 Felly, mae'r next item of business today is a debate on motion 8968, in the name of Bob Doris, on building regulations and fire safety in Scotland. I would encourage all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Bob Doris to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the local government and communities committee. We all watched with horror as fire engulfed Grenfell tower. Both then and now are thoughts and sympathies with those affected by that tragic event. At that time, the local government and communities committee was conducting an inquiry into building regulations more widely. As a committee, we felt that we must broaden our work to specifically include fire safety and to ensure that any lessons from that terrible fire could be considered as part of our work. Last week in the chamber, we heard from the cabinet secretary Angela Constance MSP about the progress made by the ministerial working group on building and fire safety. We heard confirmation that local authorities reported that no public or private high-rise blocks were completely clad in ACM except in two high-rise buildings in Glasgow. In those cases, work is on-going to ensure that fire safety measures are upgraded and a long-term solution is found. I want to focus my comments on two of the committee's recommendations in relation to fire safety before moving on to discuss the broader building regulations aspects of our inquiry. The committee welcomes the quick and collegiate response to establish the ministerial working group. We do not propose to duplicate its work in any way but to provide constructive scrutiny of the minister and the rest of the group and to scrutinise the progress of its work. We welcome the additional fire safety visits that are undertaken by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to reassure and inform tenants about fire safety in their home. We also welcome the ministerial working group commissioning the compilation of a comprehensive inventory of domestic high-rise buildings that should be completed by spring 2018. That inventory should provide a comprehensive picture of high-rise buildings across Scotland and will inform the working group's deliberations. However, our committee recommends that that inventory is regularly updated in future. We consider that it can provide a valuable resource to quickly respond quickly to any new or emerging building and safety requirements for high-rise buildings. As a living document, perhaps with additional key information present, that inventory can provide a lasting legacy with regards to fire safety. Such a system will be far preferable to the situation of a few months ago when local authorities were involved in a time-consuming trawl through paper copies of old building warrants. I believe that history will show such processes to be time-consuming, antiquated and not in the best interests of fire safety. Our committee also examined existing fire safety inspection regimes. We heard how housing associations commissioned regular fire safety assessments while following occupation, high-rise buildings are subject to quarterly inspections by the fire service. Indeed, we welcome the close working relationship between social landlords and the fire service. The committee is sympathetic to a national standard fire assessment process, something that I note that the Scottish Government is considering. However, we are also sympathetic to this process operating within a system of unannounced fire safety inspections and potentially in conjunction with the FBU's idea of one-off intrusive inspections. Without any slight on current systems, such an approach can further drive up quality and consistency of a Scotland-wide fire safety regime. I look forward to the minister's response to those suggestions. The committee will continue to monitor the progress of the ministerial working group and we look forward to taking evidence from the minister again next year. As I noted at the start of the debate, where working wider aspects of building regulations were well under way when the Grenfell tragedy happened, in fact, our work on building regulations began in February this year. It began with our post-banks and surgeries when we heard about the distress and helplessness that some homeowners felt when their new homes did not turn out to be built as well as they thought they should have. For most of us, our home is the largest purchase that we will ever make and the committee we wanted to know why for some people their new home was not built as well as they wanted. Over the course of the past 10 months, our inquiry was also widened to include the lessons from the co-report on the independent inquiry into the construction of Edinburgh schools. I also want to acknowledge the work of the education and skills committee in its inquiry into school infrastructure. In our report, we have set out our views so far and we have highlighted some key questions for MSPs to comment on in the chamber this afternoon. I am sure that MSPs will also want to bring their own experiences to the debate and I and my committee colleagues look forward to hearing what you think. We started our inquiry looking at the verification process that buildings undergo when they are built or extended. In Scotland, anyone who wants to erect a new building alter or extend an existing building requires permission from a verifier. That is the building standards department of the local authority for the work that is to be done. Those officers can inspect the work in progress and after completion. The issue of compliance certificate, if that construction has been carried out to their satisfaction and in accordance with the building warrants. That is of course as far as they can be ascertained from a visual inspection. In contrast to England and Wales, where verifiers are undertaken by external organisations including NHBC, in Scotland the Minister for Local Government and Housing appoints local authorities as verifiers for their own geographical areas. During the course of our inquiry, we had many reasons for and against those two different approaches and the benefits that each could provide. Those who supported opening up verification to competition argued that it would drive up service levels and delays would be reduced. Some suggested that it would provide greater flexibility and ability to respond to increasing demands. Others, however, argued that the overall level of verification service by local authorities was good, delivering a service that was impartial and which avoided any potential conflict of interest that might arise with private sector verifiers. We heard that the current Scottish approach provides a service accountable to elected members. As a committee, we recognise that those who provide verification service are the public or the private sector do so to a high and professional standard. We also note that although verification services are delivered by councils in Scotland, some councils will use private verifiers when demand increases. In considering the evidence that has been put to us, we are persuaded on balance that the benefits of impartiality, accountability and local knowledge that council verification provides outweighs any possible benefits that extending it to other organisations might bring. That said, we recognise that performance in some councils needs to improve. In March 2017, the minister appointed 17 local authorities as verifiers for six years as they demonstrated a strong performance. Although a further 12 councils which had a good performance but had some weaknesses were appointed for a further three years, overall that means that 29 of the 32 local authorities had a good or strong performance. The three councils with a poor performance, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Stirling, have been appointed for just one year and have been asked to address aspects of that poor performance. We heard that delays in processing building work applications and uncertainties in outcomes were key performance issues that impacted on developers and the overall attractiveness of Scotland for investment. Reasons cited for delays included increased workloads, budget cuts and the loss of staff. Others, however, highlighted the steps taken to improve service and performance management as bringing better customer focus to the local authority building standards system. The Scottish Government asked Pi Tate Consulting to examine the performance of local authorities in their role as building standards verifiers. That report published in March 2016 through a number of conclusions, including that. Stakeholders are generally of the view that verifiers are doing a good job under difficult circumstances and recognise the resourcing difficulties that local authorities face. However, some believe that speed and quality of service has improved since the introduction of the performance framework. Concerns remain that the quality of service still varies between local authorities, meaning that there is work to do in pursuit of national consistency. Our committee agrees that greater consistency of service and performance across the system is required, and crucial to that is a highly motivated, skilled and well-resourced workforce. I invite the minister to set out how the Government is supporting the provisions of better workforce planning to address those concerns. Another area that I want to comment on is the issue of accountability. During the course of our work, there was considerable discussion about whether there should be a statutory scheme to redress folks and buildings after construction and who should be liable for those problems. We heard that the issues of subcontracting can lead to a blurring of the accountability lines when folks or issues arise. Others highlighted that it was the responsibility of house buyers to ensure that they were paying for what was actually delivered. In considering the evidence before us, we recognised that accountability for the building process is the responsibility of every stakeholder in the construction process, from the builder to the council to the property buyer. Each has a role to play in ensuring that they meet the standards to ensure that the outcome is safe, secure and a good quality building. We recognise the principle and our recommendations regarding accountability. We have recommended that at the start of the building process, consideration is given to providing new build house purchasers with important information and support. That could include clarity about what building standards do and how purchasers might reassure themselves about the quality of the builder of their home. I would welcome confirmation from the minister as to whether it will consider that approach as part of its newly devolved consumer protection responsibilities. We also recommended that more standardised missives in contracts are considered for the standard contract line of the builder who will build a house to building in accordance with regulations and to a reasonable standard. We also highlighted the potential of an ombudsman to mediate with disputes should they arise. Although NHBC and others highlighted to us the beneficial role of the consumer code for home builders and its independent dispute resolution service, that only applies to those homes builders who are registered homes within the UK's home warranty body such as the NHBC. Our proposal for an ombudsman would offer mediation to all those in dispute. I would welcome comment from the minister as to whether this proposal merits further consideration. I am sure that my fellow committee members will want to highlight other issues in our report, but I would invite all of you to contribute to the work of our report in this debate here this afternoon. Do you think that there should be a statutory system of redress? How can building standards performances be improved? This work began, Presiding Officer, when we heard from our constituents, and I suspect that some of the other members in this Parliament will have had similar issues. It is everyone's chance to put on the record what they think are the problems, the issues, but the opportunities to improve the system are. We will return to this work in the new year, Presiding Officer, when our committee will consider our final views and report to consider all the comments that we have heard this afternoon. I thank all of those who have contributed to our work so far and who will speak this afternoon, and I most motion S5M-8968, in the name of the local government, the community committee, and commend it to you all. Thank you very much. I now call on the minister, Kevin Stewart, to open for the Government. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to members on building regulations and fair safety in Scotland. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the local government and community committee that led to the report that was published on 30 October. I also thank the Education and Skills Committee for the work that they have undertaken in this area, too, and I welcome what the convener of the committee has described as constructive scrutiny. I think that that is extremely useful when we are dealing with these matters. The report draws strongly on the recommendations of the co-report, mirroring and supporting a number of issues raised within it, as well as linking to the Education and Skills Committee's report on school infrastructure. Importantly, following the tragic events at Grenfell in June, the committee widened its work to include fair safety within building regulations. The committee's report raises complex issues that require full consideration, and I will respond in detail to each of the recommendations and findings before the end of the year. In doing so, I will detail the progress that has been made by the ministerial working group on building and fair safety, as well as the most up-to-date communications and information that has been shared on issues arising from the Grenfell public inquiry and the UK review of building standards. Before I go further, I would like to say that the fire at Grenfell tower was a horrific tragedy where 71 lives were lost and my thoughts and sympathies remain with the families and friends of everyone affected. I commend the work of the emergency services on that day and beyond. The cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, last week provided Parliament with an update on the work on the ministerial working group on building and fire safety, which was set up immediately following the Grenfell fire. Members will know from the statement that the ministerial working group has moved swiftly to take action. The group has focused on three main areas, reassuring the public of the steps that have been taken to ensure that a tragedy such as Grenfell will not happen in Scotland, establishing the fire safety of high-rise domestic buildings and moving quickly to improve the fire safety and compliance of building regulations. A key element of the group's focus has been on a range of measures to enhance and strengthen building regulations. Compliance to and enforcement of those regulations as well as fire safety within regulations. We have established two comprehensive expert groups to review building standards, and I would like to outline what those reviews will do. The first is a review of fire safety and building standards chaired by Dr Paul Stollard. The review that held its first meeting on 27 October will ensure that the fire safety standards and building regulations are robust and clear, with a focus on