Plenary, 05 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, December 5, 2002

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

Building (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3410, in the name of Margaret Curran, on the general principles of the Building (Scotland) Bill.

I am pleased to open the debate on the Building (Scotland) Bill. The bill is an important piece of legislation that will establish the new building standards system that will be our means of protecting the health, safety, welfare and convenience of anyone in Scotland who uses a building—that is quite a few of us. As an indication of building standards' pervasiveness, new building in Scotland is estimated to be worth about £5 billion each year. As a whole, the built environment in Scotland is valued at approximately £600 billion. All of us who use buildings have an interest in ensuring that a robust building standards system is in place for the future.

The bill's purpose is to bring up to date the building control system that has done a good job of delivering the requirements of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. The bill will replace the 1959 act and it will also facilitate the implementation of the construction products directive, which is a European single market provision.

Much of the bill and the administrative systems and processes that will flow from it are technical. I repeat our thanks to all those involved in the construction sector who contributed to our various consultations in the past three years. Their advice was invaluable in ensuring that we were able present to the Parliament proposals that have broad support throughout the sector. I am grateful to the Transport and the Environment Committee for commending the inclusive approach that the Executive took during the development of the proposals. I am pleased to welcome Des McNulty, who will close the debate. As a former member of that committee, he is very knowledgeable about the bill.

The bill establishes the framework for a reformed building standards system. Many of its features, such as the core process of building warrants and completion certificates, are similar to the features of the existing structure. We seek evolution rather than revolution. We are building on what works and making changes to meet existing and future needs.

Part 1 establishes a framework for ministers to make building regulations. It will include for the first time a power for ministers to make building regulations to further the achievement of sustainable development. It will continue to ensure that building regulations will be able to cover the usability of buildings and their accessibility by all.

The system that part 1 will introduce will be more flexible than the existing system and will allow owners to adopt more innovative approaches to building. However, it will ensure that current standards are maintained and that, as regulations are updated, standards are improved. Part 1 will introduce the building standards assessment, which will be a useful tool in identifying whether a building complies with regulations and the extent of any unauthorised works.

Part 2 describes the warrant and completion certificate process and introduces the concept of a verifier. Verifiers will work in the public interest to scrutinise work that has been done. As people know, that is a local authority function, but the bill provides that ministers may appoint other organisations, including those from the private sector, to undertake that role.

That matter was of particular concern to the Transport and the Environment Committee and was the subject of detailed discussions with many stakeholders. We agree with the position that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers took when they gave evidence to the committee. Like them, we want any organisation that may undertake the verification role to satisfy the criteria of impartiality, transparency, accountability and consistency.

The Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers accepted that there was no reason why private sector verifiers should not be introduced at some stage, provided that there was a level playing field and that the private sector was required to meet the same criteria as local authorities were. The association said that the difficulty would lie in making guidelines and monitoring rigid enough. The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that the Executive make a firm commitment not to introduce private sector verifiers until a full study had been undertaken into their potential impact. I am happy to give the committee that undertaking and to agree that the study will involve consultation with local authorities.

In its evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the association accepted that, subject to those safeguards, the introduction of private sector verifiers might offer advantages for the public, in particular in turnaround times for applications and the flexibility of service delivery to the applicant.

The committee made a significant point about the accessibility of information on building standards registers. We are happy to undertake to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that building standards registers are accessible to all users, which includes having relevant parts of the register translated on request within a reasonable time scale. However, as the committee said in its report, we are keen that the requirements imposed on local authorities should not be overly burdensome.

Part 3 deals with enforcement powers. In particular, it introduces a provision on building regulations compliance, which offers ministers the power to require the compliance of existing buildings with building regulations. That provision is made in expectation of the need to meet another European directive on the use of energy in buildings. The directive will insist that the energy efficiency of large existing buildings is upgraded whenever other substantial works are planned.

Part 4 deals with defective and dangerous buildings and is similar to existing legislation on those matters. However, it provides that a local authority will be able to enter and inspect a building to see whether it is dangerous. That is an extension of the existing power that allows a local authority to enter a building only if it has reasonable cause to believe that the building is dangerous. That policy was developed following the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry into the tragic death of Christine Foster at Ryan's Bar in Edinburgh.

Part 5 deals with general issues. Of note is the provision that gives ministers the power to undertake any of the functions of a local authority. Ministers may direct local authorities on how they exercise their functions; a similar power in relation to verifiers will be introduced by part 2. Those powers will assist the Executive to ensure consistency of application throughout Scotland, meeting one of the wishes of many key stakeholders from the public and the private sectors. The bill will also bind the Crown.

The bill is important. It will help to underpin cross-cutting issues, such as sustainable development and the reduction of fuel poverty, and will be an important tool in ensuring the continuing health and safety of the people of Scotland. We look forward to detailed consideration at stage 2.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Building (Scotland) Bill.

I call Linda Fabiani.

You caught me on the hop, Presiding Officer. The minister's speech was incredibly short; she did not even speak quickly.

The SNP welcomes the bill's general policy objectives, many of which are long overdue, such as the objectives of providing greater reassurance for people who use tradespeople and of providing more information to house buyers. The consensus is that local authority powers to identify dangerous buildings should be strengthened, that designers thrive on flexibility and innovation and that the system should be more responsive to the needs of the public and industry. The SNP is always up for providing excellence in public services, encouraging sustainable development and being constructive in helping the Executive to meet its obligations under European directives.

The main purpose of the bill is to modernise Scotland's building control system. That modernisation must have a robust base, with credible enforcement powers to reflect a basic need for accountability and competence. I am concerned that the policy objectives to which I referred, as outlined in the policy memorandum, have not been reflected in the bill's long title, which is

"to make further provision with respect to buildings, building standards, work in relation to buildings and related matters; and for connected purposes."

Many others share those concerns and I ask the minister to consider them further as the bill progresses, so that it can be strengthened to ensure that it is objective driven rather than process driven.

I do not have time to dissect every element of the bill, but I will raise some particular points. As I said, the provisions on dangerous buildings are welcome, but we should note the evidence of the Fire Protection Association, whose representative said that the bill would not give fire authorities a statutory right to be consulted. Their expertise would be brought into play only if there were variations from technical standards. That is a potential amendment for the Executive to consider.

I am reminded of the licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, on which the Social Justice Committee has taken much evidence. I suspect that that scheme was introduced under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 almost as a panic measure after the tragic death of young men in a fire in accommodation in Glasgow that had bars on the window. However, the scheme does not give local authorities further powers to prevent such an incident from happening again. That situation needs to be addressed. I ask the minister to consider lodging an appropriate amendment at stage 2.

One of my colleagues will concentrate on the functional standards versus technical standards aspect of the bill. I want to register my concern that, if technical standards are no longer to be mandatory, we could be in danger of reducing our standards to a lower common denominator. In light of the European directive, the Executive might feel that it has devised the best way to proceed, but how will the Parliament scrutinise and influence if the enabling legislation allows ministers a free hand with guidance and regulation? The accountability to ministers of the new, or reformed, central building standards body is noted in the policy memorandum but, again, that issue is not addressed in the bill.

