Seòmar agus comataidhean

Shall I respond to that, convener?

I will write to you.

I will touch on the point about amendment 55 when we move to that group, Ms Duncan-Glancy. I note that reference.

I will begin with amendment 46. The cladding assurance register is designed to provide a reliable source of information on the condition of relevant buildings, including information on what remediation work, if any, the SBA states must take place in a building. The SBA itself will contain information on the different types of cladding that are used in a building. It is also possible that the register entry in relation to any remediation works that are required in a specific building could refer to the types of cladding that are used in the building, where that is relevant to the entry on remediation works.

We do not consider that it would be of benefit to have the register include the types of cladding that are used in a property, as is proposed by amendment 46. Remediation work to bring a building up to a tolerable risk level will not always include the removal of cladding in its entirety. There is therefore a risk that providing information about the types of cladding that are used in a specific building could work to the detriment of homeowners if insurers or mortgage providers were to use that information to refuse on a blanket basis to insure or to lend on that building, even when the SBA has concluded that the presence of a degree of cladding within the building is acceptable in that context.

I therefore invite Mark Griffin to seek to withdraw amendment 46 and I ask members to reject the amendment if it is pressed.

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.