Chamber and committees

I welcome the fact that the minister has moved on amendment 31. That is important. There are still many questions about the impact on SMEs, especially those that operate in England and Scotland, of profit being taken into account. I am content with what the minister has said.

I know that different working groups are taking forward work to develop the guidance, and it is important that that detail is provided earlier. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having a scrutiny role in that process is also important, so that we can make sure that we get it right and limit any potential for small businesses in Scotland to go under. That is one of the major concerns that have been expressed to us.

I press amendment 30.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 33 to 35 not moved.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendment 36 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendment 37 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 38 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

After section 24

I welcome the fact that the minister has moved on amendment 31. That is important. There are still many questions about the impact on SMEs, especially those that operate in England and Scotland, of profit being taken into account. I am content with what the minister has said.

I know that different working groups are taking forward work to develop the guidance, and it is important that that detail is provided earlier. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having a scrutiny role in that process is also important, so that we can make sure that we get it right and limit any potential for small businesses in Scotland to go under. That is one of the major concerns that have been expressed to us.

I press amendment 30.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 33 to 35 not moved.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendment 36 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendment 37 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 38 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

After section 24

I thank the Parliament’s clerks for their assistance with amendments to stage 3. I also pay tribute to and thank the Minister for Housing for the constructive way in which he has approached cross-party work on the bill. It has been very important for us to take that forward.

Last Monday, I met a group of residents who live in an orphan development in the capital to discuss the cladding bill and what they hope is the start of the end of what they have called a living hell. The stress that residents have faced and the information vacuum that they have had to live with has been unacceptable, especially when we consider that they are our constituents and are living in properties that have been labelled as potentially containing cladding that poses a threat to life. They were absolutely clear that they want a solution as soon as possible, because too many people’s lives have been put on hold as they wait to find out whether the cladding on their buildings is safe and what works need to be undertaken to allow them to move on with their lives. One resident said, “This whole situation has been really upsetting for many of us—this total lack of actual work—and we remain stuck in our properties, deemed fire risks, and unable to sell.”

I sincerely hope that the passing of the bill today will be the start of a solutions-based approach by the Government to deliver the outcomes that are needed to let people move on with their lives. This cannot just be a process; it must be about delivering the outcomes. The Scottish Government must implement the bill at speed and commission the surveying of buildings and the managed delivery of solutions at pace.

I would also like to make an appeal for the orphan buildings that were part of the initial pilot to be given an early focus. We know that they were in the pilot schemes, but I hope that ministers will acknowledge that those people have been let down and that the potential solution that has already been outlined to many residents must focus on the Government’s commissioning of surveys and works for those buildings. I have said to my constituents that I would write to the minister to see whether he would meet them to discuss how that can be done, not just for their development but for the other pilot projects.

As I stated at stages 1 and 2, I am determined to improve the rights of residents, including their right to be kept informed of not only the surveying work that is taking place, but any remediation work that will take place and how that will impact on their homes.

I hope that the amendments in my name that are now included in the bill will give residents the reporting mechanisms that will inform them of what is happening and when remediation work will take place. Good lines of communication are critically important, and I hope that the poor experiences that residents have had will now change.

As the minister stated in his letter to MSPs, the collaborative approach regarding the bill will extend beyond its parliamentary passage. I really welcome that. It is hugely important that the minister returns to Parliament with further updates on the programme and the progress that is being made. I hope that Parliament and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee will take an active role in ensuring that that work is progressed.

The bill has created a framework for progress, but it is critically important that we now see that all the outcomes are delivered. As the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee stated, progress by the Scottish Government some seven years on has been “concerningly slow”. That is in sharp contrast with England, where more than two fifths of buildings have had work either started or completed, with 1,608 buildings in the scope of that programme in comparison with 105 in Scotland. That is why it is understandable that industry witnesses who gave evidence to committee expressed significant frustration at the slow progress in Scotland and the lack of leadership to date. I hope that the minister is about to change that.

Although the bill is often technical in nature, as with all framework bills, the devil is in the detail. I hope that both the guidance and ministerial direction will be properly scrutinised, especially to look at the impacts not only on our constituents but on small and medium-sized enterprises.

During the stage 1 debate, it was clear from the evidence, and from the discussions that the committee had, that many buildings will need on-going management and, often, bespoke factoring solutions. A number of points on that were outlined during the debate earlier. I hope that we will now see details of how that aspect will be taken forward. Although many of those issues are outside the scope of the bill, they are important, and I hope that ministers will look to update Parliament on how they will be taken forward.

Members, including my colleague Graham Simpson, have mentioned electric cars. That issue was raised with the committee on many occasions, and we need to take seriously concerns over the management of electric cars and bikes.

In a letter that the minister sent to me, dated 7 May, he stated that the Government’s approach to purpose-built accommodation for students in the HMO sector, as well as to care homes, hotels and hospitals, was not in the scope of the bill, but he was content with the safeguards in place for those buildings. I hope that the housing minister will agree to update Parliament in the future on those buildings, including the potential for publishing data around any remediation work that is already taking place and how the guidance might be developed to include those sectors.

The amendments that have been accepted today—for example, the amendment in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s name—can provide an opportunity for better safeguarding for disabled people in those developments and others. That has presented Parliament with an opportunity to look at how we evacuate all buildings in Scotland, especially when it comes to vulnerable people in hospitals and care homes and disabled people in all properties. I am sure that colleagues, and the committee, will want to revisit that.

Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time tonight, but we do so with reservations about the Government’s limited progress to date. That has to change, but the reporting duties in the bill and the role that Parliament now has to challenge ministers on the delivery of outcomes have improved.