A number of the provisions might have significant cost implications; evidence was taken about the potential costs to local authorities. The City of Edinburgh Council highlighted the potential for an "enormous burden" and the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers warned that the aims could not be achieved without "adequate funding". Paragraph 148 of the financial memorandum would seem to suggest that fee income and savings gained will result in cost neutrality. I am not convinced, and I ask the Deputy Minister for Social Justice to expand on that when he sums up the debate.

A particularly contentious issue is that of independent verifiers. It is understandable that strong views were expressed for and against by the private and public sectors. I was a bit puzzled by the evidence that was given by the former Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Hugh Henry. He contended that the Executive had no plans to extend the verification role to the private sector but that the possibility of doing so should not be excluded. I thank the minister for expanding on that point today, but did the former Deputy Minister for Social Justice's evidence indicate that the Executive does not yet know what the additional costs to local authorities are likely to be and that, rather than fund local authorities to do the work, the work will be privatised?

I was particularly impressed by the Disability Rights Commission's evidence on behalf of the country's 800,000 disabled people. The commission also raised the question of replacing mandatory standards with guidance as a cause for concern. Requests for relaxations have long been contentious for disabled people.

The duties in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 come into force in October 2004. Bearing that in mind, no building currently in use by the public should be granted relaxations for any aspect of any regulation that would have a direct or indirect negative impact on the accessibility or usability of the building by disabled people. I say to the minister that I assume that no relaxations whatever will be allowed in the case of new buildings.

The explicit inclusion of access and usability in the functional standards would ensure clarity in determinations after a breach is reported. It is also vital that accredited verifiers include professionals who are competent and qualified to certify that a design is accessible and usable by disabled people.

The Disability Rights Commission asked that the definition on convenience be expanded to include explicit reference to accessibility and usability for the disabled, rather than the implicit references in the policy memorandum and the explanatory notes. The word convenience does not adequately cover, or might not be understood to cover, the requirements of disabled people. A building that is not accessible or usable is considerably more than an inconvenience; it is discriminatory, exclusive and may hinder someone from accessing services and facilities. I am sure that a solution to that issue is not beyond the scope of the many resources that the Executive has to hand. I ask the minister to consider the matter further.

I also ask for an assurance that the bill is only one part of the continuing modernisation of building construction and repair. Are issues such as tenement law and rethinking construction practices to incorporate the Eagan principles still on the agenda? Who is driving the agenda?

I could say much more. Fine intentions have been laid before the chamber today and stage 2 will be interesting. I reiterate that the Scottish National Party supports the general principles of the bill.

I declare an interest: at one time, I was a student member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, but that does not appear in my entry in the register of members' interests. I welcome Des McNulty to the front bench. This is the first time that he has appeared in his ministerial role in a debate in which I have been involved.

The Building (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 18 September 2002, is welcome legislation. It updates the 1959 act and, in addition to making our legislation EU compliant, should simplify and modernise existing legislation. However, some issues need to be addressed in the debate, including verification, certification, costs to local authorities, functional design, building warrants and late applications.

The Conservatives welcome the Executive's proposal that verification should continue to be carried out by local authorities. We also welcome the opportunity for private sector verification to be introduced at a later date if required. I am content for us to wait to see how private sector verification works in England and Wales.

We heard conflicting evidence about whether private sector verification could deliver impartial, accountable and accessible enforcement powers. In my view, the jury is still out on the matter in England and Wales. However, if the private sector model works in the long term, there is no reason why we should not welcome it in Scotland.

I quote the ultra-cautious Institution of Civil Engineers:

"The approved inspector system in England has offered the opportunity to provide tailored services on a commercial basis. Competition has delivered service improvements in both the public and the private sector in line with best-value policies."

If that view is still held in another three or five years, I can see no reason why our Government in Scotland should not introduce similar private sector verification. Indeed, to an extent, that is happening already in small local authorities that buy in verification services from larger and better equipped neighbouring authorities.

Certification is a vital part of the process. There is a need for certifiers to take a narrow role but to be aware of the overall design concept. Contracts above a certain size, which would be defined by ministers, should not be subject only to self-certification. Although I accept totally that a verifier must take the overview, it would also be important to encourage certifiers to be aware of and to think holistically about the design concept. As buildings become more sophisticated and complex, there is a greater risk that fragmentation of design could lead to structural failure. Quite simply, the greater the number of people involved in considering the potential risks of a design concept, the more likely we are to avoid structural failures such as the Ronan Point disaster and accidents such as the Summerland fire.

In practice, a dialogue might take place between verifiers and certifiers, but the minister might wish to consider asking certifiers to consider during the certification process whether, in their view, the part of the design that they are certifying creates any risk to the design concept as a whole.

I welcome the minister's conclusions that fees must be set to recover costs. It is worth noting that those costs could be significant for the property sector if local authorities are to be obliged to inspect existing buildings regularly to ensure that they are not dangerous.

The Executive must be aware that the financial cost to local authorities, as well as lack of funding, could delay the introduction of the new building standards system. It must ensure that adequate funding is provided. It would be unacceptable if delays in the verification process caused contractors and clients time and money as a result of deficiencies in and underfunding of local authority departments.

It is essential that functional standards be maintained and improved upon. Although I accept the Executive's intention to reduce prescription in functional design, I share the concern of the Disability Rights Commission that

"technical standards may no longer be mandatory."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3615.]

Linda Fabiani also highlighted that concern.

There is an absolute need for ministers to reassure us that existing standards of accessibility will be built on rather than reduced. After the bill has been passed, I believe that the Scottish ministers will need to keep that matter under review.

I also want to refer in passing to the likelihood that the costs of indemnity insurance will escalate. We must be reassured that appropriate insurance will be available under the new regime. The minister must spell out how such arrangements would work before we proceed. Finally, the definition of "owner of a building" must be clarified, and I look forward to the Executive lodging suitable stage 2 amendments in that respect. The Conservative party welcomes the bill and looks forward to lodging our own stage 2 amendments.

In a previous existence, I had contact with a group of professionals, the leader of which used to shrug off any unnecessary detail with the phrase "That's too technical". As a result, every time I say, "That's too technical", I have a wry smile on my face. That explains why I am smiling when I say that the Building (Scotland) Bill is quite technical.

The bill deals with the framework that ensures that buildings are safe and fit for purpose. Moreover, it moves away from the highly prescriptive nature of the current building control system by recognising that there can be more than one solution to a problem—an approach that has been widely welcomed. I tried years ago to secure official acceptance for construction of an innovative reed-bed system to deal with domestic sewage in a private dwelling. The bill's proposed system's flexibility and ability to deal with matters that are outside the box is therefore very welcome and will lead to good things. Furthermore, from the evidence that the Transport and the Environment Committee took, the industry seems to feel that the bill will accomplish its aim of facilitating innovation.

At this point, I should express my appreciation to the experts who submitted evidence to the committee and helped us to get our lay minds around concepts such as functional standards, technical standards and so on.

