Chamber and committees

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Time for Reflection
Topical Question Time
Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution
Decision Time
Point of Order
Flood Management

Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Presiding Officer (Alison Johnstone)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-12450, in the name of Paul McLennan, on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I will allow a moment for front-bench teams to organise themselves. I take this opportunity to invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

14:27

The Minister for Housing (Paul McLennan)

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the general principles of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

The Grenfell tower tragedy provided absolute clarity on why building safety is so important. Since that terrible event, substantial progress has been made on changes to fire safety standards and guidance, legislation on smoke alarms, and the establishment of the cladding remediation programme. However, we have also identified barriers to delivery, which we need to address if we are to ensure that we have the powers to safeguard residents and home owners.

The urgency of the issue was again emphasised just a few weeks ago, when we saw shocking images of the fire that engulfed a cladded building in Valencia. I thank the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for its expedited scrutiny of the bill and its stage 1 report. I offer my thanks, too, to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their swift consideration of the bill.

The bill has benefited from the positive engagement of Opposition spokespeople and insightful examination of the issues by individual committee members. My exceptional gratitude goes to everyone who gave evidence at stage 1, some of whom have been personally affected by the issues at the heart of the bill.

I welcome the local government committee’s view that the bill’s provisions are appropriate to their stated purpose and its recommendation that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. In its stage 1 report, the committee made detailed recommendations and comments and called on the Government to consider and respond to those. The Government is still reflecting on some of those points, but I hope that the response that I provided to the committee last week provides a useful indication of its position.

I have a long-standing interest in the issue, both locally and as a member of the Parliament. In my evidence to the committee in June 2023, I said that we would use every tool available to handle the crisis on cladding in Scotland, including through legislation if required.

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

Will the minister give way?

Paul McLennan

I will make some progress and come back to Mr Rennie, if that is okay.

Since I was appointed as a minister I have engaged extensively with home owners and residents of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding, as well as with partners and stakeholders who are critical to delivering a resolution, including a wide range of developers. I appreciate that home owners and residents want to see more pace in the programme. They want us to address the barriers to delivery. I welcome the comments of High Rise Scotland Action Group and others, who have welcomed the bill as a good attempt to address concerns and take significant steps forward.

I am grateful to the committee for outlining the background to the legislation. The bill builds on an extensive history. The programme has brought into sharp focus the complexities of the responsibilities in relation to our built environment and those who are responsible for maintaining it for the benefit of all.

I will take Mr Rennie’s intervention.

Paul McLennan

I will make some progress and come back to Mr Rennie, if that is okay.

I will take Mr Rennie’s intervention.

Willie Rennie

The minister referred to the committee’s swift action; he is quite right about that. However, he cannot describe as swift the process that the Government has undertaken over the past seven years. Why has it taken so long to get to this stage?

Paul McLennan

In 2022, the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government acknowledged that point. That is why we moved on to select a delivery model. I will touch more on the pace as I go through my speech.

The programme has accumulated a significant amount of knowledge and understanding of the significant impact that potentially unsafe cladding is having on people’s lives, and of the lived experience of the barriers that we face in tackling the issue. The real-life experiences of all those who are affected by the risks and consequences of unsafe cladding are the impetus behind the provisions in the bill.

We need to remove any obstacles to progressing the necessary work that the Government and developers must do in the interests of public safety. However, it is equally important that the public has absolute confidence in the assessment and resulting works; in the ability and willingness of developers to participate in the remediation programme; and in the assurance arising from the completion of the works.

I turn to the scope of the assessment arrangements in the bill. The ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding was mindful of the complications that the Scottish tenure system would present to a programme such as ours and the potential far-reaching consequences of adapting the legal basis for the assessments. Such adaptations rightly require considerable examination and deliberation. The solution, therefore, is a basis for assessing all the risks that are presented by a building as a whole. Using established fire risk assessment methodology, it will be possible to specify criteria by which the fire safety risks of a whole building can be assessed. That work is in hand.

Last autumn, I commissioned a task and finish group to look at the single building assessment specification. I have agreed that PAS—publicly available specification—9980 will be the basis of the fire risk appraisal of external walls, albeit that it will be tailored to the Scottish context. We recognise that that is a critical enabler in setting the standard and propelling the pace of the programme.

The SBA specification is in development. It will include that component and a fire risk assessment, which will survey the internal fire safety measures, including internal compartmentation of buildings. Without a doubt, the highest standards of competence should be employed in carrying out the assessment of buildings. To that end, the bill seeks the power to specify the competency levels of those who undertake the SBA. Developers continue to be closely involved in discussions about the SBA and the specification through the SBA task and finish group. We are also engaging with other stakeholders on the development of that specification.

Reflecting our overwhelming desire and duty to protect life, we seek powers to prioritise access to buildings to carry out assessment and remediation. Indeed, our programme furthers the rights of both owners and occupiers to peaceful enjoyment of their property. We have assessed the impacts of the legislation and are satisfied that it fulfils our intentions in a compliant manner to ensure that there is an appropriate opportunity to challenge decisions. Stefano Pessina from Mizu Tenants Committee welcomed the bill, stating:

“It is good that it contains steps to stop residents who are owners who are perhaps blocking progress at the moment”. —[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 January 2024; c 9.]

These powers are not sought lightly, and have been developed in the context of cladding specifically, and in direct response to barriers that were experienced during the pilot phase of our programme.

I turn to the cladding assurance register. Where an SBA report identifies risks to human life associated with a building’s external wall cladding system and works to mitigate or eliminate those risks, that building must be remediated accordingly.

The cladding assurance register is intended to be a record of buildings that have been through the single building assessment process and for which satisfactory remediation works identified in that assessment have, where required, been completed. That is key in ensuring that an accurate record of remediation works that are undertaken is maintained, and that those with an interest, such as lenders and insurers, can understand, and take assurance from, the scope of the works that are undertaken in each building.

I am conscious that the committee, as part of its consideration of the bill, raised a number of questions as to whether there could be merit in adding buildings to the register ahead of remediation works being completed. The register is not intended to highlight existing risks from cladding ahead of remediation, and I am mindful that that approach could, in fact, be counterproductive.?It is a long-standing principle of the programme that we do not release details of buildings or of any assessment or remediation works that are being undertaken in relation to them. That approach is in line with requests from?home owners and residents in order to protect their privacy and safety, and it reflects engagement with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on how best we ensure safety and security.

