 I call on Paul MacLennan to speak to and move the motion up to 14 minutes, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the general principles for the housing, cladding and remediation in Scotland Bill. The Grenfell tear tragedy provided absolute clarity as to why building safety is so important. Since that terrible event, substantial progress has been made with changes to fire safety standards and guidance, legislation on smoke alarms and establishment of the cladding, remediation programme. However, we have identified barriers to delivery, barriers that we need to address so that we can ensure that we have the powers to safeguard residents and homeowners. The urgency of this issue was again emphasised just a few weeks ago with the shocking images of a fire engulfing a cladded building in Valencia. I therefore thank the local government housing and planning committee for its expedited scrutiny of the bill and the stage 1 report. I also offer my thanks to the delegated powers and law reform committee and the finance and public administration committee for their swift consideration of the bill. The bill has benefited from the positive engagement of opposition spokespeople and insightful examination of the issues by individual members of the committee. My exceptional gratitude goes to those who gave evidence at stage 1, some of whom are personally affected by the issues at the heart of the bill. I welcome the committee's view that the bill provisions are appropriate to the stated purpose and its recommendation that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. At stage 1, the committee made detailed recommendations and comments and called on the Government to consider and respond to them. The Government is reflecting on some of those points, but I hope that the response, which I provided to the committee last week, provides a useful indication of the Scottish Government's position. The issue is one in which I have had a long-standing interest at local level and as a member of this chamber. In my evidence to the committee in June 2023, I said that we would use every tool available to handle the crisis of cladding in Scotland, including legislation, if required. Can I make some progress and come back? Since I was appointed as a Minister, I have engaged extensively with homeowners and residents of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding, as well as with partners and stakeholders who are critical to delivering a resolution, including a wide range of developers. I appreciate that homeowners and residents want to see more pace into the programme. They want us to address a barrier to delivery, and I welcome the comments from the High Rise Action Group and others who have welcomed the bill as a good attempt to seek to address concerns and take significant steps forward. I am grateful to the committee for outlining the background to the legislation. The bill boards an extensive history. The programme has brought into sharp focus the complexities of the responsibilities of our built environment and those responsible for maintaining it for the benefit of all. The minister referred to the swift action of the committee, and he is quite right about that. However, he cannot describe the process over the past seven years as swift by the Government. Why has it taken so long to get to this stage? I thank Mr Dane for that question. I think that, in 2022, the cabinet secretary at that time mentioned about that and acknowledged that particular point. That is why we moved on to the direct delivery model that was there. I will touch more on the pace as I go through my speech. It has accumulated a significant amount of knowledge and understanding of the significant impact that, potentially, unsafe claring is having on people's lives. As well as the lived experience of the barriers that we face and tackling these, the real-life experiences of those affected by the risks and consequences of unsafe claring are impasse to some kind of provisions that are laid out in the bill. We need to remove any obstacles to the necessary work that the Government and developers must do to progress its work in the interests of public safety. However, it is equally important for the public to have absolute confidence in the assessment that is resulting in works. The ability and willingness of developers to participate in the mediation programme and the insurance arising from the works being completed. Now, let me turn to the scope of assessment arrangements that are contained in the bill. The ministerial working group on mortgage lending and claring were mindful of the complications that the Scottish tenure system would present to a programme like ours and the potential far-reaching consequences of adopting and adapting legal basis for their assessments. Such adaptations rightly require considerable examination and deliberation. The solution, therefore, is the basis for assessing all the risks presented by building as a whole. Using established fire risk assessment methodology, it will be possible to specify criteria by which fire safety risks for whole building can be assessed. This work is in hand. Last autumn, I commissioned a task and finish group to look at the single building assessment specification. I have agreed that the PAS 9980 would be the basis of the fire risk appraisal of our external walls, albeit tailored to the Scottish context. We recognise that this is a critical neighbour in setting the standard and propelling the pace of the programme. The SBA specification is in development and will include this component and the fire risk assessment, which will survey the internal fire safety measures, including internal compartmentation of buildings. Without a doubt, higher standards of competence should be employed in carrying out the assessment of buildings. To this end, the bill seeks the power to specify the competence levels of those undertaking the SBA. Developers continue to be closely involved in discussions about the SBA and the specification through the SBA task and finish group. We are also engaging with other stakeholders on the development of that specification. Reflecting an overwhelming desire and duty to protect life, we seek powers to prioritise access to buildings, to carry out assessment and remediation. Indeed, our programme furthers the ability of our both owners and occupiers rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property. We have assessed the impacts of the legislation and are satisfied that our fullfiles are intentions in a complete manner to ensure that there is an appropriate opportunity to challenge decisions. Stefano Pacina, from the Mizzou attendance committee, welcomed the bill stating that it is good that it contains steps to stop residents who are owners who are perhaps blocking progress at the moment. Those powers are not sought lightly and have been developed in the context of cladding specifically and in the next response to barriers that are experienced during the pilot phase of our programme. I want to speak about the cladding assurance register. We are an SBA report that identifies risks to human life associated with the buildings that are still in the wall cladding system and to work to mitigate or eliminate those risks. That building must, must be remedied accordingly. The cladding assurance register is intended to be a record of buildings that have been through the single building assessment progress. The process and where required, satisfactory remediation works identified in that assessment have been completed. This is key in ensuring that anacular record of remediation works undertaken is maintained and those with interests such as lenders and insurers can understand and take assurance from the scope of works undertaken in each building. I am conscious that, as part of the consideration of the bill, committee has raised a number of questions on whether that could be merit and added buildings to the register ahead of remediation works being completed. The register is not intended to highlight existing risks from cladding ahead of remediation and I am mindful that that approach could in fact be counterproductive. It is a long-standing principle of the programme but we do not release details of buildings or if any assessment or remediation work has been undertaken in relation to them. That approach is in line with requests from homeowners and residents to protect privacy and safety and reflects engagement with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and how best we ensure safety and security. I am also aware that the committee heard evidence that the cladding assurance register could be brought in to reflect wider issues of building or fire safety. My current view is that the register is and must remain focused on the risk posed by unsafe cladding and remediation is required to address the risk in order to preserve that internally consistent knowledge. That is the purpose of the bill. We will of course reflect on the views and suggestions that are shared ahead of stage 2 consideration of the bill as well as engaging directly with relevant stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and UK Finance as well as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service into a high-rise action group to understand how best to maximise the positive impacts of the register on their roles in industry and in people's lives. I should also add that the financial services, including mortgage lending, are a reserved matter and that the Scottish Government will continue to raise difficulties experienced by owners and prospective owners in assessing lending on buildings with potentially safe cladding with the UK Government. I can confirm that the Government intends to issue letters of confirmation to homeowners of orphaned buildings within the current pilot scheme. Developers, too, have obviously been it from this register. They get the opportunity to restore public confidence and the safety of their buildings and the reputation of those who construct and refurbish them. What we have done in this legislation is to create the conditions which developers can fully participate in remediation. The responsible developer scheme that we intend to create through secondary legislation will set the stage for developers to engage with their programme in the most constructive way. The UK Government has already established a responsible actor scheme that has similar aims. Developers want to participate, as evidenced by the nine developer commitment letters that have been signed. Naturally, we want to protect our construction industry from what is a tumultuous market, which is why they are looking to create a responsible developer scheme that can be flexible in the face of economic circumstances. We intend to use the scheme to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken and this is clearly spelled out to ensure that developers accept the responsibilities and we, the Government, display our accountability to the public. Thank the minister for taking the intervention on the responsible developers scheme. One of the criticisms around that, and this is a general criticism of the whole bill, is that it lacks clarity. For example, we do not have enough information on how it might work and who would be covered. Can the minister tell us that? Can he also tell us when he is speaking, how open he is to dealing with sensible amendments to the bill to clear up some of the confusion around it? One of the key things when I took the rolling, I took the cladding rolling, was the engagement process that I have met with the individual developers on a number of occasions. We have had roundtables of homes for Scotland in terms of the discussions going on about the SBA process and the process at that time. That will continue to go through part of the bill. I am happy to come back and mention that to the committee already when I have met them to update them on any discussions that we have had in that regard. Those discussions will continue with developers around the SBA and the responsible developer scheme that you mentioned. I want to come back to a few things. Obviously, woven through our fundamental duties is the obligation of responsibility for public finances. In this case, making it explicit and clear where developers must contribute will allow public funding to be focused on orphaned buildings, those buildings without a linked developer. Now that I am standing this, I reiterate my insurances to residents of orphaned buildings that this Government is committed to funding the remediation of orphaned buildings and to progressing this work. This has been considered and integrated into our future financial planning process in the remediation programme. Although I have responded in writing to the committee's report, I want to briefly mention the two following points. Whilst the Scottish Government did not consult specifically on the bill, the policy undermine it has been developed based on a period of significant and ongoing engagement with the stakeholders, the ministerial working group, the clad in nation programme stakeholder group, and from lived experience guard during the pilot phase of the programme. Continuing with the programme, we are committed to engaging closely with stakeholders, including homeowners and residents who have met a number of in the constituencies and virtually, and to ensure that comprehensive consultation is undertaken ahead of any secondary legislation that is being brought forward. Whilst the additional risks related to building safety or fire prevention may become evident during the process of assessing and meeting unsafe cladding, it is important to recognise that there are broader systems in legislation in place to manage those where they fall outside the scope of the cladding remediation programme. The committee has rightly considered many other issues such as building MOTs, which may merit wider consideration outside the scope of the bill. However, those provisions, the process and the timetable's expedited nature and narrow focus reflect the urgency from which we are treating the knownness to life associated. By introducing the bill, the Scottish Government recognises the acute problem that cladding represents in terms of life safety, the urgency of remediation for cladding and the need for transparency and accountability in how the Government exercises proportionate powers in the context of cladding. I look forward to continuing to work with members of all parties to secure those objectives as we continue to take the bill throughout Parliament. I move the motion in my name. I can confirm to members that we have time in hand this afternoon for interventions, and we will try to be generous in that regard. I now call on Ariane Burgess to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee up to 13 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's my pleasure to speak in this stage 1 debate on the Housing, Cladding and Remediation Scotland bill on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. The issue of potentially dangerous cladding is one that has affected many people's lives across the country since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. On behalf of the committee, I want to firstly thank all those who shared with us their personal experiences about the impact of living in or owning a property with cladding. During our scrutiny of the bill, many people also invested their professional time and experience in helping us understand what can often be very technical issues. We heard from panels of witnesses, including property owners and residents, developers, experts on building standards and fire safety, and representatives from the worlds of finance and insurance. Our call for written evidence received over 60 responses, and our thanks goes to all those who contributed. Presiding Officer, the dangers of potentially combustible cladding became terrifyingly clear in 2017, and it is now almost seven years since so many people lost their lives at Grenfell. Parliament agreed to an expedited timescale for this bill on the grounds that the Scottish Government wants to avoid any further delays to tackling the issue. As a result, our scrutiny was time limited but nonetheless thorough. The committee heard the personal testimonies of people who own or live in buildings with potentially unsafe cladding, and we know from those how important it is to them to finally have this issue resolved. People in both social and private housing are clearly still living in fear for their safety. Many have been unable to sell their properties to secure finance on them or to obtain insurance on them, and we have even heard how some property owners have died in the intervening years. The key message that we heard time and time again from witnesses was their frustration at the length of time it has taken to begin a cladding