The bill will create two new kinds of officer—certifiers and verifiers—whose complementary roles will help safely to deliver the desired flexibility and innovation. However, there is a question about whether verification should be available from private sector providers. Although that happens south of the border, the benefits of such a system have not been universally agreed and, as private verification will not be immediately introduced in Scotland, there is still time to evaluate more fully the experience in England and Wales.

The committee also discussed the financial implications of such a system for local authorities, and it was suggested that the introduction of private verification might affect the recovery of costs through fees. Furthermore, concerns were expressed about erosion of the public sector skills base if much of the work is moved to the private sector. Although such questions will require consideration in future, they should be borne in mind now.

Although I welcome the measures that will strengthen local authorities' ability to identify dangerous buildings, I feel that they will not be effective if authorities cannot afford to implement them.

For many years, it has seemed that building standards are the obvious way of attaining proper energy efficiency and accessibility to buildings. However, the bill will establish only the mechanisms; the regulations that follow will actually deliver those objectives. As a result, the regulations will be more exciting than the bill itself. However, the bill is the necessary prerequisite and it is important that we get it right.

The witnesses who gave evidence to the committee clearly appreciated the lengthy pre-legislative consultation that fed into the bill and they felt strongly that such an approach has paid dividends and that the bill now meets its objectives. When we deal with such technical measures, it is important that we listen to professionals and make the best use of their expertise. I am happy to say that that has happened with this bill. Perhaps in our stage 2 consideration we will now be able to clear up some of the problems that have been highlighted during stage 1.

The Liberal Democrats are very happy to support the bill's principles and look forward to stage 2.

Before I address the bill, I want to welcome the new Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Des McNulty, and to wish him well in his new role. Des comes to his position with some advantages and disadvantages. As a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, he was part of the bill's stage 1 consideration. However, that might well prove to be a disadvantage, because he might now have to accept many of his own recommendations. [Interruption.] I see that Margaret Curran has overruled that.

We must recognise that, although the bill is very technical, its provisions will be important to people in Scotland because they will affect so many aspects of their lives. The bill has real practical benefits; for example, it proposes to give to ministers powers to make regulations for a range of different purposes, including health, safety, welfare and convenience. As Linda Fabiani pointed out, the issue of convenience is important because it can improve the accessibility of buildings for many people. My colleague Ken Macintosh will discuss such issues later.

The bill also gives powers to ministers to make regulations about the conservation of power and the promotion of sustainable development. I hope that Mr McNulty will, when he sums up, expand on the way in which such powers might be used. For example, on health and safety, I ask him to say how the powers could be used to promote safer designs. When he was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, he asked whether the legislation could be used to reduce the incidence of injuries suffered by children who crush their fingers in doors.

As for the conservation of power and sustainable development, the Social Justice Committee invited the Executive to explain how it intends to use the powers in the bill as a tool to meet its overall policy aims of reducing fuel poverty and promoting sustainable development. Again, I ask the minister to provide further explanation of how such powers will be used.

I will now, having identified some of the bill's positive aspects, raise some areas of concern that the Executive should take on board. I will not be able to mention all the concerns this morning, so I ask the Executive to consider in detail the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I want to focus on verifiers and certifiers, which other members have mentioned. Public sector organisations in particular have expressed concerns about the introduction of private verifiers, although I note that at the moment the Executive has no intention to use that power. In its written evidence, the City of Edinburgh Council stated:

"No private verifier could ever meet the criteria of being independent and accountable to the local electorate when they are appointed and paid for by a client directly. The DETR in England has as a result created a private building control system … the essential elements of which are no refusals, no problem and no enforcement!"

I acknowledge the minister's commitment that, before any such system is introduced, there will be full consultation with local government and a full analysis made of the impact of any such changes. Although I welcome that response to one of the committee's recommendations, I ask ministers to consider whether there is any need at all to include the power in the bill.

I will touch briefly on certifiers, because I realise that I am at the end of my time.

We can be a bit more relaxed—I do not mind if you go a bit beyond five minutes.

So we have loads of time this morning.

Concerns were raised about certifiers; in particular, the Institute of Civil Engineers in Scotland was concerned about having an overall holistic approach to verification of safe design. I know that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice was himself concerned about the issue when he was a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I hope that the Executive will examine the matter closely before the bill is passed. The committee recommended that the Executive should consider giving a single individual responsibility for managing the certification process, and I ask it to take that suggestion on board.

In conclusion, the bill is an important measure that introduces new powers that can be used to promote better and safer buildings in Scotland. I ask the Executive to consider carefully the role of verifiers and certifiers. It recognises that local government has performed the role well in the past, so I ask that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water when reviewing the building control system. I welcome the powers on dangerous buildings and recommend that the Parliament support the bill at stage 1.

Nora Radcliffe began by saying that the bill is technical and by implying that it is boring. The bill is not exciting, but it is important, and it will be instructive to watch how a former committee member who knows the Transport and the Environment Committee's concerns translates them into amendments to the bill.

A stage 1 debate is about a committee's being able to highlight its areas of concern and, on reading the Transport and the Environment Committee's report, we see five areas of concern. One of those concerns stems from the Social Justice Committee's report, which I commend to the ministers, on fuel poverty and sustainable development. Members of that committee were also concerned about costs to local authorities, the role of private verifiers and, more important, the introduction of monitoring and auditing of those private verifiers. We also had concerns about the definition of an owner.

In my few minutes, I want to concentrate on the potential problem of the mandatory status of our new standards. The problem relates to the functional standards that we are about to introduce versus the technical standards that we have at the moment. Why is there a problem? For example, new functional standards for fire safety might say that building materials "shall not spread fire", which is a wonderful intention. However, the old technical standard would have set, for example, minimum times for fire doors to hold back fire and a minimum width for corridors, fire exits and stairways. That is the difference. The functional standard says, "shall not spread fire" but the technical standard ensures that fire cannot be spread. Similarly, the new functional standard will say that access to buildings should be convenient, but the previous technical standard would have set, for example, a maximum gradient for ramps. It is clear that there are issues that we must consider.

I am particularly concerned by the transfer from technical to functional standards. That transfer has happened in England and Wales and the Transport and the Environment Committee heard from people who experienced the transfer that they have reservations about it and how it is working in practice. In particular, the committee heard from the Disability Rights Commission and the Fire Protection Association about their concerns on the transfer and the mandatory level of the standards.

Before I go on to that, I return to the word "convenient", which the minister used and to which Linda Fabiani referred in her speech. The DRC said that using the term "convenient" to describe access to a building is outmoded. In evidence to the committee, the then minister Hugh Henry said that it was okay to continue to use that term in the new standards because it was used in the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 and was understood as a technical term. I refer ministers to the DRC's evidence that said that if we are updating the standards, we should update the language as well in order to ensure that the terms that we use show fully what they are meant to achieve.

I want confirmation that the technical standards that we have at the moment will not be reduced when they become functional standards and that the mandatory nature of the standards will be enforceable in law. One of the minister's civil servants said in committee:

"The expanded functional standards will still set a minimum that must be met and that the courts will be able to enforce. That minimum will be no lower than that which we set at present through regulation."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 13 November 2002; c 3690.]

