Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the interests of transparency, will the Government consider including a requirement in the bill for the Government to report regularly on the progress that is being made on the remediation programme? I want to scrutinise the finances around the bill. The minister has said that £41 million is available, and I think that the Scottish Government has £97 million in Barnett consequentials. As a committee, we are interested to know where that is being spent and for that to be reported back to us.

Good morning, I am an MSP for the Lothian region.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your input so far.

Are local authorities’ building standards departments suitably resourced to deal with the increased amount of work associated with cladding remediation and the new requirements on developers that are not part of the responsible developers scheme?

Is there anything specific that you think should be in the bill that is not in it? We have had quite a wide conversation about the scope of the bill. Specific concerns have been raised with us about electric batteries in cars and bikes in buildings with underground parking. Currently, that is not within the scope of the bill, but the recommendations that we can put to ministers in our report should capture some of that. Is there anything specific that you think we should include?

Thank you.

Yes—or where a developer has ceased to exist.

Thanks. That was helpful.

I just want to ask about a specific point. At the heart of this lie individual householders and the stress and anxiety that they have felt, but an issue that has been raised with us as we go through the process is what is to be done with orphan buildings and whether the insurance industry is treating them differently. I know that 100-odd buildings here in Scotland are going to be looked at as part of this process, but where is the industry when it comes to finding specific solutions for those other buildings? I will bring in Mervyn Skeet to begin with.

My specific concern would be that we create a two-tier system in which there are buildings that go on the register, the developer says that it will do the work, everything is agreed and public funds are available, and then there is a group of orphan buildings. All the workforce goes to where the developers are orchestrating the work; and insurance premiums increase for the people in the orphan buildings, whose properties are seen as being in a different category. We need to ensure that we do not leave them for someone else to look at doing that work.

I will touch on professional indemnity insurance. Witnesses have told our committee that the cost and the availability of professional indemnity insurance for industry professionals involved in that work continue to be a significant issue. Why does that continue to be the case? How can it be resolved?