Chamber and committees

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 am disappointed in Ben Macpherson for that contribution. I normally agree with a lot of what he says, but to try to seek division between Governments on this matter is really not good enough. [Interruption.] Muttering is no good, either, because these are serious issues.

In the previous session—[Interruption.] Who is muttering? If they would like to stand up, they can do so.

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 25—Meaning of single-building assessment

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42 moved—[Mark Griffin].

I support all the amendments in this group. At stage 2, I made the point that communications are vital. Communication needs to take place not only with the people who own flats but with the people who actually live in a block.

As members will know, I lived in a block from which I was evacuated during a fire. After I first moved in, I became aware that, after a fire in the underground car park, some men were wandering around at night in orange jackets. They formed part of a waking watch. I discovered that only when I asked one of them what they were doing. After I moved in as a tenant, nobody told me that there was a waking watch. I think that anyone who lives in a block—not just owners but residents—should be informed of such things.

The amendments in this group are really good and potentially go some of the way towards tackling the communications issue. However, I caution Miles Briggs on one point. I am always uneasy about language such as “use their best endeavours” and “so far as practicable”, as that can allow the Government to wriggle off the hook a bit, but we will see where that goes.

Nonetheless, I think that the minister is serious about the issue. If he is serious about it and if he is kept in post—as he has been so far—we will perhaps be able to deliver on those aims together.

It has been an interesting session so far, although clearly a bit frustrating for some of my colleagues. I would like to go right back to the beginning of the meeting, to a question that the convener and the deputy convener asked. I am still not sure what the answer is. The question was whether you accept the recommendations of the Auditor General.

As the deputy convener said to you, Mr Irwin, your answer was not clear. You said that you accepted the “broad thrust” of the recommendations, but wanted to probe deeper into them. When you answered Mr Greene, I think that I heard you say that there was only one recommendation—the first one, which is on page 5 of the briefing—that you were not too happy with. Is that the only one?

Apart from the first recommendation, you accept all the recommendations and you will act on them.

That would be very useful. Mr Beattie asked about funding, and he was very frustrated at the answers that he received, so perhaps I will have a go. Page 13 of the Auditor General’s briefing refers to areas relating to direct investment by the Scottish Government. There is a list. How comprehensive is it? Do you have it there?

That is clear enough. I think I have covered everything, convener.

I do not know why you did not just say that right at the beginning, but that is clear now.

I cannot remember whether it was Mr Irwin or Mr Grisewood who said that this is a 10-year strategy and that 17 actions had been carried out and 44 are in progress. Is there a list of those?

But you have no costs for them.