I want, as do many others, to hear on record from the ministers that that will be the case, because it is important. As both the Disability Rights Commission and Fire Protection Association pointed out, it is much more difficult to remedy accessibility or fire-proofing defects once a building is built than it is to ensure that it is built appropriately by meeting standards as it is built.

Mention has been made of standards that buildings have to meet in other legislation. That includes part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which will come into force in October 2004 and, in relation to fire safety, the European directive on construction products. If the functional standards in the bill do not meet those minimum standards, the buildings will not meet other legislation.

I also want assurance that the Building Standards Advisory Committee will include representation from fire authorities and disability groups to ensure that such organisations' concerns are considered.

In conclusion, I am concerned that much of the legislation's substance will come through regulation and guidance rather than be included in the bill. That presents Parliament with a difficulty in scrutinising and influencing legislation. Again, will the minister assure us that Parliament will be involved in the production of the regulations and guidance? Hugh Henry said that there would be many issues for ministers to deal with, including the appointment of verifiers. Will the minister assure us that Parliament will be part of that process to ensure that when the bill is passed, it works for everybody?

The Building (Scotland) Bill is a welcome bill that I am pleased to see has to date attracted cross-party support. More important, it has gained the general support of public agencies that are currently responsible for, and have the remit to approve and oversee, building standards for all buildings and structures in Scotland.

Members will no doubt be aware that responsibility for building warrants for new and renovated buildings rests with local authorities. Under their control, the system has been regulated consistently and has been applied professionally and fairly. The system has generally been accepted and, which is important, complied with by all sections of the building trade. I question some of the bill's proposals in that I do not consider it to be practical or appropriate to remove that function from local authorities, as some suggest should happen. It would be a foolish and retrograde step to appoint private sector inspectors or verifiers to manage the building control system and we should resist any such move with the utmost vigour.

The bill goes a long way towards addressing the problems of substandard housing in Scotland—we all know how much of that exists in the private and public sectors. Much has been achieved, but much more is required. Our citizens have a justifiable right and expectation to occupy warm, dry and affordable homes. I do not agree entirely with everything in the bill and would like to see an amendment lodged to include insistence that all commercial buildings to which the public have access will be required to secure and display an electrical compliance certificate. That certificate could be renewed annually in the same way as with the existing requirement to display a current insurance or fire certificate. Such a change would ensure that all electrical appliances and, more important, the main power supply were installed and maintained to an approved and safe standard. The sort of inspection and testing that is required is quick and easily undertaken and would not impose a new burden on the property owners or occupiers.

There is much merit in the bill and it deserves the unanimous support of the Scottish Parliament. Accordingly, I am pleased to indicate my support for the Building (Scotland) Bill, with minor amendments.

It might help if I say to the remaining speakers that there is scope for them to have up to six minutes each.

I want to deal with one matter that does not appear to be referred to in the bill but which I believe is touched on in the policy memorandum, which says that the bill should

"make the system more responsive to the needs of the general public and industry … create more flexibility for designers to promote new and innovative design"

and

"support Scottish Executive aims of providing excellence in public services and encouraging sustainable development".

I believe that the matter that is missing in relation to those aims is broadband roll-out. If we do not address that in the Building (Scotland) Bill, we will miss an opportunity. If the Executive says that we will address the matter in future years, it will be merely postponing work that should be done now.

Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive recognise the importance of rolling out broadband. However, it can be argued that, in the 21st century, broadband is as important a public utility as sanitation, electricity, lighting and so on were in previous centuries. I appreciate that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning has recently made pronouncements on and provided cash for supporting broadband roll-out, and I recognise that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice—whom I congratulate on his promotion—has a family interest in the matter, but it seems to me that we have an opportunity not only to address the minutiae that are clearly important, but to take a new step forward and consider how we can take the initiative in rolling out broadband rather than dealing with it from behind.

At present, there is public support for rolling out broadband and BT has embarked on a major advertising campaign, but all of us will be aware of difficulties that friends or constituents have had in getting broadband. Those difficulties happen not only in rural Scotland but in cities and major conurbations in central Scotland. Throughout the country, people either cannot obtain broadband or can obtain it only at an unaffordable price. The bill gives us an opportunity to say to building companies that, if they are building a housing or business estate, the provision of fibre optic cables—or an appropriate alternative—is as important a requirement as are provision of power cables, water and sanitation.

We must acknowledge, however, that that cannot be done in all areas. It might be unreasonable to compel someone who is building two new houses in Achiltibuie to provide fibre optic cabling. There must be made available an opt-out on the basis of cost. That flexibility could be provided for in regulations, which are dealt with early in the bill. However, there should be a standard for any construction project that involves, say, more than 25 houses or whatever we decide on. At present, the Executive is trying to aggregate resources for industrial estates that are already in commission. Why do not we ensure that any new industrial or housing estate is required to provide broadband access?

We should not require builders to pipe broadband directly into every house, but we should require that there be a fibre optic cable or an ADSL connection within a reasonable distance. The difficulty that we face is that anyone who wants to get broadband in their new house can be quoted ridiculous prices—for example £3,000—to get it. If all that a telecommunications company had to do was connect the house to the pipe at the end of the road, the cost would be much less. It would perhaps be as little as £250 or less, which would be an insignificant amount, given the sorts of prices that people pay for houses today.

We have a golden opportunity for the Executive and the Scottish Parliament to put Scotland at the forefront of the roll-out of broadband. It is important that we continue the efforts that are being made by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but we have an opportunity to make the situation better at the outset. Of course, it is not within the sphere of responsibility of a building company to ensure that broadband is rolled out to the area in which it is building houses, but it can work in partnership with telecommunications companies to do so. The only caveat that should be added is that, if only one telecommunications company is involved in the provision of the fibre optic cables and so on, it must ensure that there is enough capacity to allow its competitors also to provide the service. That is not beyond the capabilities of modern technology and would allow, for example, people in an estate in which BT had provided broadband connections to choose instead to subscribe to Telewest Broadband.

I do not know whether the Executive is already considering what I propose, but if we do not do what I propose, we will miss a golden opportunity to put Scotland at the forefront of broadband provision. I see many heads nodding in agreement and I assume that everyone is aware of the importance of the issue. I have discussed matters with the telecommunications companies and I know that they are prepared to support the Executive in relation to the proposal. If the Executive has not considered the matter, I urge it to do so. I know that the minister is interested in the matter.

I repeat that we have an opportunity to ensure that a utility that is essential in the 21st century is given the same priority that was given in previous centuries to other important public utilities. We forsake this golden opportunity at our peril.

I am sure that members will not mind if I keep my contribution short. Perhaps I should speak extremely slowly.

There is no compulsion to occupy all the time that you have been allowed.

I welcome the Building (Scotland) Bill. It is not a headline grabber, but it is nonetheless necessary. It will improve the regulation of building in Scotland and make the system more responsive to owners and the public. I hope in particular that the system in practice will be simpler, fairer and more transparent. There is no doubt that the approved certifiers of construction and the public building standards register are steps in the right direction towards access to information and the availability of a list of suitable and approved installers and tradespeople. That will clarify the system for all of us and give us more confidence in the decisions that are made.