high-rise domestic buildings and high-rise non-domestic buildings with sleeping accommodation. The full remit of the review is available on the Scottish Government website, and the expert panel will also adopt a flexible approach in order to be ready to respond to any relevant evidence that may become available from the Grenfell Public Inquiry. The second group is reviewing building standards, compliance and enforcement, and is chaired by Professor John Cole, the author of the independent inquiry into the construction of Edinburgh schools. It will examine the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in all elements of construction from start to finish. The review will consider the actions needed before a building warrant is granted and a completion certificate is accepted, as well as the role of certification in the construction journey. Chairs of such high calibre leading reviews alongside a wealth of experts in their field demonstrates that we are determined to ensure that our regulations in Scotland are amongst the most robust in the world. The local government and communities committee report covers a number of other issues that I would now like to address. Local authorities are appointed by Scottish ministers as verifiers to carry out the independent checks of building design and construction through granting building warrants and accepting completion certificates. In considering the last appointments earlier this year, I had concerns over the performance of some local authorities, and the convener has highlighted that in his speech, particularly on processing delays and customer engagement. I took account of that when appointments were made on the basis that performance must improve. I also introduced a new Scotland-wide operating framework and updated performance framework under the appointment process to measure that performance. I appreciate the pressures that building standard services are under, and in July I increased the building warrant-related fees, which should remain the same since 2005. That will give all local authorities a boost in income, but I would stress that good performance is not always linked to high levels of income. The building standard system is pre-emptive, with permission needed before work can start and new buildings occupied. As such, excessive processing times can delay projects starting or continuing through different stages. The role of inspection throughout the construction is key to getting completed buildings that are compliant with building regulations. That is primarily inspection by the building owner or developer as the person responsible for the work. That includes using certifiers, clerks of works and others to give them the reassurance that they have met their responsibilities before ultimately signing off the project as compliant. That also includes inspection as part of any new build warranty or insurance. For the local authority, before a completion certificate can be accepted, that is the necessary independent verification checks needed. Those checks must be risk-based, consistent and designed to protect the public interest. On that very point, those are the key points that the coal report found were deficient, so that both certificates being given were key structural components that were missing, such as wall ties and where certificates were given. Buildings open and sometimes appeared of up to two years or more without building certificates being in place at all. I was just wondering what the minister's reflections were on those two key observations from the coal report. Mr Johnson was there when I appeared in front of the Education and Skills Committee. I repeat what I said there. Those are issues that we need to look at closely indeed. I will come back in a little while to roles and responsibilities, which are important in that regard. As the formal enforcement body, the local authority also has a separate legislative role, and it is important that, when enforcement action is necessary, it is done in a proactive manner to address non-compliances and work done without permission. Our review group will consider building standards, processes, inspection regimes and the roles and responsibilities of the building owner and the local authority as verifier and enforcer. A strong compliance-driven building standards system requires all players to understand their role and their responsibilities and to meet them. That means that the building owner, industry and local authorities have to have the right people with the necessary skills to play their part. I am aware of the challenges faced by industry to attract and retain the right people with the appropriate competencies to face the challenges ahead. That is why we are currently engaging with Construction Scotland and recently held an industry summit to explore how we can work together and ensure that those challenges are met. Finally, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of the lessons already learned following the Grenfell fire, and I am sure that that will continue. The ministerial group and the reviews that we have set up will be ready to respond to any further findings that emerged from the inquiries and reviews going on across the UK. Scottish ministers are not complacent on the importance of building regulations and compliance and enforcement. The pre-emptive nature is one of its strengths, but it must work in partnership with industry to deliver safe and compliant buildings. I hope that my brief overview of the current work of the ministerial working group and the setting up of the fire compliance and enforcement review groups reassures Parliament that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that buildings are safe. That means learning from recent events, responding to any evidence that emerges and taking the appropriate actions as necessary. I welcome the scrutiny that there has been from this Parliament and I look forward to hearing at the debate this afternoon. Buying a new home is the biggest financial commitment that most of us will ever make. Whether it is secondhand or brand new, you want the process to be seamless and you do not want to find faults later on that you are not aware of. Before I became an MSP while serving as a councillor I became aware through a number of cases that people's rights when buying new homes are not what they should be and that the system of checking buildings standard and quality was and is patchwork and sometimes frankly shoddy. I was called in to assist with people living on an estate where maybe up to half the properties had had problems with their foundations. Some had managed to get help from the builders if they claimed before the initial short guarantee ran out, others were at the mercy of the warranty providers who then took over and many were not happy with the service they got. When I got involved, the legal position was that the original builders, a major national firm, did not have to do anything and the warranty providers, basically an insurance company, made their own call on whether to pay out on claims. I managed to get the builders around the table and do the right thing. They agreed to fix the problems and offered a bespoke further guarantee on repaired foundations the first time it had been done in the UK. Only one house on the estate has work outstanding. But this came about despite the law, despite the system. I had a similar situation with blocks of flats where the roofs had failed and again managed to get the builders to act when they didn't have to. These experiences showed me two things. One, people buying new homes should have greater redress when things go wrong and two, houses should never be built with such major faults. The checking system should be more thorough. When I became an MSP and a member of the local government and communities committee, I suggested that this was an area that we could explore. It's fair to say that fellow committee members were skeptical, but we'll run round to the importance of the issue as soon as we started to take evidence. The evidence that we heard from members of the public who'd suffered under the system was particularly powerful. As we conducted our inquiry, the report into the Edinburgh Schools Fiasco was published. This raised the same issues around building regulations and lack of scrutiny. Then, Grenfell happened and our inquiry expanded into fire safety. So what are the two issues I mentioned earlier? First, the rights of new home buyers. Consumer goods legislation gives consumers a range of remedies. Refund, repair and replacement if goods are faulty. New home buyers do not automatically have these rights. Any guarantees are not underwritten by law and there are a voluntary act by developers offered to house buyers. That's the way that the developers like it. There's a voluntary code of practice. The key word is voluntary. Consumer law is reserved, so that's not something that we're looked at as a committee. So I'll be raising the matter directly with Sajid Javid to explore UK-wide solutions. There are, though, things that we could do in Scotland. I asked the law society if standardised missives would help and they agreed that it would. We'd need a change in the law, though, to bring that about. Developers may resist, but it would remove much of the uncertainty that presently arises from the bespoke nature of each builder's sales contract, which deters many from pursuing claims. The contract could set out how defects are handled and money could be withheld for potential repairs. There could be provision for dealing with disputes before referral to an ombudsman and access to an ombudsman, which I think would have to be a new role, would be another layer of protection. Secondly, what about the system that allows buildings with major faults to be constructed, be they public or private? Currently, building control officers risk assess sites to decide how often to inspect them. They don't inspect every stage of every house, hiding behind a woolly phrase, reasonable inquiry. If you bought a new home, you might think it reasonable to assume it had been rigorously checked before a completion certificate has been issued. Not so. Reasonable inquiries can mean very little. A house buyer can have no confidence that their home has been checked for build quality at every stage, because it probably hasn't. There's currently no way of guaranteeing that buildings are fit for purpose. A completion certificate is not a guarantee that the building has been constructed properly, merely that it has been constructed. They're not worth the paper they're written on. It's absolutely essential that those issuing completion certificates carry out mandatory checks at key stages of building. This was also highlighted by the coal report. So who should verify that work that has been done properly? We took mixed evidence on this, but in the end we were not convinced that work should go to the private sector. On balance, we felt that councils should continue to do the work as they are impartial. However, Kevin Stewart renewed licenses for all councils, but only gave poorly performing Glasgow, Edinburgh and Stirling councils one year. It's my view that if they're not up their game by the end of that, then private firms should be considered. The committee heard strong evidence that clerks of works would help drive up quality, and Kevin Stewart told the committee quotes, in my opinion, having an experienced clerk of works might involve spending, but will save a lot in the future. I agree with that. Presiding Officer, we should—I'm almost finished—somebody wants to give? Mr Simpson, I'm sorry, but it was in relation to the idea of the private sector coming into Glasgow and Edinburgh Stirling after a year. That deviates from our committee recommendation that we're looking at today. I'm just wondering if you give consideration for other local authorities who could come into those three local authorities to drive up standards. It doesn't have to be a private sector solution, if another local authority within the public sector could perform that role also. Graham Simpson? Of course. I'm giving my view and my view is that private firms should be considered, but I would also say that other councils should be considered. Presiding Officer, we should aim for a system where buildings are built to an acceptable standard, that someone is responsible for ensuring that that happens, and that buyers, be they individuals or whoever, have recourse if things go wrong. The proposals to have standardised missives and ombudsman, mandatory inspections at key stages and clerks of works would go a long way to redress the balance, as would better consumer protection. I commend those proposals to the Parliament. I thank the local government and communities committee for their excellent report on building regulations and far safety. Obviously, ensuring the safety of new buildings in Scotland requires strong and wide-ranging builder regulations that are enforced without compromise. On that point, Presiding Officer, I welcome the committee's recommendation that the power of verification should not be extended beyond local authorities. I believe to give this power out to the private sector would open the door for potential conflicts of interest and unaccountability, as well as a loss of valuable local knowledge. Nevertheless, it is key that the verification process does not only support new building projects on paper, but also in practice. It is clear that delays in processing applications have had a significant impact on developers and also can undermine confidence in Scotland as an attractive investment prospect. Sadly, those delays are the result of the old-time story for where we have been too familiar. Cats to local authorities have left staff burdened with increasing the heavier workloads, having to spend more time on admin and less time visiting sites. As an example, almost half of the respondents in Unison's building stress report stated that they faced budget cats the last year and another that 20 per cent stated that cats have been severe. In reality, the eventual losers are building residents and the general public. Of particular concern were reports that, because of delays, builders are going ahead without the proper consent, raising questions of how compliance can ever be eventually verified. If delays are to be improved and safety guaranteed, the only real solution is for local authorities to be adequately resourced. All other options are really unsustainable sticking plasters. Mr Stewart has just said, Presiding Officer, that buildings are going ahead without consent. What I would ask of any member in this place is if they have any evidence of that whatsoever, I would want to know about it, please. Following the terrible events of the Grenfell tower disaster, I commend the committee for also taking the initiative to extend their inquiry to encompass the safety aspects of building regulations. Fire safety has been a significant issue in Scotland, even pre-Grenfell, and so is this topic, Presiding Officer, and I wish to focus. Over the past decades, the number of domestic fires has been decreasing right across the United Kingdom. However, Scotland has consistently had the highest rate of fire outbreaks compared to other UK nations. In Scotland, for example, between 2015 and 2016, there were almost 46 per cent more fires per million people than in England Wales. Indeed, in that time period, you were more likely to die in a dwelling house fire in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK. That is not