remediation programme in Scotland. The reality is that very little progress has been made in the past seven years with remediation. We heard from the Scottish Government that of the 105 buildings that are part of its cladding remediation programme, only one has yet had any works carried out and only one has had mitigation measures put in place. That frustration has led to concerns and skepticism about whether the bill will in reality make a difference. The minister assured the committee that the purpose of the bill is to tackle delays that are experienced with remediation. It is my sincere hope that this is the case, and indeed the committee supports the general principles of the bill and welcomes it as a step in the right direction. I understand that the Government intends to ensure that all buildings in the pilot phase of the remediation programme are on an SBA pathway this summer. However, there are a number of important issues which need to be addressed as we highlight in our report. Firstly, we need greater clarity about the purpose of the bill at the heart of the system which the bill proposes is a single building assessment or SBA. The SBA is a holistic survey of a building to establish what remediation works are required. Only once those works are completed can a building be entered into the cladding assurance register. The intention of that register will give residents peace of mind about their building safety and also the reassurance that the banks and the insurers need. It is therefore critical to have clarity on what the SBA involves and what work must be completed to enter the register. The Minister for Housing told the committee that the bill was about cladding remediation, but numerous experts told us that, at present, the scope of the SBA is not yet clear and, in turn, neither are the requirements for entry into the register. The SBA process currently picks up on many fire safety issues far beyond cladding. The Scottish Government needs to provide clarity about what exactly is being assessed in an SBA and provide consistency and certainty about how SBAs will be undertaken. I now understand that specification for the SBA will now be complete by May this year. As a means to establish this clarity, fire safety experts and surveyors that we heard from recommended the adoption of a methodology developed by the British Standards Institute to assess the fire risk of external walls and cladding. Called PAS 9980, that was developed in response to Grenfell and is now widely used in the UK. Whilst members of the committee are not experts in the technical detail, our witnesses told us that it would be common sense for this to be adopted into Scotland's cladding remediation programme. Our report therefore requests that the Scottish Government explore its application in carrying out SBAs. I am pleased that the minister has since confirmed that SBAs will align with the existing methodology in PAS 9980. As noted earlier, the bill provides that the buildings will be entered into the cladding assurance register after remediation works are completed. We heard strong arguments, however, for buildings to be entered onto that register at an earlier point in the remediation process. Instead of waiting some years for works to be completed, it was suggested to the committee that buildings could go onto the register after the SBA identifies any works that are required and plans are developed to undertake those works. There was widespread support for this approach, including from insurers and lenders. The committee would welcome the minister's reflections on this and has suggested that the Government explore this suggestion with those living in affected buildings. Clearly delivering the cladding remediation programme is a huge undertaking. The bill puts the onus on developers to pay for and carry out any remediation that is required. It was suggested to us that that responsibility could be extended to the wider supply chains, such as manufacturers or architects. However, the committee is in agreement with the Government that there are practical and legal arguments as to why it should be developers who bear the burden. However, we are concerned about the potential impact of this burden on smaller building companies who may not be able to bear the cost of remediation. Witnesses told us about the risk of SMEs becoming insolven and the impact that this could have on the industry and on home building. In England they have introduced a profitability threshold below which companies will not be held liable for remediation. We have therefore asked the Scottish Government to take this into consideration ahead of stage 2 and to carry out a full assessment of the potential impact on SMEs. When a building's developers are no longer in existence, those buildings are described as being orphaned buildings. For those, it will be for the Scottish Government to meet the cost of remediation. That will be a long-term and expensive programme of work for which thorough financial planning is required. The Government must ensure that such orphan buildings do not become a lower priority behind any remediation carried out by private developers. The minister assured the committee that orphan buildings would not be given a lower priority, but the committee would welcome the minister's reflections on how it will ensure that orphan buildings are remediated. There will be important practical considerations to delivering remediation to chiefly whether there are enough qualified professionals available in Scotland to undertake the work of assessing buildings. The committee notes the confidence that the minister and his officials have expressed in the availability of surveyors and fire engineers to undertake SBAs. However, the committee was consistently presented with a picture of skills shortages in these key sectors, which are essential to delivering the bill's ambitions. The committee was told that there is no course in Scotland to train fire engineers to fill that void. It is not immediately clear how this obstacle to the acceleration of the remediation programme will be overcome. The Scottish Government must work with that sector to ensure that it can develop a workforce of sufficient numbers and skills to deliver on the remediation programme. Finally, there is also one important element to delivering the remediation programme, which is much simpler to address. All stakeholder groups told the committee about how limited the communication with them has been over the past years. That has left them immensely frustrated. The minister has reassured the committee that improvements are being made, which is very welcome. The committee will be keen, however, to hear in the future from residents and owners to understand if they are seeing a genuine improvement in communication. I look forward to hearing the other contributions by members during the debate, and I will conclude by saying that the committee looks forward to working constructively with the Government throughout the process of this bill. More generally, we will continue to closely scrutinise the progress that is made and hope that the bill dramatically increases the pace of remediation. We must not forget that at the heart of this are people's lives, many of whom have been battling for years to get some resolution. I thank the organisations who have provided briefings and our committee clerks for their support on the report. The witnesses who have given, as the convener of the committee said, important evidence of how that has impacted on their lives. The bill is technical in nature, but, as with all framework bills, the devil will be in the detail in terms of the guidance and ministerial direction that comes from the bill. From the outset, I would put on record that I am concerned that the bill does not fill me with confidence that this is the only solution for these householders. Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time today, but we do so with real concerns in relation to the Government's limited progress today. Where the bill stands may not provide the solutions that home owners are desperately seeking to finally deliver the surveys and the framework to resolve any potential combustible cladding issues that their homes face. As at Edinburgh MSP, I have been working with home owners affected since the start of this whole process. From the outset, I want to state, as others have, that we need to make sure that they are at the heart of this bill. Almost seven years on since the tragedy of Grenfell Tower and almost three years since the Scottish Government began its building assessment process, we have seen very little progress to survey and take forward mitigation schemes. For many home owners who are resident in the 105 developments across Scotland, this has not only been a stressful time, it has also seen their lives put on pause, with home owners in many cases unable to sell, unable to ensure their property, unable to plan and with the added stress of not knowing what will happen to their homes or even being kept informed. That must change and this bill must be the start of a better process towards delivering a sustainable solution to cladding remediation here in Scotland. As I stated, it is concerning that the Scottish Government has failed to make any substantial progress that we should have seen. That is why the committee report is clear when we say that this has been concerningly slow. To date, of the 105 buildings within the Scottish Government's cladding remediation programme, only two have had any remediation work undertaken or mitigations put in place. That is in sharp contrast to England, where more than two-fifths of buildings, 42 per cent, have had work or either started or completed with the 1,608 buildings that the UK Government has in scope. That is why we need to see progress. It is understandable why industry witnesses, who have also given evidence to committee, have expressed their significant frustration as well at what they have seen in terms of slow progress in Scotland and a lack of leadership from the Scottish Government. There are a number of important areas that I want to highlight in the time that I have this afternoon. I think that we need to see important and swift changes to this bill at stage 2. The committee has heard clear calls for the scope of the single building assessment to be defined in the bill. A key ask has been made of ministers to work to make sure that the bill and the single building assessment within the bill would align with the past 9980. I think that ministers from what I have heard have accepted that that has to take place, especially for businesses operating across the UK. I believe that we should have seen a UK-wide scheme developed in the Scottish Government being part of that, but it is important now that the Scottish Minister drives forward this scheme in Scotland. Concerns have also been expressed around the cladding assurance register. I note the briefing from property mark, which came to MSPs. They state that it is important that the cladding assurance register is freely and easily available. The risk of not doing so is that the register will fail to motivate building owners to remediate properties, especially where the cost of works is high, and ensuring that the register is freely and easily accessible available also allows residents to play a role in enforcing and further motivating building owners to remediate properties and avoiding situations where local authorities do not have the capacity to investigate compliance. I think that compliance issue is one that is also lacking within the bill. Another important area is the right to recourse. As the local government committee work demonstrated, the UK building safety act 2022 and the legislation introduced to address cladding remediation in England gives responsible developers 30 years and a right to recourse in which suppliers or other actors in the supply chain who may also share liability can be held accountable. In Scotland under this bill, that window stands at just five years. That is another area that the Scottish Government should work to consider alignment with the UK bill and act as well. Often schemes have been mentioned, and that is an important aspect to this. The schemes here in Edinburgh and people who I have met and who are living in them are deeply concerned that they will find themselves at the end of a queue from remediation work. We need to make sure that a Government prioritises where often schemes where there is not a developer responsible any longer are prioritised as well. The responsible developer scheme is really important, and as a local government committee highlighted regarding the need for more detail around the scheme. For that to be on the face of the bill as well. We need, I believe, appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder engagement to take place now around what that looks like for stage 2. There are a number of issues that I also have highlighted during stage 1 and our committee work on this, particularly in relation to buildings that are not within the scope of the bill. I continue to be concerned with the student accommodation. I know that many student accommodation companies are already undertaking work in, and that is welcome. However, I think that the Government needs to consider the student developers and accommodation but also hotels not sitting within the scope of the bill. That is a piece of work, which the UK Government has included south of the border. However, I believe that, at stage 2, we should consider them being part of the bill as well, if we are going to seriously consider that this cladding issue has been appropriately addressed here in Scotland. As I stated at the start, the devil will be in the detail of the bill, but also what must be in the bill is information for residents impacted. So many have reported to the committee as the convener highlighted a complete lack of information provided to them. That has in many cases added to their stress as they have been hearing hearsay about their building, rather than facts. I hope that the minister and those who will be responsible for taking forward this work will also look towards a key information segment being part of this. We must see information to residents properly managed and reporting duties of ministers as well. For some people, they feel that this might not be resolved for another decade. That cannot be the case, so we do need to see reporting duties for ministers to Parliament so that we can scrutinise how funds are being spent and also how— Can you take an intervention? Yes, yes. Happy to be here, Mr Simpson. I thank Miles Briggs for taking the intervention. Does Miles Briggs agree with me that it's not just about ministers having reporting duties. It is about action so that we actually get people having work done on their properties. I'm less interested in hearing from the minister about how he's doing. I want to know what's happening on the ground. Miles Briggs? Absolutely. For so many people who have either given evidence to the committee or who are our constituents, that is where there is a huge frustration where they have been kept in the dark for too long, but also that when politicians are talking about this, that's one thing, but the solutions for the developers who are going to be tasked with making these buildings safe, undertaking the surveys, that must now progress at pace, and we must see constant reporting that this is resolved and that people can move on with their lives to sell their properties if they want to or get the insurance and also that people who are living in these buildings have peace of mind. That is probably the most important aspect at heart of this. We must never forget, as many speakers have said, that at the heart of this is people's homes and for those affected, this has not just been a stressful time, but it's one where they have felt that they have not been communicated with and the issues affecting their homes have been kept often in the dark from them. It's clear from the evidence in the discussions that we've had at committee that many buildings will also have specific, on-going management and factoring solutions needed. This isn't within the scope of this bill, but it's something that I think Government needs to look to take forward. Specifically, concerns have been raised, for example, with regards to electronic bikes and cars being stored or parked underneath buildings with cladding issues. The management risk around that is something that ministers cannot ignore and something that, although it is not within the scope of this bill, a factoring or safety management bill coming from this is probably something that ministers will also need to take forward. Deputy Presiding Officer, to conclude, the UK Government has now provided the Scottish Government with £97 million of Barnett consequentials