Chamber and committees

Amendment 58, which is in my name, builds very much on what we have just heard from my colleague Graham Simpson about the need to address other fire safety issues that may be identified in the development of a single building assessment. The minister will be aware that residents of buildings with flammable cladding have raised concerns with me about the fact that other issues have been picked up in assessments that have been made available by independent fire engineers. They fear that, as the bill stands, those other issues would not be considered or would not be part of an assessment. Amendment 58 would mean that any works that a single building assessment identified as having to be completed to mitigate the fire risk of dangerous cladding must be done in line with fire safety guidance, in the hope that broader safety and fire safety considerations might be taken into view.

Amendment 66, which is in my name, is specifically about disabled people. In the inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy, it was found that 41 per cent of disabled people who lived there died in the fire. I am determined that we ensure that that never happens again, and I think that there are mechanisms in the bill for us to do that.

In the event of a fire at a building with flammable cladding, there is presently a risk that no specific plans are in place to ensure that disabled people get to safety. I want to do everything that I can—I am sure that other committee members and the minister also want to do everything that they can—to mitigate that risk by ensuring that any works that are identified by a single building assessment under the legislation are followed up by having a specific assessment of the risk to disabled people in the building, including how they would be expected to escape.

The Grenfell tragedy taught us many lessons, and we all have to work to ensure that this never happens again. As I have said, one of the starkest lessons is how fatal it can be when disabled people’s particular issues are not necessarily provided for.

Amendment 66 seeks to give ministers the responsibility to ensure that, when a specific risk assessment is undertaken, disabled people in the particular building are considered so that they know that, in the event of a fire or an evacuation, there is specific support and a plan to help them to get out. The amendment seeks to revert to ordinary standard procedures once the building has been remediated, so as not to bring it outwith the scope of the legislation. Given what we have learned from Grenfell, the amendment is particularly important, and I encourage members and the minister to give it serious consideration.

On the basis of what we have just heard, I will not move amendment 58, and I undertake to work with the minister on it.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Power to arrange urgent remediation work

Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.

Amendments 21 and 22 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 62 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Power to evacuate

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

Did you say that the timescale for the education work is a couple of years?

Will the paper that you will publish in a couple of months include specific issues that you have highlighted relating to education, mental health and poverty?

That is helpful. As part of that work, will you differentiate and look at how certain policies might impact on specific groups, such as care-experienced groups or disabled people?