to take away from the invaluable work of the fire and rescue service that operates under incredibly difficult circumstances. Their efforts in assessing Scottish buildings and reassuring residents following the Grenfell fire are especially to be praised. However, budget cuts to the service are again a worrying trend. It is crucial that, when addressing issues of fire safety, we stay relevant to the situation in Scotland. The review of local government committee and the ministerial working group have focused particularly on fire safety in high-rise buildings, while they are completely understandable, unlike the circumstances of the Grenfell tower. I would encourage them to go further. In fact, if you look at the actual evidence in 2016-17, only 4 per cent of domestic fires were in flats of 10 stories or more. On the other hand, across the bread to the Scottish society, the effects of fire are not equally felt. In reality, the risk of fire is much higher in the areas of social economic deprivation. That is evident even in my home city of Inverness. Regrettably, Scotland's higher rate of fire death and injury is disproportionately carried by our most vulnerable populations. With that in mind, I wish to turn to a solution that I believe has the potential to impact long-lasting change. Fire suppression systems, often referred to as spunker systems, are a proven method of preventing the spread of fire and saving lives. For example, despite Scotland's high-frequency fire, there has never been multiple fire deaths where a working spunker system has been installed. That is why, as members will know, I am bringing forward a member's bill requiring the installation of fire suppression systems into all new social housing. Many fears around the use of sprinklers are unfounded urban myths. Contrary to what might be seen on TV, whole properties are not drenched in streams of water at the appearance of a single spark. Rather, heat-sensitive sprinkler heads operate individually to contain a fire. That sophisticated technology limits the damage caused by the initial fire and the measures taken to fully extinguish it. Not only are they effective, studies suggest that sprinkler systems are reliable. The most recent research from England concluded that sprinklers operate as expected in 94 per cent of all cases. For this reason, a 2015 cost-benefit analysis, commissioned by the Scottish Government, accepted that and I quote, the evidence indicates that most of the deaths and injuries and much of the damage would have been prevented had the property's concern been fitted with sprinklers. Of course, Presiding Officer, there has been improvements to Scotland's existing approach to sprinklers such as in sheltered housing. As members will know in 2016, following a successful member's bill, the Welsh Assembly provides that all new homes in Wales are fitted with sprinkler systems. Yet, despite their life-saving potential, Scottish building regulations require only fire suppression systems in high-rise buildings built since 2005. The result is a postcode lottery, with older high-rises and other domestic dwellings not covered. Across Scotland, some local authorities have embraced the use of sprinklers beyond the existing requirements. Trail-based councils such as Angus, Fife and Dindee have all adopted policies of putting sprinklers into new social housing. Their development stands as a shining example of the housing that I want to see across Scotland. In conclusion, I thank again the excellent work by the committee and all the work that the clerks have carried out. At UK level, I would just flag up that the UK Labour Party is calling for all social housing tower blocks to be retrofitted with sprinklers, and I encourage the local government committee to scrutinise the deliberations of the ministerial working group on that particular subject. I believe, in conclusion, that it is crucially important that we support the use of sprinklers within social housing. Lowering our high-fire assistance in the future will require action now. Our response to Grenfell should not be a mere near-jet reaction, but carefully considered and able to impact real change. I think that the time is now for investing in sprinkler technology and investing in the safety of all Scottish social housing well into the future. All that we need, as Walter Scott said, is the will to do and the soul to dare. I thank the committee for its report. It is an excellent report, and I think that the speeches that we have heard today have been excellent as well. I am not a member of the committee, but obviously, as has been mentioned before, every MSP has this situation, particularly in my area and others as well. Building control and working along with self-certification, inspections and verifiers is something that comes up constantly all the time. I cannot disagree with anything that I have heard today. There are two specific areas that I want to touch on—obviously, on the building control and the report that is here, but also on the situation and the tragedy in Grenfell, which thankfully has not resulted in a tragedy in my constituency. However, there are two buildings in my constituency that are affected by the cladding. I just want to get some clarification and my thoughts down in the report on what we can do to not even protect people who buy a house, but to bring them justice. As has been said to you before, it is the largest purchase that you will ever make, and yet it is a minefield for anyone who is trying to get any repairs done or any justice at all. Ron Pagentyn, on the other hand, mentioned the fact that the supply of goods to consumers is absolutely right. The sale and supply to consumers regulation 2002, if they fall to me, you purchase them with a legal right to compensation, a fuller partial refund, a free repair or replacement. I do not know whether I will be right to Javid, but I will certainly be right to whoever I can to see if we can get that devolved to Scotland. It is really, really important. I want to pick up on something that Bob Doris mentioned and others about the report in relation to councils that do not come up to scratch. I believe that it is page 7, paragraph 32, but I will read out 32. It mentions that we acknowledge that the minister is finding that a few local authorities will need to improve their performance by April 2018 in order for their appointment as verifiers to be extended. On that, I think that local councils are the best people to verify, because we have obviously had some horror stories out with local authorities verifying and self-certification in buildings. Therefore, to seek an update by April 2018, there will be a report that will be put forward. It also mentions that the work relating to building standards has been rated as poor performance, but Glasgow City Council is one of them, and Glasgow City Council is within my area and my constituents. I look forward to that report to see exactly what can happen. I mentioned the fact that my constituents at the moment in those two towers—two blocks on the harbour site—really are having a horrendous time. The horrendous time that they are having is when we talked about fire safety. Those people are paying £2,000 a day for three gentlemen to walk around with a torch, etc. They are looking for a fire, £2,000 a day. They may be penalised by residents there, and they are not all by means rich people. Those flats are not half a million-pound flats. They may be excited to have to pay for the cladding to be removed and replaced at a cost of between £1 million and £10 million. Who is responsible for that? That is what we are trying to find out. That is why I have met the residents in an advice to get a lawyer on board. That is why I come to the verifier. I know that it has been mentioned before. I am trying to get my head round all this verifier certification. It is all speaking. It is not really in the layman's term, but I will do my best. The local authority of building standards, LBASF, has stated that the work of verifiers has two elements to check that the building plans comply with building regulations when an application is made for a building warrant and undertaking reasonable inquiry to verify that the building work complies with the approved details and regulations. It also says that the verifier can inspect on-going work and may also require work to be opened up to show that compliance with the regulations has been achieved. On that point, it is a really important point about compliance with regulations has been achieved. I would like to read out just a paragraph. I would not name the constituent who has sent this in, if I had lots and lots of letters, but this is their story about what has happened to them. Just now, I bought the flat that I have named about £2,000 a day—maybe £10 million—to fix it. I bought the flat on 24 June 2005 directly from the builder—I think that I can name the builder because we know who they are—Taylor Wimpey, almost two months after the change in building regulations that have been on the statute books since 2003 and became mandatory on May 2005. I would like someone to tell me or to have a look at this. Who is responsible for this? The regulations came out in 2003, before the buildings were completed. I do not think that it takes Einstein to assume that anyone who is building and is not being built must have known or I would assume that they would know about the change in building regulations, i.e. the cladding, which came in force in Scotland because our regulations are different from the rest of the UK. Who is responsible? If the regulations came out in 2003 and May 2005, you bought the flat in June 2005 with the cladding, which is now deemed to be dangerous. Who is responsible for that? I take you back to the paragraph that I read before about the verifier that can inspect on-going work and may also require work to be opened up to show that compliance with the regulations has been achieved. Is that the builder that is responsible for the new? Is it the verifier, i.e. the council that knows about this? Those things have to be highlighted and people need to know exactly what they can do. As I said before, those folk aren't millionaires. It could be any one of us and yet they are stuck in this trap £2,000 a day and nearly £10 million to repair this to take this cladding off. That is why I think that the report is absolutely a fantastic report and I am so pleased to be able to speak in this debate just to highlight this fact that self-certification building warrants, it really needs looked at and I really would support a clark of works being brought back in to ensure that people know exactly what they are buying. I would firstly like to thank the local government and communities committee for its work. In particular, I think that the committee and its clarks deserve praise for their flexibility and willingness to extend its inquiry to cover issues arising from the Scottish government's review following the horrific disaster at Grenfell Tower. Whilst we await the outcome of the inquiry into Grenfell, one thing is clear, the fire penetrated every element of the building and compromised the escape routes. It is those images of acrid black smoke swenking the tower, of flames ripping without mercy through its halls and the resulting terrible loss of life that underpins why this debate is so important. It should not be considered as a reserved issue or a devolved issue. It is an issue that resonates profoundly with all of us, as parliamentarians, as parents and as human beings. Ensuring that there is an effective review and delivery of a robust regulatory framework for building standards and fire safety is the contribution that we in this Parliament can make to minimise the risk that a tragedy like Grenfell will ever happen in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives welcomed the establishment of the ministerial working group, and we look forward to reviewing its findings alongside those of the Scottish Government's consultation. In doing so, I hope that we will also look at the work that is currently being undertaken by the UK Government, which has been taking written evidence from key experts in fire safety since that awful day in London. Kevin Stewart Presiding Officer, I can assure the chamber that I have been taking part in the UK ministerial working group, too. In terms of the sharing of information, my officials and myself have also talked to Dame Judith Hackett, who is heading up the UK review of building standards. That will continue. I think that we all can learn from one another. Beyond that, I am meeting the UK minister of housing, Alex Sharma, on Monday, and without doubt, this will be on the agenda. Michelle Ballantyne I am really delighted to hear that minister. I think that that is an excellent example of co-operation in an area and at a time when it really needs to be. I want to use the time that I have today to flag a number of important issues around fire safety that have arisen for me on studying the committee's report and from my own research and experience. First of all, I want to acknowledge that the working group has already commissioned and is making substantial progress with an infantry and inspection of high-rise domestic buildings in Scotland, and that is something to be welcomed. I noted also that it is the committee's view that the objectives of the working group should be to focus on a review of current building and fire safety regulations and to make necessary changes. I hope that, in doing so, the working group will consider recommending that all regulations and technical guidance are subject to constant review and incremental improvement to respond and keep abreast of innovative construction methods, systems and products. That should also be underpinned by a robust requirement for and the provision of ongoing training for those charged with building and fire safety regulation compliance, particularly around the area of fire safety, where current regulations offer little explanation of the rationale. Inevitably, in the wake of Grenfell, there have been calls for all high-rise domestic properties to be fitted with fire sprinklers, and I understand that the ministerial working group will examine this issue. While support for sprinklers is unanimous in this chamber, and understandably so, I would urge a note of caution. Without a rigorous maintenance programme in place, sprinkler systems can run the risk of not functioning optimally. Further, sprinklers must also not be seen as a risk reduction that reduces the level of fire brigade cover required. The ministerial working group must recognise that maintenance of sprinkler systems is imperative, and I hope to see some real and detailed analysis of that in its report. Daniel Johnson I quite agree that sprinklers cannot be a substitute for other things, but is she not really making a case to make sure that our regulations are robust in all regards and that they are all followed through an inspector properly, not simply just sprinklers? Michelle Ballantyn Yes, I would agree with that, but in this particular point I am talking specifically about sprinklers, but you are absolutely right. Everything should be robust in terms of its follow-through. Presiding Officer, we cannot and should not understate the role of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in supporting a robust approach to fire safety, and I welcome the minister's commitment to consider an increased role for them in the verification process. I trust, however, that any added role in that capacity will be properly resourced, given the strains that Scottish and Fire Rescue are currently experiencing. The last point that I want to raise is a very important area in the consideration in fire safety design and advice going forward. Currently, the term fire engineer is not connected to any particular professional qualification, and accordingly, the experience, training and quality of advice under that title can vary. There have been calls for the fire engineering industry to develop a system for establishing competence on an on-going basis, and I hope that the Government will look at this key area to ensure the fire safety design of buildings in Scotland and, indeed, across the UK are underpinned. The process to verifying building design before issuing a building warrant in Scotland should be a holistic joined-up approach, fortified by professional expertise and robust chartership. That means that it should involve the SFRS and local authorities, but working in conjunction with industry specialists, with expertise in fire dynamics, including toxicology, ignition, chemical interaction and the structural design and fire protection of buildings. In closing, the establishment of a ministerial working group is a laudable step forward. I welcome the consideration of the role of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in assessing fire safety in high-rise domestic buildings. I look forward to reviewing the outcome of this body of work, and I certainly hope that it can be a catalyst for delivering a fire and safety and building regulation framework fit for the 21st century. I call Mark Griffin to be followed by Andy Wightman. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I congratulate the local government and communities committee for the work that they have done so far in bringing this issue to the chamber. In a matter of weeks, the Parliament and MSPs here will consider whether it will pass on 300 million pounds of cuts to our services handed down by the Conservative Government. If previous years are anything to go by, it is vital that local services and hard-working local government staff will bear the brunt of any so-called savings. I know that that is not a budget debate, but the decisions that we make in the chamber about how we fund services are fundamental to the debate on building standards and safety in Scotland. I welcome the report and the committee's detailed work. I fully agree that verification must remain a locally delivered Government function, but, as has been mentioned before, the backdrop to the committee's inquiry has both been tragic and eye-opening. A number of speakers have reminded us how the Grenfell disaster rapidly moved our attention to the importance of building regulation, which the committee rightly widened the scope of its inquiry to include. Of course, the impetus for the inquiry was the failure of the PFI agreements, which led to scores of schools in this city being closed. However, at the heart of the report is a debate about how we should provide a public service in response to the state being eroded. For us, on this side, the response is that we should fight the cuts that have brought us to this point. Our plan is to use the taxpayers that we have, recognising that the salami slicing within local government now totaling £1.5 billion since 2011 is harming the front-line services that we all use and rely on. However, it has also had a drastic impact on the back-office functions, where staff numbers and services have been slashed, such as building standards. I thank Mr Griffin for giving way. We could have an argument across the chamber about resourcing. Last year, we delivered an extra £400 million to local services at local government. However, on building standards, I have given all local authorities the opportunity to beef up their building standards service by raising the fees that were not raised since 2005. Would Mr Griffin join me in urging local authorities to ensure that that money is used to beef up their building standards services? I welcome that. There are other ideas that are flying around, a similar idea that was proposed around added fees for the planning service to provide for an improved service and a similar option on building standards. However, we have colleagues in local government, trade unions, who represent local government staff, who are coming to us and telling us about the pressure that particularly back-office staff are facing. Just weeks after Grenfell unison's building stress report highlighted that half of all building standards staff are feeling the cuts in funding with 9 out of 10 facing heavier workloads in building standards offices across Scotland. There are 56 fewer staff than there were in 2010, building standards officers feeling overstretched, undervalued and exhausted. Months after Grenfell, when we belatedly got the news that homes in Glasgow have ACM cladding, that only underlined unison's findings. The message in that report is clear that our local authorities must have the funding to carry out effective verification, allowing verification to move away from local authorities would be a mistake. I emphasise that building standards must be a protected local government service, and that is not an ideological point, but one made for the sake of public safety. The arguments have been well rehearsed over issues down due to impartiality and conflicts of interest that I firmly believe that that service should remain with local authorities. There should be no question about who provides the verification service, instead we should be asking how a quality public service prioritising public safety is funded. That includes the contributions that developers make. As I was saying, they call from the house building industry to pay higher fees in return for better planning service was a constructive move. With an economy, most we see limping along. I can understand calls for verification to be extended. The National Housing Building Council said that the time for obtaining a stage 1 warrant can vary from two weeks to 45 weeks and from nine weeks to 98 weeks at stage 2. That is just not acceptable. When builders are up against a glacial building standard service because of cuts and understaffing issues, I can understand why our housing crisis is so persistent and continues to stay with us. Our call for a more comprehensive house building plan that goes beyond the starting and completion numbers is alive to that. To achieve the ambition of 50,000 affordable homes or to revert to pre-crash house building levels, we really need to take a long hard look at how we support the supply and maintain skills and planning infrastructure. We are debating the power of verification today, and that might seem like a technical issue, but it is a crucial one about the impact of austerity on public safety and public services, and with weeks until the budget, we have to think closely about the unintended consequences of decisions that we make in this chamber. I would like to thank my committee colleagues, Clark, Spice and all those who have given evidence to the committee's inquiry. For the avoidance of doubt, I am responding to the report here on my own behalf on that of the Scottish Green Party. As others have already said, the inquiry began modestly, but the tragic fire at Grenfell placed our deliberations in an altogether harsher focus. Building regulations exist to ensure that the buildings that we live and work in are safe, meet relevant environmental standards and protect the interests of others in relation to, for example, fire, noise and odours. In general terms, it is fair to say that we found that our building standard regime is reasonably robust, but, as we found out in the course of our deliberations, the system has weaknesses, some of which are substantial. They were brought into a sharp focus by the COLE report, which the Education Committee has been looking into, and no doubt will be a major feature of the Grenfell inquiry. However, given the importance of standards, it is vital that they be robust in their terms and rigorously applied in practice. We have heard talk this afternoon about verification, and the National Housebuilding Council and others have said to us that they would like to see the job of verifying that standards are being met to be made available to the private sector. I am not persuaded that a case has been made why that should happen. I welcome the committee's recognition that verification should not be tender to the private sector and, instead, should remain within the control of local authorities for the benefits of impartiality, accountability and local knowledge. I have a wider problem with calls for verification to be opened up to the private sector. As many members know, I have long called for the speculative volume house building industry model to be scrapped. It is not fit for purpose and it does very little to address the housing crisis beyond inflating house prices and delivering overly-priced homes with short design lives. The speculative nature means that the needs and interests of consumers are nowhere in the process. That is at the root of many of the problems that Mr Simpson's constituents brought to him. In addition, that is an industry dominated by very few large players with substantial influence in the industry. Indeed, for example, Nicola Barclay, the chief executive of industry body homes for Scotland, also sits on the board of the Consumer Code for Homebuilders and the Scottish Committee of the NHBC. An oligarchy of large nationwide businesses now dominate lobby and seek to assert control of housing policy based on their own agenda. In the last decade, since the recession, we have seen a sharp decline in the number of SME businesses operating in the house building sector. This has proved advantageous for large-scale developers, but it delivers little competition and reliability or assurance for the consumer. I think that this is important, particularly in relation to questions raised in the report about the role of clerks of works and whether their role should be extended within the building industry. The term clerk of works derives from clerics who were responsible for the supervision of the building of churches from the 13th century on. As the Institute of Clerks of Works and Construction and Spectrum noted in their website—this is an institute, incidentally, with a very long history—the role of a clerk of works is a very isolated one, they describe it as. Clerks must be absolutely impartial and independent and are employed by and accountable to the client for ensuring building quality. For example, a health board that wishes to procure a new hospital will, for example, employ architects and planning consultants to design new buildings. They will then put the construction project out to tender. The health board will then employ a clerk of works to check that the work of the contractor is done according to the plans and that the clerk of works will look after the health board's interests as the client. By definition, clerks cannot be in the pay of the contractor. That poses particular problems when applied to the speculative volume house building industry, which, very unusually in the European context, is responsible for the construction of the vast majority of new homes in the UK. The client in the case of the volume house building industry is the house building company, but, crucially, they are not going to be the owner of the building for very long. They will sell it after completion, indeed often before completion or even before work starts. The ultimate client, the future homeowner, has no-one, no-one looking after their interests during construction because of the speculative model. That is one reason why we need to move to a more European model of self-procured housing by individuals, co-operatives, councils and others, which accounts typically for 60 to 70 per cent of all new builds in most continental European countries. It is also the reason why a clerk of works is meaningless in this context, because the interests of the speculative volume house builder are not the same as the interests of the person who will ultimately acquire that house and live in it. The best way to ensure high building standards is firstly to invest, as others have pointed out, in the building surveying profession within local authorities. I welcome the order that we passed in committee some months ago, allowing councils to increase the charges for building standards. Second, to move to a model of self-procurement of housing by individuals, co-operatives, housing associations and others. Such a model will drive up standards by making sure that the interests of the building owner are represented and protected from the very beginning of the building project. I look forward to working with the committee to produce a final report in light of the contributions that are made today. It is important to note that the report that we have published has a number of recommendations in it, but most of the recommendations are expressed in the form of questions. Those questions are designed to be answered by MSPs and others who have been engaged in the work of the committee over the length of its inquiry in order to help us to produce a final report. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As a non-member of the committee, I am not sure that I am in the best position to provide the answers. Andy Wightman has just referred to, but I would certainly pay tribute to the committee for the work that it has done, for the recommendations that it has made and for the legitimate and pertinent questions that it has included in the interim report. Those inquiries are never straightforward, but I do not think that it has been helped. The committee is to be very much commended for the way in which it has managed to incorporate the findings of the coal report and respond to the horrific events of the Grenfill disaster in expanding out its inquiry and the evidence that it has taken. On that latter point, I would add solely to what I did when Angela Constance made her statement last week on the work of the ministerial working group that very much support the three work streams that were outlined by the cabinet secretary and reiterated by Kevin Stewart. They seem to be sensible and very welcome. As I said in response to that statement, however, while expanding the role and responsibilities of the fire and rescue services seems to be a reasonable expectation on the work on going on fire safety, I think that, as Mark Griffin said, we are talking about a service that is already under considerable strain. I think that it would be helpful to understand the resourcing of any expansion of those roles and responsibilities. Turning to the issue of verification, I listened with interest to the contributions of other colleagues and understand why committee members were wrestling with the competing interests of whether the process and responsibility should remain within local authorities or be outsourced to the private sector. On balance, I accept that, in terms of accountability and avoiding conflicts of interests, I am ensuring impartiality that the course recommended by the committee seems to be a sensible one, but I accept that there are real capacity issues in a number of local authorities. I think that leaving open the option for bringing in support where it is necessary from the private sector or expertise from the private sector should be an option that remains open. Unison is just one of a number that we have pointed to the particular strains in local authorities as a result of those capacity and workload constraints. It is not simply in verification and building warrants and planning permissions as well that we see this arising. I think that the minister made a valid point in relation to any increase in the fees in relation to this work. It needs to be directed towards improvement in the service that is provided. That is what gives it its legitimacy. That is what will ensure the buy-in from those who are subject to those fees. In relation to the co-report, it has talked about the need to strengthen the verification processes. I think that the exploration of mandatory inspections is a sensible route to go, although we need to be clear what the criteria would be on which those are based. We also need to make sure that penalties are enforced so that that does not come across as simply a superficial exercise. There is a sense that more site inspections are needed, but what is also required is a culture shift within the industry itself. I will turn to a couple of issues that are probably more tangential to the topic, but are important. Nonetheless, I was very glad to hear Andy Wightman touching on what I see as a fairly centralised approach to the procurement of housing development. The Scottish Government, in using SFT, has created a situation whereby it is dependent on a few extremely large co-operations that are essentially now just management contractors. Even where that leads to poor quality development, it seems to be that there is little risk of recourse that tends not to be challenged. For example, you would not expect that the smallest local authority in the country, Orkney Islands Council, would be capable of taking on Galliford. Try a company with a turnover of £3.5 billion. It strikes me that the portal system for procurement that we now have risks locking in monopolistic positions for the major players, who then decide among themselves how they want to divide up different contract opportunities across the country. That is not in the interests of customers. It is not in the interests of the wider economy. Smaller companies find their ability to win contracts or secure reasonable margins where they are subcontracted and suffer as a consequence. In turn, it reduces the opportunities to develop skills in local economies, particularly in places such as the Highlands and Islands. The final point that I wanted to make was in relation to an issue that I will be familiar to the minister from his various visits to Orkney over the years. It is in relation to energy standards around building regulations. I think that there is ample evidence that the application of the building regulations is not necessarily doing what we would expect to do in the instance of Orkney. As the minister will know, I have made the case that, at the moment, they appear to be building in fuel poverty. A fabric first approach could help to address issues of fuel poverty, reduce bills across the board as well as reduce emissions. I know that the minister is sympathetic to the argument. Unfortunately, the way in which building standards will apply the regulations is very much to the letter rather than necessarily to the spirit. Therefore, that needs to be addressed. In conclusion, I thank again Bob Doris and his colleagues on the committee. They have shone a light on an issue on a growing landscape where there is clearly work to be done in terms of improving the safeguards, delivering the public policy objectives and delivering public expectations about what should be achieved through building regulations and fire safety. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the final report in due course. I call Ben Macpherson to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am also not a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, but I very much wanted to speak in today's debate with regard to case work that I have received with regard to development that is taking place in my constituency and with a mindfulness about the potential development that will take place in my constituency in years to come and also correspondence from many architectural firms that are based in Edinburgh, Northern and Leith. This is an important and considered report, and I strongly welcome it, which is vitally significant at a time when house building is so important for our national policy and the Government's policy. For example, there were nearly 9,000 affordable homes approved in 2016, a 20 per cent rise, and we all welcome that. As we move forward with that social housing development and also private sector development, it is really important that, as we embark on that, we review where we are today and also how building standards have affected the last phase of development, particularly pre-financial crash. This report challenges us to ensure that those new builds going forward are of a high standard in terms of the regulatory framework that covers them, their construction and the quality of build. I have heard from a number of constituents in Edinburgh, Northern and Leith who have had problems now with their new build development, similar to those that have been articulated by other members. Problems with dampness, insulation issues, poor workmanship and inability for recourse. In our determination to build more homes amid Scotland's current high housing demand, we must make sure that the standards of build are high and those that we would want for ourselves and each other and all of the population of Scotland. The dominance of a few big firms, which has already been mentioned, working with a multitude of subcontractors, can play a part in poor building standards in my experience. As the report explores, there should be, in my view, a more systematic and informed approach by those enforcing building standards to assess risk. For example, we need notifications to authorities of poorly performing building and construction firms with mandatory inspections during building, alongside the risk-based approach that is currently adopted. As the report also helpfully notes, we will need careful scrutiny to determine the best way to manage this process and what penalties or sanctions should be in place to make sure that we prevent building works proceeding without the relevant building control warrant or relevant subsequent inspections. In Edinburgh, as in some other local authorities, attention is needed to ensure that local authorities continue to be the best bodies to act as verifiers for projects in their areas. That is, again, something that has come through to me from case work in my constituency. Building control departments can fall short on occasion in terms of delays, even with simple applications and with regard to the care and attention that they bring to projects. Constituents have noted concerns that too few warrant officers are visiting sites and that that is leading to delay. That can impact on quality of build, as architects, builders and their clients are all stuck waiting for warrant approval. Having local authority control on verification can only offer a guarantee of standards if local authorities are also in a position to staff their relevant departments to meet the level that is needed. That is why fees charged for building standards verification need to meet the cost of providing the service and that is why I also welcome the minister's recent action to facilitate raising fees and recommendations in the report on this matter. As the report says, buying a house will for many people be the most significant purchase of their lifetime and it is understandably distressing for homeowners when the quality of build of their home is of a substandard. For constituents, that has been particularly pertinent with new builds. Therefore, I am also interested in the idea that has been put forward of a specific new ombudsman to shine light into this part of the housing sector. As part of this revision, people who have either bought or opted to rent a new off-plan home could be given the right to inspect their home prior to the buying or renting process being finished and to defer completion until everything is satisfactory. Any good build process with the standards that are expected of those who build or build their houses is hugely important. The recession pushed out as much as half of the industry's skilled labour. A fifth of existing building workforce is set to retire in the next five years, so we all face a challenge when it comes to the construction skills gap and we all need to work together in terms of supporting the education sector in that regard, not least because of the consequences that Brexit will have on the building construction sector. There is an issue in Scotland where several of the builders do not have formal qualifications. In that regard, I might want to add something to the debate where I think that it is interesting and useful to make comparisons with Europe in order to consider how we could tackle this challenge and other challenges together. In the time remaining, I will give an indication of my understanding of what they do in some other European countries based on constituency correspondence and research. In Denmark, it is my understanding that there is a dedicated local government department in every local authority area whose role is to independently survey all newly constructed buildings for quality. That department has full legal power and authority to compel builders to rectify all faults before anybody can move into the development. In such cases, the builder is compelled to place a highly visible notice on the property, advertising that their work is not up to standard and that they have to carry out repairs. I could go through other examples, but I will write to the minister in that regard. I warmly welcome the report on the collective aspiration within it. I see that this is an opportunity, along with the planning and perhaps the warm homes bill, to make progress on this very important issue in all of our determination to serve our constituents and to enhance the urban environment of Scotland. We now have to keep strictly to time. I would like to welcome the detailed and insightful report prepared by the local government and communities committee. I pay tribute to the work of the members and the clarking team. It is clear that many debates in this Parliament can inspire passion from all sides and that is only to be expected in a Parliament that is a normal part of parliamentary democracy. However, those debates today are set against the backdrop of two very serious incidents. The first, the tragic death suffered as a result of a fire at Grenfell Tower in June. The second, the collapse of the external wall at Oxgang's primary school, an incident that could have been far more serious in its consequences. Both exposed weaknesses in the construction work on the buildings and potentially weaknesses in how that construction was regulated. Much of the committee's initial work in this inquiry, however, related to private housing construction, rather than specific situations that have arisen. In all those cases, there are shared concerns in how safety is placed at the heart of regulation. The extraordinary circumstances of the two events mentioned have rightly received further scrutiny through the coal report and the independent public inquiry into Grenfell. The committee's report, as a result, has been wide-ranging, looking at the question of building regulation and safety as a whole. However, I would like to focus on one key issue in relation to its finding and its evidence taken. As the committee's report acknowledges, a shortage of skilled and well-trained entrants was cited by several contributors as being a significant factor in delays around obtaining building warrants and undermining compliance with building standards. The Federation of Master Builders echoed the point about a shortage in technical skills across the construction industry in the round, and the impact that that has had on building control departments in local authorities across Scotland. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors pointed to a lack of action on promoting building standards as a career choice. We know that there are significant issues with providing the skilled workforce that will be required in the construction industry for the future. That is not only an economic issue but also an issue that we may find constraints and ambitious policies around building homes and infrastructure in the future. We have seen some positive work in promoting the construction industry, but more needs to be done, and particularly on building standards and related occupations. There is, of course, a wider backdrop around the availability of employment and progression. That is both a matter of providing for a healthy economy that is prepared to build, but also a significant issue for the public sector as an employer. That is why it was particularly concerning to see respondents like Highland Council stating candidly that local authorities' success and management in those areas had seemingly fallen off the radar. The committee noted the council's view that apprenticeships and training surveyors seem to be a thing of the past. Overall, the CITB has identified a need for 12,000 new workers in the construction industry over and above currently committed modern apprenticeship places. Building safety training is vital across the industry, but it is equally necessary that the need for specialists does not go unmet. Whatever solutions we find to enhance the protections that currently exist are adequately resourced and skilled. The minister outlined some of those cases in response to questions by my colleague Alexander Stewart at the committee in its evidence session in September, and I welcomed his commitment to working with the industry. The minister also spoke, then, of his concerns that a number of large firms were not taking on apprenticeships at the same level as the smaller firms, and that could well be a matter that needs addressed. All of those issues around skills and employment will, of course, be underlined by the regulation that accompanies them. The coal report made a number of proposals on areas for the Scottish Government to consider in relation to inspections for building work and the penalties where builders acted improperly and proceed without the necessary certification and inspections taking place. One group of professionals that I have not yet touched upon is the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I do not intend to dwell too extensively on that, except to note their substantial role in visits and inspections. They do excellent work across Scotland, and particularly in my region of the Highlands and Islands, in ensuring fire safety and preventative approach. I would particularly draw attention to the committee's recommendations in this area, and the concern raised by the Fire Brigades Union Scotland on handover of new-build properties. Their evidence showed that there was a considerable problem of identifying formal change over responsibility for these types of properties between building control and the fire service. That is a concerning issue, and one that I am sure the minister of working group and others will have looked into. Deputy Presiding Officer, in looking forward to a future where safety is better regulated in construction projects, it is essentially that we get the fundamentals right. This means a real focus on issues like skills, capacity and workforce planning. I welcome again the work that the committee has brought