to carry out assessments and remove this dangerous material from buildings. On Friday, we learned from the Scottish Government on published data that the Government has only spent £7 per cent or just over £7 million of that money to identify and remove dangerous cladding on buildings. That has been a failure to date on the behalf of this Government. Scottish Conservatives will work hard and scrutinise this bill at stage 2. I hope that ministers will work cross-party to make sure that this bill can be as good as it can for those of us who represent us who are looking to this Parliament for solutions. We welcome the debate and support the bill's general principles as we would any serious attempt to speed up cladding remediation in Scotland. For seven years, we have been urging the Scottish Government to take ownership and to urgently start removing the dangerously combustible materials from Scotland's homes. Indeed, the minister has spent the vast majority of his time in Parliament on that committee, urging the Government to take that very action alongside the convener, Mr Briggs, and others who have come and gone from the committee. The minister is now charged with delivering the very action that he was urging the Government to do. I want to thank the clerks to the local government housing and planning committee and all the organisations that have given evidence on the issue that the bill raises. The bill has dealt with a variety of complex and technical issues related to fire safety and building standards, but it is important to recognise what brought us to this point and why we are here today. That is the Grenfell disaster, which was a preventable tragedy that caused the death of 72 people. It is imperative that we in Scotland do everything that we can to avoid it a repeat of the events of that night in June 2017. Can the Government say that everything that can be done to remove dangerous cladding from our homes is being done? It has been claimed that pushing the bill through Parliament with no public consultation is to expedite work starting on cladding removal. That is all well and good, but it has taken seven years to develop a bill. It has taken seven years to get to this point, where the rest of the UK, England and Wales, have been powering ahead, not developing legislation but fixing the buildings, making them safe. The figures speak for themselves. In England, 1,608 buildings have started remediation works, with 797 of those now having removed or remediated the cladding completely. In Wales, 37 buildings in need of remediation have now been completed, with a further 86 due to start in the coming year. In Scotland, the total number of buildings that have been made safe comes to just two. The only thing that the Scottish Government has committed to is to put buildings on a pathway to single-buildings assessment by the summer of 2024. A million miles away from remediation itself, where is the drive? Where is the leadership that we need to fix Scotland's unsafe housing? I am not entirely sure that the bill demonstrates it. Cladding remediation is not a theoretical exercise. The issue of cladding has absolutely consumed people's lives, causing long-term worry and stress about the safety of their homes. It is having a financial impact on owners who are not able to sell, to ensure or to remortgage their properties. However, it is worse if the combustible cladding is not removed from those buildings. Every night, families living in those dangerous buildings go to sleep filled with dread and fear. Because of that Government in action, families have been living in that fear for far too long. The bill does have much to commend within it. We welcome the inclusion of a single-building assessment, for example, but it is clear from the cross-party committee report that there is so much more to do. We heard of the potential difficulties in implementing legislation because of a lack of clarity over what should be included in the assessment and how wider issues around hazards not directly related to cladding should be dealt with if they are found as part of the assessment. There is also a worrying lack of detail from the Government on what the responsible developer scheme will look like. With much of that detail being left to secondary legislation, there are residents and developers who want clarity on what the responsibilities will be, what owners and residents can expect to be delivered by the developers and developers themselves, what burden that they will be expected to take on. There is just not enough information on the single-building assessment, which is fundamental to the roll-out of the cladding scheme. We need to know what a single-building assessment is, what the specification is, what an assessment looks like and what standard it is assessing to. If we do not know how we can possibly determine whether it will speed up the removal and remediation of dangerous cladding in Scotland, because those assessments are a key part of the scheme and they are far too important to the process to remain undefined. There is no argument that there are risks that will be identified as a result of the assessment process, but what is unclear to me is why there is such scarce detail from the Government what they have provided and how it will then categorise the risks that they are identified. What should be done when a safety risk is identified by a building assessment? How will the bill speed up the process of removing cladding if we end up back in this Parliament, yet again in a matter of months or years, to talk some more about these issues? Frankly, the Government has had seven years. We have a bill, but surely the time to decide on these things has been long past and we will continue to push the Government to deliver a faster pace of remediation and the key information that we feel is missing from the bill. The necessary rushed nature of the bill and the lack of consultation and some of that lack of detail on relatively complex and technical proposals all lead to the committee's real concern that the bill is potentially not drafted or scrutinised enough to achieve its stated aim to provide certainty for developers and householders to expedite cladding remediation in Scotland. As one property owner put it to the committee, he said, my sense is that the bill does not deliver a sigh of relief or a fist pump, it is legalese, but does the bill address the key concerns of owners, not really, not until there is proof. The bill's aim is to put the building blocks in place to speed up cladding remediation in Scotland. We will follow that process closely and strive to ensure that we gain clarity from the Government on whether it will achieve that aim as it makes its way through Parliament. For those reasons, we support the principles of the bill at stage 1. However, for the safety of people living in unsafe homes, it must become an act that is laser-focused on driving this Government to deliver its cladding remediation programme. Mr Griffin, I now call on Willie Rennie to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There has been a lot of unfounded confidence from the Government over the years in its processes. Back in August 2021, when it launched the single building assessment, it said that it was consistent and robust and that it was fulfilling our commitment. In May 2022, it said that it was the next big step. In August 2022, it said that it was priority action. In March 2023, it was an absolute priority and, December last year, it returned to its original claim that the process was robust. That is why there is scepticism about this bill today, because the Government has been over-claiming with unfounded confidence for all of that time. We are seven years on from Grenfell, but we have hardly made any progress since. That is why people are sceptical about the process. The reality is that around about 1 per cent of the identified buildings have had completed works in Scotland, whereas in England it is 20 per cent, 42 per cent, for some of the buildings that have started work in England. The owner's group, Paul Turnbull, was very clear that he had a single building assessment for his home done in 2022, but absolutely nothing has happened since. Nothing at all. That is why there is scepticism. Because there are significant problems that come as a result of this, the anxiety and the stress that is felt has already been spoken about this afternoon, the sales that have been put on hold, the values that have potentially dropped, the insurance premiums that have gone up. Life has been in limbo for those people, I know some of them personally, and they have gone through great stress and anxiety through all that time. Sean Clark, on whom many in this chamber will know, has said that social housing tenants have been ignored through this process. We need to recognise the reality that hardly any progress has been made and that has compounded the agony for people who live in these circumstances. It is difficult to understand why the Government did not identify, as it is now identified, that the particular tenure process conditions in Scotland would not have been a factor on day 1. Why has it taken all that time, since 2021 and before that, for the Government to alight on this as being part of the problem, that somehow just encouragement would be sufficient, that compulsion would not be required, that somehow Scotland would all rally round and everybody would comply with what the Government wished? That was always laughable. It was never going to be delivered in that way. You needed a degree of compulsion. We have understood that with tenement buildings and that is why we had to introduce legislation in this Parliament for those one or two people who would refuse to comply with any common sense works that would require for a building. I do not understand and maybe the minister can illuminate us in his conclusion as to why the Government never recognised on day 1 that tenure was going to be a difficulty with this. Therefore, some degree of compulsion, rather than just encouragement, would be required. The bill, which we broadly support, because of the scepticism—we are not quite convinced, particularly because it is a framework bill that does not go into a tremendous amount of detail—was even more sceptical, but the ability to identify and remediate the responsible developer scheme, the prohibited developer's list, is an interesting one. We see a lot of developers who go bust at the drop of a hat when there are any difficulties with any developments. That is why you get some companies that have multiple companies associated with them that disappear overnight once their development is concluded. I would be interested to know how we make sure that those who have some connection with buildings are still held accountable for that, and we are aware of their heritage in this area. Local authority capacity to investigate compliance. We already know that local authorities are finding it incredibly difficult financially just now to be able to recruit the appropriate personnel, which ties in with the qualified assessor shortage to be able to deal particularly with the peak in demand that we hope will come from this. The scope of the single building assessment, we need some meat on the bones of this. We need to understand exactly how far this will go, and particularly what the issue is beyond cladding. If it is identified, there are some safety risks associated with the building. They need to be identified somehow in this process, rather than being limited just to the cladding issues. If we identify an issue, that needs to be public, so that people know what is involved in their building. The shortage of housing for decans will be a significant issue, because we have a housing emergency just now. I know from my constituency that it recently endured significant flooding. It was really difficult to find a home for everyone who was being made homeless as there is all those floods. That is going to be such a much bigger problem on a wider scale with the degree of buildings that we are talking about here. The Chartered Institute of Building at the end concluded the central problem with this. They said that this was an important first step. Seven years on, an important first step. This highlights the massive job that we have to do to make sure that this legislation works in practice and that we do not have yet more years of delay and yet more stress and anxiety for those homeowners and those residents. Mr Rennie, before we move to the open debate, could I please ask members to check those seeking to speak, that they have in fact pressed their request to speak buttons? I now call Willie Coffey to be followed by Pam Gozel. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to our committee convener and our hard-working clerks, who provided much-needed advice and guidance in the preparation of the committee's report, which was unanimously agreed by all the members. It is worth remembering that this is principally an issue for the developers and builders who built those homes with this clarding. There has been nothing stopping them from getting on with that remediation all this time. I have always said at committee that it is an issue for both Government and developers that dual responsibility. Some developers have been doing that, and it is to their credit that they have. Presiding Officer, I have been involved in a number of stage 1 committee reports over the years in this place, but this one was different. The level of scrutiny and inquiry that all of our committee members gave is understandable, given the subject matter, but it is a testament, I think, to their commitment to get this right, that they gave such forensic scrutiny of the Government's proposals for clarding remediation. I think that all the members deserve great credit for the work that they have done. Our witnesses too, some of whom are affected residents, offered us a valuable degree of rigor to get the bill right, that I sincerely hope stands as in good stead as we take the bill through its stages to become law. Thank you to all of them for helping to get us to where we are now. The minister, of course, reminded us where this all came from, the tragic events at Grenfell in London in 2017 where 72 people lost their lives. So our committee's work will play an important part in getting the bill right and providing that assurance to residents whose homes have clarding which needs to be replaced. One of the key issues for the committee and for many of those who gave evidence was whether the bill could or should include wider fire safety considerations beyond the clarding remediation intended at the outset. From the Government's response to that issue requested by the committee in recommendation 73, it is clear that the bill relates to buildings with clarding systems and is not a general fire safety bill. While wider risks may well emerge during the assessment and remediation of a building, the Government states that we should recognise that there are broader systems and legislation in place to manage these where they fall out with the scope of this clarding remediation bill itself. The Government makes this point again as part of recommendation 93 in relation to the clarding assurance register. The committee rightly asked for clarity on the exact specification for the single building assessment. I note again from the Government's response that the single building assessment will include the fire risk appraisal of external walls system, which is based on the industry standard PAS 9980, and it will also include a fire risk assessment that will survey the internal fire safety measures, including internal compartments of buildings, to assess risks that may be created or exacerbated by the building's external clarding. That, to me, if I have understood this correctly, will provide additional assurance for residents about some of those wider fire safety matters that are important to many of the residents that we heard from. As ever, I would welcome a comment from the minister in winding up if that is the case. It is also welcome that the Government has agreed that tolerable risk will form part of the single building assessment process, rather than the initial proposal to have a binary safe or unsafe designation that could have meant—yes, of course it will. I thank Willie Coffey for taking the intervention. What does he understand by the phrase tolerable risk? It provides a degree of risk so that a building is neither. It is not just safe or unsafe, because the feeling was that that could have brought many buildings within the register that may, in fact, be safe. So giving a degree of risk was felt to be much more helpful and appropriate. An important part of the bill's provisions is to establish the clarding assurance register, a document that will provide consistent information and