I am also aware that the committee heard evidence that the cladding assurance register could be broadened to reflect wider issues of building or fire safety. My current view is that the register is, and must remain, focused on the risks that are posed by unsafe cladding and the remediation that is required to address that risk in order to preserve that internally consistent knowledge. That is the purpose of the bill.

We will of course reflect on the views and suggestions that have been shared ahead of stage 2 consideration of the bill, and we will engage directly with relevant stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers, UK Finance, the SFRS and the High Rise Scotland Action Group, to understand how best to maximise the positive impacts of the register on their roles in the industry and in people’s lives.

I should add that financial services, including mortgage lending, are a reserved matter and that the Scottish Government will continue to raise with the United Kingdom Government the difficulties that are experienced by owners and prospective owners in accessing lending on buildings with potentially unsafe cladding.

I confirm that the Government intends to issue letters of confirmation to home owners of orphan buildings within the current pilot scheme. Developers, too, benefit from the register; they get the opportunity to restore public confidence in the safety of their buildings and the reputations of those who construct and refurbish them.

We have created in the legislation conditions under which developers can fully participate in remediation. The responsible developers scheme that we intend to create through secondary legislation will set the stage for developers to engage with our programme in the most constructive way. The UK Government has already established a responsible actors scheme, which has similar aims. Developers want to participate, as evidenced by the nine developer commitment letters that have been signed.

Naturally, we want to protect our construction industry from a tumultuous market, which is why we are looking to create a responsible developers scheme that can be flexible in the face of economic circumstances. We intend to use the scheme to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken, and that that is clearly spelled out, to ensure that developers accept their responsibilities and that we as the Government display our accountability to the public.

Paul McLennan

Last autumn, I commissioned a task and finish group to look at the single building assessment specification. I have agreed that PAS 9980 will be the basis of the fire risk appraisal of external walls, albeit that it will be tailored to the Scottish context. We recognise that that is a critical enabler in setting the standard and propelling the pace of the programme.

These powers are not sought lightly, and have been developed in the context of cladding specifically, and in direct response to barriers that were experienced during the pilot phase of our programme.

I should add that financial services, including mortgage lending, are a reserved matter and that the Scottish Government will continue to raise with the UK Government the difficulties that are experienced by owners and prospective owners in accessing lending on buildings with potentially unsafe cladding.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

One of the criticisms of the responsible developers scheme, and of the bill in general, is a lack of clarity. For example, we do not have enough information on how the scheme might work and who would be covered. Can the minister tell us that, and how open is he to dealing with sensible amendments to the bill to clear up some of the confusion around it?

Paul McLennan

The engagement process is key in the cladding role that I have taken on. I have met individual developers on a number of occasions, and we have had round-table discussions with Homes for Scotland. Discussions on the SBA process and the scheme will continue as we move through the bill process. I have mentioned to the committee that I am happy to come back and update it on any discussions that we have had in that regard. Those discussions with developers will continue on the SBA and the responsible developers scheme that the member mentions.

I want to come back to a few things. Woven through our fundamental duties is our obligation of responsibility for public finances—in this case, making it explicit and clear where developers must contribute will allow public funding to be focused on orphan buildings, which are buildings without a linked developer.

Notwithstanding that, I reiterate my assurances to residents of orphan buildings that the Government is committed to funding the remediation of orphan buildings and to progressing that work. That has been considered and is integrated into our future financial planning process in the remediation programme.

Although I have responded in writing to the committee’s report, I will briefly make two points. Although the Scottish Government did not consult specifically on the bill, the policy underpinning it was developed based on a period of significant and on-going engagement with stakeholders through the ministerial working group and the cladding remediation programme stakeholder group and on lived experience gathered during the pilot phase of the programme.

Continuing with the programme, we are committed to engaging closely with stakeholders, including home owners and residents, a number of whom I have met in constituencies and virtually, and to ensuring that comprehensive consultation is undertaken ahead of bringing forward any secondary legislation.

Although additional risks related to building safety or fire prevention may become evident during the process of assessing and remediating unsafe cladding, it is important that we recognise that there are broader systems and legislation in place to manage those risks, where they fall outside the scope of the cladding remediation programme.

The committee has rightly considered many other issues, such as building MOTs, which may merit wider consideration outside the scope of the bill. However, the provisions of the bill, the process and the timetable’s expedited nature and narrow focus reflect the urgency with which we are treating the known risk to life that is associated with unsafe cladding.

By introducing the bill, the Scottish Government recognises the acute problem that cladding represents in relation to safety, the urgency of remediation of cladding and the need for transparency and accountability in how the Government exercises proportionate powers in the context of cladding.

I look forward to continuing to work with members of all parties to secure those objectives as we take the bill through Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

I can confirm to members that we have time in hand for interventions this afternoon. We will try to be generous in that regard.

I call Ariane Burgess to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

14:39

Ariane Burgess (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee in this stage 1 debate on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

The issue of potentially dangerous cladding has affected the lives of many people across the country since the tragedy at Grenfell tower. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who have shared with us their personal experiences of the impact of living in or owning a property with cladding.

During our scrutiny of the bill, many people invested their professional time and experience in helping us to understand what can often be very technical issues. We heard from panels of witnesses, including property owners and residents, developers, experts on building standards and fire safety, and representatives from the worlds of finance and insurance. Our call for written evidence received more than 60 responses, and our thanks go to all those who contributed.

The dangers of potentially combustible cladding became terrifyingly clear in 2017. It is now almost seven years since so many people lost their lives at Grenfell. Parliament agreed to an expedited timescale for the bill on the ground that the Scottish Government wants to avoid any further delays in tackling the issue. As a result, our scrutiny was time limited but nonetheless thorough.

The committee heard the personal testimonies of people who own or live in buildings with potentially unsafe cladding. We know from those testimonies how important it is to those people to finally have the issue resolved. It is clear that people in social and private housing still live in fear for their safety. Many have been unable to sell their properties, to secure finance on them or to obtain insurance on them. We have even heard about how some property owners have died in the intervening years.