However, I am concerned that some issues will not be fully addressed. I know of one case involving a constituent who was worried that the original work that had been done on his building was not done to a high enough standard. In particular, his roof tiles were not nailed down, despite that being in the manufacturer's specification. Not only is there a danger of the tiles' being blown off in high winds despite their weight, but they leak and have damaged my constituent's flat as a result. As usual, the matter is not clear-cut. Although my constituent has had a surveyor confirm his opinion, the local authority and the property factor have made a different judgment. One of the difficulties could lie in asking the local authority to question its own judgment in approving a building warrant and completion certificate, despite the safety risk that might exist. The other difficulty lies in the grey area between what is a matter of quality and consumer protection and what should be treated as a building standards and safety issue. I am not sure that I have any solutions to that problem, but I urge the Executive to keep an eye on any on-going difficulties that might arise.

Concerns about disabled access and usability will be familiar to everyone in the chamber and I welcome the work that the Executive has done in consulting disabled people and addressing their worries. However, there is no doubt that there is anxiety, which Linda Fabiani highlighted, that moving away from prescribed technical standards might remove the protections that disabled people have fought for long and hard. I welcome the opportunity for builders, architects and designers to come up with more innovative solutions to problems of access and usability, but I want the minister to give us further assurance that the bill will not mark a step backward rather than a step forward.

There is a problem with currently prescriptive technical standards, which is that they are inadequate and do not reflect actual need. For example, I believe that the technical standard for doors in respect of wheelchair access to disabled toilets is 800mm, but that is barely enough to get a wheelchair through a door. Some of my constituents have called 800mm "a knuckle scraper"—that is not a reference to any neanderthal constituents I have. The existing standards do not, for example, allow for the practicalities of motorised wheelchairs, which require a slightly larger turning circle. Many examples have been reported to me of toilets where wheelchair users can hardly get in and, when they do, have great difficulty in turning round or even closing the door behind them. The most embarrassing such toilet is located in the building at the Southern general hospital from which wheelchairs are prescribed in south Glasgow. The toilets, rather than the users, are disabled in such cases.

If the bill allows and encourages builders and designers properly to take the views of disabled people into account, it will mark an improvement. If we can move to an approach in which facilities for disabled people are made to work, rather than being considered a problem to be worked around, the bill will be very welcome. I look forward to hearing more reassurance from the ministers on that point, but I welcome the bill.

I am glad that Ken Macintosh got into specifics anecdotally, because I am going to rely on that.

I purchased a building in 1970 and spent a large amount of my spare time renewing and repairing parts of it. Because I was a teacher, much of that was do-it-yourself work. My experience has encompassed amateur efforts in every trade except plumbing and electricity, both of which I regard as potentially far more hazardous than the dangers that are inherent in falling off the roof.

I assisted a friend in the conversion of an old beaming shed in Kilbarchan into a home. At the time, I could speak authoritatively about dwangs and noggings—and knew what they were. I still know, and if the minister can tell me what they are in his closing speech, I will be impressed. I have also worked on flats that belong to my sons, because two of them are teachers too and cannot afford tradesmen.

I have no problem with the principle that Scottish building standards must comply with the European Community's construction products Council directive 90/106/EEC. I assume—because I have not read that document at all, let alone in detail—that the directive introduces sensible and safe standards that will be universal in Europe and that the standards are uniform only on those basics. I assume that there is ample scope for Scotland to have different and higher standards. I would not want tiles to be laid on laths as a norm in Scotland when they are currently laid on sarking. I presume that diversity to reflect climatic peculiarities will be permitted.

I welcome the commitment to sustainable development. Anyone who passes houses or shops that are in the course of alteration invariably finds skips filled with walls that are not necessarily old but have recently been torn out and are being replaced because somebody wants the building altered or wants a different style. Kenny MacAskill's suggestion of installing broadband in advance would be a way of preventing the tearing up of roads and landscape at some future date. Advance design, advance planning and better town planning are all part of that. Equally, I welcome the bill's commitment to further the conservation of fuel and power.

Cowboy builders exist. I can think of an example where developers refurbished and developed an historic building, sold it off as flats and refused to take any responsibility for subsequent failures in the building that were caused by defective workmanship. In that context, the suggested register of approved certifiers of design is to be welcomed. Obviously, in new build, that is particularly important, because such people can design buildings that are flexible for future use and alteration, without the need for extensive use of building materials in making the alterations.

I welcome the idea of certifiers of construction. They will have a vital role in supervising the kind of jobs for which we all call in tradespeople. Recently, I considered installing a gas stove at home. One firm that I phoned said, "No we don't install them, but we know a gas fitter." I gave that firm a distinct body swerve and moved to the firm that said "Yes, we are registered by all the following organisations and can guarantee"—as far as such things can be guaranteed—"that we will do a good job."

The rapid and well-monitored identification of a well-qualified body of certifiers of construction is essential to provide citizens with the necessary safeguards against cowboy builders and cowboy installers. Apart from the big builders, who are obviously more aware and more conscious of the demands of regulations, the certifiers of construction will have an important role to play among ordinary people who often get caught out by the cowboys.

The Scottish National Party supports the bill.

Like other members, I welcome the bill, which seeks to modernise the Scottish building control system, which is currently based on an act that dates way back to 1959—the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. In the relatively brief time that I have, I will cover some of the issues that architects have raised through the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. First, I declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.

Overall, architects have welcomed the proposals in the bill, because there are clear inadequacies in the existing building control system. There are inconsistencies in interpretation between local authorities and inconsistencies in performance. Sometimes, clients are naturally reluctant to challenge the building control departments in cases of dispute over interpretation, because that would require referral to the sheriff, which is time consuming and costly.

On the other hand, architects believe that the existing system is well managed in many parts of the country. The system requires a warrant approval prior to commencement of works. That is important: it is vital to prevent rash and potentially abortive actions. The new arrangements in the bill will address the main problems and provide enabling powers that will make the new system more efficient and more effective.

Architects support the distinction in the bill between functional standards and performance requirements, because they believe that that will allow for innovation, which is increasingly important in a fast-changing world and will recognise the undoubted talent of Scotland's creative architects. The distinction should also assist in addressing sustainable development objectives and allow maximum architectural value with minimum environmental harm.

I draw the minister's attention to two areas on which I ask for reassurance. Under the new system, the owner will issue a certificate of completion. Although that should bring clarity to the system, some arrangements will require to be put in place to ensure that it does not slow down the process. Absentee or overseas owners might be difficult to contact, and tenants and leaseholders who wish to make internal alterations should not be inhibited from doing so.

I welcome the proposed arrangements for strengthening local authority powers to inspect buildings regularly and prevent danger and accidents. Those powers are particularly important in multi-owned older stock—the minister made reference to Christine Foster's tragic death at Ryan's Bar. However, for those powers to be most effective, property owners and lessees should have their buildings regularly surveyed and assessed by approved certifiers who have a duty to register defects with the local authority. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland assisted in the publication of "The Tenement Handbook" more than a decade ago because it wanted to ensure that proper maintenance of older stock took place. Such maintenance is a continuing concern.

