³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Can you be more specific? Having met the ASSC and others, I know that there are other things that they wanted us to include at this stage, but I do not know whether there is anything specific that you are referring to.

There are a number of things to say. When we brought the scheme in, it was partly to get an accurate number of how many short-term lets exist. The business and regulatory impact assessment indicated an estimated number. Figures on the number of short-term let applications in different parts of Scotland have been highlighted in the local press, and it is good for local authorities to have that information when deciding on their broader strategy. That is really important.

There will be an update to Parliament on the number of short-term let licences over the summer period, which will involve looking at what is coming through in each local authority area. The number of applications that came through was encouraging. It is important to remember that the BRIA estimate of around 32,000 applications was made in 2019, which was prior to Covid. Some of the figures that are coming through on the applications are encouraging to see. Statements were made that the system would reduce the number of short-term lets, but I do not think that that is the case, and when they all come through, the figures will demonstrate that.

On tourism, I have some figures in front of me. Average occupancy rates in B and Bs, guest houses and self-catering accommodation are up on the prior year, which is encouraging. There has not been any material drop in that regard. Tourism numbers in the past number of years have also been encouraging. We will continue to monitor that, but the initial figures that are coming through do not show a drop-off; they still show an increase in short-term lets and for B and Bs and guest houses.

In every meeting that we have with the ASSC and others, we have officials from the tourism sector there to feed in on anything that is coming through. We will also meet Airbnb and other providers to discuss what influence they think the legislation has had. They are not seeing anything at this stage, but I will meet them after the summer to sit down and discuss that with them. There is on-going dialogue with the stakeholders, including the providers, to make sure that there is no drop-off, but I have no real concerns at this stage about the update in relation to implementation over the summer.

Part of the challenge was finding out the actual numbers in the sector. We have been given the chance to look at the numbers, as well as the local authority numbers, in order to think about how we balance them and monitor the local authorities’ input.

Mr Griffin, perhaps we could write to the committee—if that is okay, Jess—when we have a more accurate date.

On that particular point, I note that there are a small number of cases—it is not wide ranging. There is on-going monitoring; I will bring in either Jess Niven or Craig McGuffie on that particular point. Again, they were more involved in the operational day-to-day discussions.

We have spoken to the ABI and UK Finance about that. I come back to Mark Griffin’s point. We have had discussions all the way through the process, and we will continue to do so. We had a quick chat yesterday to talk about that. I am happy to pick up that point, but we have had discussions with stakeholders about that.

I have nothing further to add.

I will come on to that. I appreciate the comments that you have made. I met residents from flats in the area that you stayed in, I spoke to them directly about the issue and I will have a follow-up meeting with them on that point.

As I said, I would have significant concerns about data protection if that practice was to be placed on a statutory footing, and I will touch on that in a wee second. The implications need to be fully explored, and, regrettably, in the context of the bill, we do not have enough time to do that.

However, again, I note that the maintenance of such lists is likely to be common practice, and, as we have touched on, would no doubt be advantageous in the scenarios that Graham Simpson refers to in amendment 5.

As part of the operational aspects of the cladding remediation programme, where the Government is involved in remediation, it will encourage adequate communication with residents via factors or residents associations.

All that being said, I urge committee members to reject amendment 5.

I will come on to the other amendments and how we will progress with those. Moving on to amendment 55, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, I will state again to the committee and to those owners and residents of buildings within the scope of the cladding remediation programme that, where the Scottish Government is involved in the remediation of buildings, our communications must improve. I previously updated the committee that we are working on an improved communications protocol; we are ensuring that we engage fully with owners and residents, ahead of ministers arranging for a single building assessment to be carried out.

As a result, I am of the opinion that we can have some sympathy with the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 55. However, the amendment does not cover the situation where developers are in charge of the remediation of buildings, and it appears to me that the consultation with owners and occupiers should be conducted by the party in charge of remediation. Therefore, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 55 but, instead, to work with me to refine the details ahead of stage 3—I would say the something similar to Graham Simpson. If amendment 55 is moved, I ask committee members to reject it.

