Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, there are a number of things to look at. I will come back to the specific Edinburgh issue. First, there is a broader discussion, which is perhaps not for this committee, about the size of Edinburgh and how much accommodation it can take. I suppose that that is a question for the City of Edinburgh Council to pick up.

The issues are not just for Edinburgh, although the Edinburgh festival highlights the point; other local authorities have events that require accommodation. We looked at the period of time and tried to find a balance. After speaking to the festival and fringe, and to local groups, we felt that the six weeks’ exemption was felt to be inflexible, in some ways, and too restrictive. Again, we wanted to try to provide flexibility, given the number of events. The festival itself goes on for around four weeks, and there are other events that are held in Edinburgh, such as Hogmanay and events as part of the Forever Edinburgh campaign.

In other parts of the country, it would depend on what events were being held. We were listening to feedback on that, and picking up on events that we were aware of, and some that we were not aware of. Again, it is up to each local authority to address the needs. We listened carefully to the festival and fringe, to the City of Edinburgh Council and to other stakeholders about what the picture can look like. We were trying to strike a balance to ensure that we can, if possible, accommodate the people who need to come in.

The key point is giving local authorities flexibility in that regard. That ensures that activity can take place throughout the year, and that we do not have to come back and deal with the issue every year.

To come back to the point about Edinburgh, we will pick up the key points around the festival and fringe, which I referred to, and ask the local authority and other stakeholders how they find the approach. In Edinburgh, that has to take place in the context of asking how big the festival and fringe should be, to accommodate what needs to happen. I know that the festival and fringe have been looking at trying to spread accommodation out, accommodating people not just in Edinburgh but in other parts of the Lothians. Again, we were very much listening to what stakeholders were saying, but it is an on-going process, so we will be looking for feedback not just on the issues in Edinburgh, but from stakeholders in other areas. We were listening to what stakeholders were telling us and were trying to strike a balance.

There are a number of points to make. As Jess Niven mentioned, Edinburgh has short-term let control areas. That is a planning issue. There is the licensing scheme, too. I know that Edinburgh has faced legal challenges and that it has amended its approach. Edinburgh’s approach was based on its interpretation of policy; it is not my job to tell the council how to interpret that.

That issue was specific to Edinburgh. However, I know that other areas are looking at adopting short-term let control areas. Consideration will be given to those interactions.

Some of the issues that have been raised have been particular to Edinburgh. That council felt that it needed to bring in short-term let control areas. That is a broader issue. It is not part of the licensing scheme. If a local authority decides to look at planning, that is about its interpretation of those aspects. It still comes back to local authorities acting within their own flexibilities in relation to the scheme, but some of the issues have been about the short-term let control areas. The Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, who deals with planning, and I are meeting the ASSC again to pick up that point.

Planning law does not fall within the scope of the instrument. This is about how we interpret what the scheme is there for, which is for health and safety purposes. The broader issue has been discussed.

We have written to the ASSC on a couple of occasions to say that we do not agree with its interpretation of that, but we will continue to meet it. As I said, Ivan McKee and I have a meeting coming up with the organisation on that particular point. I know that that issue has been raised by other local authorities.

I do not know whether Jess Niven wants to come in on that. Actually, I will bring in Andy Kinnaird on that planning point.

A number of stakeholders would balance that view. For example, the STA welcomed the provisions and said that they are striking the right balance. There has to be a balance of opinions. I understand that the ASSC represents about 5 to 10 per cent of the sector. I have probably met Fiona Campbell more than I have met anybody else in past year or so, so I have listened. We do not always agree—Fiona and I would agree on that point—but there is a balance to be struck. The STA, which represents a number of short-term lets, has said that we struck the right balance, and it looks forward to continuing engagement. That is always going to be the case, whether it is ASSC or the STA.

The key thing will be the evidence on the impact that the amendment order will have on the tourism sector. We have seen an increase in short-term let accommodation and in visitor numbers for Scotland, which is encouraging.