assurance to residents and mortgage and insurance providers about the status of a building. A key consideration for the committee was when can a building be entered into that register. Could it be at an earlier stage to provide some initial assurance that work will be under way, or should it be on completion of the work, to give that final assurance that the work was actually completed? The Government's response to those recommendations on that issue seemed to me to point to the latter, citing that including properties that have not yet been remediated on a register could potentially impact on both the privacy and the safety of residents who are affected and, therefore, would not normally be considered. However, as we have heard from the minister in his opening remarks, the Government has agreed to give further consideration to that specific issue at stage 2. The final area that I want to mention is the proposal to introduce the responsible developer scheme. Some of our developer witnesses asked for more details to enable them to scrutinise that in advance of the legislation coming to pass, and a few of the members in the chamber today have made references to that. The Government's position is that, by providing that in secondary legislation, that gives us greater flexibility and aligns us with the process being adopted by the UK Government, too. The process to agree a Scottish Safer Building's developer remediation contract is under way in my understanding that it also mirrors the approach that is being taken down south. I said at the outset that the degree of examination by our committee members to the many issues presented to us in the cladding remediation bill has been really thorough and will hopefully be recognised by other members of the Parliament in the chamber today. The bill itself may be relatively small, but it is an incredibly important piece of work for us all. Where we can improve it, let's make sure that we do. Getting that right is crucial, and so I look forward to the contributions of other members as the debate develops today. As a member of the local government, housing and planning committee, I am pleased to contribute to today's important debate on the cladding remediation bill. I also put my thanks on record to everybody that gave evidence, and I thank you to the clerks and all the work that they have done as well. In 2017, the Grenfell Tower fire tragically claimed the lives of 72 people. To prevent a similar tragedy from occurring in Scotland, we can all agree that there is an urgent need to identify and remove highly combustible and dangerous cladding. Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the Scottish Government's efforts to remediate buildings have been shockingly slow. The UK Government has successfully remediated 797 buildings in England, but only two out of 105 buildings included in the Scottish Government's own remediation programme have had work carried out. Of the £97 million so far provided by the UK Government for cladding remediation, only 7 per cent of that has been spent by the Scottish Government. I am not about to delay progress further by voting against this bill at stage 1, but make no mistake that the bill in its current form will not bring about meaningful improvement in the pace of the remediation programme. Even though the single building assessment is central to the bill, neither the committee, nor the stakeholders, nor the minister are clear on its specification, what it looks like, or the standards that it is assessing to. The single building assessment specification is in development and is due to be published by the end of May 2024. It is simply not good enough from the minister. That raises questions about the key stage of the entire remediation plan and is far too significant to remain unclear at this point. One major concern throughout the evidence sessions was the binary nature of a single building assessment, so I am pleased to note that the consideration has been given to base the fire risk assessment external wall surveys on the PAS 9980 model, tailored to the Scottish context. That model is popular among professionals and offers more flexibility than is widely used across the United Kingdom. In his response to the committee, the minister insists that this is not a wider bill about fire safety. However, the single building assessment may well identify issues that are the responsibility of home owners or factors to remediate. That may cause further problems down the line for mortgage lending and home insurance if the building requires all identified remedial works completed before it can be listed on the cladding assurance register. Furthermore, homes for Scotland observe a distant absence of information regarding what information is to be provided in the register, which parties have the obligation to fulfil for entry on to the register, who is in charge of the oversight and accuracy of the register, as well as the deadlines and parameters for adding properties to the register. Again, the minister's response leaves far too many of the important details of cladding register to be ironed out at a later stage. I am hoping that today the minister will be able to shed some more light on those questions. From our committee evidence sessions, it is clear that, in Scotland, we do not have a framework nor mechanisms in place to assess and address the safety of Scotland's homes. We should seriously look at a creation of a register that assesses fire safety over time because we cannot have a repeat of that. Developers were building to the correct standards at the time and now they will be forced to pay the price for doing so. It is a dangerous precedent to set, and that is why we must look at ways, even if separate from this legislation, to monitor buildings over time. Many SME developers, if unable to make the financial commitment to remediate, would, under the bill, seize to operate. Homes for Scotland told the committee that the absence of threshold in the bill will put Scottish SMEs at a much higher risk of failure than their equivalents in England. I remain deeply concerned about the lack of detail on that issue in the bill. The Scottish Government's effort to remediate buildings has been astonishingly slow, and all we have before us today is a draft bill that leaves us with more questions than answers. It is unclear what the scope of the bill is, who it will affect, and the timescales from completing remediation. For as far as industry is concerned, this lack of detail is incredibly disappointing. While the bill is disappointing, it is at least a small step in the right direction, and I will therefore be supporting it at stage 1 today. Like my colleague Miles Briggs said, more needs to be done to get this bill right. It is too important to become law when it is only half completed. In the coming weeks, the Scottish Conservatives will be working constructively to ensure that we can achieve the bill that Parliament and Scotland deserve. As a member of the local government, housing and planning committee, I am pleased to be contributing to today's stage 1 debate on the housing, planning and remediation Scotland Bill. I thank everybody who provided evidence and extend my thanks to the clerks. The Grenfell tragedy shocked us all, and my heartfelt condolences got to those impacted by this devastating event. The bill underscores the Scottish Government's commitment to ensuring the safety of Scotland's residents, firefighters and communities. However, before I continue, I would like to emphasise the importance of putting risks into perspective, particularly in our communications with the public. During an evidence session, Jim McGonagall from the Institution of Fire Engineers stated that the fire statistics in Scotland do not highlight a problem. Fewer than 1 per cent of fire spread beyond the flat of fire origin. He also noted that, over the past decade, there has been a significant 57 per cent reduction in the number of fires and flats above six storeys. An additional safety measures already introduced in Scotland such as sprinkler systems and smoke alarms have mitigated many risks. It is crucial to emphasise this point given the potential for misguided messaging to feel further fear and distress within our communities. With that said, we must not be complacent, and agreeing the bill's aims is a critical step towards expediting the cladding remediation programme. However, there are specific aspects that I wish to address to ensure that proposals within the bill affect meaningful improvements. Those include considering the experiences of affected residents and home owners, as well as reviewing the specification of the single-building assessment. The emotional toll of residing in effective properties cannot be overstated. Barrett developments rightly emphasise the disruption and impact that the remediation process can have in people's livelihoods. For example, where sunlight is limited and insulation is removed from apartments, so while accelerating remediation is essential, effective communication is equally vital. It is imperative that timely and accurate progress updates reach stakeholders, especially residents in affected buildings. However, I appreciate that that poses a complex challenge as it requires communicating with residents living in diverse buildings with unique communication needs, and that responsibility should not solely fall in the Scottish Government. Building developers must also share responsibility in keeping home owners and residents informed. Following the single-building assessment pilot project, it is promising to see the Scottish Government acknowledging communication as an area for improvement and actively scoping out strategies to enhance its approach. That uncertainty has sparked debate. Should assessments always target cladding or adopt a more holistic approach to building fire safety, on that point, there are existing systems in legislation addressing broader fire safety concerns. The primary focus of the bill relates to the cladding that is clarified by the minister. It is important to eliminate ambiguity on the bill's objectives. Furthermore, the committee heard the benefits of aligning the SBA with pass 9980. It is essential to recognise that that alignment requires adjustments to suit Scotland's unique context rather than simply adopting a policy from the UK Government. With that said, in his letter to the committee, the minister stated that the Scottish Government has agreed to base the fire risk appraisal of external walls in pass 9980, tailored to specific circumstances. Amid those challenges, the minister deserves credit for including developers in the SBA task and finish group to ensure their valuable input in discussions and SBA specifications. I look forward to the publication of the SBA specification by me and hope that it will support the programme to progress at pace. Further delays are unacceptable, as others have already indicated. I also acknowledge the considerable financial challenges experienced by homeowners affected by combustible cladding when buying, selling and remortgaging properties, including issues around loans and escalated insurance costs. The cladding assurance register in the bill is a welcome step, providing reassurance to lenders and insurance providers by documenting assessed and remediated buildings. However, some stakeholders have suggested that adding buildings to the register before remediation is complete would quickly mitigate those financial issues. Yet, Presiding Officer, we cannot afford to compromise on safety nor can we afford to risk incomplete developer commitments. Although the committee has not reached a consensus and financial services are beyond the Scottish Government remit, I thank the minister for addressing those concerns with stakeholders and seeking additional advice on the early entry to the cladding assurance register prior to stage 2. Turning the single building assessment, referred to as the SBA, is central to the remediation programme, yet evidence from the pilot project has highlighted uncertainties regarding the scope of those assessments and its specification, which in turn has hindered progress. The bill strengthens our efforts to address the issues that are caused by dangerous cladding. I look forward to hearing from the minister and gaining further insight into how the Scottish Government plans to address the concerns raised today as we prepare for stage 2. I ask colleagues to support the general principles of the bill. The purpose of a stage 1 parliamentary debate is to agree the general principles of a bill. I think that we can all agree with the general principles of this bill, but we are regularly lectured by Government ministers that you cannot will the end if you do not will the means to it. Government ministers have had the means to this end now for years. Barnett consequentials of £97 million since 2021, a further £300 million allocated almost all of it unspent. I pursued the previous cabinet secretary on this question going back three years because I have never understood the Government's absolute indifference to the sense of urgency that the rest of us get. Every day that goes by with no remedial action means another night for families, for children not knowing whether they are going to be the next victims. The Grenfell Tower tragedy, which claimed the lives of 72 people, was nearly seven years ago. It is nearly three years since the Scottish Government started assessing high-rise blocks for fire safety risks, and yet we know that out of 105 affected buildings in Scotland, only one block on one site, Glasgow Harbour, has had dangerous cladding removed and only one block on one site has had any mitigation work carried out. No wonder the Fire Brigades Union told me yesterday and let me quote them, this lack of meaningful progress is reprehensible and continues to show contempt for those living and working in these buildings. So I say to the minister, where is the sense of urgency? Where is the duty of care? If we are debating general principles this afternoon, what about the principle of keeping our people safe and secure? What about the principle of the right to food to clothing and to shelter? What about the principle of subsidiarity, of dweller control? What about the principle of people before profit? I could only conclude that too little attention is being paid to the interests of the people whose homes they are and too much attention to the vested interests of the industry, the professionals and the bureaucrats. When I asked back in December 2021 about resident and tenant participation, I was told and let me quote the now Deputy First Minister, no tenants or owner occupiers of high-rise flats with high-pressure laminate or aluminium composite materials are on the ministerial working group on building and fire safety, none. But wait, in that same parliamentary answer I was informed the cladding programme stakeholder group does include an owner occupier, one out of 14 listed members of the group. What ministers need to grasp is that there is an equal struggle here between the rights of citizens and residents and the power of the profit takers and the corporations, that this is not about welfare, people are not looking for private benevolence but for social justice. This year is the centenary of the birth of the great left libertarian thinker on housing, Colin Ward, who said, a goal which is infinitely remote is not a goal at all. It is a deception and it is a source of amazement to me that there has not been a popular revolt about this. On some of the bill's fundamentals, there are improvements that can be made. There should be a clear timetable for implementation on the face of the bill. The details of the responsible developer scheme should be in this bill, not in secondary legislation or regulation. Often developments must be covered, of course they must, and they should be treated equally. The establishment of a cladding assurance register is welcome, it should not wait and it must be available for public inspection. What about local government and housing association properties? What about other public buildings that may be affected? What about other flammable materials like high pressure laminate? We owe it to the memory of those 72 people who died on 14 June 2017 and in the following days to their families who can never be compensated for their loss for people like those firefighters who saved so many lives at Grenfell who we learned last year are now themselves suffering from rare terminal cancers, some aged only in their 40s. For all of their sakes we need to get this right, but getting it right should not mean taking our time. If we learned something over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is that doing the right thing as a community and acting in the right way as legislators can be done at speed. That