Overall, the bill's provisions are to be welcomed. The bill shows that our agenda is to encourage enterprise and innovation, to empower and protect consumers and to create sustainable developments. The bill will provide a modernised building standards system in Scotland and will create a more flexible system for business and encourage innovation in building. It will provide more information for the general public on buildings, which will assist in improving the house-buying process and encourage greater consistency of standards throughout Scotland.

I urge members to support the bill.

Rhona Brankin did not quite manage to fill the 13 minutes that were available. I make that point for the sake of the next debate, in order to advise whoever keeps an eye on these things that we are running slightly ahead of schedule.

We come now to closing speeches. Robert Brown, for the Liberal Democrats, officially has four minutes, but I will allow latitude for up to six minutes for closing speakers.

I apologise for arriving at the chamber late. The train that I was taking this morning was cancelled, and I have not had the advantage of hearing the Minister for Social Justice or Linda Fabiani.

That said, this has been a good and interesting debate, particularly for members who, like me, fall into the non-technical category, to which Nora Radcliffe alluded. I listened with considerable awe to the experiences of hands-on, technical, practical people such as Colin Campbell. I do not fall into that category in any shape or form.

In common with the other parties, the Liberal Democrats generally welcome the bill. Members will forgive me if I am slightly more remote from the bill than some speakers have been. The Social Justice Committee, of which I am a member, has had some involvement on the fringes of the bill, but we have not, of course, taken the same amount of evidence as the Transport and the Environment Committee has.

Section 21 provides for building standards registers. I am not a conveyancing solicitor, but I recall, from deep in the bowels of my memory, things called letters of comfort. Letters of comfort arise when people are buying and selling houses and there is some deficiency from a while back relating to the question whether completion certificates exist. I wonder whether letters of comfort are still part of the system and, if they are, whether there might be any merit in allowing them to be included among the things that are registered. As I said, letters of comfort relate to situations involving some deficiency but in which it is not necessary to go back to square 1; rather, they are issued when there is satisfaction on the part of the local authority that standards have been kept to.

The Transport and the Environment Committee's report raises the important subject of indemnity insurance. I am reminded of an old case in which comparison was made between the standards of care that apply to a solicitor and those that apply to a building engineer. The main point was that solicitors are not expected to guarantee the result of the case—although they do their best to achieve success—whereas a different standard applies to engineers and to builders of bridges and houses, because people do not expect the bridges or houses to fall down. There is an important element of guarantee in that, and indemnity insurance operates against that background.

I endorse what Kenny MacAskill said about broadband. People who live in the Cambuslang area of my constituency have made representations on broadband because it is currently not provided there. It is important to make that facility available at the start of developments.

The Social Justice Committee touched on fuel poverty in connection with energy efficiency. In thinking about the provision of renewable energy, particularly from solar power, I wondered whether there might be the facility under the regulations that will be introduced through the bill, and under codes of guidance, to deal with the issue in more depth. It seems that we are roughly at the point that Germany, Japan and other countries have now gone through. Solar energy and wind energy—I am referring not to big windmills, but to little windmills, for example in cities such as Rotterdam—have reached the stage at which there is the potential to include in new developments a more dynamic public-policy driver to make available those contributions to the available energy basket, as it were. The bill offers a good opportunity to include such provision with the building of new properties.

In that context, I note that section 1(2) deals with consultation on codes of guidance and with regulations, and I wonder whether it would be appropriate to think specifically about Energy Action Scotland with regard to such consultation and to codes of guidance or regulations. Such groups, as well as builders and architects, have relevant expertise.

In conclusion—I have been speaking for just over four minutes, and am now using a little bit of the leeway that the Presiding Officer allowed—I revert to the idea that I have mooted once or twice before about a homeowner's log, or MOT register, as it were, of the things that have taken place in a house. The proposals for building standards might present an opportunity to encourage house owners to keep official records of the things that happen to their houses. That might cover, for example, building warrants, completion certificates and electrical certificates. It is important that the history of a house is known. If that idea were implemented properly and if the long-term maintenance matters were covered, it could enhance houses' values. I hope that that idea might be considered.

I hope that I have made some helpful suggestions and comments on what is generally a very good bill, which is supported throughout the chamber. I finish by adding my thanks to those that have already been expressed to ministers for having introduced the bill. I look forward to its passing into legislation.

It is my pleasure to wind up the debate for the Conservatives. As my colleague John Scott said at the beginning of the debate, we support the general principles of the bill.

I have three points to make in relation both to the bill and to wider aspects of building control. A number of members referred to my first point, which is verification, particularly the opportunity to have private sector verifiers, which the Conservatives welcome. I can speak from personal experience on this. In a previous life, as a commercial lawyer practising in Edinburgh, much of my day-to-day work was taken up with building projects. Many developers experienced frustration at delays in the various stages of building contracts because of the time that it took to get the appropriate official from the relevant building control department out to visit the development in question.

If we are to provide other avenues for that exercise, which do not depend on a local government monopoly in verification, that will be very much welcomed by the construction industry, especially in a fast-moving commercial environment such as that of property development in Edinburgh, where buildings are going up all over the place, and where it can sometimes be difficult for the building control department to keep up. If building control departments had the opportunity to contract out some of the services that they provide, that would be very useful. I note that the proposals on verifiers were welcomed by the Institution of Civil Engineers in Scotland, as well as by other bodies, including the Scottish Consumer Council, a representative of which said:

"It does not matter whether the verifiers are from the private or the public sector as long as they are transparent and accountable."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3620.]

Of course there must be adequate safeguards for the protection of the public, but I think that that issue can be overcome, and I welcome the consultation that the Executive will undertake on that point.

My second point was mentioned by Robert Brown: letters of comfort. Conveyancing solicitor colleagues of mine came up against the issue time and again. A letter of comfort is produced by a local authority building inspector to say that works that have been carried out, although they have not been properly certified, nevertheless meet the appropriate regulations. We would like to think that we live in an ideal world in which, when people get work done to their house, they always get a building warrant first or a completion certificate, but many people do not bother. They might not even realise that, if they are taking down a wall here and there or installing an en suite bathroom , they need to get those certificates.

It might only be when the house is surveyed and an offer to purchase is received that the poor solicitor—[Interruption]—I realise that "poor solicitor" is something of a paradox—who is acting for the seller realises that there is a problem, and that the work has been done without authorisation. Although there is a mechanism to apply retrospectively for a building warrant and completion certificate, there is usually no time practically to make that application, because the date of entry tends to be set at between four and eight weeks from purchase.

In that situation, people approach their local authority and ask for what is called a letter of comfort. The local authority will send out an inspector to examine the work and, if the work is all right, issue a letter to say that, although no certification is available, the works will pass regulations. Letters of comfort are therefore extremely useful, but the problem is that there is a patchwork approach to them throughout Scotland, with no uniformity. It would have been useful if the bill had introduced a uniform approach for letters of comfort, so that local authorities throughout Scotland would adopt a similar approach. Perhaps the Executive could address that matter, under either the Building (Scotland) Bill or a future bill.