Of course, we always listen to the ASSC, but we also listen to the STA and other stakeholders. There are different opinions on the issue, and that is why it is really important that we have an on-going dialogue. As I said, the STA welcomed the amendment order and thought that it was the right balance for the number of organisations that it represents. We have struck the right balance with the provisions that I have brought forward at this time, but I think that it is important that we continue to listen to the sector. I have done that all the way through, and I will continue to do it as we move ahead. It is the way I operate. Whether it be the cladding bill or the housing bill, I will be as collaborative as I possibly can be and listen to as many people as I possibly can.

There are different opinions within the sector, but that does not mean that any one opinion is more important than the others. They are all important, and that is why I will continue to engage with the committee and stakeholders as we move ahead, while making sure that what we are doing does not impact on the tourism figures that are coming through.

It is encouraging to see the number of visitors to Scotland in the past few quarters returning after Covid and in what is still a difficult time for tourism because of the on-going cost of living crisis. The tourism figures that are coming through are encouraging.

Fiona Campbell knows that I will continue to engage with her and the ASSC, as well as with the STA and other stakeholders, such as SOLAR, the industry advice group and the expert group that is being pulled together.

We are in discussions with SOLAR about that and feeding back to it on what is coming through. Emma Roddick is right that the issue has been raised by her local authority, but we are in discussions with SOLAR about how we could address that.

Can you be more specific? Having met the ASSC and others, I know that there are other things that they wanted us to include at this stage, but I do not know whether there is anything specific that you are referring to.

There are a number of things to say. When we brought the scheme in, it was partly to get an accurate number of how many short-term lets exist. The business and regulatory impact assessment indicated an estimated number. Figures on the number of short-term let applications in different parts of Scotland have been highlighted in the local press, and it is good for local authorities to have that information when deciding on their broader strategy. That is really important.

There will be an update to Parliament on the number of short-term let licences over the summer period, which will involve looking at what is coming through in each local authority area. The number of applications that came through was encouraging. It is important to remember that the BRIA estimate of around 32,000 applications was made in 2019, which was prior to Covid. Some of the figures that are coming through on the applications are encouraging to see. Statements were made that the system would reduce the number of short-term lets, but I do not think that that is the case, and when they all come through, the figures will demonstrate that.

On tourism, I have some figures in front of me. Average occupancy rates in B and Bs, guest houses and self-catering accommodation are up on the prior year, which is encouraging. There has not been any material drop in that regard. Tourism numbers in the past number of years have also been encouraging. We will continue to monitor that, but the initial figures that are coming through do not show a drop-off; they still show an increase in short-term lets and for B and Bs and guest houses.

In every meeting that we have with the ASSC and others, we have officials from the tourism sector there to feed in on anything that is coming through. We will also meet Airbnb and other providers to discuss what influence they think the legislation has had. They are not seeing anything at this stage, but I will meet them after the summer to sit down and discuss that with them. There is on-going dialogue with the stakeholders, including the providers, to make sure that there is no drop-off, but I have no real concerns at this stage about the update in relation to implementation over the summer.

Part of the challenge was finding out the actual numbers in the sector. We have been given the chance to look at the numbers, as well as the local authority numbers, in order to think about how we balance them and monitor the local authorities’ input.

Mr Griffin, perhaps we could write to the committee—if that is okay, Jess—when we have a more accurate date.

On that particular point, I note that there are a small number of cases—it is not wide ranging. There is on-going monitoring; I will bring in either Jess Niven or Craig McGuffie on that particular point. Again, they were more involved in the operational day-to-day discussions.

I have a little bit more to say, so I will move on, but I will, I hope, pick up the points that you have mentioned.

Works will be considered to be complete only when the cladding assurance register is updated accordingly, which will require that works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Scottish ministers. Work is under way to develop a robust compliance and assurance framework to support that through the cladding remediation programme. That touches on the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy referenced, but I am happy to pick up points about completion of the SBA process.

I remind members that we always seek to undertake works with the consent of owners. If that is not possible, they have a right of appeal to the sheriff court, except in circumstances in which work is considered to be urgent because of there being an immediate risk to life, in which case such notice as the circumstances permit will be given.

