Seòmar agus comataidhean

The minister touched in his comments on amendments 76 and 77, and I think 78, and some of the concerns around where a right of appeal is currently not strong within the bill. I do not know whether the minister is therefore minded to discuss that ahead of stage 3. For SMEs, there is concern about what will effectively become a blacklisting exercise by the Scottish ministers. There have previously been concerns about such practices taking place in Scotland and I am concerned about what that will look like, especially when SMEs will be included in all the legislation. I wanted to seek more detail on that.

On profit margins, there has not been clarity from the Scottish Government on what has already been taken into account as a UK-wide profit margin and where the Scottish legislation would take that UK-wide profit margin, again, rather than profits that are raised or secured only here in Scotland. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarification on those areas at stage 3, because none of us wants to see developers going out of business and not realising the resources that will be needed, specifically around orphan buildings. Driving up the number of orphan buildings is not in the interests of anyone.

Will the Scottish Government provide more detail on that at stage 3? I am happy to work with the minister on drafting workable amendments, specifically regarding amendments 76, 77 and 78.

I listened to what the minister had to say, and I am happy to work with him at stage 3. I feel that there will be a black hole at the end of the bill if we are not able to take stock of how effective it has been. I hope that we can work to create a useful amendment at stage 3, especially with regard to amendment 80.

The minister has outlined this, and I welcome the fact that the committee can do annual health checks in the future, but that will fall within the committee’s work timetable. The time that we might have to do an annual piece of work might be limited, so the burden is on the Government to provide Parliament with updated information on how we are progressing with assessments and remedial work being commissioned, so that residents and the wider public in Scotland can see when the issue is being assessed and we get to an end point at which we can say that buildings in Scotland are safe and that the cladding problems have been rectified. That needs annual reporting back to Parliament beyond the committee.

With that said, I am happy to work with the minister ahead of stage 3 on what I hope will be a proper workable amendment to bring the three amendments together. There are issues, but all three amendments could be brought together in an amendment at stage 3. In that case, I will not press amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Last year, there was also the one-off reprofiling of public-private partnership debt, which is probably reflected in those figures.

I have previously raised issues regarding the funding formula that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities uses. Has the commission done any work, or does it intend to do any work, on the effect of population growth on demands on councils? Lothian is expected to experience about 80 per cent of all growth in Scotland, but there is expected to be depopulation in other council areas, such as Argyll and Bute. Will the commission be doing further work on that?

Amendment 49 is my only amendment in the group; it, too, is a probing amendment. The minister has clarified—this is important for developers—what works will need to be undertaken and the detail that will be in the cladding assurance register beyond the single building assessment. My specific concern is in relation to additional information that might come forward with regard to orphan buildings, and that potentially resulting in a delay for funding for related works.

Has the minister taken any advice on that issue? It has already been highlighted that limited funds will be available for works on orphan buildings. Will the requirement to provide more and more information create a situation that could limit the scope for the Government to progress works on orphan buildings? For those of us who represent people who live in such buildings, we do not want that to happen.

Given that we are at stage 2, it is important that we have clarification on that, especially in relation to orphan buildings. Although they are not being looked at in two separate categories, it is important that we try to make sure that it is clear that work on such buildings will be supported. I am happy not to move the amendment at stage 2, but I would appreciate engagement ahead of stage 3.

This goes to the heart of what was said by those who gave evidence to the committee and those who are angry that we have not seen any real progress in Scotland on the issue. They have faced an information vacuum. That is not fair and needs to be addressed. That is why I have lodged amendment 2, which seeks to introduce a duty to inform by calling on the Scottish Government to inform occupiers of buildings of the results of the single building assessment and give residents on-going information that they will want to be made aware of.

We do not have a timescale for when all the assessments and works that may be needed will take place, but it is important that those who live in those buildings are put at the heart of that. That is why I want amendment 2 to be passed and for it to be put in the bill that the people who live in those buildings should know what is going on and should be given the information that they are entitled to. That has not happened to date.

I hope that the Government will accept amendment 2 today or take it forward as a working amendment at stage 3, because those who are affected need to be put at the heart of the bill. That is what I tried to achieve through my work on the committee and through the stage 1 debate, when all that was highlighted.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, could provide a lot of good additional information. Properly collating the information on residents who own their property or who rent it would add value. As communications are taken forward, those who rent—they are not owners but are occupiers—should be given the same information. I see no reason for any difference.

The bill gives ministers substantial powers, so my two amendments in the group are about ministers acting reasonably. We need to look towards how ministers will exercise their powers and look at potential grounds for legal challenge that overreach might bring forward. My amendments would set it out in the bill that ministers should act reasonably in exercising their powers under section 8.

I move amendment 63.

I take on board what the minister has said so far in relation to a care home or hospital setting. Student accommodation, however, has increasingly been built for multiple occupancy, with four to eight students in what would otherwise be a mixed development and mixed tenancy. I am concerned that such buildings have not been included to date. What work has the Government undertaken around student accommodation in Scotland to look at the number of buildings that are potentially over 11m high and would fall within the scope of the bill?

There are three key amendments on reviews. The first, amendment 1, is on other buildings. I raised this issue with many people who gave evidence at stage 1, specifically in relation to buildings that are currently not going to be subject to single building assessment but where people sleep, such as hotels, care homes and student accommodation. Although such buildings have been included in other schemes and in other potential reviews, there is not a timescale for what that will look like in Scotland. Work is already on-going with regard to some student accommodation, but will ministers also review other buildings in that category, and will those that are higher than 11m be captured? It is important that we look at how that part of the scheme is managed by ministers.

Amendment 4 is on undertaking a review of the ways in which the act will impact on the construction industry. In my previous set of amendments, I expressed concern about the SME sector. Completions are at an all-time low, and that will potentially have an impact on our construction and home-building industries. Ministers must be mindful of what that will mean for the housing crisis and delivering homes for people across Scotland. Amendment 4 calls on ministers to undertake a review of the act and how it will impact on the construction industry.

Finally, amendment 80 asks ministers to undertake an annual review of the act. I suggest an annual review, but I am happy to discuss that with ministers. There is a lot in the act; the only thing that is not in the act is how long it will take for us to be able to say that we have addressed all of the cladding concerns in Scotland. That could be a decade away. Also not included is whether the act is effective or ineffective in helping home owners to ensure that their homes are properly reported on and made safe through remediation or management, as might be the case for those that are seen as being below a tolerable standard. We are at the start of that journey. Amendment 80 provides for a review of the act and its actions.

I move amendment 1.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. One of the commission’s recommendations is about the prioritisation of recurring savings. Will you outline examples of good practice in that area as you see it? To what extent are recurring savings now becoming more difficult to identify and achieve?