The key message that we heard time and again from witnesses was their frustration at the length of time that it has taken to begin a cladding remediation programme in Scotland. The reality is that very little progress with remediation has been made in the past seven years. We heard from the Scottish Government that, of the 105 buildings that are part of its cladding remediation programme, only one has had any works carried out on it and only one has had mitigation measures put in place.

That frustration has led to concerns and scepticism about whether the bill will make a difference in reality. The minister assured the committee that the bill’s purpose is to tackle delays that are experienced with remediation, and it is my sincere hope that that is the case. Indeed, the committee supports the general principles of the bill and welcomes it as a step in the right direction.

I understand that the Government intends to ensure that all buildings in the pilot phase of the remediation programme are on an SBA pathway this summer. However, as we highlighted in our report, a number of important issues need to be addressed.

First, we need greater clarity about the purpose of the bill. At the heart of the system that the bill proposes is the single building assessment, or SBA. The SBA is a holistic survey of a building to establish what remediation works are required. It is only once those works are completed that a building can be entered into the cladding assurance register. The intention is that that register will give residents peace of mind about their building’s safety and the reassurance that the banks and the insurers need. It is therefore critical to have clarity about what an SBA involves and what work must be completed for a building to enter the register.

The Minister for Housing told the committee that the bill is about cladding remediation, but numerous experts told us that, at present, the scope of the SBA is not yet clear and, in turn, neither are the requirements for entry into the register. The SBA process currently picks up on many fire safety issues far beyond cladding. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarity on what exactly is assessed in an SBA and must provide consistency and certainty in how SBAs will be undertaken. I understand that a specification for the SBA will be completed by May this year.

Fire safety experts and surveyors whom we heard from recommended, as a means of establishing that clarity, the adoption of a methodology developed by the British Standards Institution to assess the fire risk of external walls and cladding, called PAS 9980, which was developed in response to Grenfell and is now widely used in the UK. Although members of the committee are not experts in the technical detail, our witnesses told us that it would be common sense for that to be adopted into Scotland’s cladding remediation programme. Our report therefore requests that the Scottish Government explore its application in carrying out SBAs. I am pleased that the minister has since confirmed that SBAs will align with the existing methodology in PAS 9980.

As noted earlier, the bill provides that buildings will be entered into the cladding assurance register after remediation works are completed. However, we heard strong arguments for buildings being entered into that register at an earlier point in the remediation process. It was suggested to the committee that, instead of waiting years for works to be completed, buildings could go on to the register after the SBA had identified any works that were required and plans had been developed to undertake those works. There was widespread support for that approach, including from insurers and lenders. The committee would welcome the minister’s reflections on that. It was also suggested that the Government should explore that suggestion with those living in affected buildings.

Delivering the cladding remediation programme is a huge undertaking. The bill puts the onus on developers to pay for and carry out any remediation that is required. It was suggested to us that that responsibility could be extended to the wider supply chain, such as manufacturers or architects. However, the committee is in agreement with the Government that there are practical and legal arguments as to why it should be developers that bear the burden. We are concerned about the potential impact of that burden on smaller building companies that might not be able to bear the cost of remediation. Witnesses told us about the risk of small and medium-sized enterprises becoming insolvent, and the impact that that could have on the industry and on home building. In England, a profitability threshold below which companies will not be held liable for remediation has been introduced. The committee therefore asked the Scottish Government to take that into consideration ahead of stage 2 and to carry out a full assessment of the potential impact on SMEs.

When a building’s developers are no longer in existence, the building is described as being “orphaned.” For such buildings, it will be for the Scottish Government to meet the cost of remediation. That will be a long-term and expensive programme of work, for which thorough financial planning is required. The Government must ensure that such orphaned buildings do not become a lower priority, behind any remediation carried out by private developers. The minister assured the committee that orphaned buildings would not be given lower priority, but the committee would welcome the minister’s reflections on how the Government will ensure that orphaned buildings are remediated.

There will be important practical considerations to delivering remediation, too—chiefly whether there are enough qualified professionals available in Scotland to undertake the work of assessing buildings. The committee noted the confidence that the minister and his officials have expressed in the availability of surveyors and fire engineers to undertake SBAs. However, the committee was consistently presented with a picture of skills shortages in those key sectors, which are essential to delivering the bill’s ambitions. The committee was told that there is no course in Scotland to train fire engineers to fill that void, and it is not immediately clear how that obstacle to the acceleration of the remediation programme will be overcome. The Scottish Government must work with the sector to ensure that it can develop a workforce of sufficient numbers and skills to deliver the remediation programme.

There is one important element of delivering the remediation programme that is much simpler to address. All stakeholder groups told the committee how limited the communication with them has been during the past years. That has left them immensely frustrated. The minister reassured the committee that improvements are being made—which is very welcome—but, in the future, the committee will be keen to hear from residents and owners to understand whether they are seeing a genuine improvement in communication.

I look forward to hearing members’ contributions during the debate, and the committee looks forward to working constructively with the Government throughout the bill process. More generally, we will continue to closely scrutinise the progress that is made, and our hope is that the legislation will dramatically increase the pace of remediation. We must not forget that people’s lives are at the heart of this and that many of them have been battling for years to get a resolution.

14:50

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)

I thank the organisations that have provided briefings, our committee clerks for their support on the report and the witnesses who have given important evidence on how this issue has impacted on their lives, as the convener said.

The bill is technical and, as is the case with all framework bills, the devil will be in the detail of the guidance and ministerial direction that come from it. I put on record that I am concerned and not confident that the bill is the only solution for the householders who are affected. Although the Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, we are concerned about the Government’s limited progress to date. The bill as drafted may not provide the solutions that home owners are desperately seeking to finally deliver the surveys and provide the framework in which any potential combustible cladding issues can be resolved.

As an Edinburgh MSP, I have been working with affected home owners since the start of the process. We must ensure that they are at the heart of the bill. Almost seven years since the tragedy of Grenfell tower and almost three years since the Scottish Government began its building assessment process, we have seen little progress on surveying buildings and progressing mitigation schemes.

