Chamber and committees

Good morning. I have a question about the scope of the bill—and, in particular, cross-portfolio working. It is clear that cross-portfolio working will be necessary. How much of that have you already done, and how do you think it will work in practice across Government?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Good morning, and thank you all for the information that you have submitted in advance—it is really helpful. As you will be aware, people have raised concerns about the scope of the bill and the scale of the challenge. I want to start with a question that Professor Ó Giollagáin included in his paper: is the bill relevant to the primary issue that faces Gaelic speakers in Scotland?

Thank you; that was very clear. We have had evidence that supports what you have said. Specifically, one submission states:

“The Bill as introduced is a cautious and incrementalist measure that should bring some modest improvements over time.”

Is that good enough?

I have one final question, if the convener can indulge me.

We are the education committee and this is largely an education bill. Can you share any information about the direction that ministers gave you about the scope of and detail in the bill?

I am just looking for you to share with us anything about the direction that was given when the bill was being developed.

I have one further question but I will keep it short.

The bòrd has said that it does not know whether the bill adequately recognises the challenges in the community and that that could erode trust and engagement. Are witnesses concerned about that and, if so, what do we need to do differently to keep communities’ trust and engagement?

To make it clear, that was not a statement of the bòrd’s opinion on the bill; it said that it does not know whether the bill does enough to address that. That was the point.

My amendments in this and other groups are intended to address issues that I have heard about from residents who live in the Glasgow region, and which are, no doubt, also of concern to people across the rest of Scotland.

Amendment 51 seeks to introduce an oversight and advisory committee on the continued development and improvement of single building assessments. Amendment 52 seeks to create an independent reviewer who will be tasked with approving the key stages of the development of single building assessments. Amendment 86 is, I suppose, what we would call a tidying amendment. It seeks to ensure the timeous setting up of the committee that is proposed in amendment 51.

Residents in Glasgow—and probably, as I said, across the rest of the country—have felt quite distanced, in some cases, from the development of single building assessments and the processes. Residents associations in the region have raised concerns with me about conflicts of interests in relation to buildings with dangerous cladding, and they believe that occupier and owner voices in the process are essential to balancing such conflicts. I share that view. Occupier and owner voices are essential in the single building assessment development process to ensure that there is transparency and a system of checks and balances. In developing my amendments in the group, I considered that the Government must include owners, occupiers and representatives in the development of the building assessments.

Amendment 51 seeks to create a specific committee for single building assessments. It would require ministers to consult people on the development and continued improvement of the single building assessment under part 2 of the bill. Where problems were identified with the SBA system, the committee could consult ministers and the required changes could be made. The amendment provides that membership of the committee must include owners and occupiers in buildings that are covered by the legislation as well as organisations that represent them, and it provides that ministers may identify other members of the committee as appropriate. Further, it would require ministers to try, in so far as it is reasonable to do so, to include disabled people and their representative organisations in that committee, given the number of disabled people who died during the Grenfell tragedy.

Further to amendment 51, amendment 55 has been lodged because residents have raised concerns about the current plan that only developers would create the single building assessment. Residents think that that would create a conflict of interests; I, too, am worried about that. The current plan means that the developers who are responsible for constructing a building would be chiefly responsible for ascertaining whether that building is a fire risk.

Amendment 52 would create an independent reviewer who would be responsible for approving the arrangement of the single building assessment, the single building assessment report and any subsequent works that were identified in it. It is my view, and that of the residents whom I have consulted, that that would add transparency and their voice to the process. Scottish ministers would have the power to determine the necessary expertise of the reviewer, but I suggest that that person should have expertise that is relevant to the issue that we are facing, which is fire safety and building development. That is essential to ensuring that the reviewer can adequately address the fire risks that are identified through the building assessment. In my opinion, amendment 52 would introduce checks and balances and transparency to the system that is currently proposed.

Put simply, amendments 51 and 55 would give occupiers and owners a voice in the development of the single building assessment. They seek to address the concerns that residents raised with me about potential conflicts of interests. I believe that the amendments would alleviate many of the concerns about developers having sole responsibility and would add the necessary checks and balances. I hope that the Government will support my amendments.

As I said earlier, amendment 86 is a tidying amendment to ensure that the proposed committee would be up and running timeously, in line with commencement of the legislation.