Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I will start by apologising to the committee because I have 40-plus amendments in this group. I promise to spend no longer than five minutes on each, and I have no doubt that the minister will do the same, which is about six hours’ worth—[Interruption.] Of course I am jesting, convener, before you jump in.

Last week, I argued that the two-year deadline for publishing the circular economy strategy was too long and pushed for it to be cut to a year. The minister was not at all keen on that and wanted it to remain at two years. At one point, Mr Ruskell even argued that there should not be a deadline, until he realised that there was one in the bill and reappraised his stance.

With that in mind, I wish to fall into line with the minister and propose only two-year deadlines in my many amendments in this group. Therefore, I will not press amendment 5 or move the other amendments that would create a one-year deadline. Those are amendments 7, 19, 21, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, 68, 70, 73 and 75.

Convener, I notice that the clerk is talking to you. Is it a procedural matter?

It might help with your decision making, convener, if I give you warning that, in the following group, I will be speaking at some length. I just wanted to let you know that.

My arguments with regard to amendment 28 are very similar to those that Mr Lumsden has just made. The amendment deals with the issue of the internal market act as it relates to section 9 of the bill, which is the power to require imposition of charges for single-use items.

I do not need to remind the committee of the importance of complying with that power; whether members think we should or not is neither here nor there, because we must deal with reality. Allow me, if you will, convener, to quote fairly extensively from the committee’s report, which I thought was excellent. It says:

“We also recognise that some key matters are reserved and that the Scottish Government must work within the requirements of the UK Internal Market Act.”

It also says, on page 4:

“The framework nature of the Bill also means the Committee cannot express an authoritative view as to whether regulations made under the Bill (if enacted) would be likely to trigger the market access principles within the UK Internal Market Act 2020, with a risk of undermining their effectiveness.”

Again, the report says, on page 25:

“The Internal Market Act creates two key market access principles which operate in the post-Brexit environment: the mutual recognition principle and the nondiscrimination principle. These—

‘... serve to disapply relevant requirements in one part of the UK when goods or services are lawfully provided in another part of the UK. The principles will permit access to the Scottish market of goods and services which originate elsewhere in the UK under different regulatory conditions. This is likely to have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of devolved regulatory regimes.’”

On page 26, it says:

“It was widely accepted during Stage 1 that the Internal Market Act has the potential to significantly affect the operation of the Bill if it were to become law: potentially a ‘massive impact’ according to some stakeholders.”

My amendment, which relates to section 9, says that the Scottish Government must consult with the secretary of state, whoever that is, and provide a statement that he or she is content that the regulations comply with the internal market act. I think that Mr Lumsden’s amendment does the same. Given the committee’s comments in its report, which I have just quoted, I would have thought that it would support this position. However, I have thought that before when I have quoted the committee’s report, so we will just have to wait and see.

I thank Ben Macpherson for that intervention, but I say to him that it should not have taken seven years for us to get to this point. I think that he would agree with me on that. He and I have worked together very well on the issue of tenement maintenance. Members will have received an email from me earlier, asking them to back a members’ business debate on proposals around that, and a number of members from different parties have already backed that. We need to move forward together on this very serious issue, and we can do that.

The bill’s introduction was rushed and it was not good enough, so some of us attempted to improve it at stage 2. We failed but, as I said earlier, the minister committed to working with some of us ahead of stage 3. I said at the time, kind of jokingly, that I would just have to trust him on that, but my trust has been repaid. The minister and his team have helped to craft amendments from me, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs. I thank him and his team for that.

As you are giving me extra time, Presiding Officer, I will quickly mention a few other members. Miles Briggs spelled out the impact of all this on residents. Mark Griffin mentioned the fires in Milan and Valencia and the general dangers of cladding. I was struck by a comment from Ariane Burgess, who said that we should have no more excuses and that it is time for action. She is absolutely right.

The bill is not perfect, but it is better than it was. At its heart, it gives ministers the

“Power to arrange remediation work”

that has been identified in a single building assessment report as

“being needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life that are ... created or exacerbated by the building’s external wall cladding system”.