is a lesson that I hope that the minister and the Government will finally heed when Parliament votes for this bill tonight. I begin by offering my apologies to the chamber for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate due to a pressing meeting. The issue of cladding on multi-storey buildings may not strike people as very relevant to a constituency like mine, where buildings over three storeys in height are practically non-existent and where even those with three storeys are in a small minority. However, people in my constituency, as elsewhere, have family in the cities and so some are affected by the cladding issue often financially. I would like to begin today by outlining one such case in anonymised form, and I hope that it serves to illustrate the predicament that has been faced by many families across Scotland since the appalling tragedy at Grenfell. I believe that all that points to the clear need now for new legislation on the subject, such as that that we are discussing today. Indeed, it makes the case for finding all possible new ways to expedite assistance given the time that many have already waited. My constituent purchased a small flat in a multi-storey block in Glasgow, completing the sale only a few weeks after the Grenfell disaster in May 2017. Her intention was to use the flat as a home for her son, who was at university in the city, and that was indeed how the flat was initially used. By the time her son had completed his course, however, legislation had changed, making the building impossible to let out and very difficult to sell. That was because, under the new cladding legislation, the top two floors of the building above my constituent's flat were found to have what was now identified as an unacceptable type of cladding. That cladding had most likely been installed when the building had earlier been converted from offices to flats. Although my constituent's own flat was not clad in this material, the whole building was very understandably deemed to be affected until such time as the problem upstairs could be rectified by its owners, which it never was. My constituent realised that, if she wanted to resell the flat, this could now only realistically be done by offering it to a cash buyer, as nobody would mortgage the property whilst the issue of the cladding on the floors above remained unresolved. The limited market available for a sale of this kind means that she is now looking at making a loss of £30,000 on the property, something that represents a major financial blow to her. I have little doubt, Presiding Officer, that other members here have constituents in similar situations. Indeed, we have already heard members allude to some such examples this afternoon. We clearly need legislation that will speed up the process of putting those situations right. As I believe this bill will, to some extent, do by addressing the present barriers to assessment and to remediation work. Aside from the safety issue itself, as others have pointed out, dangerous cladding has had serious consequences for many people. In addition to the sense of insecurity in one's own home, which the situation creates, it sometimes also has crippling financial consequences. In response to those problems, the bill will create a cladding assurance register and responsible developer scheme, while facilitating potential costs and sanctions if developers fail to comply. As laid out in the programme for government, the Scottish Government has introduced this legislation with another aim in mind, too, to create a new power to undertake urgent measures to remediate unsafe cladding that presents a risk to life. I would welcome anything that can achieve that end. The Scottish Government is already seeking to identify and address unsafe cladding on buildings across Scotland, but I think that all would acknowledge the need to speed up the process. The cladding remediation bill will accelerate that work and provide further reassurance and safeguards for owners and residents. The responsible developer scheme that the bill creates would also give some recognition to those developers who are doing the right thing and who are working to remediate their buildings. The Government has acknowledged the need to do more on communication, and I would welcome the measures on the bill that seek to help to achieve that, too. The cladding remediation bill that was introduced at pace and is now undergoing extensive parliamentary scrutiny is, I hope, a positive contribution to fixing a problem that all acknowledge has gone on for too long. Those problems are, of course, by no means unique to Scotland. In Wales, the Government there presently faces calls to release the remediation data on buildings with cladding that would allow for action. Nor, I think, would the Scottish Government claim that this bill will solve every problem faced by every family who has been waiting for action on their own property. I do believe, however, that this proposed legislation is a major contribution towards breaking that log jam, which has been creating such stress for so many people, including my own constituent, and a great number more. Although the tragedy at Grenfell was of an order that stands entirely on its own, we now all have a duty to work together to find solutions to ensure that buildings in Scotland are safer to live in, and so, too, must we find ways of alleviating the unforeseen financial problems that so many families still face? I speak in this debate as a member of the local government housing and planning committee when our reports criticising the bill was completed. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance with the production of this report. We received very helpful evidence from a range of expert witnesses and those with lived experience and found that extremely helpful in reaching our conclusions. I am glad that the committee supports the general principles of the bill and welcomes it as a step towards accelerating the remediation programme. We are all aware of the tragic events of 14 June 2017. A high-rise fire broke out in the 24-story Grenfell tower block in north Kensington, London. 72 people died with more than 70 injured and over 220 escaping, but being traumatised. The fire was started by an electrical fault in a refrigerator on the fourth floor, and that spread rapidly up the building's exterior, accelerated by the dangerously combustible aluminium composite cladding and external insulation. Grenfell tower stands as a symbol of symptomatic failures and social injustices. It represents the neglect of marginalised communities, a disregard for basic safety standards and the prioritisation of profit over human life. Every person there had lives, loves, hopes, dreams and aspirations. Their memories serve as a reminder that this cannot be allowed to happen again. In light of this tragedy, it has been concluded that extensive work is required here in Scotland to ensure that a similar event does not happen. The housing cladding remuneration bill must be a piece of legislation that makes housing in Scotland safer. The committee has worked on a cross-party basis to secure a report that will be helpful at identifying how the bill can be improved at later stages and how engagement must happen with those living in affected buildings. We make recommendations on a range of issues that need addressed and clarified. Very recently, the minister provided a detailed reply to our recommendations, and that will be studied in detail by the committee. On the face of it, the responses recognise the issues that we face have considerable merit, and I welcome his commitment to work them through and engage with many stakeholders as the bill progresses. The bill will ensure that the Scottish ministers can assess and take action on certain buildings with unsafe cladding. It will also allow the Scottish Government to create and retain a cladding assurance register to give residents confidence about the assessment and works undertaken once those buildings are mediated. The Scottish Government must ensure that the timing of the bills entry onto the cladding assurance register should not delay resolution for the issues that are faced by owners and residents. It would also see the opportunity for the future creation of the responsible developer scheme that would recognise those developers who are doing the right thing and protect the reputation of responsible operators. However, it is noted that it may not be financially viable for all developers to finance remediation, and there are concerns about the potential impact of responsible developer schemes on SMEs. We want the Scottish Government to fully engage with that ahead of stage 2 by assessing the risk. We are determined to safeguard people living in buildings with potentially unsafe cladding. The bill has been introduced quickly to ensure that any safety hazards are dealt with swiftly. By proactively addressing the issue, we can help to restore trust and competence in our housing stock for residents. To this end, it is important that the Scottish Government ensures effective communications with residents and owners so that they have competence in the process and an indication of when the remediation programme might be completed. I would also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to regular report on the progress of the remediation programme to ensure that the bill has resulted in the acceleration in the process. The Grenfell strategy caused a lot of anger, upset and, ultimately, fear among those living in tower blocks. The bill can demonstrate the Scottish Government's commitment to the wellbeing of our residents, and I hope that with the issues clarified, the bill can reassure them that their voices are being heard and that their safety is paramount. Every individual has the right to feel safe and secure in their home, and this bill must be one step further to help our citizens to feel protected. We therefore support the broad principles of the bill, but there is much to be improved and clarified before stage 2 of the bill. It is essential that the Scottish Government responds positively to all the recommendations in the report, and it will send a strong message that the safety and wellbeing of Scottish citizens are a clear priority for the Scottish Parliament. Let's start at the beginning. Others have rightly said that this whole issue began when Grenfell Tower turned into an inferno, killing 72 people in June 2017. It was a scandalous mass tragedy that could have been avoided had inflammable cladding not been on the building. You would think that there would have been a UK-wide response to find out which other buildings had unsafe cladding and schemes in all parts of the UK to help home owners unable to sell, a ban on said unsafe cladding and a programme of removal in a second. However, here we are, nearly seven years on in Scotland, with a bill that the Government didn't even consult on. It was actually the UK Government that decided on an England-only approach. It wasn't the Scottish Government decision, it was a UK Government decision to go down an England-only approach. It's an important point to mention. I know that the minister hasn't been in post long, but I can tell the minister that a number of us, including Jeremy Balfour, myself and others, have been going on about this for years and demanding action from the Scottish Government, which hasn't come. As the committee report says, I'm quoting, progress with cladding remediation programme in Scotland has been slow with just one building out of the 105 so far having remediation works carried out. The Scottish Government has introduced this bill in order to address some of the issues behind these delays, close quotes. There's a sharp contrast between the pace of response here to that in England, and I don't seek to make any kind of political capital out of that. It's just a fact. As far back as 2020, I and others, including Mr Balfour, were calling for a ban here on combustible cladding, but that appeared to be too difficult a concept to grasp. The lack of urgency here in Scotland is illustrated by this, and I'm going to repeat it. Although the Scottish Government has committed to ensuring that all the 105 buildings in its remediation programme are on a pathway to a single building assessment by summer 2024, as of December 2023, in England, 1,608 buildings—that's 42%—have either started or completed remediation works. I'm quoting from the committee report. Of these, 797 buildings—that's 21%—have completed remediation works. Of the £97 million so far provided by the UK Government to the Scottish Government for the purposes of cladding remediation, just £7 million has been spent. That is 7%. These issues have been known about for some time, and despite that, this bill is a rushed bill. It suffers from that in vague language, which has no place in legislation. The law society highlighted concerns about a lack of clarity around the definitions of terms like development, risks to human life, undergone development, premises and the interrelationship between single building assessment, single building assessment report and works. That's not good enough, and the bill, if it's to proceed, must be vastly improved. I have to say, listening to the Minister earlier, I was not filled with much hope that it will be improved. Secondary legislation has its place, but I do not like to see it overused. The committee says that it can allow some flexibility in the operation of the responsible developer scheme, but the lack of detail currently available creates significant concern for developers, and it quite rightly calls for greater detail being included within the primary legislation in relation to that scheme. I expect the committee's support, if I lay an amendment, to that effect. Members will know that I chair the Tenement Maintenance Working Group, which reported in the last session of this Parliament. We've been dealing with some of the issues covered in the committee's excellent report. We reconvened this session, and we're working with the Scottish Law Commission, who are doing extensive work ahead of producing proposed legislation, probably in the next session. Hardly a rushed job. I asked some of our experts to cast their eyes over this bill and suggest where it could be improved. We've alighted on section 6 of the bill, which gives the Scottish Minister's power to arrange remediation work, which has been identified in the single building assessment report as being needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life that are directly or indirectly created or exacerbated by the building's external wall cladding system. However, SBAs carried out under the pilot scheme have identified other fire-related safety works, such as a lack of adequate fire escapes. I'll be looking at an amendment to tackle that. Homes for Scotland have outlined some key and, I have to say, rather obvious concerns. It's not clear what the single building assessment actually is. The cladding assurance register is fine to keep a record of what properties to date have been remediated, but there's a lack of clarity as to what information will be provided, the obligations of which parties are required to complete work for registration, who will be responsible for continual monitoring, and the time scales and scope for inclusion of properties. On the responsible developers scheme, again we got no joy from the Minister earlier, there's not enough information on how it might work, who is covered, but it gives the Scottish Government with the ability to prevent businesses from operating in Scotland if they fail to comply with terms that are not yet known. That's not good enough, and it's quite different from the situation in England. My own view, Presiding Officer, is that the Bill isn't good enough as it stands. I am disappointed by the Minister's response so far. I will very reluctantly support its general principles, but that support will expire if there are no improvements as the Bill progresses. I note that there are 13 high-rise buildings and scope in the wider Falkirk district, none of which are in my constituency of Falkirk East. However, I am interested in the Bill because of the potential impacts on people and business, specifically SMEs. For the record, I have no declarable interests nor ever have had in house building. Firstly, I note that this Bill is another framework bill. As a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we've raised multiple times the implications of framework bills, where the knob of the issues is left to secondary legislation and I express my concern here again today. I note that this was backed up by crudent investments who state, it is concerning that all detail will be left to secondary legislation, which will be unlikely to receive the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. In that