It would not be appropriate for the bill if amendments 50, 54, 59 and 62 were passed. There is a variety of circumstances in which cladding is managed, assessed and remediated. Amendment 50, in particular, makes no distinction as to the characteristics of the buildings, so liability would be excluded for any owner, including owners of hotels, residential care homes and so on. In practice, that would prevent such owners from being able to arrange single building assessments and remediation.

Amendment 54 would amend a section dealing with ministerial powers, so an exclusion of liability of costs for owners does not make sense in this context. In addition, those who instruct a single building assessment or work would be liable to pay for it under any ordinary contract arrangements. There should be nothing to stop owners instructing their own SBA and remediation work if they want to do that, but amendment 54 would have that effect.

The effect of amendment 59 in a section relating to ministerial powers is unclear. An SBA contains a fire risk assessment, and issues may therefore be identified that are the legal responsibility of owners—to keep common passages clear, for example. It would not be appropriate for the bill to exclude liability for that, and such a provision could have significant unforeseen consequences regarding the safety of buildings.

Amendment 62 is redundant, as section 7 relates to ministerial powers, and an exclusion of liability for owners does not make sense in that context.

For all those reasons, I ask Miles Briggs to seek to withdraw amendment 50 and not to move the other amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Offence of obstructing assessment or work

Amendment 31 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14—Offence of failing to assist with assessment or work

Amendment 32 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Giving notice where recipient’s address is unknown

Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17 agreed.

After section 17

I am happy to write to the member on that point with regard to the work that has been undertaken so far. I am happy to discuss that—I know that we have discussed it previously, not specifically in relation to student accommodation but for other settings.

I come back to the amendments. The committee has heard much about the need to increase the pace of progress on cladding remediation, and I am committed to delivering that. Any dilution of its focus will limit progress and have an impact on residents and owners who are already affected by the on-going risks from potentially unsafe cladding. As I mentioned, I offer to write to Mr Briggs. I therefore ask him to seek to withdraw amendment 1. If the amendment is pressed, I urge members to reject it. However, I am happy to pick up the issues that he has raised in relation to it.

I turn to amendments 4 and 80, in the name of Miles Briggs, and amendments 6 and 9, in the name of Graham Simpson, regarding annual reporting. I stress that I support the principles of open and transparent government—in fact, I have already given the committee a commitment to move to regular reporting on the progress of the cladding remediation programme. These amendments all go further, however, and would require ministers to prepare an annual report on the progress and impact of the legislation and the cladding remediation programme itself.

Amendments 4 and 80 focus specifically on the impact on industry. Amendment 4 focuses on the construction industry, and amendment 80 on industries that are affected by the legislation in relation to an economic analysis of the programme. Although I support the amendments’ aims in principle and am actively working to ensure that a developer’s ability to pay is factored into the separate development work that we are undertaking through the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, I cannot support amendment 4’s requirement to produce an annual report that focuses solely on the impact of the construction industry.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 80, which would require annual consultation and economic analysis. That would be burdensome and would require specialist input in terms of economic analysis at a cost to the Government. We are already working with developers to consider the ability to pay as part of the development of the Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract, and I have committed to consult on any responsible developer scheme ahead of secondary legislation. As such, we can demonstrate an active commitment to work collaboratively with the industry.

The reporting requirements do not take into account home owners and residents, who are at the heart of our approach to cladding remediation, and in considering both progress and impact they must remain first and foremost in our minds. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 4 and 80 and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3 to develop an amendment that reflects not only the interests of industry but those of the constituents whom we seek to serve.

I make the same offer to Graham Simpson in relation to amendments 6 and 9. Again, I am supportive of the principle, but we must ensure that the focus and detail of any such report is correct. As drafted, amendment 6 does not align with the meaning of the single building assessment at section 25 and it would therefore be undeliverable without a significant shift in the scope of the bill.

I say to Miles Briggs and Graham Simpson that we should work together and get this right ahead of stage 3.

I ask Miles Briggs to withdraw amendment 1 and ask that other amendments in the group not be moved. If the amendments are pressed or moved, I ask members to vote against them.