Whether that involves the original developers or whether they have gone bust or disappeared does not matter, because the work needs to be done. We have to get rid of all dangerous cladding.

At their worst, the effects of fire can be tragic—as we saw at Grenfell—but they can also be life changing. Time will tell whether the bill will help to get dangerous cladding removed, but I will back it in order to give it the chance to do so.

I will start my speech as I started my speech at stage 1, by remembering what started this all off. Others have said it, but I will repeat it. When Grenfell tower in London turned into an inferno in June 2017, killing 72 people, we all became aware of the serious issue of cladding, which, seven years on, the bill seeks to address. That it has taken seven years to get to this point in Scotland is a disgrace.

I will. Can I have extra time, Presiding Officer?

I really am going to need extra time if I take another intervention.

I am fully supportive of the amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy made a powerful case for them at stage 2, although she did not press them at that point because the minister said that he would work with her. I think that he has done so, and we have arrived at this point.

If a person can imagine that they are disabled—most of us cannot imagine that—and they are in a block in which there is a fire, how would they get out unless they are on the ground floor? First of all, somebody has to know that there are disabled people in the block. That needs to be addressed. Perhaps it is up to the disabled person themselves to alert somebody, but some sort of scheme needs to be in place.

I am very sympathetic to what Pam Duncan-Glancy said about not limiting the approach to blocks with cladding. We should look beyond blocks with cladding and have personal evacuation plans in place for disabled people full stop.

I am fully supportive of the ambition behind the amendments, and I hope that Parliament will support them.

In case members did not hear it, the First Minister said that he is “here to learn.” He can learn from the housing minister, who is now suitably embarrassed.

Amendments 39, 40, 48 and 49 relate to duties on the Scottish ministers to report on progress in the cladding remediation programme. They build on amendments that I and Miles Briggs lodged at stage 2, which were ultimately not moved.

Amendment 39 would require the Scottish ministers to report on progress with arranging and carrying out single building assessments and on progress with remediation work. The reports may also include such other information as the Scottish ministers consider appropriate.

Amendment 40 provides further detail on what information the reports must contain. That includes

“the number of buildings in relation to which a single building assessment is in progress and the number in relation to which remediation work ... is in progress”,

whether that has been arranged by Scottish ministers or by developers that are members of a responsible developers scheme.

There is also a requirement to provide quantitative information about changes to the cladding assurance register, including the number of times entries have been amended to show the completion of work. That will provide a very useful indication of the overall activity on cladding remediation.

The first reporting period will be the 18 months after the proposed new section comes into force, and subsequent reports must be prepared each year after that. Amendment 39 would require that there be 10 reporting periods in total, but there is an option to increase the number by regulations.

Amendment 49 will allow proposed new subsection (4) in amendment 39 to be amended by regulations so that the actual commencement date is referred to.

Amendment 48 provides that regulations under the proposed new section will be subject to the negative procedure.

The amendments in the group would ensure that there is open and transparent information on progress with remediation, which is crucial to the owners and occupiers of buildings that are affected by unsafe cladding.

I move amendment 39.

I will continue.

In the previous session, I and others pressed the then housing minister, Kevin Stewart, for action. Jeremy Balfour mentioned that. However, Kevin Stewart seemed more interested in trying to find differences between the ways that the issue was being tackled here and south of the border. We could not get him to ban combustible cladding in Scotland. Members should think about that. We have been slower to act here.

When I spoke in the stage 1 debate, I quoted the committee report, which said that, although the Scottish Government had

“committed to ensuring that all 105 buildings”

in its remediation programme—we do not know what those 105 buildings are, by the way—were

“on a pathway to a single building assessment by summer 2024 ... in England ... 42%”

of buildings had

“either started or completed remediation works.”

What has happened here? Two buildings.

Members will be delighted to know that this is the final group: we have made swift progress today. Perhaps that is down to the way that the minister has worked collaboratively across the different parties—a lesson for the First Minister, perhaps.