Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that colleagues will come in on that.

The commission is reporting surpluses of more than £1 million and reserves of £3.4 million. Is that unusual for a public body of that size? What will ultimately happen to that reserve? Where does it go?

Ultimately, it would be to the benefit of consumers of Scottish Water if that profit goes back.

I know that colleagues are waiting to come in on some of the other key issues in the report. Thank you for those answers.

On the retrospective approval email, I would think that, if you were seeking such approval, some alarm must have been raised for that to happen. However, nobody seemed to be aware of anything, and the audit and risk committee did not know about it. Who raised the alarm that led to a retrospective request being made?

So, nobody in the organisation was aware of the issue. It was your intervention that led to that. The organisation did not think to request it of its own volition.

Good morning, minister and colleagues. I have a couple of questions on the cladding assurance register, and one on issues that have been raised by the Law Society of Scotland.

Is it the Government’s intention that the cladding assurance register will be a one-off snapshot register and that it will not change, or do you plan to regularly update it when changes are made to buildings? If it is the latter, do we need a statutory process to make sure that only responsible persons can update the register? Could you describe the Government’s thinking on that?

The Law Society also helpfully suggested that the Government might consider determining that some buildings fall outwith the scope of the SBA process and carry no risk whatever, because that would aid purchasers, mortgage lenders and so on in the buying and selling of some buildings. The society feels that if that does not happen, processes could be delayed for buildings that are essentially safe.

It is good that that is being considered by the Government. We will have to deal with it in some way. Thank you.

My next question is on the cladding assurance register and the timing of entries being made. You are probably aware that colleagues have asked, in evidence, for that to be done as early as possible. When remediation works have been identified and planned for, could a building be put on the register to give owners, lenders, buyers and so on assurance that it is on the register? Would you support that, or would you insist on waiting for the work to be done before a building is put on the register?

That was clear enough.

As you will probably have heard, the Law Society of Scotland raised a number of issues of clarity of definitions in the bill. It gave a number of examples in which it feels that there could be scope for misinterpretation. For example, it asked what the phrase “or otherwise undergone development” means, and highlighted other issues with regard to the definition of “risk”—in particular, the phrase “risk to human life”. It gave a host of examples of definitions that might lack a little clarity. Is the Government aware of that, and is it looking to try to define, sharpen up, polish or whatever, the bill’s terminology in order to assist everyone?