

Good morning, minister and officials.

Not for the first time, we have heard concerns from COSLA and local authorities, which are unhappy about the short period of time that was allocated for consultation on the measure. It was held in December for just four weeks. In the spirit of the Verity house agreement, what consideration has been given to that issue?