For many home owners who are resident in the 105 developments that are in the cladding remediation programme, this has not only been a stressful time; their lives have been put on pause. In many cases, home owners are unable to insure or sell their property, or to make plans. They have the added stress of not knowing what will happen to their homes or even being kept informed of what is to happen. That must change, and the bill must be the start of a better process towards delivering a sustainable solution to cladding remediation in Scotland.

As I stated, it is concerning that the Scottish Government has failed to make any substantial progress. The committee’s report is clear about that—we say that progress has been concerningly slow. To date, of the 105 buildings that are in the programme, only two have had any remediation work undertaken or mitigations put in place. That is in sharp contrast to England, where more than two fifths—42 per cent—of the 1,608 buildings that the UK Government has in scope have had work either started or completed. That is why we need there to be progress. It is understandable why industry witnesses who have given evidence to the committee have expressed their significant frustration at the slow progress in Scotland and at the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government.

In the time that I have this afternoon, I want to highlight a number of important issues on which changes need to be made to the bill swiftly at stage 2. The committee has heard clear calls for the scope of the single building assessment to be defined in the bill, and a key ask has been made of ministers to ensure that the SBA aligns with the PAS 9980. From what I have heard, ministers have accepted that that must take place, especially for businesses operating across the UK.

A UK-wide scheme should have been developed, with the Scottish Government a part of that. However, it is important that the Scottish ministers now drive forward the scheme in Scotland.

Concerns have also been expressed about the cladding assurance register. I note Propertymark’s briefing for MSPs, which states:

“It is important that the Cladding Assurance Register is freely and easily available.

The risk of not doing so is that the Register will fail to motivate building owners to remediate properties, especially where the cost of works is high.

Ensuring that the Register is freely and easily available also allows residents to play a role in enforcement, further motivating building owners to remediate properties and avoiding situations where local authorities do not have the capacity to investigate compliance.”

The issue of compliance is lacking from the bill.

Another important area is the right to recourse. As the committee’s work demonstrated, the UK Building Safety Act 2022 and the legislation that was introduced to address cladding remediation in England give a right to recourse, in relation to responsible developers, over 30 years, so that suppliers and other actors in the supply chain that share liability can be held accountable. In Scotland, under the bill, that window currently stands at just five years, so the Scottish Government should consider alignment with the UK legislation.

Issues relating to orphan schemes, which have been mentioned, are important. I have met people who live in such schemes in Edinburgh, and they are deeply concerned that they will find themselves at the end of the queue for remediation work, so the Government must prioritise orphan schemes, which no longer have a developer responsible for them.

The responsible developers scheme is really important. The committee highlighted the need for more detail on the scheme and for that to be included in the bill. Ahead of stage 2, there needs to be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder engagement on what the scheme should look like. I highlighted a number of issues during the committee’s stage 1 work, particularly in relation to buildings that are not within the scope of the bill. I continue to have concerns regarding student accommodation. I know that many student accommodation companies are already undertaking work in this area, which is welcome, but the Government must consider including not only student accommodation developers but hotels in the scope of the bill. The UK Government included them south of the border so, if we are to appropriately address the cladding issue in Scotland, we should seriously consider including them at stage 2.

As I stated at the start of my speech, the devil will be in the detail of the bill. The bill must include provisions on information for residents who have been impacted. As the convener highlighted, so many people reported to the committee a complete lack of information being provided to them. In many cases, that has added to their stress, as they have been getting hearsay about their building rather than facts. I hope that the minister and those who will be responsible for taking forward this work will include in the bill a segment on key information, because the information to residents must be properly managed.

Ministers should also have reporting duties. Some people feel that their issues might not be resolved for another decade. That cannot be the case. Ministers must have a duty to report to the Parliament so that we can scrutinise how funds are being spent.

Graham Simpson

Does Miles Briggs agree that it is not just about ministers having reporting duties but about action, so that people actually get work done on their properties? I am less interested in hearing from the minister on how he is doing; I want to know what is happening on the ground.

Miles Briggs

Absolutely. For so many people—whether it is those who gave evidence to the committee or our constituents—there is huge frustration about being kept in the dark for too long. Politicians talking about this is one thing, but the work to come up with solutions for the developers that will be tasked with making buildings safe and undertaking surveys must progress at pace. There must be constant reporting so that the issues are resolved and people can move on with their lives by selling their property, if they want to, or getting insurance.

Ensuring that people who live in the buildings have peace of mind is probably the most important aspect. We must never forget that, as many people have said, people’s homes are at the heart of the issue. As well as it being a stressful time for them, those affected feel that they have not been communicated with and that they have often been kept in the dark in relation to the issues affecting their homes.

It is clear from the committee’s evidence and discussions that there will need to be specific on-going management and factoring solutions for many buildings. Such issues are not within the scope of the bill, but the Government needs to take them forward.

Specifically, concerns have been raised about electric bikes and cars being stored or parked underneath buildings that have cladding issues. Ministers cannot ignore the management risk around that. Although that is not within the scope of the bill, I think that, as a result of the bill, ministers will need to introduce a factoring or safety management bill.

The UK Government has provided the Scottish Government with £97 million of Barnett consequentials to carry out assessments and remove dangerous material from buildings. On Friday, we learned from data that the Scottish Government published that it has spent only 7 per cent of that money, or just over £7 million, on identifying and removing dangerous cladding on buildings. That has been a failure to date by the Government. Scottish Conservatives will work hard and scrutinise the bill at stage 2. I hope that the Scottish ministers will work cross-party to make sure that the bill is as good as it can be for the people who we represent and who are looking to the Parliament for solutions.

15:00

Mark Griffin (Central Scotland) (Lab)

We welcome the debate and support the bill’s general principles, as we would any serious attempt to speed up cladding remediation in Scotland. For seven years, we have been urging the Scottish Government to take ownership and to urgently start removing the dangerously combustible materials from Scotland’s homes. Indeed, the minister has spent the vast majority of his time in Parliament as a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, urging the Government to take such action, alongside the convener, Mr Briggs and others who have come and gone from the committee. The minister is now charged with delivering the action that he was urging the Government to take.

