Chamber and committees

I suppose that it is also important for the insurance industry to understand the need.

Good morning, members. My amendments 119 to 121 are probing amendments that I lodged as a result of work that I have been doing in Parliament around neurodevelopmental pathways.

It is quite clear that, for children in Scotland and their parents and guardians, seeking an assessment—for example, for autism—does not result in a pathway towards other potential assessments, such as for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. My amendments would provide for a referral for an additional assessment. I hope that that will be considered not only for this bill but for future bills that the Government introduces to improve the situation.

Previously, I have raised constituent cases with the minister. I have permission to share the case of a mother of two boys in Lothian who received an autism diagnosis through NHS Lothian some years back. However, she watched her boys struggle to function at school and in society for up to six years before taking them for a private assessment for ADHD. Both were diagnosed with autism and ADHD, and they were given the necessary support and medication, which has transformed their lives and their family life, too. I believe that we should also see that pathway developed for children in the care system, and I hope that the minister will support that.

I have listened to what the minister has said. The Government is currently consulting on a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill, and I note that there has recently been a letter from many organisations to all ministers with regard to improvements. Although the minister did not mention that, I hope that the provision will be in a future bill, as it is something that needs to be taken forward. I will not move amendment 119.

Amendment 119 not moved.

Amendments 120 and 121 not moved.

That is helpful, but I wonder how many developers have a mixed portfolio of developments—not just home building.

On the impact of taking a different approach, some of my case work—which all members will have—around rebuilding confidence in the insurance industry and getting a solution shows that there are concerns about a different approach potentially being taken at the end of this process and having the situation that has been outlined around high-risk and low-risk buildings. We will have representatives of the insurance industry at the committee in the future. What concerns are there about that approach creating two very different situations north and south of the border, and have you fed those back to the Scottish Government?

Good morning, everyone. I am an MSP for the Lothian region.

I have a couple of questions, the first of which is about the scope. Why do you feel that the Scottish Government has excluded student accommodation, hotels and care homes? We know from the conversation that England seems to be way ahead in getting work on those properties taken forward. I think that 21 per cent of them are now having remedial works done, whereas the figure is just 1 per cent in Scotland. Why do you think the Scottish Government has taken that decision in the legislation?

I am an MSP for Lothian region.

Finally, I want to go back to Stephen Andrew’s point, from the very beginning—it was also raised by the previous panel—about communication. The bill does not necessarily capture this, because it probably sits within a factors bill on the future management of risk.

A lot of people who are currently in buildings do not feel that there is that standard communication with them. We have heard feedback loops mentioned, which, for people in social rented properties, are the responsibility of the housing association or the council. Looking specifically at how that communication should be improved under the bill, what suggestions do you have? Although it is not your area of responsibility—it may be for the factor who has been appointed, or there are often connections between developers and factors—do you have any suggestions of what that should look like in any potential amendments to suggest to Government? I think that that is at the heart of what a lot of people are frustrated about—not having proper communication over this period and not knowing what is going on, even if good work is sometimes taking place.

I mentioned Stephen Andrew, so I will bring you back in.

In the Scottish Government’s letter to the committee, ministers acknowledge that there are significant workforce shortages and challenges, and that those will

“continue to have a significant impact”,

often making it more difficult

“for local and national government to achieve ... shared priorities ... committed to in the Verity House Agreement.”

In previous meetings, we have touched on that issue with regard to the workforce challenges in planning departments. Why do you think that workforce planning has been so poor for such a long period, and what can change in that respect? The Verity house agreement did not place a real emphasis on the need for future workforce planning.