Seòmar agus comataidhean

As we have discussed at some length in the chamber, a proposed late amendment to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill—the purpose of which was to look at the coronavirus emergency legislation and decide which elements of that should be made permanent—proposed that a completely new provision be included that would have amounted to a near blanket rent freeze for a period of two years. As we debated in the chamber, very little argument was brought forward by the member who was behind those amendments to suggest that they were legally competent and ECHR compliant. That approach would have been much more clearly subject to legal challenge.

I am confident that we have now brought forward a bill that responds to an emergency situation in an appropriate and balanced way that reflects the interesting circumstances of both landlords and tenants.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to colleagues.

I am here to provide an update on the actions taken following my attendance at the committee on 1 March, when the committee considered the revised Scottish social housing charter.

In response to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s query about our consultation with secured creditors of registered social landlords or their representatives, the Accounts Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I can confirm that we wrote to all eight statutory consultees in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to ensure that there was no dubiety about the compliance with the duty to consult on the charter. We sought their views on the revised charter and provided the same 12-week response period in line with the original full consultation. We received responses from all statutory consultees, including secured creditors of registered social landlords, UK Finance, the Accounts Commission, Audit Scotland and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The overwhelming response from all the statutory consultees was that they were content with the changes that had been made to the charter. In light of some additional comments that they provided, we have made some further minor changes to the version of the charter that the committee considered in March. We have added to the equalities outcome the need for landlords to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity; revised the wording of the quality of housing outcome to provide additional clarity; changed the value for money outcome from a standard to an outcome; and highlighted the legal requirement to consult tenants on rents and service charges in the supporting narrative.

I trust that those actions provide the committee—as they have to the DPLRC—with assurances of compliance in relation to consultation with statutory consultees in the review of the charter.

The charter and the regulator’s reports provide an improvement framework for tenants and landlords to assess and compare landlord performance, and encourage landlords to deliver improved services for their tenants and other customers.

Finally, as I think I did in March, I want to place on record my thanks to the officials who have worked on what has proved to be a highly successful tool for improving services in the social housing sector, as well as my thanks to all those in the sector and others who have engaged with the consultations. I hope that the committee is content with the revised charter and that it will recommend that Parliament approve it.

The cladding stakeholder group meets regularly to explore such issues, engaging with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, UK Finance, the Law Society of Scotland and other organisations. The responsibility for the buying and selling of property needs to involve a proportionate approach, only requiring EWS1 for blocks that fall within the guidance from the RICS.

The system was put in place by the lending industry. Although we understand why that approach was taken, we believe that it must be applied proportionately. In Scotland, it is being applied flat by flat, rather than in relation to whole blocks. That is a result of the common ownership model that we have here, which David Blair was describing earlier.

However, we are working with stakeholders to try and ensure that they will accept a whole-building EWS1 as an output from the single building assessment process.

The short answer is yes. As we have said, the work that needs to happen in order to address the situation that those people are in is the SBA process and the subsequent actions, where the assessments determine that that is necessary.

Following the work of the review panel, we are satisfied that the approach that we are taking will give adequate safety. If I recall rightly, the European Commission is working with colleagues to look at alternative approaches to large-scale testing. I suspect that practice will continue to develop with regard to how fire safety tests can be used. Until that work bears fruit, the approach that we are taking on implementing a ban is the one that will give confidence to building occupiers and the construction sector that their safety is guaranteed.

Thank you, convener, and good afternoon.

I am happy to address the committee to update members on the progress of the Scottish Government’s work on fire safety and energy regulations. I will first cover fire safety and then energy.

In late 2020, a fire safety review panel was convened to examine how to ban the highest-risk cladding materials from taller buildings and the role of BS 8414. Last week, the committee heard from Peter Drummond of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, who chaired the review panel. I am grateful for the valuable contribution that was made by all members of that panel.

The review process was rigorous and lengthy, and the panel needs to consider a range of issues thoroughly before we undertake a public consultation. The outcome of the review was that regulations have been made to ban the highest-risk metal composite materials from any further use as cladding or internal linings in all buildings. They also ban combustible cladding from residential and other high risk buildings that are over 11m in height.

We have also introduced regulations to ensure that all replacement cladding should meet the new standards. Those changes are the latest in a series of changes that have been introduced since the tragedy at Grenfell tower, including the introduction last year of sprinklers in all new flats, social housing and certain shared multi-occupancy residential buildings. We had previously set requirements for two staircases as well as effective floor signage and fire-service activated evacuation sounders in buildings over 18m.

As the convener mentioned, we are also taking action on unsafe cladding on existing buildings, on which the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government made a statement to Parliament last week. I do not intend to cover that in my opening remarks—if the committee wants to ask questions, I will try to deal with some aspects, but others may be for the cabinet secretary to deal with.

The energy improvements that we are introducing in October will deliver another step towards improved energy and emissions performance in our buildings, and new homes in particular, with a strong focus on a fabric-first approach and on practical ways to reduce energy demand. We will be going further on that in 2024, with more significant changes to require new buildings to use zero-emissions heating systems. The current changes support that intent by future proofing installed heating systems in advance of those further regulations.

I am also keen that we continue to understand how we can achieve outcomes that are equivalent to those resulting from very low energy standards such as passivhaus. Again, I acknowledge the contribution of the review panel on energy standards, which was chaired by Stephen Good of the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre. We had more than 170 responses to the energy consultation and, although some concerns were expressed about the pace of change, there was no doubt that there was overwhelming agreement that change is needed.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

The Scottish Government, UK Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are taking a similar approach to the definition of the materials that we are talking about. A degree of consensus seems to have emerged as each Administration has undertaken reviews since Grenfell, and there seems to be general agreement on the definition that is being used.

I ask Stephen Garvin whether that is being explored in those terms.

I ask David Blair to jump in again.

It is worth reinforcing the point that the 11m height does not apply to the most highly combustible cladding materials, which are banned from all new build. Other types are permitted up to 11m.