Above all, I hope that the Scottish Government will now give leadership and priority to the expanded team in the Scottish Government who will take forward this work. It is critically important that we deliver. We have two years left of the current session of Parliament; I certainly hope that, by the end of that time, all our constituents who are living in those 105 homes will have had the surveys take place and will know that work will be paid for and taken forward to make their homes safe, and that, above all, we can ensure that Scotland never sees a Grenfell-type tragedy.

I am pleased to open the debate on the group, which is focused on adding clarity to the provisions in the bill relating to future regulations on the responsible developers scheme. The lack of detail on the scheme in the bill has caused some concern among stakeholders. Although I welcome the minister’s commitment to consult ahead of any regulations being introduced, there is an opportunity to strengthen the bill with these amendments.

Amendment 30 would add provisions allowing processes for decision making on membership of the responsible developers scheme to be added to any regulations that establish the scheme. Given the potential consequences of developers being refused membership or having it withdrawn, the transparency of decision making is crucial, and that underpins the intentions of my amendments.

Amendments 36, 37 and 38 offer assurances to those who may become members of the responsible developers scheme that there will be a right of appeal against any decisions that may impact on them, such as membership of the scheme being refused or withdrawn, or a member being added to the prohibited developers list. Those decisions could have a significant impact on businesses and developers, and it is right that there should be a right of appeal.

My amendments 31 and 33 are similar to the probing amendments that I lodged at stage 2, and they would require ministers to set eligibility according to developers’ varying sizes and situations. In England and Wales, care has been taken to consider the exposure of builders that are small and medium-sized enterprises. As things stand, Scotland’s SME developers lack protection in the bill and lack certainty about the future direction of travel that the bill might bring. Should they be subject to the building safety levy, there are suggestions that small developers could be at risk of two new forms of additional taxation and charges.

I took on board the minister’s remarks at stage 2 and have adapted the amendments to take into account the sentiments in the minister’s letter to the committee. For example, the amendments require ministers to set regulations in relation to the size and circumstances of developers, as it was suggested that specifying the turnover of those businesses in the bill would reduce the flexibility of the regulations prior to work being done to consult on what those regulations should contain.

We know that we are not meeting building targets across Scotland and that our SME sector, which is so important to delivering the homes that we need in rural and island communities, is already under significant pressure. I therefore believe that the amendments provide the right balance.

I move amendment 30.

Members who represent constituents who live in the 105 buildings and developments that are affected will have heard from home owners and residents that communications to date have not been adequate on the Government’s cladding remediation programme. People whose properties are affected by unsafe cladding must be given access to the outcome of the single building assessment, and there must be clear and meaningful engagement with them ahead of any remediation works taking place on their homes. The minister has acknowledged that communications must improve, and I welcome that, together with his commitment to ensure that the matter is urgently addressed beyond the passage of the bill. I thank the minister for his co-operation on my amendments 25 and 26, which build on amendment 2, which I lodged at stage 2.

Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that ministers inform occupiers and owners of the outcome of the single building assessment, and amendment 26 will require ministers to do so further ahead of any remediation works taking place, except in urgent circumstances, where the duty to engage is limited to what is practicable.

Taking my amendments 25 and 26 together with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 24, ministers will be required to ensure clear and consistent communications on the cladding remediation programme throughout a building’s journey from assessment to remediation. I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by members across the chamber. I know that the people affected have been desperate for communications to be specified in the bill, so I very much hope that that will improve the experience of many of my constituents. I intend to move amendments 25 and 26, and I support all the other amendments in the group.

There is a lot to welcome in the bill, and we have welcomed many parts of it, but rent controls, which are part of the bill, are hugely damaging the market in Scotland. Rent controls have led to a decrease in supply. Some 17 per cent of landlords are saying that they will sell or consider selling their property. Rent controls are also driving up rents, and we have the highest increase in rents anywhere in the United Kingdom. I ask the minister a very simple question: now that the Bute house agreement has come to an end, will he agree to review the bill and work with parties that want to ensure that the bill will help renters in Scotland, not hinder them?

That is helpful.

When the committee was doing work on NPF4 and I spoke to members of the public and my constituents, one thing that came up was the infrastructure first approach. For a lot of people, there is often frustration when development takes place—such as a new primary school, a general practitioner surgery investment or even just play parks—and parts of designs are not delivered. We had some good examples, such as Bertha Park secondary school in Perthshire, where the school was built early and to plan. Has that infrastructure first approach started to be embedded in planning over—this is quite a short period—the past year? It is certainly something that members of the public want to see NPF4 deliver.

Thank you for that.

Thanks and good morning. I asked a question of the previous panel about some of the concerns that have been raised with the committee about the wording of some of the policies in NPF4 being unclear and leading to inconsistent decision-making. We have heard evidence about evidence reports and how different councils are looking at the guidance not being in place. What is your experience of that and what solutions do you think could be put in place to have a more consistent approach?

Thank you; that is helpful, and leads on quite well to my next question on the infrastructure first approach. I wanted to ask whether there has been a different approach. We touched on some of the potential section 75 reforms, but, as a Lothian MSP, I think that the regional growth that we have seen in house building has not necessarily been matched by the necessary infrastructure. There are predictions that around 80 per cent of all future growth will be here in Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland, so we need to make sure that we take that infrastructure first approach.

How do you think NPF4 is helping to facilitate that and, if it is not, how could it be tweaked to ensure that the services that we will all rely on will be there, especially in the significant developments in the peripheral areas of the capital, for example? Tony Cain, do you want to answer that, and then anyone else can come in?