I thank the clerks of the committee and all the organisations that gave evidence on the issue.

The bill raises a variety of complex and technical issues relating to fire safety and building standards, but it is important to recognise what brought us to this point and why we are here today: the Grenfell disaster, which was a preventable tragedy that caused the death of 72 people. It is imperative that, in Scotland, we do everything that we can to avoid a repeat of the events of that night in June 2017.

Can the Government say that everything that can be done to remove dangerous cladding from homes is being done? It has been claimed that the bill is being pushed through Parliament with no public consultation in order to expedite work starting on cladding removal. That is all well and good, but it has taken seven years to develop a bill and to get to this point, when England and Wales have been powering ahead—not developing legislation, but fixing buildings and making them safe.

The figures speak for themselves. In England, remediation work has started on 1,608 buildings, with 797 of those now having had cladding removed or remediated completely. In Wales, work on 37 buildings that were in need of remediation has now been completed, with work on a further 86 due to start in the coming year. In Scotland, the total number of buildings that have been made safe comes to just two. The only thing that the Scottish Government has committed to doing is putting buildings on a pathway to a single building assessment by the summer of 2024, which is a million miles away from remediation. Where is the drive and leadership that we need to fix Scotland’s unsafe housing? I am not entirely sure that the bill demonstrates that.

Cladding remediation is not a theoretical exercise. The issue of cladding has absolutely consumed people’s lives, causing them long-term worry and stress about the safety of their homes. It has a financial impact on owners, who are not able to sell, to insure or to remortgage their properties. What is worse, if the combustible cladding is not removed from dangerous buildings, every night, families who live in those buildings go to sleep filled with dread and fear. Because of the Government’s inaction, families have been living in fear for far too long.

The bill has much to commend within it. For example, we welcome the inclusion of a single building assessment, but it is clear from the cross-party committee report that there is much more to do. We heard of the potential difficulties in implementing the bill because of a lack of clarity over what should be included in the assessment and how wider hazards that are not directly related to cladding should be dealt with if they are found as part of the assessment.

There is a worrying lack of detail from the Government about what the responsible developers scheme will look like. Much of that detail will be left to secondary legislation. Residents and developers want clarity on what their responsibilities will be, what owners and residents can expect developers to deliver and what burden developers will be expected to take on.

There is not enough information on the single building assessment, which is fundamental to the roll-out of the cladding remediation scheme. We need to know what a single building assessment is, what the specification is, what an assessment looks like and what standard it is assessing to. If we do not know, how can we possibly determine whether it will speed up the removal and remediation of dangerous cladding in Scotland? Those assessments are a key part of the scheme, and they are far too important to the process to remain undefined.

There is no argument that risks will be identified as a result of the assessment process, but it is unclear to me why the Government has provided such scarce detail on how it will categorise the risks that are identified and what should be done when a building assessment identifies a safety risk. How will the bill speed up the process of removing cladding if, in a matter of months or years, we end up back in Parliament yet again to talk more about those issues? The Government has had seven years. We have a bill, but surely the time to decide on those things is long past.

We will continue to push the Government to deliver a faster pace of remediation and the key information that is missing from the bill. The necessarily rushed nature of the bill, the lack of consultation and the lack of detail on relatively complex and technical proposals all lead to the committee’s real concern that the bill has potentially not been well enough drafted or scrutinised to achieve its stated aim of providing the certainty that will allow developers and householders to expedite cladding remediation in Scotland. This is how one property owner put it to the committee. He said:

“My sense is that the bill does not deliver a sigh of relief or a fist pump. It is legalese … but does the bill address the key concerns of owners? Not really, until there is proof.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 January 2024; c 6.]

The bill’s aim is to put the building blocks in place to speed up cladding remediation in Scotland. We will follow that process closely and strive to ensure that we gain clarity from the Government on whether the bill will achieve that aim as it makes its way through Parliament.

For those reasons, we support the principles of the bill at stage 1. However, for the safety of people who live in unsafe homes, the bill must become an act that is laser focused on driving the Government to deliver its cladding remediation programme.

15:08

Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD)

Over the years, the Government has shown a lot of unfounded confidence in its processes. Back in August 2021, when it launched the single building assessment, it said that it was “consistent and robust” and that it was “fulfilling our commitment”. In May 2022, it said that it was “the next big step”. In August 2022, it said that it was “priority action”. In March 2023, it said that it was an “absolute priority”. In December last year, it returned to its original claim that the process was robust.

That is why there is scepticism about the bill. The Government has been overclaiming with unfounded confidence for all that time. Seven years on from Grenfell, we have hardly made any progress. That is why people are sceptical about the process. The reality is that around 1 per cent of the identified buildings in Scotland have had work completed, whereas, in England, the figure is 20 per cent, and for the buildings on which work has started, the figure is 42 per cent.

Paul Turnbull from the owners cladding working group was very clear. He said that although the single building assessment for his home was done in 2022, absolutely nothing had happened since. That is why there is scepticism and why significant problems arise as a result.

The anxiety and stress that are felt have already been spoken about this afternoon. Sales have been put on hold, house values have potentially dropped and insurance premiums have gone up. The lives of those people have been in limbo. I know some of them personally, and they have gone through great stress and anxiety throughout that time. Sean Clerkin, whom many members will know, said that social housing tenants have been ignored throughout the process.

We need to recognise the reality that hardly any progress has been made and that that has compounded the agony for people who are living in those circumstances. It is difficult to understand why the Government did not identify on day 1—as it has now done—that the tenure process and conditions in Scotland would be a factor. Why has it taken all this time, since before 2021, for the Government to alight on that as being part of the problem? Why did it think that encouragement would somehow be sufficient, that compulsion would not be required and that the whole of Scotland would somehow rally round and everybody would comply with what the Government wished? That was always laughable; it was never going to be delivered in that way. A degree of compulsion was needed.

We understood that with tenement buildings, which is why the Parliament had to introduce legislation for the one or two people who would refuse to comply with any commonsense works that would be required for a building. Perhaps the minister can illuminate us in his concluding remarks, because I do not understand why the Government failed to recognise on day 1 that tenure would be a difficulty and that some degree of compulsion—rather than simple encouragement—would therefore be required.