forward on that in its report, but it is clearly only a starting point for discussions that must take place. Richard Lyle to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this committee report and the focus that we have all had today on building and fire safety. It is a topic that continually needs to be addressed for the safety and peace of mind of Scottish citizens. Much has already been said regarding the tragedy of Grenfell. I only wish to add that my heart goes out to the friends and families of those who suffered loss of life, home and property. The residents of Grenfell Tower had numerous occasions expressed concern about the safety of the building prior to its destruction. This tragedy has made it abundantly clear that the concerns of tenants and homeowners are the utmost importance. I believe that the UK Government inquiry will be far reaching and it must address all comments and concerns of residents. This Scottish Government has made listening to the concerns of residents a top priority. This way, it is working towards preventing any future disasters. I hope that, through updating fire and building regulations, prevention will be the main cause of a safer Scotland. Angela Constance, Kevin Stewart, Annabelle Ewing and the Ministerial Working Group have been working hard to assure Scottish citizens of their home in building safety. It is a benefit that Scottish Fire and Rescue has extended its campaign to give fire safety advice to those living in high-rise buildings. Citizens can simply visit the Scottish Fire and Rescue website, where multi-storey flat safety information is on the front page. With the current fears surrounding multi-storey flats, a reassurance that is made by Scottish Fire and Rescue is that you are at no more risk of having a house fire in the multi-storey than those living in other types of houses. The website is full of useful information and it is important that all our constituents are aware of what to do in a fire situation. As a ministerial group in building and fire safety brings new problems to the forefront, it is our job to make sure that the suggested regulations are quickly put into place. There are several three-storey buildings in my constituency that had a form of outside cladding, and some residents had a misconception that that might be unsafe. It can be unsafe, but it does not meet performance requirements. However, as we know from the report, cladding is made from different materials. I believe that much is being done to remove any hazarded or potential dangerous cladding, so I have no concern regarding the external cladding that was used a number of years ago to upgrade the buildings in my area. I note that that is addressed in the Scottish building standards and fire safety system that states that the external wall should achieve a non-combustible reaction to fire classification or meet the performance levels when tested. If cladding passes a test, then residents should feel secure in residing there. As evidence in the report, however, any buildings that have been used that have used the same cladding that was on the Grenfell tower are currently being removed or being removed with haste. In fact, the safety of buildings often goes beyond cladding, and it is a combination of numerous factors such as insulation of fire doors, smoke detectors and heat detectors. I note the comments that we get this afternoon regarding building standards, and we have to address those comments. It is the responsibility of those who are building to make sure that the structure has a tear to all regulations and they have not cut any corners. I also believe that it is important that local authorities retain the control to prevent unsafe buildings from being built. Local authorities should make sure that no detail goes unnoticed by ensuring that regular site observations of all new buildings are those being retrofitted. That also removes the possibility of a conflict of interest since a very fire from a local council would primarily be interested in the future safety of the residents. Most councils have done much to improve their performance, and I still believe that the local council verifiers are still the most adept for the challenge at hand. Scottish Fire and Rescue do so much for the people of Scotland and deserve a special tribute to their efforts. We can only imagine the day-to-day life of firefighters. They sacrifice by working odd hours, training diligently and ultimately their own safety to save Scottish lives. We must ensure that Scottish Fire and Rescue is equipped and can adapt to any and all situations that they must face. I would now like to pay my compliments to building standards officers and the officers who work in these departments. Their jobs are so essential to ensuring the safety of Scottish citizens. In my previous years as a councillor, I dealt with many building control issues and many occasions helping constituents in regards to building control warrant issues. I am grateful to those who do, I believe, dedicate their lives to make our country a safe one. Their job is a vital one. They often work under a lot of stress to deliver high excellent work in making sure that buildings are up to par. However, I note this afternoon the comments regarding staffing levels, and I believe that councils must address those comments. It is important to remember that buildings are much more than just steel, stone, glass or mortar, but rather where families live, where children learn, where parents work. I commend our Government for proceeding in updating standards with care and concern for our citizens, all those who work towards making a safer Scotland. I am sure that over the next number of years we will constantly review building procedures in order to ensure that those procedures are kept up-to-date. In closing, I would like to thank the committee and the convener for their excellent report and look forward to further debates on this issue. I call Gordon Linters to be followed by John Mason. Building regulations and standards, completion certificates, temporary safety certificates. All of those phrases have been the talk of the tune in Edinburgh in recent days, as well as over the last 18 months. Even colleagues from other parts are likely to have heard about the new main stand at Tyncastle stadium and the concern, particularly amongst hearts fans, for it being completed on time. Success on completion ended days and weeks of speculation in the city over whether the stand would receive its temporary safety certificate as building works continued 24 hours a day in the lead-up to the deadline. That was down to excellent and commendable co-operation between the club and Edinburgh city council officials that it was met. The Tyncastle stadium has also acted as a lifeline for school pupils in Edinburgh in recent times. It was used as a temporary school facility for Edinburgh pupils to displace as a result of the school's defects scandal that rocked the city last year. The call report arising from that has been cited extensively in the committee report under discussion. Its findings are far-reaching and Professor Cole himself highlighted that lessons should extend to procurement and construction in both the public and private sectors. A quote from that report captures the importance of the issues that we are discussing today. It is said that, in relation to the original incident at Oxgang's school in January 2016, the fact that no injuries or fatalities to children resulted from the collapse of the Gable wall at Oxgang's school was a matter of timing and luck. Approximately nine tonnes of masonry fell on an area where children could easily have been standing or passing through. One does not require much imagination to think of what the consequences might have been if it had happened an hour or so later. That stark statement declares the critical importance of building standards, the message that cutting corners and bypassing responsibility can lead to loss of life. That is why this local government committee report is so important and so welcome. What have we learned from such a major incident, not just for building schools? Cole found that the funding model of PPP was not to blame for what happened, although it may have affected the mindset of local authorities when it came to responsibilities for projects. Whatever funding model is used to ever, there is no excuse for lack of essential scrutiny. There must be a rigorous system of checks and balances that does not simply pass the buck and assume that the contractor is delivering what they have promised. That formed a central part of Cole's findings that the City of Edinburgh Council should not have delegated away responsibility and, instead, independent scrutiny should have been in place. Cole's recommendation that public bodies act as intelligent customers within procurement processes has been highlighted in the local government report. Surely it should be a given that the schools that our young people spend so much time in are safe for them. How is this to be achieved? Amongst the many recommendations, I was particularly taken with the idea of a clerk of works present at building sites, which appears to be one potential step towards gaining that confidence and becoming an intelligent customer. In the Edinburgh schools case, it could have made all the difference. Problems identified, such as lack of wall and header ties and other brickwork accessories, were parts of the construction that could have been observed during building before they were covered up by external walls. In the case of the Edinburgh schools scandal, those vital elements were missed. Not only could a traditional clerk of works potentially have identified those problems at the time, but, as he suggested in the report, the mere presence of such a person can positively influence the quality of work that is being done by contractors. Worryingly, though, as Cole states, the inspection role traditionally undertaken by a combination of resident architects, engineers and clerks of works has not only dramatically reduced over recent years but, I quote, the essential role that they played does not appear to have been effectively provided for by alternative arrangements within the forms of procurement currently in vogue. As seen in Edinburgh, that is false economics and I think the minister himself recognised that in his committee evidence. There are, of course, as I said, many other recommendations in the report worthy of consideration, but if the Government takes those on board, it will, of course, need to assist in addressing skills shortages in relevant parts of the construction industry, including availability of clerks of works properly qualified in partnership with industry itself. The safety of our buildings and those who use them demand that. In closing, and following on perhaps from Ben Macpherson's comments about some of the available options in the Danish system, perhaps we even need to consider bringing back the Dean of Guild Court. The last contribution before the closing speeches is John Mason. I think that it can be a challenge for those of us who have not been in a particular committee to then take part in the subsequent committee debate, as we are doing today. Clearly, committee members have been steeped in this subject for weeks, if not months, so I and others cannot possibly have that level of in-depth experience of preparing the report. However, I suppose what I and others like myself can do today is to have a fresh pair of eyes to look at this topic and my comments today are from that perspective. Clearly, Grenfell and the Edinburgh Schools have been a major cause of public concern and are reflected in the report. Our thoughts continue to be with those affected and colleagues have specifically spoken about them. However, I thought that I would focus my remarks more on new private homes, as that is probably the sector that I have had most local case work on over my years as a councillor, an MP and now an MSP. My constituency of Glasgow Shettleston includes an extensive boundary with both North and South Lanarkshire, where, once there was green belt, that area has been very popular with builders and households for new housing over the last 20 years. Paragraph 68 to 83 on the verification certification process and paragraphs 114 to 141 on accountability and the responsibility of builders were of particular interest and are what I will focus on. Paragraph 71 on the risk criteria for an inspection plan was interesting and I was particularly interested in point 6 within that contractor competence and paragraph 73, which considers if there had been problems with a builder previously. It certainly has been my experience over nearly 20 years that for some building companies I have seldom, if ever, had complaints about them from constituents, while for others I have had regular and in some cases numerous complaints. As paragraph 139 says, a home is the biggest purchase most people will make and I think almost every speaker has quoted that as well. Yet sometimes it seems that they get more help if they bought a faulty children's toy or had a dodgy meal in a restaurant. One example recently—I have to say that I am going to refer to the builder but this is only the most recent one because there certainly have been other builders in a similar situation—but one example recently has been Persimmon's new development at what is called Lowlands in Ballaston. I have visited a number of the homes there where you could just press the internal walls and they moved and a room was completely freezing because the insulation had just been missed out. If a builder is still in sight I know residents who have just painted a large X or similar on their front door as aware of warning other prospective buyers about potential problems in that housing estate and I have to say that that has proven to be quite an effective way of getting a builder around your house quite quickly to sort out the problems. Obviously that only works if the builder is still there. Can I say at this point too that while the actual building itself tends to be the main focus of attention, if I have bought a house for £150,000 or £200,000 and the back garden is subsiding away gradually or the grass will not grow because the drainage is substandard, those are maybe external issues but they are also extremely serious and potentially very expensive for the homeowner to sort. So it does seem to me pretty clear that some builders are riskier than others. Being an accountant I wonder if there might be lessons to be learned from the audit process which most large organisations have to go through. The amount of work and detailed checking that the external auditors will do depends hugely on assessing the risk including looking at internal controls and internal audit. If those internal controls are strong, the external auditor can rely more on them and can reduce the detailed checking that they do although it will never entirely eliminate that. Reading the report I just wonder if council building control departments are really assessing risk site by site and builder by builder as thoroughly as they could be. On accountability in paragraphs 114 to 141 a few things did concern me. Paragraph 121 quotes Edinburgh council evidence which included, quote, the house building industry needs to be educated to take more responsibility for its actions, unquote, and, quote, greater accountability and traceability should be introduced to encourage individuals to take personal responsibility, unquote. I have to say seeing such