Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for her comments, and I note that, like most members, I have also seen tyres dumped in the area that I represent. However, does she accept that people might not know which local authority area they are in when they spot an instance such as the one that she mentions? Does she, therefore, accept that there is merit in what I am suggesting, and that it would be useful if there were some kind of national reporting mechanism—overseen by something like SEPA—that would get around any confusion about where the instance has occurred?

I have just ended my contribution.

It is up to ministers when they lay regulations, so the timing of those regulations is entirely down to the Government. I am very familiar with the affirmative and the super-affirmative procedure. I was convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session, and we dealt with that sort of thing all the time.

Getting something through within two years is not onerous. Minister, do you accept that the argument that you made to the committee last week was that you needed two years, and that two years was enough? Now you are telling us that, for these amendments, two years is too tight. The two arguments do not add up, do they?

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.

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 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. Can I have extra time, Presiding Officer?

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