We broadly support the bill, but because of the scepticism that exists, we are not quite convinced. We are even more sceptical because it is a framework bill that does not go into a tremendous amount of detail. However, we support the ability to identify and remediate risks through the responsible developers scheme. The prohibited developers list is an interesting proposal. A lot of developers go bust at the drop of a hat when there are any difficulties with developments. That is why some companies have multiple companies associated with them that disappear overnight once their development is concluded. I would be interested to know how we make sure that those companies that have some connection with buildings are still held accountable, and that we are aware of their heritage in the area.

Local authorities also need to have the capacity to investigate compliance. We already know that local authorities are having difficulties financially and with their ability to recruit the appropriate personnel, which ties in with the shortage of qualified assessors to deal with the peak in demand that we hope will come from the bill.

We need the Government to put some meat on the bones of the scope of the single building assessment, and we need to understand exactly how far it will go. We also need to be aware of issues beyond cladding. Safety risks that are associated with a building need somehow to be identified by the process, rather than it being limited to cladding issues. If we identify an issue, that needs to be made public so that people know what is involved in their building.

The shortage of housing for decants will be a significant issue. We have a housing emergency. When my constituency endured significant flooding recently, it was difficult to find homes for everyone who was made homeless as a result of those floods. That will be a much bigger problem on a wider scale, given the number of buildings that we are talking about here.

The Chartered Institute of Building’s conclusion shows what the central problem with the bill is: it said that it is an important first step. Seven years on, it is an important first step. That highlights the massive job that we have to do to make sure that the legislation works in practice and that we do not have yet more years of delay and yet more stress and anxiety for home owners and residents.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Annabelle Ewing)

Before we move to the open debate, I ask those members seeking to speak to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak button.

15:14

Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)

I thank our committee convener and our hard-working clerks, who provided much-needed advice and guidance in the preparation of the committee’s stage 1 report, which was unanimously agreed by all members.

It is worth remembering that cladding remediation is principally an issue for the developers and builders who built the homes that have this cladding, and there has been nothing really to prevent them from getting on with remediation all this time. I have always said at committee that it is an issue for both Government and developers—a dual responsibility. Some developers have been doing remediation work, which is to their credit.

I have been involved in the preparation of a number of stage 1 committee reports over my years in the Parliament, but this one was different. The level of scrutiny and inquiry that all our committee members undertook is understandable, given the subject matter, but it is a testament to their commitment to getting it right that they undertook such forensic scrutiny of the Government’s proposals for cladding remediation. All the committee members deserve great credit for the work that they have done. Our witnesses—some of whom are affected residents—offered us a valuable degree of rigour in getting the bill right, which I sincerely hope stands us in good stead as we take the bill through the parliamentary stages to become law. I thank them all for helping to get us to where we are now.

The minister reminded us where all this came from: the tragic events at Grenfell in London in 2017, when 72 people lost their lives. Our committee will play an important part in getting the bill right and providing assurance to residents whose homes have cladding that needs to be replaced.

A key issue for the committee and for many of those who gave evidence was whether the bill could or should include wider fire safety considerations beyond the cladding remediation that was intended at the outset. From the Government’s response to that aspect of the stage 1 report, as requested by the committee in recommendation 73, it is clear that the bill

“relates to buildings with ... cladding systems and it is not a general fire safety Bill.”

Although wider risks might well emerge during the assessment and remediation of a building, the Government states that we should

“recognise that there are broader systems and legislation in place to manage these where they fall outside the scope”

of the bill. The Government makes that point again as part of recommendation 93 in relation to the cladding assurance register.

Rightly, the committee asked for clarity on the exact specification for the single building assessment. I note from the Government’s response that the single building assessment will include the fire risk appraisal of the external walls system, which is based on industry standard PAS 9980. The SBA will also include a fire risk assessment that

“will survey the internal fire safety measures, including internal compartmentation of buildings in order to assess risk”

that might be

“created or exacerbated by the building’s external ... cladding”.

If I have understood that correctly, that will provide additional assurance for residents about some of the wider fire safety matters that are important to many of the residents from whom we heard. If that is the case, I would welcome a comment from the minister when he winds up the debate.

It is welcome that the Government has agreed that “tolerable risk” will form part of the single building assessment process instead of the initial proposal to have binary designations of “safe” or “unsafe”.

Graham Simpson

What does Willie Coffey understand by the phrase “tolerable risk”?

Willie Coffey

It provides a degree of risk, so that a building is not just “safe” or “unsafe”. The feeling was that that could have brought many buildings within the register that might in fact be safe. Giving a degree of risk was felt to be much more helpful and appropriate.

An important part of the bill’s provisions is to establish the cladding assurance register, which is a document that will provide consistent information and assurance to residents and to mortgage and insurance providers about the status of a building. One key consideration for the committee was the issue of when a building can be entered into that register. We considered whether that should happen at an earlier stage, to provide initial assurance that work will take place, or on completion of the work, to give a final assurance that the work had been completed. The Government’s response seemed to me to point to the latter option, because it said that including properties on a register if they had not yet been remediated might impact on both the privacy and safety of residents who are affected and therefore would not normally be considered. However, as we heard from the minister during his opening remarks, the Government has agreed to give further consideration to the issue at stage 2.

The final area that I will mention is the proposal to introduce a responsible developers scheme. Some of our developer witnesses asked for more detail to enable them to scrutinise that in advance of the legislation being passed and a number of members here today have referred to that. The Government’s position is that providing that in secondary legislation will give us greater flexibility and align us with the process being adopted by the UK Government. The process to agree a Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract is under way and it is my understanding that that also mirrors the approach being taken down south.

I said at the outset that there has been really thorough examination by committee members of the many issues presented to us as we considered the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill. I hope that that will be recognised by other members who are here today. The bill may be relatively small, but it is an incredibly important piece of work for us all. Where we can improve it, let us ensure that we do. It is crucial to get this right and I look forward to other members’ speeches as the debate develops.

