Chamber and committees

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.

I listened to what the minister had to say, and I am happy to work with him at stage 3. I feel that there will be a black hole at the end of the bill if we are not able to take stock of how effective it has been. I hope that we can work to create a useful amendment at stage 3, especially with regard to amendment 80.

The minister has outlined this, and I welcome the fact that the committee can do annual health checks in the future, but that will fall within the committee’s work timetable. The time that we might have to do an annual piece of work might be limited, so the burden is on the Government to provide Parliament with updated information on how we are progressing with assessments and remedial work being commissioned, so that residents and the wider public in Scotland can see when the issue is being assessed and we get to an end point at which we can say that buildings in Scotland are safe and that the cladding problems have been rectified. That needs annual reporting back to Parliament beyond the committee.

With that said, I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3 on what I hope will be a proper workable amendment to bring the three amendments together. There are issues, but all three amendments could be brought together in an amendment at stage 3. In that case, I will not press amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?

What will be the make-up of that advisory group?

The recent heat in buildings consultation undervalues the significance and ability of renewable liquid fuels to contribute to a just transition and allow off-grid households to decarbonise in a fair, easy and affordable way. Will the minister commit to giving renewable liquid fuels a prominent role in the upcoming heat in buildings legislation? Will he look towards removing renewable liquid fuels, such as hydro-treated vegetable oil, from the polluting heating systems criteria?

Mark Griffin will probably be feeling nauseous by now, but I start by paying tribute to him and his office for the power of work that he has put into the bill. I also thank everyone who has provided input to the deliberations and work of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee on his proposal.

As we have heard, there is consensus on the urgent need for progress to be made on what the benefit will look like in Scotland and the advice on it that will be developed. I continue to have a lot of sympathy for Mark Griffin’s proposal. In the previous parliamentary session, I worked with the Government on Frank’s law, the aim of which was to extend the provision of free personal care to people under 65. There was a lot of cross-party work in Parliament to reform our welfare system and, for example, to remove time limits for payments to people with a terminal illness. Just recently, I launched a consultation on delivering a right to palliative care. I hope that, across the Parliament, we can make progress on many of those issues.

It is important that today’s debate and the work done by Mark Griffin have helped to put pressure on the Scottish Government, which has achieved something. We will now—finally—have a consultation, and it seems that the Scottish Government will introduce a version of Mark Griffin’s proposals and will help to shape an employment injury assistance benefit in Scotland. We know that such cases will be some of the most complex, not only because of the number of case transfers but because of how those cases will be embedded in Social Security Scotland. We need to focus on that, too.

However, we cannot ignore the committee’s report, which was produced after cross-party examination of the bill. It is clear from the report’s conclusions that the committee continues to have significant concerns, which were not resolved during its scrutiny of the bill. The report notes that,

“Before it could recommend establishing a new statutory body, with its associated costs, the Committee would need to be certain that that”

would be able to

“deliver on its aims.”

As others have said, the fact that we do not have a benefit in place now means that the bill would put the cart before the horse in terms of our ability to deliver the benefit and advice.

Many members have touched on the fact that a benefit from an older industrial age will be dealing with a complex future, especially post-Covid. We will need to consider which cases will be eligible—for example, complex cases involving work-related long Covid for professionals in the national health service, in care homes and in teaching. Work is only just starting on that. We need proper scrutiny of whether such cases will be accepted and whether such people will be able to access the benefit in the future, and we all need to ensure that that scrutiny takes place. I hope that the work that the Government is now proposing will take place.

In its helpful briefing, the Royal College of Nursing Scotland states:

“With less than two years until the agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions ... is due to end, the Scottish Government need to publish its consultation setting out its proposals for the new EIA.”

We have heard today about a consultation. I hope that the cabinet secretary understands that there is a lot of cross-party interest in that work and that progress urgently needs to be made.

That should include details of the expert advisory group that will support the establishment of the new Scottish benefit and which health groups will be involved. In making my intervention earlier, I was interested in hearing which medical groups would be included in the expert group. I hope that the Government provides that information as soon as it can and that those of us who are interested and who want to input to the group will be included.

It is also important that we consider the organisations that are calling for action. I have met many of the organisations that have been highlighted, from Injury Time to Asbestos Action. A range of organisations have highlighted higher rates of cancer in many workforces, including among our firefighters and Scotland’s industrial communities. It is important, therefore, that those organisations are also at the table. I completely accept the work that Mark Griffin has done with unions to make sure that their voices are heard—that is incredibly important.

As many members on all sides of the chamber have said, it feels as though the bill has come too early, but it has also made the Government act. Mark Griffin should be pleased that he has made sure that the Government has listened.

It is clear from the debate that urgent action is needed. I hope that the cabinet secretary will update Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Given the result of the committee’s deliberations, Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at stage 1. However, we certainly want work on delivering the advice that Scotland needs to establish the principles of the benefit to move forward at an urgent pace, and we will work across Parliament to achieve that.

That would be helpful. We have discussed empty homes at length. I know that a number of councils do not have the resources to invest in building maintenance. It is welcome that a lot of councils are employing housing officers specifically to look at empty properties, but we do not seem to be pushing down on the number of empty homes. We have heard this morning about all the problems with cladding and RAAC, and about what is creating even more housing need.

What is the Government’s plan for empty homes? Has the Government considered establishing a national empty homes fund, which councils could bid into? In Edinburgh, more than 3,000 council-owned properties are sitting empty. Can councils look at getting such properties back into use?