Chamber and committees

Previously, when we were getting towards the end of an LDP cycle, if a developer could prove that some of the allocations within an LDP were not viable, and that the figures that the local authority wanted to achieve would not be made under that LDP as it reached the end of the cycle, there was a mechanism that allowed a developer to say that there had not been effective land supply. Does the ruling on Friday in effect stop that happening?

I will follow up on Willie Coffey’s question on the best use of existing homes. Every member of the panel has talked about the proliferation of second or holiday homes. The Government has looked at one side of the tax equation—increasing council tax for those who own second homes—but should it also look at the other side of the tax equation, which is when that holiday home is being purchased? An additional dwelling supplement is in place, which means that people who are buying a rental property or other things must pay a supplement on the land and buildings transaction tax. Given the particular issues that you are raising, should there be a specific category of the additional dwelling supplement for holiday homes or second homes? Would that affect behaviour change, particularly in rural settings?

As the convener has said, we have already touched on the Government’s affordable housing supply programme. The Government’s long-term target is to build an additional 110,000 homes by 2032—and I note that, this year’s budget aside, it has said that it still plans to hit that target—but I am more interested in the 11,000 rural homes target. Does the panel think that that target is still feasible? If not, what needs to change to make it happen? Perhaps I can go from left to right, starting with Ronnie MacRae.

My amendments in the group are probing amendments to get more detail, as per what we heard at stage 1 about what a single building assessment would look like and other content around that. However, I have discussed the matter with the minister in advance and I welcome continuing into stage 3 on the design of the single building assessment.

Amendment 46 will provide a starting point for discussions, based on the report that the SBA should produce, highlighting the products that are used in the context of a ban. By mandating that that data be made available, Parliament would be able to scrutinise the process and ensure that the Scottish context in the PAS—publicly available specification—is not used to allow combustible materials to remain in situ on buildings that are over 11m high. The amendment would require the Scottish single building assessment to include information on the type of products that are present and their Euroclass ratings.

Through amendment 53, the bill would focus on the key concept of a single building assessment, as outlined in the explanatory notes. With so much of the process hanging on that key concept, it is essential that all parties that will be impacted by it have full clarity at the outset about what a Scottish single building assessment is, its specification, what it looks like and what standards it is assessing. None of that detail is provided in the bill but it is important detail that we should define. We should give people—residents and developers—more clarity about the details that should be contained in the SBA.

I will.

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?