15:21

Willie Coffey

The final area that I will mention is the proposal to introduce a responsible developers scheme. Some of our developer witnesses asked for more detail to enable them to scrutinise that in advance of the legislation being passed and a number of members here today have referred to that. The Government’s position is that providing that in secondary legislation will give us greater flexibility and align us with the process that is being adopted by the UK Government. The process to agree a Scottish safer buildings developer remediation contract is under way and it is my understanding that that also mirrors the approach that is being taken down south.

15:21

Pam Gosal (West Scotland) (Con)

As a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill. I also place on record my thanks to everyone who gave evidence and to the clerks for all their work.

In 2017, the Grenfell tower fire tragically claimed the lives of 72 people. We can all agree that there is an urgent need to identify and remove highly combustible and dangerous cladding, in order to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring in Scotland.

Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the Scottish Government’s efforts to remediate buildings have been shockingly slow. The UK Government has successfully remediated 797 buildings in England, while only two out of the 105 buildings included in the Scottish Government’s own remediation programme have had work carried out. Only 7 per cent of the £97 million provided so far by the UK Government for cladding remediation has been spent by the Scottish Government. I am not going to delay progress further by voting against the bill at stage 1 but, make no mistake, the bill in its current form will not bring about a meaningful improvement in the pace of the remediation programme.

Although the single building assessment is central to the bill, the committee, stakeholders and the minister are not clear about the specification for that, what it will look like or the standards that it will assess against. The single building assessment specification is in development and is due to be published by the end of May this year. That is simply not good enough. It raises questions about a key stage of the entire remediation plan and is something that is far too significant to remain unclear at this point.

The binary nature of the single building assessment was also of major concern throughout the evidence sessions, so I am pleased to note that consideration is being given to basing the fire risk assessment of external walls survey on the PAS 9980 model, tailoring that to the Scottish context. That model is popular with professionals, offers flexibility and is widely used across the United Kingdom.

In his response to the committee, the minister insisted that this is not a wider bill about fire safety. However, the single building assessment might well identify issues that are the responsibility of home owners or factors to remediate. If the building requires completion of all identified remedial works before it can be listed on the cladding assurance register, that might cause further problems down the line for mortgage lending and home insurance.

Furthermore, Homes for Scotland observed a distinct absence of detail on what information is to be provided in the register; which parties are obliged to fulfil an entry to the register; who is in charge of the oversight and accuracy of the register; and the deadlines and parameters for adding properties to the register.

Again, the minister’s response leaves far too many of the important details of the cladding assurance register to be ironed out at a later stage. I hope that, today, the minister will shed some more light on those questions.

From our committee evidence sessions, it is clear that Scotland does not have a framework or mechanisms in place to assess and address the safety of Scotland’s homes. We should look seriously at the creation of a register that assesses fire safety over time, because we cannot have a repeat of what happened. Developers were building to the correct standards at the time and now they will be forced to pay the price for doing so. That is a dangerous precedent to set, which is why we must look at ways—even if they are separate from this legislation—to monitor buildings over time.

Many SME developers, if they are unable to make the financial commitment to remediate, would, under the bill, cease to operate. Homes for Scotland told the committee that the absence of a threshold in the bill will put

“Scottish SMEs at a much higher risk of failure than their equivalents in England.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 January 2024; c 41.]

I remain deeply concerned about the lack of detail on that issue in the bill.

The Scottish Government’s effort to remediate buildings has been astonishingly slow. All that we have before us today is a draft bill, which leaves us with more questions than answers. It is unclear what the scope of the bill is, who it will affect and the timescales for completing remediation. As far as the industry is concerned, the lack of detail is incredibly disappointing.

Although the bill is disappointing, it is at least a small step in the right direction and I will, therefore, support it at stage 1 today. As my colleague Miles Briggs said, more needs to be done to get the bill right. It is too important to become law when it is only half completed. In the coming weeks, the Scottish Conservatives will work constructively to ensure that we achieve the bill that Parliament and Scotland deserve.

15:28

Pam Gosal (West Scotland) (Con)

“Scottish SMEs at a much higher risk of failure than their equivalents in England.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 23 January 2024; c 41.]

I remain deeply concerned about the lack of detail on that issue in the bill.

Although the bill is disappointing, it is at least a small step in the right direction and I will, therefore, support it at stage 1 today. As my colleague Miles Briggs said, more needs to be done to get the bill right. It is too important for it to become law when it is only half completed. In the coming weeks, the Scottish Conservatives will work constructively to ensure that we achieve the bill that Parliament and Scotland deserve.

15:28

Stephanie Callaghan (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

As a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, I am pleased to contribute to today’s stage 1 debate on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill. I thank everybody who provided evidence and I extend my thanks to the clerks.

The Grenfell tragedy shocked us all, and my heartfelt condolences go out to those who were impacted by that devastating event. The bill underscores the Scottish Government’s commitment to ensuring the safety of Scotland’s residents, firefighters and communities.

However, before I continue, I will emphasise the importance of putting risks into perspective, particularly in our communications with the public. During an evidence session, Jim McGonigal, from the Institution of Fire Engineers, stated:

“The fire statistics in Scotland do not highlight a problem. Fewer than 1 per cent of fires spread beyond the flat of fire origin”.

He also noted that, over the past decade, there has been a significant

“57 per cent reduction in the number of fires in flats above six storeys.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 30 January 2024; c 11.]

Additional safety measures, which have already been introduced in Scotland, such as sprinkler systems and smoke alarms, have mitigated many risks. It is crucial to emphasise that point, given the potential for misguided messaging to fuel further fear and distress in our communities.

Having said that, we must not be complacent. Agreeing the bill’s aims is a critical step towards expediting the cladding remediation programme, but I wish to address specific aspects, in order to ensure that proposals in the bill effect meaningful improvements. Those include considering the experiences of affected residents and home owners, as well as reviewing the specification of the single building assessment.

The emotional toll of residing in affected properties cannot be overstated. Barratt Developments rightfully emphasised the disruption and impact that the remediation process can have on people’s livelihoods—for example, when sunlight is limited and insulation is removed from apartments. Although accelerating remediation is essential, effective communication is equally vital. It is imperative that timely and accurate progress updates reach stakeholders—especially residents in affected buildings. I appreciate that that poses a complex challenge, as it requires communicating with residents living in diverse buildings with unique communication needs. That responsibility should not fall solely on the Scottish Government. Building developers must share the responsibility of keeping home owners and residents informed. Following the single building assessment pilot project, it is promising that the Scottish Government acknowledges communication as an area for improvement and that it is actively scoping out strategies to enhance its approach.

