Chamber and committees

Thank you for that, minister. I appreciate the willingness to talk more about that, and I appreciate your reaching out in your letter to offer that.

However, you just made a point about developers leading the single building assessment and ministers not necessarily being the people who do the consultation. That is part of the concern that I am trying to address. Residents are worried that, with developers having sole control over the single building assessment—as they see it—they will not have the opportunity to have any input.

If the minister does not support amendment 55, could he clarify how he envisages that conflict being addressed?

I will not move amendment 52, on the same basis—that I am happy to engage with the minister between now and stage 3 to see how we can further strengthen the bill to ensure that there is independence, that the conflict of interest is removed from the bill and that owners and occupiers have sufficient voice not only in the development of the single building assessment in general, but in relation to their own buildings specifically. On that basis, I am happy not to move amendment 52.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Section 3—Power to arrange single-building assessment

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 54 not moved.

I will not move it on the basis that there is a commitment from the minister to discuss the matter between now and stage 3.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

After Section 3

Amendment 14 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Power to require information for single-building assessment and the register

Amendment 15 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Power to arrange remediation work

Amendment 16 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 56 not moved.

Amendment 57 not moved.

On the basis of the minister’s undertaking to speak with me between now and stage 3—I have sought and am seeking assurances that we will work together to do something in the bill that will protect disabled people where flammable cladding is found on a building—I will not move amendment 66.

Amendment 66 not moved.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Power to establish scheme

Before I make my point, I clarify that the arguments that I made earlier related to amendments 51 and 52. I mixed up amendment 52 and amendment 55 but—I hope—not my arguments. I hope that that is clear.

Residents are particularly concerned that the bill’s current provisions allow a developer to have almost sole control over the single building assessment for a particular development. Which aspects of the bill can mitigate those concerns?

Amendment 55 is in a similar vein to my amendments in the previous group. The previous group was about a committee for all SBAs and having an independent reviewer. Amendment 55 specifically introduces a provision to make it mandatory for ministers to consult the occupiers and owners in a building before a single building assessment is undertaken on that building under the legislation. Again, that would add the owner/occupier voice to the process.

The amendment has been produced very much in response to a group of residents, of whom I know the minister is aware, who felt that their voice was not fully taken account of in the development of the single building assessment. In some cases, things such as a waking watch were put in place without much consideration for the residents and without giving them advance communication. Although it was necessary at the time, residents felt that that was particularly difficult and that they should have been a bit more involved. Amendment 55 seeks to guarantee that owners and occupiers will have a voice in the creation of single building assessments that are relevant to their building.

On the basis of the minister’s commitment to discuss the issue at stage 3, I am minded not to move the amendment, although I will be looking for significant commitments allowing the committee to oversee the development of single building assessments. That also applies to other amendments in the same group, to which I will come in a moment.

Amendment 51 not moved.

Amendment 58, which is in my name, builds very much on what we have just heard from my colleague Graham Simpson about the need to address other fire safety issues that may be identified in the development of a single building assessment. The minister will be aware that residents of buildings with flammable cladding have raised concerns with me about the fact that other issues have been picked up in assessments that have been made available by independent fire engineers. They fear that, as the bill stands, those other issues would not be considered or would not be part of an assessment. Amendment 58 would mean that any works that a single building assessment identified as having to be completed to mitigate the fire risk of dangerous cladding must be done in line with fire safety guidance, in the hope that broader safety and fire safety considerations might be taken into view.

Amendment 66, which is in my name, is specifically about disabled people. In the inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy, it was found that 41 per cent of disabled people who lived there died in the fire. I am determined that we ensure that that never happens again, and I think that there are mechanisms in the bill for us to do that.

In the event of a fire at a building with flammable cladding, there is presently a risk that no specific plans are in place to ensure that disabled people get to safety. I want to do everything that I can—I am sure that other committee members and the minister also want to do everything that they can—to mitigate that risk by ensuring that any works that are identified by a single building assessment under the legislation are followed up by having a specific assessment of the risk to disabled people in the building, including how they would be expected to escape.

The Grenfell tragedy taught us many lessons, and we all have to work to ensure that this never happens again. As I have said, one of the starkest lessons is how fatal it can be when disabled people’s particular issues are not necessarily provided for.

Amendment 66 seeks to give ministers the responsibility to ensure that, when a specific risk assessment is undertaken, disabled people in the particular building are considered so that they know that, in the event of a fire or an evacuation, there is specific support and a plan to help them to get out. The amendment seeks to revert to ordinary standard procedures once the building has been remediated, so as not to bring it outwith the scope of the legislation. Given what we have learned from Grenfell, the amendment is particularly important, and I encourage members and the minister to give it serious consideration.

On the basis of what we have just heard, I will not move amendment 58, and I undertake to work with the minister on it.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Power to arrange urgent remediation work

Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.

Amendments 21 and 22 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 62 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Power to evacuate

Did you say that the timescale for the education work is a couple of years?