My third point relates to historic buildings; I have raised this issue in the chamber before. Balthayock House, which is just outside Perth, is an historic listed building that has fallen into disrepair. Scotland is littered with historic buildings—most of which date from the late 19th century—that are now of little practical use. They are far too large to be used as family homes and it would cost too much to modernise them. Although they could be used as hotels or institutions, that market is limited. There are far too many such buildings.

Earlier this year there was a desperate tragedy at Baldovie House, just outside Dundee—a young lad who had broken into the house was killed. Large, derelict, empty houses are magnets for young children. Regardless of whether the owners erect fences or signs that state "Dangerous building—do not enter", kids will enter such houses to play inside them.

We need to strike a balance on this issue. Of course we must protect our historic buildings and built heritage. However, it is time to take a more reasoned approach to the future of listed buildings that are of limited historical or architectural merit, are falling into disrepair and have no practical use in the modern world. The cost of repairing such a building might far exceed the economic value of the house if repaired. The estimated cost of repairing Balthayock House is £2.3 million. It has also been estimated that, once the house had been fully restored, its market value would be about £750,000. Given those figures, only an ignoramus would spend money to repair the house and restore it to modern standards.

We must examine the way in which Historic Scotland approaches the question of listing and of giving consent to the demolition of listed buildings. I understand that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee proposes to conduct an inquiry into Historic Scotland and the way in which it operates. I hope that the committee will cover the issue that I have raised.

I conclude by welcoming the bill—as other members have done—and reaffirming that the Scottish Conservatives are pleased to support its general principles.

The SNP warmly welcomes the bill. This unsung piece of legislation shows the Parliament working at its best, both in committee and in the chamber, on a constructive and cross-party basis. I doubt that the outside world will ever hear about that, but we should commend the work that the Transport and the Environment Committee and the ministerial team have done on the bill.

The SNP believes that any new system must have a robust basis and credible enforcement powers, and reflect the need for basic accountability and competence—from both the design professional and those who are charged with verifying compliance. The new system must be reactive to the needs of developers and proactive in addressing innovation and sustainability. It must build on the experiences of practising building standards professionals.

We believe that the bill will both promote the aim of establishing a safe, efficient and sustainable built environment and protect local government's ability to ensure the delivery of such an environment. However, change or clarification will be required in some parts of the bill.

The SNP's own Bob the Builder, Colin Campbell, talked about cowboy builders. The bill presents us with an opportunity to eliminate the problem of cowboy builders and to increase consumer protection through a national approach to the regulation of building standards and the accreditation of builders. If the minister does not know what dwangs and noggings are, he should not feel bad about that—I do not know what they are either.

As Linda Fabiani said, the bill must be strengthened to ensure that it is objective driven, rather than process driven. We can do that by amending the preamble to reflect the bill's objectives more clearly. Section 7 must also be strengthened to require the Scottish ministers not only to make lists available, but to ensure that they are accessible, widely publicised and effectively promoted. Ministers should be required to issue guidance on how those functions are carried out and to consult widely on the content of that guidance.

As Linda Fabiani and Ken Macintosh indicated, because of the changes that it makes to the hierarchy and the new roles and responsibilities that it introduces to advance building standards in Scotland, the bill has implications for access for disabled people to the built environment. Most concern has arisen from the resetting of the mandatory status of technical standards to guidance level. It would be helpful if access for and usability by disabled people were covered explicitly in the functional standards. The standards should be clear enough for the courts to determine whether the design and construction of a building perform that function.

Technical standards for disabled people, which will form the basis for the early versions of the forthcoming guidance, have often been criticised for setting minimal requirements. Ken Macintosh dealt with that issue in detail. Building control has failed to deliver those standards, such as they were, consistently and satisfactorily. Murdo Fraser expressed concerns about that. We are disappointed that the response to the criticisms that have been levelled at the building control system has been to issue guidance documents to replace mandatory technical standards. We need guidance that is clear, articulate, accessible and written in plain English. That will benefit all involved, including designers, building owners, builders and verifiers. It will also help to engage disabled building owners and users in the process.

The language of the bill mirrors that of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959. Both the policy memorandum and the explanatory notes imply that it covers the issues of access and usability.

My colleague Linda Fabiani raised the issue of relaxations. Class relaxations and relaxations that are granted on application have long been contentious issues for disabled people. The Disability Rights Commission recommended strongly that no building in public use should be granted relaxation of a regulation if that would have a direct or indirect negative impact on accessibility and usability. The commission also recommended that consideration of all applications for relaxation should take full account of potential and prospective users of buildings, as well as current users. Potential users of a building could include disabled people who wish to buy it or to use the services that it contains, or who are required to work in it.

Ministers could take account of the fact that buildings that are built for a specific purpose may in future be subject to a change of use. In such cases, the relaxation that allowed for the original use may no longer apply. Achieving accessibility and usability in a building that is complete and occupied is more expensive and time consuming than doing so at the design stage.

The Transport and the Environment Committee noted that a number of the bill's provisions could have significant cost implications for local authorities. Written evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council highlighted the "enormous burden" that regular use of the expanded powers to inspect buildings to ascertain whether they are dangerous could place on local authorities. More general concerns relating to local authority resources were expressed in written evidence from the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers, which stated:

"The Association is concerned that in the short term at least a reduction in resource potentially available to local authorities will seriously affect the roll out and implementation of the building standards system. Much is made in the explanatory notes and policy memorandum of the need for local authorities to be more professional and reactive to those seeking building standards approval. The Association agrees wholeheartedly with this but would warn that such aims cannot be achieved without adequate funding."

The policy memorandum states that the current system for setting standards for buildings is very prescriptive. At present, complying with building regulations involves complying with technical standards that have full statutory force. According to the Executive, that creates a barrier to the use of innovative approaches to design and makes it more difficult to comply with harmonised European construction product standards, the first of which have already been produced. Many more such standards will be rolled out over the next few years.

The Disability Rights Commission raised concerns about the revised status of the technical standards. It stated:

"Our main bone of contention is the fact that the technical standards may no longer be mandatory. We feel that the impact of that could be negative, unless, through other facets of the bill, we can strengthen the application and observance of equalities and so strengthen accessibility and usability."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 6 November 2002; c 3615.]

The aspect of the bill that has attracted most comment, and some criticism—although not from the Conservatives—is the provision to allow the appointment of private sector verifiers, who would operate alongside the current system of local authority verifiers. This morning, the minister pointed out that the Executive has said that it has no plans to introduce such verifiers at present. In evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee, the City of Edinburgh Council stated:

"No private verifier could ever meet the criteria of being independent and accountable to the local electorate when they are appointed and paid for by a client directly. The DETR in England has as a result created a private building control system which exists at present, therefore, the essential elements of which are no refusals, no problems and no enforcement!"