That uncertainty has sparked debate. Should assessments solely target cladding or should they adopt a more holistic approach to the fire safety of buildings? On that point, existing systems and legislation address broader fire safety concerns, and the primary focus of the bill relates to cladding, as has been clarified by the minister. It is important to eliminate ambiguity on the bill’s objectives.

Furthermore, the committee heard about the benefits of aligning the SBA with PAS 9980. It is essential to recognise that that alignment requires adjustments to suit Scotland’s unique context, rather than the simple adoption of a UK Government policy. With that said, in his letter to the committee, the minister stated that the Scottish Government has agreed to base the fire risk appraisal of external walls on PAS 9980, tailored to our specific circumstances.

Amid those challenges, the minister deserves credit for including developers on the SBA task and finish group, to ensure their valuable input in discussions on the SBA specifications. I look forward to the publication of the SBA specification by May, and I hope that it will support the programme to progress at pace. Further delays are unacceptable, as others have indicated.

I also acknowledge the considerable financial challenges that are experienced by home owners who are affected by combustible cladding when buying, selling, or remortgaging properties, including issues of loans and escalated insurance costs. The cladding assurance register in the bill is a welcome step, providing reassurance to lenders and insurance providers by documenting assessed and remediated buildings. Some stakeholders have suggested that adding buildings to the register before remediation is complete would quickly mitigate those financial issues. However, we cannot afford to compromise on safety; nor can we afford to risk incomplete developer commitments.

Although the committee has not reached a consensus and financial services are beyond the Scottish Government’s remit, I thank the minister for addressing those concerns with stakeholders and for seeking additional advice on early entry to the cladding assurance register prior to stage 2.

The single building assessment—the SBA—is central to the cladding remediation programme, yet evidence from the pilot project has highlighted uncertainties about the scope of the assessments and their specification, which, in turn, has hindered progress.

The bill strengthens our efforts to address the issues that are caused by dangerous cladding. I look forward to hearing from the minister and to gaining further insight into how the Scottish Government plans to address the concerns that have been raised today as we prepare for stage 2. I ask colleagues to support the general principles of the bill.

15:33

Stephanie Callaghan (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

“The fire statistics in Scotland do not highlight a problem. Fewer than 1 per cent of fires spread beyond the flat of fire origin”.

He also noted that, over the past decade, there has been a significant

“57 per cent reduction in the number of fires in flats above six storeys.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 30 January 2024; c 11.]

15:33

Richard Leonard (Central Scotland) (Lab)

The purpose of a stage 1 parliamentary debate is to agree the general principles of a bill, and I think that we can all agree with the general principles of this bill. However, we are regularly lectured by Government ministers that we cannot will the end if we do not will the means to it. Well, Government ministers have had the means to this end now for years: Barnett consequentials of £97 million since 2021 and a further £300 million allocated—almost all of it unspent.

I pursued the previous cabinet secretary on this question, going back three years, because I have never understood the Government’s absolute indifference to the sense of urgency, which the rest of us get. Every day that goes by with no remedial action means another night for families—for children—not knowing whether they are going to be the next victims.

The Grenfell tower tragedy, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was nearly seven years ago and it is nearly three years since the Scottish Government started assessing high-rise blocks for fire safety risks, yet we know that, out of 105 affected buildings in Scotland, only one block on one site—Glasgow harbour—has had dangerous cladding removed, and only one block on one site has had any mitigation work carried out. No wonder the Fire Brigades Union told me yesterday:

“This lack of meaningful progress is reprehensible and continues to show contempt for those living and working in these buildings”.

So, I say to the minister, where is the sense of urgency? Where is the duty of care? If we are debating general principles this afternoon, what about the principle of keeping our people safe and secure? What about the principle of the rights to food, to clothing and to shelter? What about the principles of subsidiarity and of dweller control? What about the principle of people before profit? I can only conclude that too little attention is being paid to the interests of the people whose homes these buildings are and that too much attention is being paid to the vested interests of the industry, the professionals and the bureaucrats.

Back in December 2021, when I asked about resident and tenant participation, I was told—I quote the now Deputy First Minister—that

“No tenants or owner occupiers of high rise flats with high pressure laminate or aluminium composite materials are on the ministerial working group on building and fire safety.”

None—but wait. In that same parliamentary answer, I was informed:

“The Cladding Program stakeholder group does include an owner-occupier representative.”—[Written Answers, 5 January 2022; S6W-5042.]

One, out of 14 listed members of the group. What ministers need to grasp is that there is an unequal struggle here between the rights of citizens and residents and the power of the profit takers and the corporations—that this is not about welfare: people are not looking for private benevolence but for social justice.

This year is the centenary of the birth of Colin Ward, the great left-libertarian thinker on housing, who said:

“A goal which is infinitely remote is not a goal at all, it is a deception.”

It is a source of amazement to me that there has not been a popular revolt about this.

On some of the bill’s fundamentals, there are improvements that can be made. There should be a clear timetable for implementation within the bill. The details of the responsible developers scheme should be in this bill, not in regulation or other secondary legislation. Orphan developments must be covered—of course they must—and they should be treated equally. The establishment of a cladding assurance register is welcome, but it should not wait and it must be available for public inspection. What about local government and housing association properties? What about other public buildings that may be affected? What about other flammable materials, such as high-pressure laminate?

We owe it to the memory of those 72 people who died on 14 June 2017 and in the following days; to their families, who can never be compensated for their loss; and to people such as the firefighters who saved so many lives at Grenfell, who, we learned last year, are now themselves suffering from rare terminal cancers—some aged only in their 40s. For all of their sakes, we need to get this right, but getting it right should not mean taking our time. If we learned something over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is that doing the right thing as a community and acting in the right way as legislators can be done at speed. That is a lesson that I hope the minister and the Government will finally heed when Parliament votes for the bill tonight.

15:39