Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the minister providing the Government’s response to the amendments in the group that I lodged. As I have said, they are probing amendments, and I look forward to working with the Government on the detail, as we move forward.

The single building assessment is such a crucial part of the bill that there should be clarity for residents and developers about what is contained in the SBA. I note that the Government intends to conclude the work by the end of May. I look forward to discussions with the minister about how we could incorporate some of the detail in the bill ahead of stage 3, so I seek permission to withdraw amendment 46.

Amendment 46, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 47 not moved.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 12 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2—Offence of providing false or misleading information for the register

Amendment 13 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

I have a number of amendments in the group, which, at this point, are all probing amendments. I appreciate the engagement that the minister has had with me ahead of stage 2 and that which we will have ahead of stage 3, as we seek to finalise the bill.

As the minister said, all my amendments in the group seek to change the language in the bill so that it clarifies that issues that are raised through the single building assessment must link directly to life-critical risk. However, taking account of the minister’s points, I am happy not to move the amendments and to continue discussions with him prior to stage 3.

Thank you for that intervention. It would not be the company or tradesperson who would be responsible for carrying out the principal work, but the organisation or the corporate body that is responsible for commissioning, inspecting and ensuring that the work is up to an appropriate standard. That is the reference in amendment 53.

Amendment 82 is similar to amendment 53 and provides more detail on responsibility for the required works that are highlighted in the single building assessment.

I turn to amendment 83. The current guidance does not allow for tolerable risk in buildings. Each element that is included in the scope of the single building assessment can be categorised only as high risk or no risk. By implication, that means that most developments over 11m high will potentially default to being categorised as high risk. Again, we took evidence on that issue at stage 2. That could make things worse for home owners even if there are no life-critical issues that require remediation. The amendment seeks to remedy that by including a further category of risk that is defined as “tolerable”.

Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that information on the types of products that are present and their Euroclass ratings will be included in a building’s entry in the cladding assurance register, which will be publicly available. That will allow scrutiny of the SBA process and an understanding of the types of materials that are used in the external façades of the buildings in question. More generally, the amendment follows a number of written questions on the SBA process that I have lodged, through which I was looking for more detail up front for residents and people who will be responsible for scrutinising properties that they are looking to move into.

I turn to amendment 85. The bill provides a specific definition of buildings that fall within scope that includes a requirement on their height, but its wording would allow that to be amended by regulations at a future date, including to add buildings of heights lower than 11m. For consistency, amendment 85 seeks to prevent the Government from being able to alter the height specification of the buildings that will fall under the legislation. It seeks to allow the height specification to be aligned with the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022, which stipulate that a

“relevant building”

is

“a building having a storey, or creating a storey (not including roof-top plant areas or any storey consisting exclusively of plant rooms) at a height of 11 metres or more above the ground”.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my amendments.

I move amendment 46.

I look forward to seeing that update. Have there been any interim updates?

It is right to look for whatever sources of finance we can find when we are in a housing emergency, but I want to reflect the degree of nervousness that I am picking up from social landlords when it comes to changing the balance of funding for affordable housing, even if it is an ever-so-slight move away from grants to sources of private finance. How can we ensure that, when we potentially bring in other sources of funding, the end result is not that the burden of the return on investment, which investors rightly expect, falls on the tenant?

Good morning, minister. While we are on the subject of maintenance—in particular, the maintenance of existing flats—we have heard from witnesses that the current regime does not work well in relation to carrying out proactive maintenance to prevent long-term issues. Does the Government have any plans to review the legislation that governs the on-going maintenance and factoring of flatted developments?

We know that housing circumstances vary fairly dramatically across the country, particularly when we look at urban and rural areas. How successful do you feel the housing to 2040 strategy has been in addressing the differences between urban and rural housing needs and demands? Will there be any assessment of how well rural needs have been served by the housing to 2040 strategy?

I am Mark Griffin and am an MSP for Central Scotland.

We have skirted around the edges of net zero this morning, but Iain Gulland has honed in on the huge social and economic changes in train in the generation and consumption of heat and electricity. Those changes are about to ramp up, given the really challenging net zero ambitions and targets that we have in Scotland.

I have two questions. First, what is the role of community wealth building in achieving our challenging targets? Secondly, how do we shift away from our current economic models, with their generation and consumption of heat and power, to ones that are beneficial to communities? That is the more fundamental question.

Iain Gulland has kicked off on that subject. I will go back to him and then open up the questions to others around the table.

My next question is on the national performance framework, a refreshed version of which is about to be considered by Parliament. How are community wealth building and the challenge of tackling inequality feeding into the national performance framework? What do we need to do to give those things more importance in the national framework and to encourage more development on the ground?