Chamber and committees

Yes, please. Mr Griffin has just picked up on the question that I was going to ask, but I have a follow-up question.

Minister, are you considering making provision for a profit threshold for SMEs? Has that been ruled out or is it not really on the radar?

My colleague Mr Briggs has made some powerful points. The Grenfell tragedy involved a devastating loss of life that none of us will ever forget. The public were, rightly, horrified by it. However, last week, I found it reassuring that our witness Jim McGonigal said that the fire statistics for Scotland indicated that we do not have such a big problem here, in that only 1 per cent of fires spread. That is largely because of the really good work that has been done through coverage of the Scottish standards on fire alarms and other matters that have been brought in over the years. I absolutely do not mean to minimise either the need for the bill or the serious risks involving cladding, but are residents aware of, and do they understand, the existing protective measures? Are they reassured by them?

It would be great to hear further feedback on that. You have spoken about raised awareness among residents. However, sometimes there is a vocal group of them and perhaps another more removed group that is not quite as involved and perhaps does not have a full understanding. After we went out to visit flats in Edinburgh, I felt that, had I had news that there was similar cladding on my flat, I would have been quite panicked at the thought of it. It would be good to know a bit more about that.

Great. I look forward to that. Thank you for allowing me back in, convener.

You spoke earlier about how victim impact statements might have a disproportionate impact on panel members. Surely that would also give the panel the fullest possible information and the fullest possible understanding of all the facts and of the matter in its entirety.

Thanks, everyone, for joining us. We have already heard a bit about tolerable risk. Phil Diamond spoke about the fact that probably 60 per cent of the 7,000 buildings that are in scope in Scotland fall into that category.

My question is directed at Jim McGonigal, first. We have heard about the calls for the bill and associated guidance to better reflect the idea of tolerable risk rather than just high risk, and that measures could include the use of alternatives to cladding replacement that have similar fire safety benefits. Would you support that approach, Jim, and how might it work in practice? I am happy for anyone else to come in after that.

That is really helpful.

You said that people do not need to have that qualification, so my question was also about how you identify who has those skills. Maybe that question could get rolled in as we go on.

Do you have anything to add to that, John Marr? Do any of the other panel members have different views? If you do, I would be interested to hear them.

I have only one more question, actually, convener.

In its written evidence, the Law Society was keen for greater detail to be included in the bill on the responsible developers scheme and on the cladding assurance register. Do you want to say a bit more on that? Do you have any comments on risks? Are there any recommendations that you would like the committee to make to the Government, for example?