Seòmar agus comataidhean

Section 8 refers to the ministerial power to evacuate, while section 16 refers to giving notice when the recipient’s address is unknown. In both cases, there is an obligation to display a notice

“on or near the premises”,

and amendments 26 and 34 simply clarify that such notices must be displayed “conspicuously”, in line with similar provisions that are made in legislation elsewhere.

Amendment 33 further amends section 16 to the effect that a notice that is displayed is taken to be received 48 hours after it is put up. It is important to be clear when notice periods start and finish as, in the absence of owner consent, it is only after the required period of notice that a single building assessment and remediation work can begin. It is thought to be reasonable to deem a notice to be received 48 hours after it is displayed.

I move amendment 26.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

A commonsense approach.

There are a number of amendments in this group. I will speak first to amendment 1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to provide that ministers undertake a review of the meaning of “single-building assessment” 12 months after royal assent, with a particular focus on extending single building assessments, under the provisions of the bill, to buildings that contain

“at least one room ... used ... as ... overnight accommodation or short-term dwelling”.

From the member’s previous contributions, I believe that that is with a view to bringing hotels and care homes, for example, within the scope of the bill.

I have been clear from the outset of the programme that the scope of the bill and the barriers that it aims to address concern the issue of consent, which is not applicable to non-residential buildings such as hotels and care homes, as those buildings have a single owner. We must remember that the main driver for the bill is the need to address barriers and challenges to assessing and remediating cladding in multiresidential domestic buildings.

Building safety is the responsibility of the building owner. Where there are clear owners and duty holders of non-domestic buildings such as hotels, we would rightly expect them to understand and assess any risks of their cladding and, where necessary, to take action to remediate unsafe cladding.

That is not to downplay the importance of safety in other buildings—far from it—but to recognise that the prime purpose of the bill and the powers that it contains is to address challenges that have been encountered in multiresidential premises.

In my opinion, the process in the bill would give them that information. I would be happy to pick up on that and to chat with Mr Griffin about the SBA process when that is completed, but I think that we have the process in place. I have discussed the matter with you, Mr Simpson. The SBA process currently includes developers and stakeholders. We are due to complete the process by the end of May and I hope to come back to the committee about the particular point. I think that we have in place a process to deal with the matter.

If it is okay to move on, convener, I will turn to amendment 52, which proposes the creation of an independent reviewer to bring a degree of independent assurance to the assessment and remediation process. I do not disagree with the principle of ensuring that appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect owners and residents, but I ask members to consider the relevant measures that we have already built into the bill.

Regardless of whether a single building assessment is instructed by the Scottish ministers or a developer, it must be carried out in accordance with the standards that are specified by the Scottish ministers and by a person who is authorised by them. That will ensure not only that there is a consistent approach to assessment, but that an assessment is always completed by a suitably qualified and competent individual—for example, a fire engineer with professional registration.

That is why I am coming back to you, because I am aware of the situation in the building that you are referring to. There are different situations in different parts of Scotland with different buildings, so we are trying to take that on as a whole in the discussions that we are having. I am aware of the specific point that you make, as we prepare for stage 3. There are different situations in different buildings in the country, which we hope to pick up on in all parts of the country. I am happy to have that discussion, which we are having on the specific building that you mentioned.

Lastly, I move on to non-Government amendment 2, in the name of Miles Briggs. The Government is sympathetic to the principle of the amendment as it accords with our usual practices of open and transparent government. Sharing the results of the SBA will promote understanding of the process and the works that are to be carried out, and enable homeowners and occupants to organise themselves accordingly.

However, I have some technical concerns regarding the drafting of the provision and how it would operate in practice, such as in cases where the remediation is developer led, given that the amendment places an obligation on ministers. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 2 and to work with the Government to refine it ahead of stage 3. If the amendment is moved, I ask the committee to reject it.

We have spoken to the ABI and UK Finance about that. I come back to Mark Griffin’s point. We have had discussions all the way through the process, and we will continue to do so. We had a quick chat yesterday to talk about that. I am happy to pick up that point, but we have had discussions with stakeholders about that.

I have nothing further to add.

I will come on to that. I appreciate the comments that you have made. I met residents from flats in the area that you stayed in, I spoke to them directly about the issue and I will have a follow-up meeting with them on that point.

As I said, I would have significant concerns about data protection if that practice was to be placed on a statutory footing, and I will touch on that in a wee second. The implications need to be fully explored, and, regrettably, in the context of the bill, we do not have enough time to do that.

However, again, I note that the maintenance of such lists is likely to be common practice, and, as we have touched on, would no doubt be advantageous in the scenarios that Graham Simpson refers to in amendment 5.

As part of the operational aspects of the cladding remediation programme, where the Government is involved in remediation, it will encourage adequate communication with residents via factors or residents associations.

All that being said, I urge committee members to reject amendment 5.

I will come on to the other amendments and how we will progress with those. Moving on to amendment 55, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, I will state again to the committee and to those owners and residents of buildings within the scope of the cladding remediation programme that, where the Scottish Government is involved in the remediation of buildings, our communications must improve. I previously updated the committee that we are working on an improved communications protocol; we are ensuring that we engage fully with owners and residents, ahead of ministers arranging for a single building assessment to be carried out.

As a result, I am of the opinion that we can have some sympathy with the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 55. However, the amendment does not cover the situation where developers are in charge of the remediation of buildings, and it appears to me that the consultation with owners and occupiers should be conducted by the party in charge of remediation. Therefore, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 55 but, instead, to work with me to refine the details ahead of stage 3—I would say the something similar to Graham Simpson. If amendment 55 is moved, I ask committee members to reject it.

It would not be appropriate for the bill if amendments 50, 54, 59 and 62 were passed. There is a variety of circumstances in which cladding is managed, assessed and remediated. Amendment 50, in particular, makes no distinction as to the characteristics of the buildings, so liability would be excluded for any owner, including owners of hotels, residential care homes and so on. In practice, that would prevent such owners from being able to arrange single building assessments and remediation.

Amendment 54 would amend a section dealing with ministerial powers, so an exclusion of liability of costs for owners does not make sense in this context. In addition, those who instruct a single building assessment or work would be liable to pay for it under any ordinary contract arrangements. There should be nothing to stop owners instructing their own SBA and remediation work if they want to do that, but amendment 54 would have that effect.

The effect of amendment 59 in a section relating to ministerial powers is unclear. An SBA contains a fire risk assessment, and issues may therefore be identified that are the legal responsibility of owners—to keep common passages clear, for example. It would not be appropriate for the bill to exclude liability for that, and such a provision could have significant unforeseen consequences regarding the safety of buildings.

Amendment 62 is redundant, as section 7 relates to ministerial powers, and an exclusion of liability for owners does not make sense in that context.

For all those reasons, I ask Miles Briggs to seek to withdraw amendment 50 and not to move the other amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Offence of obstructing assessment or work

Amendment 31 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Offence of failing to assist with assessment or work

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

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Giving notice where recipient’s address is unknown

Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed.

After section 17