respect, it is immaterial whether the same approach has been adopted in England and Wales. Can I start by discussing SMEs further? Few, if any, in this chamber will have run an SME Bill's houses. I too have not, but know enough about the sector to surmise that the trading environment is difficult. While coming out of the Covid pandemic saw an increase in activity, this has been accompanied by a significant increase in base costs exacerbated by Brexit and the cost of living crisis. There are considerable risks and margins can often be tight. This was backed up by evidence from the likes of Robertson homes, where they note that SMEs do wish to act responsibly in a matter of remediation of homes, but simply do not have the same heft as larger householders. The representative from Robertson homes also made a critical point that many SMEs are debt funded and that, therefore, a liability for remediation may render the business insolvent. I add to that point, based on my knowledge of commercial banking contracts, and note that even a simple technical breach of this liability appearing in a balance sheet, not a natural default in making repayments, could allow the lender to seek repayment of any facility on demand. There is precedent of large banks using commercial contract clauses in this way, despite businesses trading solvent and meeting all their financial obligations. I simply note it as a warning. Another area of risk for SMEs is liability, where exist the very likely scenario that subcontractors have been used. I agree with the Law Society of Scotland that, in this case, the builder would have legal remedies, but in acting those remedies will be time consuming and this will impact the ordinary people caught up in this situation. I must admit that I support the call from Homes of Scotland for Scotland of a 10 million threshold for the responsible developers scheme, similar to that in England. My concern is that, without it, we run the list of losing more small house builders at a time when there is huge pent-up demand and chronic undersupply for housing. With that in mind, I ask the minister, yes, of course. I thank Michelle Thompson for taking the intervention. Would Michelle Thompson want that kind of level of detail on the face of the bill? It may well be extremely difficult because I accept a lot of this being worked through. I have made a comment in which I stand by about secondary legislation, but I am also sympathetic to the challenge for the Scottish Government in all honesty, because this is a highly complex area. With some of the comments that I made previously in mind, I ask the minister what detailed and specific assessment has been made of the potential impact on SMEs of the scenarios that I outlined above. I turn now to the people involved. People who would have been shocked as we all were about the tragedy of Grenfell, but now find themselves, years later, trapped in a property that they cannot sell or remortgage—mortgage prisoners in their own home. I remain to be convinced that Government—and I mean any Government in this respect, in general—understand how lenders treat risk. They are not swayed by concerns for citizens, but by a complex set of algorithms where heads the lenders win and tails the borrowers lose. The application of this risk assessment hits Scotland disproportionately harder as there are simply less lenders in our market. Ensurers, too, will make decisions based on risk. Ordinary premiums have seen a huge rise in recent years, again, thanks to Brexit and the cost of living crisis. I suggest that some properties caught up in this cladding remediation challenge are uninsurable or have such punitive clauses that the insurance is rendered worthless, even if it could be afforded. I accept that the Scottish Government wishes, as we all do, to see faster progress in this matter. It is a commitment to have all buildings on a pathway to a single building assessment within the next few months. However, what does this actually mean? It could be as simple as booking in an assessment, not that it has actually taken place. We know that the assessment is simply the starting point of getting the go-ahead for the works, bearing in mind some will likely involve multiple subcontractors across multiple trades, where we already have a shortage of some resources, a grain cost in a still and high inflation environment, drawn from multiple quotes, communicated with all residents and other stakeholders that are all immensely time consuming. I would be grateful if the minister could outline more detail than this point by what is meant by pathway. I have a few comments before I bring to a close and a single building assessment. Barrett developments in their written submission are a scenario in which internal fire doors have not been maintained. That is the responsibility of either factor or residents themselves. Without that being completed, they cannot be added to the cladding register, and the Scottish Government makes clear that only finished buildings will be. I understand that the plan is to limit works to remediation, but there clearly are complexities in that area. I suspect that that is the sort of thing that needs to be worked through in subsequent phases. My final comments regard funding for the likes of orphan buildings. I recognise that most of the money's allocator are yet to be spent, and the comments of the Scottish Government say that the funding of the programme has been considered and integrated into the future financial planning process. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, and indeed the Finance and Public Administration Committee, have called for longer site funding in general terms. If that can be set out for the remediation programme, and I would certainly welcome that, I will be pleased to see it in, hopefully, other areas to as part of general good practice. Thank you, Ms Thomson, and I call Michael Marra up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, it was absolutely clear that the Government would have to act to ensure that such a tragedy could never be repeated. Prior to my election in 2021, I was deputy director of the Labour Human Research Centre for Forensic Science in Dundee, and my team carried out much of the review of the fire scene investigation for the public inquiry. I have to say that, working with those members of staff, I saw the great distress that they were in just having to review the evidence some months on. I cannot begin to imagine what it was like to be in the scene on that evening. This was a fire that should never have spread, but it became a blazing infernal towering over West London in 72 of our fellow citizens perished. They were victims of corporate greed and of official incompetence and of a political culture that systematically devalued their lives. Residents were living in a dangerous building, but they did not know it. Government and the laws in place had failed them. In nearly seven years on, only one thing has actually changed. We do now know that there is potentially dangerous cladding on many buildings across the country, but the real question is what has the Government, this Government, actually done about it? Of the 105 buildings in the Scottish Government's cladding remediation programme, only two have had any work carried out at all. Instead, we have a commitment from the Scottish Government that all 105 buildings will be on a pathway to a single building assessment by this summer. I would echo Michelle Thomson's question in that regard to what does that actually mean. I think that the minister should be telling the chamber now. Three months to go and it's pretty clear that the progress is glacially slow, and that is, of course, before any real work is done to remediate the situation way, way before. The UK Government has provided £97 million to the Scottish Government for the purposes of cladding remediation to date less than £5 million has been spent. Meanwhile, in England, 42 per cent of buildings identified for remediation works have either had that work started or completed. The contrast is stark. That record is certainly not a rate of progress that any of us would want to see. Across the islands, the totality of progress has been far too slow, and the horrors of Grenfell, frankly, have faded far too quickly in the memories of both Governments. This rate of progress really does matter. For residents, it could be a matter of life or death, and every day that remediation works are delayed is another day that lives are being put at risk, and children are living in these conditions and the stress that causes, as highlighted by my colleague Richard Leonard. That slow progress speaks to, frankly, a lack of commitment from the Government. They have to admit it. The drive and prioritisation has been completely absent, and it has been noted that the Committee's stage 1 report says that the slow process of remediating cladding and properties, thus far in Scotland, led some witnesses to doubt whether the bill will bring about any material change in the near future. That is the ancillary damage of Government in action. It chips away at people's belief that Government can do anything that action will ever materialise, and it erodes faith in our institutions in Scotland, but why is delivery always so difficult for this Government? Why? Swift action is needed to make buildings safe, but it also must be the right action. The local government committee has voiced serious concerns about the rushed nature of the legislative process. I frankly beg as belief that we are back here with another framework bill. That forced the committee to narrow the scope of its stage 1 inquiry to certain parts of the bill on an issue of such vital concern. The report also raised the number of issues that arose during the committee's scrutiny, which would have been considered and resolved prior to the introduction of the bill if the Scottish Government had carried out a comprehensive consultation. Seven years have passed since Grenfell. The Scottish Government has had the time to do the background work to get this bill right. How can we be in such a procedural mess once again? Why is this another framework bill? Why do we have no consultation? Why is so much of this to be resolved in secondary legislation? It is certainly not time that is being lacking. The evidence that I talked about at the start of this speech that was presented to the public inquiry was presented in 2018. It has taken so long for this Government to get any of this work done at all. Aside from the most pressing risks of safety, the cladding saga has impacted on homeowners in a range of ways. Some have seen many thousands of pounds wiped off the value of their properties, some have been unable to ensure or to sell their properties at all. The experience of homeowners post Grenfell could very easily be replicated in the unfolding rack crisis in Aberdeen. Two weeks ago, residents in 500 properties in the Balnegask area of Torrey, Aberdeen, were informed of the presence of potentially unsafe, reinforced, autoclaved, aerated concrete in their homes. That is a deeply worrying time for all those that are affected. Many constituents have contacted me seeking support and clarification in recent days. Some have been quoted figures as high as £15,000 for repairs. Some have been told that their insurance policies are no longer valid. All are worried about the safety of their families and how they will cope with the cost and upheaval of rehoming and repairs. We know that Aberdeen will not be the only area with affected properties. Residents in this situation cannot wait seven years, Minister, for the Scottish Government to act on this issue. They are living in potentially unsafe properties and facing costly repairs. I hope that the minister can recognise how analogous the situation is. Will he outline in his closing speech what support the Scottish Government intends to provide to residents impacted by rack? It is an analogous situation and they are facing many of the same consequences. How will the Scottish Government learn the lessons from this remediation process that has been so badly lacking? Stakeholders and witnesses have raised the number of issues that will require further scrutiny amendment as the bill progresses through Parliament. The Scottish Labour is supporting the general principles of the bill this evening, but I would hope that the Government takes on board the numerous concerns that have been raised in the legislative process and good faith and get their act in order. Thank you, Mr Marra. We now move to the final speaker in the open debate, Ben Macpherson, around six minutes, please. Mr MacPherson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like colleagues, I welcome this bill as an issue that I have been engaged in on behalf of my constituents of Edinburgh Northern and Leith for some time. First of all, I would like to pay tribute to my constituents who are dealing with this issue and thank them for their engagement with me. I have seen and heard first hand how stressful and frustrating this long-running situation has been for everyone affected since this issue came to light. Colleagues have talked about 2017, and of course there was a thorough assessment of the public sector buildings in Scotland at that time, but it was actually in 2019 when it came an issue that was more prominent in the minds of private owners when legislation was introduced in the House of Commons, not on a UK basis, and that created a lot of challenge, which I will come to in a minute. Since this whole scenario began, as their constituents say MSP, I have been working alongside partners and colleagues, including in government and including the minister, to help to realise meaningful solutions. I welcome the commitment from the Scottish Government to progress the programme of remediation and help safeguard people living in buildings with cladding that presents a risk to life. I appreciate the significant pressures that come with a programme of delivery of this skill within the civil service, within the skills base, but I must also acknowledge the challenge of the complexity of overlapping, devolved and reserved issues. Unfortunately, and I know this from correspondence with the then minister at the time, there was not enough attention at a UK level as to the difference of tenure in Scotland with the fact that we had different property law and we had different building standards to an extent. There wasn't enough attention given to the fact that UK financing, both the operation of the mortgage market and insurance, was a UK-wide challenge when it came to this and that a knowledge of the Scottish situation was absolutely required to make sure that constituents of mine and others across Scotland were not at a disadvantage because of the fact of where they owned their property. However, there has been progress on that and the whole concept of the single building assessment is a move in that direction to try and provide a framework recognised by UK finance as well as an assessment of safety that will allow people to then progress into selling and ensuring their properties, rather than having to obtain individual certification for their own property within a large building, which was the case in the early years of the problem. We have made progress and this bill will be part of how we move into the next phase, because everyone has a right to be safe and secure in their home and also has a right to be able to move on in life if they need to sell their house and to ensure that their house is an important aspect for every property owner. We need to see more urgency on the work to identify and fix unsafe cladding in my constituency of Edinburgh, Northern and Leith and across Scotland. Progress has been made but there is more to do and this bill is part of that. Important points have already been made about what will be assessed as part of an SBA and we need certainty about what will be undertaking. We need that clarity as soon as possible and I note that the Government is giving an undertaking to do that later in the spring and that is welcome. My constituents have also stressed to me the barriers that they have experienced as I alluded to early securing insurance and mortgages and how that is left and trapped in a property that could not only be unsafe but simply just unsuitable for the needs of them and their families, for example, if they are having more children. We need engagement with the UK Government and UK Finance on an on-going basis and that needs to be a relationship of good faith both ways so that insurance providers and mortgage lenders understand the SBA specification and are part of its development and finalisation. I know from productive meetings that I have had with the minister, including the most recent where he met several of my constituents and I am grateful again to him