Chamber and committees

On the point about existing schools, perhaps Dr Binnie could say a bit more about things like lighting and creating spaces.

Earlier today, we spoke about the perception that a formal diagnosis can really help to meet young people’s needs. Under what circumstances would that be the case? That might be a question for Vivienne Sutherland.

Can I ask you about that? Would you say that for architects, for example, ASN needs to be a key principle that is right up there?

Is there perhaps a need to learn from primary schools and to take that learning into secondary schools? Am I getting that right?

Should it be a minimum requirement for all schools to have similar spaces that are accessible throughout the school day?

I want to pick up on that point, Dr Binnie. You are talking about a very small number of parents and their perception of what is going on. However, going back to the question that Pam Duncan-Glancy started out with in this evidence session, there seems to be quite a large number of parents who feel that everything is a fight, all the way through.

Earlier, Kerry Drinnan touched on the framework tool and the fact that, when you spoke to parents about it, they had a kind of understanding and were really keen to know more. Is there a need for things such as the framework tool and perhaps for access to—goodness, what is it called? The organisation was here earlier. I am losing track. It was My Rights, My Say. Is there a need for those things to be discussed proactively as soon as an additional support need is recognised? That would pull together the parents and the young person and make them feel that they had access to the information that they needed, which would possibly help the teachers as well. Would that be helpful?

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.

I want to ask about references that are made to the tribunal. I am aware that, under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, 12 to 15-year-olds are subject to capacity and wellbeing tests, but claims under the Equality Act 2010 do not involve those tests. Can you explain why that is the case?

We have heard that reflected in the evidence that we have taken. Does more work need to be done on recognising the views and expertise of parents and children? Perhaps more work needs to be done on that and on respecting and taking seriously what they say.

Do the tests serve a useful purpose?