Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are the education committee and this is largely an education bill. Can you share any information about the direction that ministers gave you about the scope of and detail in the bill?

I am just looking for you to share with us anything about the direction that was given when the bill was being developed.

I have one further question but I will keep it short.

The bòrd has said that it does not know whether the bill adequately recognises the challenges in the community and that that could erode trust and engagement. Are witnesses concerned about that and, if so, what do we need to do differently to keep communities’ trust and engagement?

To make it clear, that was not a statement of the bòrd’s opinion on the bill; it said that it does not know whether the bill does enough to address that. That was the point.

My amendments in this and other groups are intended to address issues that I have heard about from residents who live in the Glasgow region, and which are, no doubt, also of concern to people across the rest of Scotland.

Amendment 51 seeks to introduce an oversight and advisory committee on the continued development and improvement of single building assessments. Amendment 52 seeks to create an independent reviewer who will be tasked with approving the key stages of the development of single building assessments. Amendment 86 is, I suppose, what we would call a tidying amendment. It seeks to ensure the timeous setting up of the committee that is proposed in amendment 51.

Residents in Glasgow—and probably, as I said, across the rest of the country—have felt quite distanced, in some cases, from the development of single building assessments and the processes. Residents associations in the region have raised concerns with me about conflicts of interests in relation to buildings with dangerous cladding, and they believe that occupier and owner voices in the process are essential to balancing such conflicts. I share that view. Occupier and owner voices are essential in the single building assessment development process to ensure that there is transparency and a system of checks and balances. In developing my amendments in the group, I considered that the Government must include owners, occupiers and representatives in the development of the building assessments.

Amendment 51 seeks to create a specific committee for single building assessments. It would require ministers to consult people on the development and continued improvement of the single building assessment under part 2 of the bill. Where problems were identified with the SBA system, the committee could consult ministers and the required changes could be made. The amendment provides that membership of the committee must include owners and occupiers in buildings that are covered by the legislation as well as organisations that represent them, and it provides that ministers may identify other members of the committee as appropriate. Further, it would require ministers to try, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, to include disabled people and their representative organisations in that committee, given the number of disabled people who died during the Grenfell tragedy.

Further to amendment 51, amendment 55 has been lodged because residents have raised concerns about the current plan that only developers would create the single building assessment. Residents think that that would create a conflict of interests; I, too, am worried about that. The current plan means that the developers who are responsible for constructing a building would be chiefly responsible for ascertaining whether that building is a fire risk.

Amendment 52 would create an independent reviewer who would be responsible for approving the arrangement of the single building assessment, the single building assessment report and any subsequent works that were identified in it. It is my view, and that of the residents whom I have consulted, that that would add transparency and their voice to the process. Scottish ministers would have the power to determine the necessary expertise of the reviewer, but I suggest that that person should have expertise that is relevant to the issue that we are facing, which is fire safety and building development. That is essential to ensuring that the reviewer can adequately address the fire risks that are identified through the building assessment. In my opinion, amendment 52 would introduce checks and balances and transparency to the system that is currently proposed.

Put simply, amendments 51 and 55 would give occupiers and owners a voice in the development of the single building assessment. They seek to address the concerns that residents raised with me about potential conflicts of interests. I believe that the amendments would alleviate many of the concerns about developers having sole responsibility and would add the necessary checks and balances. I hope that the Government will support my amendments.

As I said earlier, amendment 86 is a tidying amendment to ensure that the proposed committee would be up and running timeously, in line with commencement of the legislation.

Thank you for that, minister. I appreciate the willingness to talk more about that, and I appreciate your reaching out in your letter to offer that.

However, you just made a point about developers leading the single building assessment and ministers not necessarily being the people who do the consultation. That is part of the concern that I am trying to address. Residents are worried that, with developers having sole control over the single building assessment—as they see it—they will not have the opportunity to have any input.

If the minister does not support amendment 55, could he clarify how he envisages that conflict being addressed?

I will not move amendment 52, on the same basis—that I am happy to engage with the minister between now and stage 3 to see how we can further strengthen the bill to ensure that there is independence, that the conflict of interest is removed from the bill and that owners and occupiers have sufficient voice not only in the development of the single building assessment in general, but in relation to their own buildings specifically. On that basis, I am happy not to move amendment 52.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Section 3—Power to arrange single-building assessment

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 54 not moved.

I will not move it on the basis that there is a commitment from the minister to discuss the matter between now and stage 3.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

After Section 3

Amendment 14 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Power to require information for single-building assessment and the register

Amendment 15 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to arrange remediation work

Amendment 16 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Amendment 57 not moved.

On the basis of the minister’s undertaking to speak with me between now and stage 3—I have sought and am seeking assurances that we will work together to do something in the bill that will protect disabled people where flammable cladding is found on a building—I will not move amendment 66.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Power to establish scheme

Before I make my point, I clarify that the arguments that I made earlier related to amendments 51 and 52. I mixed up amendment 52 and amendment 55 but—I hope—not my arguments. I hope that that is clear.

Residents are particularly concerned that the bill’s current provisions allow a developer to have almost sole control over the single building assessment for a particular development. Which aspects of the bill can mitigate those concerns?