In the light of the measures that I have outlined, I do not believe that an independent reviewer is necessary, why is why I ask members to reject amendment 52 if it is moved. We must avoid unnecessary delays in progressing with assessment and remediation.

On amendments 53 and 82, assigning responsibility for remediation work is not part of the SBA and is not an appropriate task for the experts who undertake the assessments. The purpose of the SBA is to comprehensively assess the risk to human life that is directly or indirectly created, or exacerbated, by a building’s external wall cladding system. Responsibility for remediation work will be attributed after that work is identified in the SBA, when contractors will be engaged to carry out the remediation work. Amendments 53 and 82 would distract from the purpose of the SBA rather than improve the bill, so I ask members to reject the amendments in the event that they are moved.

I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy for lodging amendments 51 and 86, on a committee for single building assessments, which bring a key point to the attention of the committee. Home owners and residents must remain firmly at the heart of cladding remediation. We should, and we will, ensure that lived experience is considered, as we develop, implement and improve our approach to cladding remediation.

However, it is important for residents who are affected by such issues that the cladding remediation programme can be progressed as quickly as possible. It is inevitable that placing that aspect of the process on a statutory footing would delay, rather than speed up, the programme. I therefore propose to engage directly with Ms Duncan-Glancy to consider how best to build lived experience into our operational programme. I wrote to her last night about engaging with her as we move towards stage 3; I hope that she has received that correspondence. She has my commitment that we will consider how best we can ensure that everything that we do is informed by the lived experience of owners and occupiers, including those with disabilities.

On that basis, I ask that Pam Duncan-Glancy not move amendments 51 and 86 and that she agrees to meet me to consider how best we can embed lived experience in the cladding remediation programme.

Amendment 83 would require that the SBA sets out whether each risk that is identified during the assessment process is tolerable. That is not how tolerable risk will be assessed in the SBA. After all the risks have been identified, the SBA will state which of those risks should be addressed and how, in order to bring the risk as a whole that is posed to human life down to a tolerable level. As such, there will be no way to assess whether each risk is tolerable; tolerable risk must be assessed in the round, taking into account the risks as a whole that have been identified in a building and how they might be mitigated. The way in which amendment 83 is expressed would not allow an SBA to be conducted in the way that is required. In any event, the standards in development are the best place to deal with questions about how tolerable risk is identified. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move amendment 83, and I ask members to reject it if it is moved.

Amendment 42 is a technical amendment to bring the definition of “building height” into line with the definition that we expect to be proposed for the single building assessment standard, which, in turn, draws on the definition that is contained in the PAS 9980 standards that are used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An updated definition of building height will therefore support consistency between SBA assessments in Scotland and PAS 9980, and it will provide greater accuracy and clarity for all interested parties.

On amendment 85, our risk-based approach has consistently outlined the current scope of the programme as being buildings that are more than 11m in height. That is based on a risk assessment of capability to fight a fire, reflecting the reach of ground-mounted water jets and the use of specialist height appliances. The SBA is for buildings over 11m, and the bill is reflective of that scope. If ministers want to change the scope in the future, that would be subject to due consideration through appropriate regulations. We do not want to limit flexibility by stating the height in the bill. I reject amendment 85 and invite members to do the same.

As drafted, part 1 of the bill outlines the requirement for the Scottish ministers to maintain a cladding assurance register. An entry will be created in the register only after a single building assessment has been completed and any remediation work identified in that SBA has been completed to the satisfaction of ministers. That was to ensure that entries are made only once any such remediation work identified in the SBA has been completed.

However, I acknowledge that, during the stage 1 evidence sessions that the committee conducted, numerous stakeholders highlighted the multifaceted challenges associated with properties affected by potentially unsafe cladding, with issues pertaining to remortgaging, buying, selling and insuring such properties being of particular concern. The committee’s stage 1 report highlighted that there were concerns that the existing points of entry to the cladding assurance register might not adequately address those challenges, and that there was a growing consensus among stakeholders that supported the point of entry on to the register always being the completion of a single building assessment, including when a need for remediation work is identified.

