Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to discuss with Miles Briggs the specific concerns that he has raised. As I said, there is the consultation process, which is already in place, and there are discussions with colleagues in Homes for Scotland and SME builders on some of the specific points that he mentioned. However, I am happy to discuss the points that he has raised before stage 3.

Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 68 to 71 not moved.

Amendment 35 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Section 21—Eligibility for membership

Amendments 3 and 72 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendments 73 and 74 not moved.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Section 22—Conditions of membership

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 76 not moved.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23—Loss of membership

Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

Section 24—Consequences of not being a member

Amendment 79 not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

After section 24

I appreciate Miles Briggs’s comments. For general context, I note that I have had a number of meetings with Homes for Scotland, particularly about the SME concerns that have been raised. Those concerns will be considered as part of the SBA process as it continues and as things move on to the responsible developer scheme.

I will speak first about my amendments 35 and 36. Amendment 35 requires the Scottish ministers to consult before making regulations to establish a responsible developers scheme. That consultation would primarily be with those concerned with the construction or development of buildings, but would also include any persons that the Scottish ministers consider appropriate. I trust that the committee will welcome the amendment, which responds to concerns that were raised during the stage 1 process about the lack of detail on and lack of consultation regarding the responsible developers scheme.

Requiring consultation on the detail of the responsible developers scheme before developing secondary legislation signals our intention to work collaboratively and to undertake a full consultation with developers, including SMEs and other interested parties. Developers play an important part in Scotland’s economy by providing safe and high-quality homes and we want to work with them to ensure a proportionate and collaborative approach to delivery of the cladding remediation programme.

Amendment 36 clarifies the definition of a “developer” in section 21(6) and is also part of the Government’s response to concerns that were raised during the stage 1 process regarding some of the definitions in the bill.

I move to amendment 67 and will also touch on the remaining amendments in the group, which are all in the name of Miles Briggs. In doing so, I ask members to keep in mind the Scottish Government’s clear policy objective that developers must play their part in making buildings safe. The Scottish Government expects developers to commit to identifying, assessing and remediating buildings in Scotland, as they have done in Wales and England.

Amendment 67 amends section 20 of the bill and appears to aim to remove the Scottish ministers’ ability to set up more than one scheme. My position is that it is important for ministers to be able to respond to the needs of homeowners, developers and other stakeholders and that, following consultation, we will be in a better position to determine precisely what is required. The bill therefore retains the ability to form more than one scheme, which would enable us to accurately and sensitively design schemes for different sizes or types of developers, in line with their needs. I therefore ask the member not to press amendment 67.

Amendment 68 seeks to amend section 20 by changing the purpose of a scheme from requiring a person in the industry to “address or contribute” to the costs of addressing issues covered by the bill and the cladding remediation programme to requiring that they should instead

“make a reasonable and proportionate contribution”.

I am concerned that that apparently slight change in wording could have the effect of diluting the policy aim that I stated earlier, which is that developers must play their part in making buildings safe.

The stated aim of the responsible developers scheme is for developers to address and contribute to the buildings that they have developed. The provision as it stands allows for flexibility in the subsequent regulations as to how developers will be involved in remediation. The consultation that precedes the making of regulations will allow for that issue to be explored in more detail and I would not wish to reduce the mandate of that consultation by reducing flexibility at this point. l therefore ask the member not to move amendment 68.

Amendment 71 seeks to amend section 20 of the bill by removing the option that a scheme set up by the subsequent regulations may

“require members, or persons seeking to become members, of a scheme to pay fees”.

Although I can understand why some would like to see that excluded from any future scheme, it is important that that remains an option for the Scottish ministers, because it requires consideration of the impact of the cladding remediation programme on the public purse and allows ministers to require, for example, that admin fees be paid as part of that scheme. In that context, I again refer members to the policy objective that I stated some moments ago.

I acknowledge that there will be strong views regarding any such fee, which will form part of the Government’s consultation. However, my position is that it is important to separate that question from the question whether the Scottish ministers should have the option of requiring fees from scheme members. I therefore cannot support amendment 71. I urge Miles Briggs not to move it and committee members to reject it, if it is moved.

Amendment 75 relates to conditions of membership and inserts the words “reasonable and proportionate” into the existing provision that requires scheme members to make financial contributions in respect of single building assessments and the carrying out of work identified in such assessments. l am concerned that that change could limit the scope of how scheme members will contribute to the scheme and I consider it unnecessary at this point. I again point to the consultation process to flesh that out, and I am concerned that adding that wording to primary legislation would limit what is possible in the regulations.

I turn to amendments 76, 77 and 78, which concern the right of appeal and change the potential for regulations to provide for a right of appeal to a court or tribunal, to a requirement that they should do so. Amendment 78 seeks to add procedural details that should be covered in the regulations. That seems to be a reasonable proposition, but I want to fully consider the impact that amendment 78 might have on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and what other options would be available and consider that that would best be explored via the consultation process.

Amendment 3 would insert a requirement into section 21 on eligibility for membership, requiring that membership of a responsible developers scheme would be restricted to developers with an annual turnover of more than £10 million.