words like that as educate and encourage strike me as indicative of a less than robust system and that concerns me. I cannot imagine a finance department being encouraged or educated to take responsibility for the organisation's finances. They are responsible. The point is also made in paragraph 123 in relation to England and others have mentioned this about the possibility of an ombudsman or should it be an ombudsperson to mediate between the consumer and the builder or the warranty provider. I have wondered too sometimes if trading standards could be involved. When I have tried that approach in Glasgow, they seem to rely entirely on NHBC and similar. However, as has been said elsewhere, NHBC have a slightly different role and I do not think that they are seen as independent in the same way. On the question of who should verify building standards, I have met NHBC and felt that they did put forward quite a strong case. Delays in the present system and faults that have been missed suggest that something needs to change. I was interested in their point that the committee asked no questions in this section whereas it did on others. The fees system for building warrants in paragraphs 43 to 67, questions are asked if the fees should be ring fenced or linked to improvements. Having been a councillor for 10 years, I have some sympathy for local authorities and a bit of concern about ring fencing. If there is a requirement to keep fees within that service, they certainly should be allowed to keep full costs like rents and council overheads. A final point would be one raised with me by a few constituents. If the Government is putting money into new homes, for example the help to buy scheme, some people do assume that the Government is giving some kind of stamp of approval as to the quality of these homes. Constituents have found it particularly galling that the Government encouraged them and helped them to buy a home and the home turned out to be substandard. Anyway, I congratulate the committee on the work that they have been doing and certainly encourage them to continue work in this sector, which is a hugely important one for me and my constituents. That was the conclusion of the last open debate speech and I would have expected everyone who took part in the debate to be back in the chamber by now. However, we move on to the closing speeches and I call on Daniel Johnson. I can say that this has been an interesting and engaging and in-depth debate. It raises some fundamental and big questions ranging from what one can expect from buying a new home, which is a new-build home, through to the safety of our schools and public places. It is also reflected on the tragic events that surround the Grenfell Tower and what we need to learn and do to ensure that our buildings are safe going forward in the future. However, it also touches on the Edinburgh schools crisis that many members have mentioned. I think that it is incumbent on me to reflect on that for a moment, given that it affected my constituency very directly. The Oxgang's primary school, which was the school whose wall fell down in January 2016, is largely in my constituency. It affected St Peter's primary school, which is in my constituency. As Gordon Lindhurst pointed out, it was only through sheer chance and luck that the nine tonnes of masonry that fell to the ground did not do anyone any harm, let alone take any lives. I think that it is with that in mind that we need to think about this debate and the requirements that we have for building standards. As Professor Cole pointed out, and I will touch on this more in depth, every step of the building process requires an improvement in terms of its level of scrutiny and check. It raises the two fundamental questions that we should be asking in the debate. How can we change how our buildings are built in the future, ensuring that they are checked and verified properly? Just as important, what steps do we need to take to verify that the buildings that have already been built are safe? I welcome the debate. I especially like to comment on the approach that the committee has taken. It is a novel approach to asking Parliament questions and seeking to incorporate that debate within a final report. That is something to commend and it has added something to the debate in terms of asking the blunt questions about what should we expect, why should we not think of buying a house in the same way as we buy other consumer products, and what do we need to do to make our buildings safe? However, I would like to touch on the Cole report. In some ways, Andy Wightman—and it is a shame that he is not in the chamber right now—touched on the right of the heart of Cole. He did not mention Cole directly, but Andy Wightman's questioning of who is doing what and for whom on whose behalf is the fundamental question that Cole asked. He went right the way through the procurement and build stage. Procurement, design, build, handover and maintenance. He was asking every stage what had been going on. The fundamental problem was that local authorities have been treating those building contracts as black boxes. However, they are reluctant to inspect, which, in the words of the report, they were worried about incurring liability themselves. That is fundamentally what has to change. We need verification steps. The structural component says that we have to be certified and checked. That is about a number of things. A number of people have identified clerks of works, and that is absolutely right and a fundamental insight from the Cole report. However, as Jamie Halcro Johnston pointed out, there is also about individual contractors and tradespeople being properly trained and taking responsibility for their work. We need those skills, but we also need those skilled people to take responsibility for their work. That is another fundamental point from the Cole report. Another point that has come to the fore, and I am glad that it has, is around building control and what we should expect. I thought that Sandra White did an excellent job of trying to get grips with, what does this jargon mean? What should we expect? Surely, if it has a building certificate, that building should be safe. It strikes me as remarkable that we have to ask that question. I think that Sandra White has explained that we need to open up the buildings to check what has actually been done. That is exactly what we have to ensure happens, but it is not what is happening. Beneath the guise of the risk-based approach, we have a huge variation of what is being checked, what is being verified, and we need greater standardisation. The tragedy is that the reality of why that is not happening is because of resource. When we asked those questions at the education committee, what came back was that building control cannot guarantee those things. They are unable to do that because they do not have the resource to do it. We would need a huge increase in resource if we were wanting building control to do it. Even when I put those questions to the minister, the minister acknowledged that there needed to be much greater investment if that was what we wanted to see. We all know what greater investment is a euphemism for in this context, but Mark Griffin pointed out that it is a vital local service and one that we need to do under right safety. I will let the minister intervene on that. Kevin Stewart I think that I made it quite clear about investment and that is one of the reasons why I took the decision to allow for an increase in charges since 2005, the first one. I have made it quite plain—I think that the committee has made it quite plain—as have others in this debate, that local authorities need to look at increased resources and ensure that they build up their building standards sections. If they choose not to do that, then that is something that I will have to look at at a later time. Daniel Johnson I have merely pointed out that it was quite a long period of time between 2005 and 2017 before we saw those increase in fees. We need to question what has been happening in the meantime. A number of members talked about the ministerial working group. I think that Bob Doris was absolutely right to ask and urge the Government to make sure that that is not something that is essentially a one-off process, but that it is something that is on-going and continues to look at the scope, to undertake that fundamental work, to make sure that we have the right safety standards and procedures in place. Likewise, Dave Stewart quite rightly questioned the scope of that work. I think that there has very rightly been an emphasis on high-rise residential buildings, an emphasis on cladding, because that is what has triggered that. However, we have to keep questioning, keep probing, because we do not know what other issues are out there. Critically, one of the other key findings of the core report was the failure to install fire-stopping measures in our buildings. Professor Cole also, in evidence to our committee, said that we do not know how big that problem is. For as long as Donald Rumsfeld might have put it, unknown unknowns, we need to keep pushing and challenging our building regulations and fire regulations. We need to make sure that we have an inspection regime that is properly resourced to make sure that all our public buildings are safe. Disappointing to note that we still do not have a full complement of those who took part in this debate. I call Alexander Stewart around six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to close on behalf of the Conservatives and as a member of the local government and committee committee myself. We have heard today how we had the opportunity to deal with the inquiry, and the committee wanted to ensure that we took on-board events that have taken place. As we have heard earlier today, the report on the independent inquiry into the construction of the Edinburgh schools gave us a lot of food for thought, but the main objective that expanded our inquiry was the tragic fence at Grenfell Tower. Many members today have gone through the whole issue of the safety of the building and the situation that we found ourselves in. Local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of building regulations, and the Act 2003 gives them the power to deal with work out with building warrants. The committee wanted to expand on the parameters and see what was happening with regard to verification across Scotland. The building standard system in Scotland was changed in 2005 to permit the appointment of verifiers, and the balance of that is very much a scorecard approach, and we wanted to see how that progressed. The committee took lots of evidence and information, and I pay tribute to those who came and told us their situations from the organisations, individuals and anyone who wanted to give us the nightmare scenario that they may have faced or the situation that they were finding themselves in. That was the crux of the matter. We took individuals' words and they told us, in fact, about how things were and how things should be and the stories that they had gone through. Over 90 per cent of respondents to the survey that we sent out online talked about the undertaking of it, and half of them believed that there should be an expanded beyond local authorities dealing with verification, whereas 40 per cent thought that the verification should remain within local authorities. Notwithstanding in March of this year, the minister appointed 32 local authorities as the verifiers of their own geographical area. Some believe that the verification should be extended and expanded, and, as he said, the evidence gave us that. The minister appointed different local authorities as verifiers for different periods of time depending on their performance. If some local authorities continue to underperform, they should have the possibility of verification being moved. I welcome the comments that the minister has said today about authorities not doing the job and being challenged, because I think that it is vitally important that we give the confidence within the industry and the confidence within the sector that that is the case and that the roles, responsibilities and rights of the people are protected. I thank him for the comments that he made. We have had many good contributions, but I pay tribute to my other member, the consultative member on the committee, Graham Simpson, who was the one who should be congratulated and commended, because he was the one who endeavoured to ensure that all of us took this on board. He, like myself, had been a local councillor, so we knew of the difficulties that were happening in our own constituent and own wards that we dealt with in the past, but he had the tenacity to make sure that it became a reality, and I commend him for that. As I said at the evidence sessions, the evidence spoke volumes about the problems that individuals were facing. Bob Doris, our committee convener, set the context today of the whole report and the way that we have been tackling it as a committee and talked about the evidence and accountability, and he also talked about us being able to monitor the minister's working group as it progresses. I think that that is also vitally important that we have that contact between us. Michelle Ballantyne gave a very passionate and knowledgeable and understandable speech about the fire situation in Sporces, and I pay tribute to Sandra White, who also talked about her own constituency and the problems that she faces in that location, and the anxieties that individuals who live and are in that location have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Those of us who do not have that kind of constituency to manage must be a real challenge for us as an MSP and to make sure that we have the information that they require. David Stewart was very passionate about his idea about the Scottish solution and wants to deal with the fire sprinkler system, and I commend him for what he is trying to achieve. I look forward to seeing the member's bill progressing and the discussion that we can all have at that time. Jamie Halcro Johnston talked about the weaknesses that are taking place within the industry and that the safety issues should be at the heart. That is what we all want. The safety issue should be at the heart of the whole process and the shortages that are within the building industry and the action that is required. Andy Wightman is not here, but he talked about the robust situation that we have, but there are weaknesses within that. He has just arrived. He talked about the crisis that we have within the housing sector, from the speculative nature, and that has to be managed and realised that that is a major problem as we go forward. Liam McArthur thanked the committee for what they were doing and talked about accountability and capacity issues. We all understand that there are capacity issues. For anyone who has been in local government for the 18 years that I was and others in the chamber have been similar, there are certainly capacity issues within local government, and they need to be addressed. I am sure that we will continue to challenge ministers and the Government as we go forward on that. Ben Macpherson, you talked about the affordability situation and the affordable homes and the review of building standards and some of the difficulties that you have faced within your constituency, which is a very different constituency standard rights. You might have a more affluent area where people have different aspects of what you are trying to achieve