In my response to the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill, I made a commitment to review the Government’s position on point of entry. After careful consideration, I agree that changing the entry point for buildings on to the cladding assurance register in cases in which the SBA identifies a need for remediation work would be a worthwhile change. That approach seeks to enhance transparency and might assist decision making in property transactions, while ensuring that any change is aligned with the overarching objective of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of occupants residing in buildings with cladding. It responds positively and directly to a recommendation that the committee made in its stage 1 report.

The change is delivered by amendments 10 and 11, which will ensure that an entry on to the register is always created immediately after the SBA has been completed. That change creates a need to adjust section 1 to make it clear how the completion of works will be recorded. Government amendment 12 does that by confirming that an entry is to be updated

“as soon as reasonably practicable after the Scottish Ministers are satisfied that”

the work is complete. However, amendment 12 has an additional aspect, to which I will now turn.

Amendment 12, along with the remaining Government amendments in the group, also adds to the bill the concept of additional work assessments. Our approach to cladding remediation is centred on the process of a single building assessment and, specifically, on the works that are required to eliminate or mitigate risk to human life related to the external wall system.

Cladding assessment and remediation can be a complex engineering project. We must allow for a scenario in which additional relevant risk and associated works to address that risk are identified after the single building assessment has been completed, without going back to square 1. For example, that could occur when an issue becomes apparent after a cladding panel has been removed from a building during the course of planned remediation and it exposes a problem that was not evident in the original SBA. We do not want to create any unnecessary barriers of process that would delay the completion of necessary work.

Through the amendments, we also seek to ensure that all required works are documented, completed and captured in the cladding assurance register, thereby ensuring that the golden thread of information from assessment to completed remediation is maintained.

We must also ensure that the rights of owners are protected. We have therefore reflected existing procedural safeguards, including 21 days’ notification of and appeal against newly discovered work being conducted, unless the work is urgent. I ask members to support all the Government amendments in the group.

Mark Griffin’s amendments seek to amend the language of the bill, specifically in relation to a “risk to human life”. In doing so, they touch on the central purpose of the bill and of the cladding remediation programme. As such, his amendments propose changes in a number of places throughout the bill, but we are required to discuss them here due to amendments 44 and 45 being pre-empted by my amendment 10, which I have already discussed.

My assumption is that Mark Griffin’s amendments, taken together, intend to replace the current references to risks that are directly or indirectly

“created or exacerbated by a building’s external wall cladding system”

with broader references to “any risks” that are created or exacerbated by that system.

I do not support such an approach. The current language makes it clear that the risks to be addressed may be either directly caused by the cladding system itself or indirectly influenced by it. Not being clear on that point could risk narrowing the focus of the single building assessment to risks that are directly attributed to the cladding system alone, with the result that secondary or indirect risks that impact on the risk to life could potentially be overlooked. Ultimately, such a narrowing of the assessment could have the effect of leaving remediated buildings at a higher risk level post remediation than the bill currently allows for. I urge Mark Griffin not to move the amendments, as they might increase the risk to owners and occupiers in affected areas.

I want to touch on amendment 49, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to remove section 1(3)(b) from the bill. That provision relates to the cladding assurance register and, specifically, the ability of the Scottish ministers to include in the register any information that they consider appropriate, in addition to that required to be included by section 1(3)(a) and—if my amendment 12 is agreed to—new paragraphs (aa) and (ab).

The Government’s intention with the existing provision is to retain flexibility in terms of what can be added to the cladding assurance register, to allow us to add further information to the register, if required, as it is operationalised.

I have already committed to working with stakeholders including the Association of British Insurers and UK Finance to ensure that the register can be of maximum value to them as they consider their ability to lend on and insure properties with potentially unsafe cladding. It is imperative that we have the ability to capture the data that will allow the register to operate as effectively as possible.

Although I appreciate that certainty as to what can be added to the register is an attractive prospect, on balance, the Government’s position is to retain such flexibility. I urge Miles Briggs not to move amendment 49.

In conclusion, I ask members not to move their amendments in this group.

I move amendment 10.