for that. I know that the Scottish Government is taking a number of actions to help bring about assurances that are so desperately needed now. Fundamentally and simply, as I have raised with ministers before, my constituents are seeking clear and transparent communication. That would make such a difference and I am glad that the committees highlighted that in paragraphs 29 and 44 of their report. Unnecessary anxiety has been caused by multiple different actors, whether that is developers, factors, surveyors, relaying inconsistent information, sporadically leaving some of my constituents to hear second hand what is happening with their property and to interpret the findings for themselves. We need to improve the communication process. They need to be regular and clear. I appreciate the challenge in that, but it would make such a difference. I also welcome powers in the bill to be able to take actions and instruct where necessary, where it is difficult to achieve appropriate consent under the Tenement Scotland Act 2004. That is welcome, as is the cladding assurance register, but I do want to ask if there can be a way, if there is an identification and a plan in place, that that will allow registration on the register. I thought that Willie Coffey made these points very well about how we balance a register that assures safety but also the need to help people to move on and transact with their property. If we can find a solution that allows both to be included, that would be the best arrangement. I appreciate that there is not time in hand any more, as far as I am aware. I can give you a bit more time, Ms McPherson. Thank you. Just a little bit more, I would say that the establishment of a responsible developer scheme to support collaboration with developers and set out expectations is a welcome move. It is unfortunate that we have had to get to this point. I know that there has been nine large developers who have already committed to undertaking work on the buildings that are responsible for that. Unfortunately, I am also aware of some developers who have not made that commitment, which has taken us to this point of legislation, and that is unfortunate. I am glad that the legislation will urge, encourage and instruct developers to do what they should be doing with the buildings that they are responsible for or have been responsible for. I also think that there are important points about orphan buildings being given equal attention. Improve the legislation at stage 2 and stage 3, get it on the statute books and move forward with the greater urgency that others have all rightly emphasised. Thank you, Ms McPherson. We now move to the closing point of order, Michael Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I indulge him to make two apologies for missing the first two speeches of the debate. I intimated to the Presiding Officer that I would do so, but, secondly, for neglecting to make this apology in my own speech. I am not sure that it is a point of order, but it is very welcome nonetheless, Mr Marra. Thank you very much indeed. We now move to the wind-up speeches, I call Pam Duncan-Glanty, around seven minutes. The bill before us today is a bill that is designed to make buildings and homes safe. I am confident that that is something that all parties agree with, and I echo my Scottish Labour colleagues in saying that we will support the bill at vote today. However, it is also important to highlight, as others have, including Arianne Burgess on behalf of the committee, that the bill still needs work and, as Willie Rennie and others have pointed out, remediation will need concerted efforts, including on planning and on the availability of housing, to decant people to make it work. It is also important to say that I agree with Homes for Scotland, as Pam Gosell and others have said, that the lack of urgency from the Government has led to unacceptable delays in making progress in this crucial area. Because, Presiding Officer, we must remember why we are discussing this bill today. The Grenfell disaster, as many, including the Minister, Stephanie Callaghan, Mareem McNeir and others have noted, showed in stark tragedy the consequences of doing nothing to fix combustible cladding. This was a disaster that, as Graham Simpson noted, could and should have been avoided. So many lives were lost as a result of complacency. We owe it to those who lost their lives, their families and firefighters, as Richard Leonard reminded us, to ensure that their tragedy drives swift action now, and we must all do everything in our power to prevent anything like it happening again. That is what today is about. The lessons of Grenfell have taught us, though, that time is not of the essence. That is why I am disappointed that, almost seven years later, the Scottish Government has made painfully slow progress in making buildings safe. It did not have to be this way. In that same time, as my colleague Mark Griffin noted, in England, 797 buildings have had remedial works completed to make them safe. In Wales, the number is 37. In Scotland, that only two have been fixed is unacceptable. It is our duty as members of this Parliament to push the Government to take long-over-due action now so that our constituents can feel safe in their homes. I met residents in a building with combustible cladding on it in the region of Glasgow, who told me of the stark consequences of this Government's delay and why what we do next is crucial. In this one building alone, some 321 families have known from as far back as 2019 that they live in a building with combustible cladding. That means that, for at least five years, they have spent every day worrying that their building is unsafe. Because of this Government's delay, it is expected that remediation works will not begin for at least another year. One resident told me that there has been no remediation, only mitigation. Following the Grenfell disaster, new statutory requirements were introduced to improve fire alarm systems. However, the fire alarm system in this building is yet to be brought up to standard. In the meantime, a waking watch was put in to mitigate risk. That caused residents much concern and it remains in place today. Residents are still unable to sell their homes, as Michelle Thompson and others have noted, and they are unable to get insurance for their property. Writes Ben Macpherson noted that residents should have. That means that they cannot move for work or other reasons. They cannot let their building out, as Alasdair Allan pointed out. It means that they cannot remortgage in a cost of living crisis. It means that they are spending a fortune on insurance that does not nearly cover the cost of rebuild should the worst happen. Their lives are on hold. They are scared—sceptical, as Michael Marra noted. They are tired and they are angry. For those 321 families, time has been wasted, time and time again. The most recent example of this, I am afraid to say, is in relation to the single building assessment scheme that is in this bill. Unlike the many residents in buildings still awaiting a single building assessment, this group of residents in Glasgow were part of a pilot to develop one. An independent fire engineer completed their SBA and highlighted several high-risk issues. A mitigation plan was initiated to reduce risk, and it remains on-going—on-going—two years later. However, the Government has yet to set in motion the action needed to make the building safe. That is an unacceptable level of delay, and residents will be disappointed to hear that a mere 7 per cent of the funds that are available to the Government to fix those buildings have been used. More concerningly, residents were told last week that all draft single building assessments produced as part of the pilot will now be refreshed for the purposes of consistency and developers will lead them. As colleagues might imagine, this decision has alarmed those residents, not least because their single building assessment was completed in December 2022. It now appears that it will gather dust as they face the ludicrous situation where another single building assessment will be undertaken before remedial works will commence after guidance is released, which, at best, is likely to be May 2024, but also because, as residents have told me, they are worried about transparency and a conflict of interest if a new single building assessment is to be drafted without the detail or oversight of an independent fire engineer and in the absence of clear criteria of what should be included, which my colleague Willie Coffey noted the committee also raised concern about. As others have noted, the residents have also shared concern about not including wider fire safety issues. To this day, experts remain highly critical of fire safety in this building, and there have reportedly been confrontations between independent experts and the developers. Residents are rightly wondering how they can be expected to have faith in a system where, as they have written to me to say, the process of checks and balances were not followed when the development was constructed, so why should residents trust that the process will be followed now? They may genuinely be concerned and unconvinced that there is not a mechanism to avoid or address conflict of interest in the bill, and we cannot afford this where lives remain at risk. They must have confidence in the process, and so there should be independent oversight. Given those concerns and the confidence or peace of mind that Miles Briggs has put it, that an independent assessor has brought to residents, I would welcome the minister's response as to whether consideration has been given to ensuring that, as part of the proposals in the bill, an independent fire engineer can be made part of a single building assessment process and how any potential challenges can be adequately raised in the new scheme. As has been said, we support this bill, but it really will need to be strengthened at stage 2 if it is to meet the expectations of residents across the country, including to put in place the independence scrutiny as outlined, add provisions to address broader fire safety risks, provide detail and context to the concept of tolerable risk in the cladding assurance register, and, crucially for me, as they have done elsewhere in the UK, to include measures to ensure that residents are engaged and informed throughout the process, including as remedial works get under way. Something I know that residents in Glasgow feel is missing, and I hope that the Government will consider amendments on stage 2. I, in my party, am glad that residents of buildings with combustible cladding can finally see legislation that could help to ensure that their homes are made safe. Enough time, though, has been lost. The time to act is now, and so I encourage the Government to address concerns raised across the chamber today. Pick up the pace. Act quickly to get the work done. People have waited long enough. It is now time for their homes to be made safe. I thank the Presiding Officer for permission to arrive slightly late for his debate this afternoon. The footage of Grenfell Tower blaze against the London sky is not an image that any of us quickly forget. It was, as others have said, an utter tragedy. As we work to avoid the repeat of it here in Scotland, our thoughts should be with the families of those who lost their lives, and our commitment should be to do everything we can to prevent any such disaster in the future. Again, as other speakers have said, the issue that we are discussing here is not one to be taken lightly. Dangerous cladding is a ticking time bomb in Scotland, and we are incredibly fortunate that it has not gone off yet. We on these benches are supportive of the general principles of this bill, and has been intimated by a mild bridge. We will be supporting it tonight, but we are also totally despairing at the length of time that we have had to wait for legislation to come forward that will make such needed changes to upgrade the safety of homes here in Scotland. As with so many important issues, the delays from this Government come at the cost of the safety and security of the people of Scotland. There is no option here. We need swift, decisive and targeted action that tackles the problem. The SNP has used only 7 per cent of the money that has been passed from the UK Government in Barnett consequences for the purpose of identifying and removing dangerous cladding. Why such slow movement? A report published by the local government housing and planning committee has said that, of 105 buildings within the Scottish Government's cladding remediation programme, only one has yet had any remediation works carried out, and only one has had mitigation works. I accept that you are a new minister, but your Government has simply failed to grasp the importance and urgency of this issue. In the words of the Firefighters Union here in Scotland, the lack of meaningful progress in removing Grenfell-type cladding from buildings across Scotland more than six years after the disaster is reprehensible and continues to show complacency to the point of contempt for those living, working and being educated in buildings wrapped in these materials. Perhaps he could, in his summing up, tell us why has it taken so long? The UK Government is leagues further ahead in their dealing with this issue, so why has it taken the Scottish Government so long? It certainly seems that the SNP are not taking this issue as seriously as it demands. I wonder whether the minister can also, in his summing up, confirm that there is no more new dangerous cladding being built here in Scotland. Is he confident that any building being built today is not being built with inflanable cladding, or is it still an issue that is alive here in Scotland? As the convener of the committee pointed out, there needs to still be clarification around a lot of the wording and definitions, as Mr Simpson also said. As the convener also pointed out, the committee has worries that there are not enough surveyors in Scotland to do the work that is required. As Ben Macpherson and others commented, there needs to be better engagement with owners of properties, but with a wider community on this. I came to the issue a number of years ago, and, interestingly, it was our former colleague Andy Wightman who led the charge, not the Scottish Government, on this. He organised many meetings with surveyors, with lenders and builders, and it was the Government that was dragged to the table rather than the Government taking initiative. I want to pay credit to Andy Wightman for all the work that he did on that process. I am happy to take the intervention. Ben Macpherson. I also pay credit to Mr Wightman on that. I do not mean that as a part of political point, but is the member as frustrated as I am that, in the beginning of the process, the then Scottish Government Minister for Housing was really proactively trying to engage UK Government on the crossing issues that were devolved and reserved, how we are both pertinent. Unfortunately, there was not good intergovernmental response from the UK Government at that time. Our memories might be slightly different on this. I think that the Government did try to engage, but, as Mr Macpherson pointed out, some of the issue was around the different way that Scottish law has developed and works in practice, and the way that lenders deal with properties in Scotland is different, and that is why the Scottish Government had to intervene at a quicker stage. Even though there has been an abundance of time that has passed, this process of this bill has been rushed and made for potentially poor piece of legislation. The committee report makes it clear that there are a number of issues that were raised during the scrutiny that could and should have been addressed in the early stages of the process. If the Government, as Mr Simpson pointed out, had run a proper consultation, we perhaps would not be where we are today. Hopefully, those will be able to be addressed at the bill's progress through Parliament, but, once again, I was concerned that the minister did not seem to be really willing to engage with members at stage 2 and stage 3, in accepting amendments that would make the bill better. I hope that he will give that commitment and that he will work with members who bring forward amendments. I am in total agreement with Graham Simpson on the issue of secondary legislation. It makes Parliament's scrutiny very difficult and much of the detail is lacking from what we have before us. For example, there is much in the bill that is desperately in need of clarification. As my colleague Pam Godshaw has brought attention to, Home for Scotland has expressed concern about cladding assurance register, while it is supportive of, if it is impringible, seeing an unacceptable lack of clarity to