By way of background, the Scottish Government is currently engaged in a detailed discussion with a wide range of developers, including smaller developers, on the detail of the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract. The intention is that there will be a close alignment between that contract and the schemes.

One of the key themes in those discussions is developers’ ability to pay. We have established a task and finish group that is focused on ability to pay, which is engaging closely with developers in Homes for Scotland on financial thresholds, the contribution of smaller developers and the arrangements for firms that may find themselves in financial distress.

Amendment 3 would, again, reduce the flexibility of the regulations that would create the scheme. We do not wish to put such a figure on the face of the bill, as we may require to amend it in order to ensure the fairest settlement for all parties. Again, reducing the flexibility of the scheme prior to consultation is undesirable. That is the same approach that was taken in the United Kingdom Building Safety Act 2022, which left such details to regulations that formed the UK Government’s responsible actors scheme.

Amendment 72 seeks to amend section 21 by adding in that eligibility for the scheme will be dependent on a person having a connection to a building that is described by the regulations as posing a risk to human life that is created or exacerbated by problem cladding. However, since section 21(6) of the bill already defines problematic cladding as a cladding system that directly or indirectly

“creates or exacerbates a risk to human life,”

the amendment would have no effect on the bill, other than to confuse matters. As such, in the interests of simplicity, I ask members to object to the amendment if it is moved.

Finally, I will speak to amendment 79. I welcome the approach taken by the majority of developers concerned, in taking responsibility for their part on the programme. Many are keen to get on with the job and, indeed, aspects of the bill are there expressly to help them to do so. At the same time, it is important that any responsible developers scheme carries an accountability mechanism so that those who are responsible are not disadvantaged compared with those who are not. Considerable development has gone into those sections, which, again, take a similar approach to those that were enacted by the Westminster Government.

Amendment 79 would remove section 24, which establishes that the responsible developers scheme may contain, in effect, sanctions against any person who is included on a prohibited developers list. Section 24 is crucial to the operational integrity and, thus, deliverability of the scheme. Acknowledging that regulations will be subject to consultation, my position is that section 24 must remain in the bill in order that the Government can introduce an element of sanction to the scheme. I recognise the desire of Miles Briggs and other members for more detail on the scheme. However, in view of the Government’s stated intention to consult, I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 67 and not to move amendments 68, 71, 3, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79.

Amendment 8 would require the Scottish ministers to create a reinsurance scheme via regulations to

“promote affordability and availability of insurance for an owner or occupier of a premise”

with unsafe cladding. There is dubiety about the meaning and effect of the provision. It is not evident what scheme would be created and what it would seek to achieve, and it is not clear at whom the scheme would be aimed, or how. As such, I am unable to make an assessment of the likely costs or affordability of any such scheme.

I will take into consideration what Mr Simpson said about working with insurers, but I do not support amendment 8 based on its unclear drafting in relation to the aim and preferred outcome of such a scheme. Legislation should be drafted clearly and precisely. The lack of clarity is also relevant when considering the potential costs of such a scheme, as they cannot be quantified, which makes amendment 8 difficult to support.

Members may wish to note that we have engaged with the ABI, which has indicated that it does not support the amendment. Instead, more pragmatic measures are preferable to the ABI. We will work with it and other stakeholders to define the detail that we would like to be in the cladding assurance register. We touched on the point about unoccupied buildings during our discussions. I urge the member to seek to withdraw the amendment. If he wants to keep us up to date on his discussions with the ABI, there might be an opportunity to discuss what comes from them, if he wants to lodge an amendment at stage 3. As I said, we have engaged with the ABI and we got similar feedback.

Amendment 7 would require a sheriff to appoint a panel of technical experts with knowledge and experience of remediation work and take into account their views when making a decision on an appeal.

I recognise the positive intent of Graham Simpson’s amendment as, often, matters may be technical and expert advice might assist the court. However, appeals under section 10 would carry a great degree of urgency, as they would be brought forward in cases in which a single building assessment, which was produced by appropriately qualified professionals, had identified the need to act promptly to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life. A requirement to appoint a panel of experts would almost invariably add to the time that it takes for a court to consider an appeal in what may be life-critical matters.

That is not to say that there is no role for technical experts in some cases, and parties may instruct their own expert witnesses. However, it is not proportionate to require a sheriff to nominate a panel in every case, and I would have concerns about the impact of amendment 7 on judicial independence and on the court’s ability to deal with cases as it sees fit.

The Government’s informal engagement with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, ahead of stage 2, suggests that it shares at least some of those concerns. In addition, how the arrangements would work in practice is unclear, and there are questions about the cost, size and composition of the panel—including whether the membership was agreeable to both parties, for example—as well as the impact on court rules.

For those reasons, I ask Graham Simpson not to press amendment 7. If the amendment is pressed, I ask the committee to reject it.

In general, the Government would consider that. At the moment, it is looking at the issues in two or three different ways. We talked about the role of the housing regulator on issues of damp and mould and our work on that with the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers. When we look at damp and mould, we need to cover social housing and private housing—that is an element to consider.

