Chamber and committees

The bill gives ministers substantial powers, so my two amendments in the group are about ministers acting reasonably. We need to look towards how ministers will exercise their powers and look at potential grounds for legal challenge that overreach might bring forward. My amendments would set it out in the bill that ministers should act reasonably in exercising their powers under section 8.

I move amendment 63.

I take on board what the minister has said so far in relation to a care home or hospital setting. Student accommodation, however, has increasingly been built for multiple occupancy, with four to eight students in what would otherwise be a mixed development and mixed tenancy. I am concerned that such buildings have not been included to date. What work has the Government undertaken around student accommodation in Scotland to look at the number of buildings that are potentially over 11m high and would fall within the scope of the bill?

There are three key amendments on reviews. The first, amendment 1, is on other buildings. I raised this issue with many people who gave evidence at stage 1, specifically in relation to buildings that are currently not going to be subject to single building assessment but where people sleep, such as hotels, care homes and student accommodation. Although such buildings have been included in other schemes and in other potential reviews, there is not a timescale for what that will look like in Scotland. Work is already on-going with regard to some student accommodation, but will ministers also review other buildings in that category, and will those that are higher than 11m be captured? It is important that we look at how that part of the scheme is managed by ministers.

Amendment 4 is on undertaking a review of the ways in which the act will impact on the construction industry. In my previous set of amendments, I expressed concern about the SME sector. Completions are at an all-time low, and that will potentially have an impact on our construction and home-building industries. Ministers must be mindful of what that will mean for the housing crisis and delivering homes for people across Scotland. Amendment 4 calls on ministers to undertake a review of the act and how it will impact on the construction industry.

Finally, amendment 80 asks ministers to undertake an annual review of the act. I suggest an annual review, but I am happy to discuss that with ministers. There is a lot in the act; the only thing that is not in the act is how long it will take for us to be able to say that we have addressed all of the cladding concerns in Scotland. That could be a decade away. Also not included is whether the act is effective or ineffective in helping home owners to ensure that their homes are properly reported on and made safe through remediation or management, as might be the case for those that are seen as being below a tolerable standard. We are at the start of that journey. Amendment 80 provides for a review of the act and its actions.

I move amendment 1.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. One of the commission’s recommendations is about the prioritisation of recurring savings. Will you outline examples of good practice in that area as you see it? To what extent are recurring savings now becoming more difficult to identify and achieve?

Thank you for that. I note that overall net debt increased by £1 billion. Has the commission managed to find any explanation for that? Specifically—we touched on this earlier—do some specific councils have more exposure to that debt than others? Are those councils at risk in the future?

I lodged the amendments after having been in communication with various home owners in the affected buildings across Scotland with regard to some of their concerns about future costs that they might face. I lodged the amendments in order to see where the Government is with regard to ensuring that the bill clarifies that owners and residents of buildings that are affected by cladding issues will not be held liable for the associated costs.

We also need to consider the management of those costs. We know that, for many of the buildings that might be seen as having a tolerable risk, there may be additional costs around on-going management which, at present, would be part of a factoring bill. Residents want clarification about what that will mean. I do not think that any of us wants to see a situation in which that becomes a licence to print money, with home owners facing annual additional costs on their factoring bill for the inspection of, for example, any cladding that the Government has decided is tolerable, under the single building assessment.

I lodged the amendments to see what the minister’s thoughts on that are, as I said, and to point towards a potential stage 3 amendment that would clarify the situation for home owners who, through no fault of their own, are living in those buildings with cladding and are worried about additional costs that the Government might place on them with regard to the management of their buildings.

I move amendment 50.

As I have said, this group is a set of probing amendments. The minister did not comment on the rationale behind why I lodged them, which specifically relates to the future management of cladding. The bill is empty regarding situations following a single building assessment, where a building is ascribed a tolerable risk, or amber, and regarding what that means for the future management of those buildings.

I would be happy to work with the minister towards stage 3 amendments, as home owners want that clarification as to who, potentially, will be paying the costs. As I said during the stage 1 debate, much of the work that the committee has done suggests that a lot of the future maintenance of buildings is not included in the bill, and there are secondary factors that we need to consider. That might be in the context of a specific factoring bill for the buildings that will be identified and then rated in different ways, with the on-going maintenance of any cladding that is seen to be tolerable.

I wonder what the minister’s thoughts are on that. Is there scope for amendments around that at stage 3?

Given what the minister said about some technical issues that he has with my amendment and given his willingness to discuss it in order to bring it back at stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Section 10—Appeal against arranged remediation work

I hope that members will follow my train of thought throughout this group of amendments—there are quite a lot of them. These are probing amendments that seek important clarification from the Government on how the responsible developers scheme will operate. The bill does not set that out clearly in a number of areas.

Amendment 67 seeks to amend section 20(1), which would empower the Scottish Government to create several responsible developers schemes. I am interested to understand why several schemes would be needed and how any resources that are provided would be administrated within those schemes.

Amendment 68 seeks to ensure that developers and those in the supply chain make proportionate contributions towards remediation.

Amendments 71 and 72 seek to address issues with regard to paying fees into the scheme. There is no clarity on how much those will be. As we move to stage 3, we need to know how that aspect will operate.

Concerns have also been expressed about the opportunity for a right to appeal. It is important that we consider anyone who will be excluded from the scheme and what impact that could have. That needs to be clear in the bill. My amendment 78 seeks sufficient detail on the right to appeal that may be created through regulations.

All of us have accepted the need to create the right environment for developers to fix cladding and to fund remediation works that might take place. That is important. Amendment 79 would remove powers to create a prohibited developers list. There is concern about what effectively blacklisting companies in Scotland would mean. For some small and medium-sized enterprises, that could be hugely damaging—it could put them out of business.

Through my amendment 3, I am keen to probe the Government’s position on turnover. In the rest of the UK—in England—SMEs with an annual turnover of £10 million have been excluded from the scheme. We know that housing completion rates have been low recently and the impact that that can have on rural and island communities, where most housing is being developed by SMEs. What impact assessments have been carried out on how the bill will impact on those SMEs? I take on board that a limited number of SMEs are exposed to the buildings that are included in the first phase of work.

I hope that these probing amendments are useful to help us to consider the unintended consequences on developers. I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3 to iron out some of the detail, but I think that it would be useful to have clarification on the scheme and on any unintended consequences that might lead to developers being blacklisted.

I move amendment 67.

The minister touched in his comments on amendments 76 and 77, and I think 78, and some of the concerns around where a right of appeal is currently not strong within the bill. I do not know whether the minister is therefore minded to discuss that ahead of stage 3. For SMEs, there is concern about what will effectively become a blacklisting exercise by the Scottish ministers. There have previously been concerns about such practices taking place in Scotland and I am concerned about what that will look like, especially when SMEs will be included in all the legislation. I wanted to seek more detail on that.

On profit margins, there has not been clarity from the Scottish Government on what has already been taken into account as a UK-wide profit margin and where the Scottish legislation would take that UK-wide profit margin, again, rather than profits that are raised or secured only here in Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarification on those areas at stage 3, because none of us wants to see developers going out of business and not realising the resources that will be needed, specifically around orphan buildings. Driving up the number of orphan buildings is not in the interests of anyone.

Will the Scottish Government provide more detail on that at stage 3? I am happy to work with the minister on drafting workable amendments, specifically regarding amendments 76, 77 and 78.