it. I am certain that both homeowners and home builders are alike, which will cause real concern going forward. I hope that the cabinet secretary will commit to clarifying his points in his closing and giving reassurances that things will happen at a quicker pace. Deputy General for State, in conclusion, has happened far too often in this Parliament. There is a real and pressing problem that requires addressing, but, unfortunately, the Government's legislation response is for a short of what is needed. As I have already said, we on these benches will support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, but that is lent on the understanding that much needs to change in this bill, and there will require to be lots of amendments agreed at stage 2 and stage 3, if we are to support it finally. Thank you, Mr Balfour. I now call on Paul MacLennan to wind up the debate minister for around 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I acknowledge the cross-party support in the chamber tonight, and I do not take that for granted. I also acknowledge issues raised about pace and communication and clarity, which I will touch upon later on. Since being imposed, I have extensively engaged with residents, developers, homes for Scotland and other organisations. I know that it has been mentioned such as the Scottish Fire Service. I have also engaged since being imposed with Mark Griffin, Miles Briggs and Willie Rennie extensively, which they will know about and offered to meet them after stage 1 to discuss stage 2. I am puzzled about where the discussions that Jeremy Balfour mentioned about not engaging, and they know of a beginning to engaging with them, and I will continue to do so. That is open to any member in that regard, and I also offer to intend to communicate with the committee as offered in the previous appearance that I had at that particular time. I also want to thank members and I will touch on their contributions to this afternoon's debate. This Government's absolute priority, as all of us, is the safety of homeowners and residents. It is also the commitment to safety that promoted the establishment of the cladding remediation programme, and it is obviously the driver behind the bill. I know that it is a commitment that is shared across the chamber of which has been highlighted by a member in their contribution in this afternoon's debate. I also want to thank the committee, obviously, for their stage 1 report, and it has been referenced quite a lot in the discussions this afternoon, and the extensive engagement that they undertook in preparing the report. The report is, of course, thoughtful and constructive review of the draft bill, and it highlights, say this, which a Government will review and carefully consider as part of the stage 2 process. Now that is being published, and we are working very closely with the committee on that. It is said that Ditto4 is open to publishing spokespeople in any member that has an interest in that. Importantly, the committee endorsed the general principles of the bill, and specifically the proposed responsible developers scheme. Substantial progress has been made with changes to first safety standards and guidance. Legislation and smoke alarms in the establishment of the cladding remediation programme. However, we have also identified barriers to delivery, and that is coming back to the key principles in the bill. Barriers that we need to address so that we can ensure that we have the powers to safeguard homeowners and residents. Members have raised concerns about the pace of the programme, and I totally understand that. It is not just members that have gone out and spoken to residents who have spoken to them on a number of occasions in different constituencies. I mentioned an open statement in the Parliament in May 2022, and the then cabinet secretary acknowledged the initial report, which focused on providing grants. It was too slow and onerous. The cabinet secretary therefore announced both a change in approach moving away from the grant-based model to direct procurement by the Scottish Government, and of course an extension of the pilot that we have discussed today. Since that announcement of the programme, I think that we have seen significant increases. The published quarterly spend data demonstrates this shift in pace, but we have much, much more to do in working in partnership with developers to support developer-led single-build assessments based on the new specification once it is published. I think that that is a real driver in terms of the discussions. I have had individual discussions, as I said, with developers, with Homes for Scotland and others, in terms of the new single-building assessments. We have heard about the developer commitment layers, but it moves us on to the mediation contracts, which I think are an incredibly important part in moving this forward. I think that we talked about the timeline that we have heard from that. There are a couple of members' points that I wanted to mention that are really important. I remember just mentioned about, obviously, PAS 990, which we have picked up. Of course, that includes a really important part of the virus, which is the appraisal of external walls. Miles Briggs has obviously touched on the £1 of the scope of the bill. We have heard about hotels, for example. They are not part of the scheme, they are part of the report data, but they are not actually part of the scheme. Student accommodation is also mentioned in terms of that. There is not legislation that is required. They could mitigate immediate buildings that are there in terms of that. Mark Griffin, who we have had a couple of discussions about, is obviously a bit pace of the bill. Obviously, the SBA process has been part of the main driver in terms of that. Again, I have offered meetings to both Miles Briggs and Mark Griffin on that particular issue. Will there be any talks about the pace of companies going bust and how we look at that? We have had some discussions with developers and some complicated ownership models, so we have had to deal with that already as part of the discussion. We are trying to work with them in terms of that. There are discussions on going, and I am happy to pick up that with them. Willie Coffey made the point, and I think that that is really important about the partnership approach. Developers have been doing a lot of work in the background in terms of that. Obviously, I am moving towards the clarion assurance register and PAS 9980. I think that a few members touched on it, and I know that Pam Gossel talked to it as well, about UK finance. Again, I hope that Miles Briggs and Graham Simpson and colleagues would speak to the UK Government about that. I had a meeting with the UK Government, which included the Welsh Government, and they were concerned about that, so they might be trying to push on that issue from UK finance. Willie Rennie? It is pretty clear that the minister has had lots of meetings. We get that, but what we want to understand is what has been discussed at these meetings, what is the content, where is the disagreement, how do we reach a resolution, because meetings are fine, but we need to know the substance in order to have a proper debate in this place. Minister? One of the key points coming through will be the responsible developer scheme, which I think is incredibly important. We have always had to deal with some issues in terms of complicated ownership schemes already in place. We can obviously forecast what would happen in the future, but certainly in the extensive discussions that we have had with developers at this stage—that is just about everybody that signed the building—there are no issues here at the moment. Again, I think that the responsible developer scheme is incredibly important in terms of that. There are a few other contributions that I wanted to highlight. I think that Stephanie Callaghan mentioned about the reporting data, and that is something that we are working with committee on and how we do that. Again, that is something that committee could obviously speak to in terms of how that then reports back into Parliament. I will not bring forth discussions, as part of that. I am happy to be held to account. One of the key things that Michelle Thomson talked about was obviously secondary legislation. That allows us to move to get things done quicker in terms of that. I think that she makes an important point on SMEs. We have had a number of discussions about SMEs and the ability to pay. Again, that is with individual developers in terms of that. The conditions continue on that one, and she mentioned about the £10 million threshold. Those are part of the discussions that have been held, but I have had individual discussions with those developers at SMEs. They are an incredibly important part of the sector in Scotland, so we are working very closely with them on that point. The comment that I made earlier about commercial contract clauses, which are very opaque, the fact is that many SMEs may not understand their risk and I would be happy to pick that up with them separately, because it is quite a niche area, I admit. My background was 20 years in the Bank of Scotland, so I understand covenants. We have had discussions about covenants and also about the SCFE in that regard. I think that Ben Macpherson touched on a couple of important issues. I think that the 10-year issues at the start of this were really important. He also touched on the Scottish and Wales Governments raising issues about UK finance. It is really important in terms of taking that issue forward, and we continue to raise that with the UK Government. On the pathway that we are commissioning, as Michael Marra mentioned, I think that it is important. I think that the SCFE process, and having that consistent standard, is important and developers understanding that is a really important part to getting them on to that process and move that quicker. Again, it comes back to the key principle about getting the SCFE process identified and moving on to remediation contracts, so people understand what they are doing in that particular point. Ben Macpherson managed the big communication and I have acknowledged that, and I think that that is a really important point. The team are working really hard in that regard. I think that Pam Duncan Glancy mentioned about the community required for an individual. That is part of the process that we are discussing just now. Are individuals specifically qualified to do that? That includes the ability to say that an individual is independent in assessing the buildings as well, so I am happy again to discuss that point with you in that regard. As I said, we have seen an increase in pace since May 2022, but we have identified barriers. However, we need to move on quicker in terms of that. Presiding Officer, Members are also highlighted in the importance of communication engagement with homeowners and residents. I acknowledge that there is scope to improve communications to residents and this is a priority for the cladding administration programme. I have asked officials to scope several options to enhance our approach to communications, including providing regular updates on the overall programme and flight path, as well as building specific communications. Miles Briggs will have seen the briefing in which the Association of British Insurers have provided all members their concerns with regard to the on-going problems that will exist on obtaining buildings cover if we do not hear from the Scottish Government issues to resolve additional safety issues and whether or not those are resolved or managed. The Scottish Government will also look to bring forward a factoring fire safety and management bill for those properties, because that could help to solve that problem. I know that we have briefly discussed that in some of the discussions that we have had, and I think that there is merit for having further discussions as already existing legislation that is in place. I know that you and I have talked about having further discussions on that point, so I am happy to discuss that. I would be happy, as I said, to provide a further update to the committee, as well as, obviously, on the head of stage 2. I am happy to have discussions with individuals and, obviously, it is important that the Opposition supports people as we pray for stage 2. I think that the real important part of that is the extensive discussion in terms of where the amendments could come in. In conclusion, the Grenfell Tower fire was a stark reminder of the importance of our safety. It is the responsibility of all of us that we take the steps that are necessary to ensure that we address the risk for our unsafe cladden, to ensure that people can be safe in their own homes and seek collective solutions to the financial chart that many families are finding themselves in. That is what really comes back to the crux of matter. We can talk about the technical solutions, but that is given peace of mind and, obviously, safety for people in their own homes. Obviously, in terms of, obviously, their finance or new mortgaging, or an accessing finance, so it is a shared commitment across this chamber to resolving these issues. Let's work together, that's a genuine offer, and we're looking forward to people contacting me in that regard. Finally, Presiding Officer, I move the motion. Thank you. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on housing cladding remediation. Scotland Bill at stage 1. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion 1240 in the name of Shona Robison on a financial resolution to the housing cladding remediation Scotland Bill, and I call on Paul MacLennan to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and I am minded at this stage to take a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now, and I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion, minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now, are we all agreed? That is agreed, and there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 12450 in the name of Paul MacLennan on housing cladding remediation Scotland Bill, be agreed, are we all agreed? That is agreed. The final question is that motion 12450 in the name of Shona Robison on a financial resolution to the housing cladding remediation Scotland Bill, be agreed, are we all agreed? That is agreed. That concludes decision time. I seek your advice on how the Parliament can urgently consider the effects of the announcement today, the very important announcement today by the UK Government, that they intend to authorise a mass release of prisoners from English and Welsh prisons. This is a matter of real concern for Scotland, not least given the opposition to such mass releases of prisoners, especially from the Conservatives, and I am aware of the irony that it is their party that is supporting the mass release of prisoners in this case. I also think that there are urgent and important questions that the people of Scotland will require answers to regarding this proposed mass release of prisoners. First of all, given that the reason that is stated for the mass release of prisoners is overcrowding in English and Welsh prisons and that most commentators will point to the sustained and systematic underfunding of justice services as the reason behind that overcrowding, what is therefore the effect of that same UK underfunding on Scottish prisons? Secondly, given that there is nothing to prevent any of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, we do not have the detail, of prisoners who are released from their sentence from coming to Scotland and potentially re-offending, again a fear expressed very often on the Tory benches. That could present a further burden on the Scottish justice system and further pressure on the prison population here in Scotland and what consideration has been given to those consequences by the UK Government. Finally, given the potential impact on Scotland, we need to know if the UK Government consulted or even warned the Scottish Government of this proposed mass release, or is it the case that once again one of Scotland's two Governments made a decision without any regard to the interests of the people of Scotland or for the responsibilities of the Scottish Government? I am sure that you will agree, Simon, that this is a UK prison crisis that needs to be understood in terms of its effects on Scotland, and I would be grateful for your guidance on how that understanding may be facilitated. Thank you, Mr Brown. I am sure that you will be aware that this is a matter for the parliamentary bureau. I would suggest that Mr Brown you take it up with the Minister for Parliamentary Business or the business manager who can raise it in the appropriate fashion. There will be a pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front benches to change.