Nora Radcliffe was right to say that, before moving forward on this issue, we should wait to see how the English legislation beds down. The SNP has an open mind on the subject. Providing that the system is well monitored and regulated, it may be a possibility for the future.

I wanted to mention other issues, but because I am running out of time I will finish there.

I call Des McNulty to wind up the debate. You have eight minutes on paper, minister, but you can have 10 minutes if you wish.

It is a paradox that in my maiden speech as a minister I end up talking about buildings, because not only am I Rhona Brankin's predecessor as convener of the cross-party architecture and the built environment group of the Scottish Parliament, but I spent much of my childhood on building sites. My father was a bricklayer and was obsessively interested in different kinds of buildings. My early years were spent looking at buildings and my teenage years were spent often holding the bottom of ladders or mixing mortar, so I have a particular interest in building issues. I can reveal, in response to Colin Campbell's point—this might be a point of interest to members, given that we were all invited to adopt a Scottish word a couple of weeks ago—that a dwang is the same as a nogging. Dwang is the Scots word and nogging is the English word for the cross-pieces in a stud partition wall. If members want the information, that is the background—sad, is it not?

Having sat on the Transport and the Environment Committee and taken evidence from my predecessor Hugh Henry, I hope that my erstwhile colleagues on the committee do not see me too much as poacher turned gamekeeper. One of the great things about our Parliament is that we can engage constructively in developing legislation that is in the best interests of the people of Scotland. The bill is an example of a technical piece of work that the Parliament can carry out in a non-party-political way. We are engaging with a wide variety of interests and the extensive consultation in the parliamentary process in the lead up to stage 1 has thrown up a number of new ideas.

I have my first intervention as a minister.

I welcome the minister to his new post. I am conscious that the Presiding Officer has already invited the minister to take an extra two minutes, so I offer an intervention to assist in the process. The minister just talked about the technical nature of the bill, which several members in the chamber also mentioned. Although the bill is essential and desperately needed, I ask the minister to focus, in stage 2 and thereafter, on the core issue of informing members of the public how the bill will affect them as owners, tenants and residents. That key issue forms the backdrop to many of the comments that members have made.

Will the minister, either today or at stage 2, talk about the relationship between the bill, the forthcoming bill on the law of the tenement and other legislation that looks technical and boring but is critical to constituents such as mine? Margaret Curran mentioned in her opening remarks a tragic incident in my constituency. We have such problems, particularly in city-centre areas where there are issues with multiple ownership and we cannot find out who the owners are.

That was helpful.

I ask the minister to think about strengthening the local authority powers in the bill, how discretion might be exercised and how we can have best practice that creates good standards throughout Scotland.

I thank Sarah Boyack for that intervention.

It is very important that we should have a process that seeks to identify good practice. We have a system that is less prescriptive than it has been in the past, which allows greater innovation. Rhona Brankin made that point. People in the building industry welcome the increased flexibility that the bill will allow, because it will encourage a developing process that will allow us to adapt to higher standards more quickly than was possible under the previous system. Sarah Boyack is right to say that we have to take the public with us. The bill is perhaps seen as technical, but it affects people's lives directly and we have to take that point on board.

A number of excellent points were made throughout the debate and I know that we will return to a lot of them at stage 2. I will address a few issues that members have raised today and which the Transport and the Environment Committee raised. Members might wish to be aware of our thinking.

Margaret Curran gave an undertaking that we would not introduce private verifiers without proper study and consultation. It is only sensible to proceed in that way. There might be opportunities for private verifiers to add something to the system that is not there at present. There are situations in which local authorities might not have relevant expertise, for example in building new stadiums or other complex, innovative or different kinds of buildings. A private verifier system might add to competence in that way.

An alternative way of dealing with situations in which a small local authority does not have the relevant expertise is for larger neighbouring authorities with larger building control departments to provide the expertise. Does the minister see that as an option?

That is an option. We want expertise to be shared and pooled, which is why we have set up the new building standards authority as we have.

Another issue regarding private verifiers is worth noting here. Questions have been raised about the performance monitoring of private verifiers and verifiers in general. The Executive has already commissioned research into the performance monitoring of verifiers. Members will be interested to know that the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers was involved at the specification stage and we will continue to consult the professional bodies as the work develops. The work that comes out of the research will form the basis for any subsequent system of monitoring and auditing of verifiers, whether private sector or public sector. We do not believe that there is a need to establish in the bill a commitment to introducing such a system. Work is already in progress and we have given an undertaking, which I am happy to repeat now, that the Executive will establish such a system and fully consult local authorities before doing so.

Linda Fabiani and John Scott raised the issue of fees and charges. We have taken note of the concerns that local authorities have expressed regarding the level of costs that they believe will arise from the proposals. A particular concern of the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers is that the Executive must keep to its intention of setting fees to cover costs. The Transport and the Environment Committee recommended that our research into fees and charges fully take into account local authorities' concerns. Members will be pleased to hear that as part of the current research into fees, the researchers and officials had a valuable meeting with seven chief building control officers on 21 November. That is just one illustration of the continuing dialogue that we want to maintain with stakeholders.

Robert Brown and Murdo Fraser raised points about letters of comfort. It is likely that the building standards assessment will be used where a letter of comfort is sought. It is possible that the assessment will include a form of words that is similar to those contained in some letters of comfort, but that is a matter of detail that will need to be considered in consultation with stakeholders.

The move to expanded functional standards is constructed in a way that will not lead to any reduction in minimum standards. That point needs to be reinforced, because it is important. We want to provide detailed guidance on how building standards can be met. The guidance will be based on existing mandatory technical standards. It is anticipated that the vast majority of owners will rely on the guidance. Where owners choose to use alternative methods, local authorities will remain responsible for ensuring that building standards are met. Where local authorities fail to enforce appropriate standards, the Scottish ministers can direct them to do so.

Concerns were raised about disability. I want to make it clear that the Executive's intention is that accessibility to buildings will be mandatory in the building regulations that are established in the new system. Indeed, the new hierarchy of standards and guidance will give designers the freedom to produce innovative solutions to issues of disabled access. The new system will continue to provide the basis for ensuring that existing high standards are maintained and we will have the power to direct authorities to ensure that the current standards are enforced appropriately.

The minister is in his last minute and a half.

Does the minister have a view on how the guidance will set out how local authorities deal with relaxations of buildings standards when they relate to access for disabled people?

Our expectation is that there will be far fewer relaxations. We are moving the power to relax regulations from local authorities to the central body. That will lead to fewer relaxations.

I have not had time to address a number of other points, such as the issue of how we can improve safety standards in the way in which we develop the regulations, which Bristow Muldoon mentioned. The fact that the bill allows us to do interesting and innovative things is an important attribute. I will consider Kenny MacAskill's suggestion about broadband, because that is part of the range of issues that we should examine. We will need to explore whether it will be possible to achieve that within the framework of the bill or whether other mechanisms will be needed. The new, more flexible framework will give us opportunities to consider how we might proceed with the development of standards, with the aim of getting better-quality buildings and a better system of regulation.

In conclusion, I am grateful that there is complete consensus that the bill is a good thing. I ask members to support its general principles.