Things are still emerging in relation to the RAAC issue. We talked about Aberdeen, for example, and there is the work of the RAAC cross-sector working group. We are engaging with that work and we are continuing discussions with Aberdeen City Council and other local authorities.

I will be honest: the picture is mixed. One of the key points with regard to local housing is the housing needs and demand assessment process, which looks at the requirements. With local housing strategies, what is important is how broad and far-reaching they are. A local housing strategy is not simply about housing itself and where to deliver houses—it is about adaptations and repairs, and it should also include looking at the retrofitting agenda and where that fits in.

A key thing that has emerged for me when speaking to local authorities in the past year is that there is always a need to look for more housing for elderly people. I remember meeting an organisation for extra care housing. There are figures from the Office for National Statistics showing that, in the United Kingdom, there are about 15 million bedrooms sitting spare. If we take Scotland’s share of the population, we are talking about between 1 million and 1.5 million bedrooms sitting spare in Scotland at the moment. Is there an opportunity for elderly people who might be staying in a big house to move into other housing? I know that local authorities have had incentives before and they have got people moving. That is a market that needs to be developed. We have had discussions with care providers about that, and we have a round-table meeting with Maree Todd coming up to talk about how we can look at extra care housing and what kind of funding there is for that.

We are talking about approximately 1 million and 1.5 million bedrooms in Scotland that are lying spare. I know that you are talking about the broader housing situation, but that is where the local housing strategy needs to be as broad and as far-reaching as possible. Those are the kinds of discussions that we are having with each local authority. They are all slightly different, because the situation in the Western Isles is a wee bit different from that in Glasgow, for example. That is where the local housing strategies need to go into a little more depth, and we can work on that in our discussions with local authorities, as well as through local teams discussing the issues with them.

Do you mean what actions have we taken in terms of emissions?

Pam Gosal indicated agreement.

Obviously, new-build standards have come in, which is an important step in relation to where we are with new houses. We are now starting to see those, and I have had discussions with developers who welcome that. We have to ensure that those standards continue to evolve as different technologies come forward. I know that that is being looked at.

Work on damp and mould depends on whether the matter sits with local authorities or the private rented sector. This is where the role of the Scottish Housing Regulator comes in. I know that it has written to the committee directly about Scottish social housing charter indicators. One of the key things that the regulator is talking about, in engaging with the sector, is developing an appropriate monitoring system. That is really important for knowing what impact the issue is having. Again, ALACHO has an important role to play in relation to social landlords, while the regulator has an overview. After Covid, a note was put out on damp and mould to all social housing practitioners. That was in February last year, and four leading housing organisations sent a wee note out on that.

I go back to the figures that I gave at the start of the meeting, showing that there have been no increases in the levels of condensation or mould, but we need to make sure that we are working on what to do going forward. You read some discussions saying that damp and mould are about tenants’ behaviours, but they are not. It is important that tenants look after their properties, but this is about making sure that the properties are properly looked after. It comes back to the point that Stephanie Callaghan made about ensuring that local authorities have effective schemes in place. The regulator has the ability to speak to local authorities about how they deal with damp and mould and I know that it has done that for Edinburgh, for example. We work closely with the housing regulator and the issue is always raised in the discussions that I have with it.

Obviously, there is a complaints procedure, but working closely with the housing regulator is the important part. There is a report mechanism. As I said, the housing regulator wrote to Edinburgh about how it dealt with damp and mould in its properties. It is about people working closely with the regulator and with ALACHO. It comes back to the condition of the properties and how they are looked after, which comes back to how authorities deal with that in their local housing strategies and what they are spending on that work.

Data is incredibly important. What levels of damp and mould are there? Each local authority can monitor that and do the piece of work on it. When I meet people from the City of Edinburgh Council, for example, we discuss damp and mould and how it is dealing with that.

This is a broad area, but the regulator very much has a role to play and ALACHO, for the local authorities, is keen to work with it. It comes back to how local authorities look after their stock. As for private landlords, there have been discussions with the regulator and the Scottish Association of Landlords, and guidance has been given to private landlords on how they deal with damp and mould in their properties.

That goes back to what I was saying previously. I mentioned the briefing note that was sent out, and the Scottish Housing Regulator plays its part. A real focus was applied after Covid, as it was not possible to inspect properties during Covid, for obvious reasons. That has been picked up on with regard to the backlog. It is a matter of working with the regulator, with ALACHO and with individual local authorities. The Housing Regulator has the power to write to the City of Edinburgh Council or other local authorities, as it has in the past, to ask them what they are doing.

We will continue to work with the Scottish Association of Landlords, which is developing a more robust guidance scheme for tenants, as we have discussed. We should ensure that the guidance is out there. It covers all tenures, not just social housing; it addresses housing associations and working with private landlords, too. It is also a matter of ensuring that we have the data, and the Scottish Association of Landlords should speak to its members to ensure that they are following the guidance.

Yes, very much so.