in some respects as to what we have, but there is a balance to be when you are dealing with affordability and the aspects of individuals and what they seem to have. It was Gordon Lindhurst that really hit the nerve when he talked about the whole idea of going forward and the cost of life. To conclude, I thank everybody for their contributions today. As I have said before, it is the confidence that we need in the system to ensure that we have the safeguards in place to protect the people and our constituents. I pay tribute to the staff, the supporters and the clerks who helped us through this process. Colin Kevan Stewart, up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank all members for their views today, and I can assure them that I will give careful consideration as we progress our work. I apologise in advance because I am not going to be able to mention every single thing that has come up today or to acknowledge every single member's contribution, but I would like to thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for that wide-ranging and considered investigation into building standards in Scotland. I would also like to thank the Education and Skills Committee for its previous inquiry, too. Again, much of that work will inform and feed into the various reviews that my officials are taking forward. We all want the houses that we live in and the buildings that we use every day to be as safe as possible, and good building standards underpin the safety of us all. We spend nearly 90 per cent of our time in buildings, and it is vital that, in looking to the future, we make every effort possible to continue to improve our standards. The safety of people in and around buildings is of paramount importance to ministers and is at the core of the Scottish building standards system. I recognise the contributions that were made by Mr Johnson and Mr Lindhurst pointing out the Oxgang situation. That was a matter of timing and luck, and that should not happen—full stop. That should not happen, and we need to ensure that we get those things absolutely right. For our buildings to be safe, everyone involved needs to play their part. They must understand their own roles and responsibilities and understand the roles and responsibilities of others in that construction chain. That applies all the way through from procurement, initial and detailed design, through construction and, most importantly, at final sign-off. We must ensure that all that comes into play and is done absolutely properly. Local authorities also have their role to play as verifiers, and, of course, we have had some debate today about verification itself. I took some different steps from my predecessors in terms of appointing verifiers last time, earlier on this year. I will continue to monitor what is going on across the country. I will say to members now that, last week, Edinburgh faced an audit from my officials. Glasgow will face an audit next week, and that work will continue to ensure that there is a drive to improvement in those areas. I want to turn to some of the points that members have made, because I think that that is the most important part of the debate. If I do not get to you, I have comprehensive notes here, and I will ensure that your comments are fed into the processes that we are undertaking. First of all, if I could turn to Mr Stewart, who long has had an interest in building standards and has had an interest in fire safety too. I recognise that he has had conversations with the cabinet secretary and has taken part in a number of fora here in the Parliament, including those that I have attended, and I appreciate his input. On his call about fitting sprinklers into new and existing social housing, we have gone further than many other places in the UK in terms of sprinklers. The review of building standards under the ministerial working group will take account of all relevant evidence, including what is going on already in Angus Fife in Dundee. I think that anything that makes the people of Scotland safer in their homes has to be looked at very carefully indeed. We will look at that closely and we will take any actions forward based on that evidence. In terms of comments by Mr Johnson about aspects of the ministerial working group being focused too much on high-rise. First of all, we said that it would be a short-term ministerial working group, but that short-term has disappeared. We have said that we will work through all of that methodically. Obviously, the situation at Grenfell has taken our attention. The first thing that we needed to do was to ensure the safety of folk living in high-rise properties in Scotland. We will continue to work along that way until we are absolutely certain that we have captured all the information that we need and taken the appropriate action. We will then move on to other aspects of building standards and fire safety, so we will not be ignoring other aspects. We will look at all of that. In particular, Mr Stewart talked about folk in deprived areas who are more at risk at fire. We need to take that evidence-based approach to see exactly what is required to keep people safe. I can assure him that we will look at that in some depth. Another major issue that has been raised is roundabout clerks of works. I expect to improve the role of clerks of works and other professionals to provide the reassurance of building owners carrying out work to be considered again. In the work remit of the building standards compliance and enforcement group chaired by John Cole. I had the great pleasure this morning of meeting a clerk of works, a link housing development here in Edinburgh. I am always impressed by the detailed knowledge of clerks of works and I am always impressed by what people have to say about their new homes or their new buildings if there has been a clerk of works there. Snagging does not seem to be quite such an issue in that regard. The other thing that I did this morning is what I always do when I visit those sites is to speak to apprentices. They are the future. We must all encourage more people to enter into the construction industry. It has a great future and I think that we all across the parties have a part to play in ensuring that folk enter into that industry. Presiding Officer, I realise that I am running out of time fast. What I would say to close is that the ministerial working group can reassure Parliament that the Government is committed to ensuring that lessons are learned and action is taken to make building safe. We are ready to respond to any new evidence that emerges, whether that be from the UK and further afield, from our own working group, from the two review groups on fire and compliance and enforcement. We will consider the findings from the committee's report and the debate today and identify the actions that need to be taken. Finally, Presiding Officer, what I would say to every member is that we will be as open and transparent on that issue. We appreciate those folks who have fed in to what we have been doing thus far, and I would appreciate it if all members continue to do so. I now call on Bob Doris to close the debate on behalf of the local government and communities committee. If you take us to decision time, please, Mr Doris. That is 4.40, not 5 o'clock. I am delighted that it is not 5 o'clock. I think that everyone else is as well, Presiding Officer. I start off by thanking the clerking team on behalf of the local government and communities committee for the space that they have helped in the forum. As always, we have given evidence in written in oral format and fellow MSPs. However, to the building control officers and the length of the bed for Scotland who do a difficult job in challenging circumstances, that inquiry is no slight on them. I want to thank everyone today for their thoughtful contributions and views. I am sure that they will assist the committee when we return to those issues next year. It would be useful that the deputy convener would be summing up at this point having a Lane Smith that unfortunately is unable to be with us this afternoon, so he has stuck with me for a second speech this afternoon. I want to begin by raising an issue that I know Elaine Wood have most certainly raised had she been here. That is the need for a clerk of works. Clerk of works was once a regular feature of public construction acting on behalf of the client to ensure that buildings were constructed to high quality and helping to ensure that any defects are rectified at a time they arise. However, we learned that their use has declined over recent years, albeit some suggested that a few companies might be beginning to use them more often than they have done recently. The presence of clerk of works was recognised in the coal report as impacting positively on the approach of site operatives to the quality of their work. The minister also commented that clerk of works might involve some spending on the ground, but it will save a lot more in the future. While we recognise that the coal report was in response to a particular set of circumstances in Edinburgh schools, we are keen to see that lessons learned there are considered in a wider context. We have therefore recommended that consideration should be given to using clerk of works in a wider range of public construction projects such as high value or very innovative construction projects. The positive impact that clerk of works can have on build quality and addressing defects as they arise was the key reason for persuading us that they should be used more widely. I also note that the Education and Skills Committee in its report on school infrastructure, which followed the coal report, said that, unless there are clear reasons why another method of quality assurance would be more suitable, the employment of a clerk of works reporting to the client should be part of every capital project in the public sector. I am delighted that the minister has signalled in correspondence to the Education and Skills Committee that guidance might be updated to suggest that that should indeed be the case. In relation to the contributions that we have had this afternoon, I want to start with the minister who said that there should be a risk-based assessment in terms of building warrants in the verification process. Our committee believes that there should be a mandatory aspect to that, which there is not currently. We certainly believe that the clerk of works and the use of them would lend itself to there being less risk in a project, so, perhaps, requiring less attention in terms of on-going checks through the construction process. Perhaps we should look at the experience of the builder or the architect or the track record of the developer when deciding how often we should be going out and inspecting those works on the ground. I appreciate Mr Doris giving way. I think that one of the things that I missed in my summing up, which I meant to address, was a comment that was made by Liam McArthur and some others about making sure that penalties are enforced. I think that that is something that we need to look at very carefully indeed. I can assure the convener that I will do that as we progress. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Bob Doris. I thank the minister for that information. I think that, generally, across the board and the chamber, we have identified that a clerk of work will drive up standards in the construction sector. I have to note Andy Wightman's contribution in relation to the conflict and who the clerk of works would be accountable towards, and that is something that has to be ironed out. I appreciate that within the private sector. The minister mentioned that we have to have the right skills to attract and retain the right people within the sector and the forthcoming industry summit. Jamie Halcro Johnston, Dave Stewart and Mark Griffin also made similar points to making sure that the skills were there and the skills were funded within local authority building control departments. I note that a recent fee increase will give additional £3.5 million to local authorities, but I note that money will not be ring-fenced. I note that there is some debate about whether that will allow full cost recovery in relation to all the expenses that building control departments have to spend, which has to be part of the debate. I was fascinated by some of the contributions by Graham Simpson, particularly in relation to his constituency experience and in relation to foundation issues that occurred in relation to some of his constituents, and in roofing issues within the construction process. The key thing that I recognised is that the developers dealt with the issue, but legally they did not have to deal with the issue. It should be one of goodwill, it should be one of compulsion and enforcement. I think that John Mason extended out to talk about not just the bricks and mortar in relation to that but also the gardening and landscaping of the property roundabout. I want to put in record my respect for the work that David Stewart has done in relation to fire suppression systems. The committee remains open minded to the use of that and will listen carefully to the information that David Stewart brought to the chamber. I also thought to Sandra White that her suggestion that it is £2,000 a day in relation to fire safety at Glasgow harbour sounds like a private company profiteering from fire safety, and that is not acceptable. By and large, I also note that most of us, just everyone I think wanted local authority verifiers to be retained, but I note that that did not mean that we do not want to see improved standards within local authorities. The time is almost upon us. I just want to say that, finishing off, our committee will return to this inquiry in the new year. We look forward to the updates from the minister in relation to this, but it would be wrong of me not to finish in relation to a point about Grenfell as we started off here today. One of the issues in relation to Grenfell was that tenants and residents were not listened to, that they were not empowered and that their fears and concerns were not acted upon. I actually thought that Richard Lyle put it very well when he said that buildings and homes are not just steel, stone, glass or mortar, but they are homes for families. What our housing association has done very well in response to Grenfell is to develop that social community contract with all the residents who live in high rises to make sure that they have been reassured and that there is good quality fire safety. However, we can never be complacent. Our committee will return to this matter in the new year and we look forward to updating Parliament, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, and that concludes our debate on building regulations and fire safety in Scotland. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 9170 on committee membership, and I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion on behalf of the bureau. I am now minded to accept a motion without notice to bring forward decision time to now. Are we all agreed that decision time will be brought forward to now? We are agreed. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 8968, in the name of Bob Doris on behalf of the local government and communities committee on building regulations and fire safety in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 9170, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on committee membership, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. I now close this meeting.