Hansard

Over the years, the Government has shown a lot of unfounded confidence in its processes. Back in August 2021, when it launched the single building assessment, it said that it was “consistent and robust” and that it was “fulfilling our commitment”. In May 2022, it said that it was “the next big step”. In August 2022, it said that it was “priority action”. In March 2023, it said that it was an “absolute priority”. In December last year, it returned to its original claim that the process was robust.

That is why there is scepticism about the bill. The Government has been overclaiming with unfounded confidence for all that time. Seven years on from Grenfell, we have hardly made any progress. That is why people are sceptical about the process. The reality is that around 1 per cent of the identified buildings in Scotland have had work completed, whereas, in England, the figure is 20 per cent, and for the buildings on which work has started, the figure is 42 per cent.

Paul Turnbull from the owners cladding working group was very clear. He said that although the single building assessment for his home was done in 2022, absolutely nothing had happened since. That is why there is scepticism and why significant problems arise as a result.

The anxiety and stress that are felt have already been spoken about this afternoon. Sales have been put on hold, house values have potentially dropped and insurance premiums have gone up. The lives of those people have been in limbo. I know some of them personally, and they have gone through great stress and anxiety throughout that time. Sean Clerkin, whom many members will know, said that social housing tenants have been ignored throughout the process.

We need to recognise the reality that hardly any progress has been made and that that has compounded the agony for people who are living in those circumstances. It is difficult to understand why the Government did not identify on day 1—as it has now done—that the tenure process and conditions in Scotland would be a factor. Why has it taken all this time, since before 2021, for the Government to alight on that as being part of the problem? Why did it think that encouragement would somehow be sufficient, that compulsion would not be required and that the whole of Scotland would somehow rally round and everybody would comply with what the Government wished? That was always laughable; it was never going to be delivered in that way. A degree of compulsion was needed.

We understood that with tenement buildings, which is why the Parliament had to introduce legislation for the one or two people who would refuse to comply with any commonsense works that would be required for a building. Perhaps the minister can illuminate us in his concluding remarks, because I do not understand why the Government failed to recognise on day 1 that tenure would be a difficulty and that some degree of compulsion—rather than simple encouragement—would therefore be required.

We broadly support the bill, but because of the scepticism that exists, we are not quite convinced. We are even more sceptical because it is a framework bill that does not go into a tremendous amount of detail. However, we support the ability to identify and remediate risks through the responsible developers scheme. The prohibited developers list is an interesting proposal. A lot of developers go bust at the drop of a hat when there are any difficulties with developments. That is why some companies have multiple companies associated with them that disappear overnight once their development is concluded. I would be interested to know how we make sure that those companies that have some connection with buildings are still held accountable, and that we are aware of their heritage in the area.

Local authorities also need to have the capacity to investigate compliance. We already know that local authorities are having difficulties financially and with their ability to recruit the appropriate personnel, which ties in with the shortage of qualified assessors to deal with the peak in demand that we hope will come from the bill.

We need the Government to put some meat on the bones of the scope of the single building assessment, and we need to understand exactly how far it will go. We also need to be aware of issues beyond cladding. Safety risks that are associated with a building need somehow to be identified by the process, rather than it being limited to cladding issues. If we identify an issue, that needs to be made public so that people know what is involved in their building.

The shortage of housing for decants will be a significant issue. We have a housing emergency. When my constituency endured significant flooding recently, it was difficult to find homes for everyone who was made homeless as a result of those floods. That will be a much bigger problem on a wider scale, given the number of buildings that we are talking about here.

The Chartered Institute of Building’s conclusion shows what the central problem with the bill is: it said that it is an important first step. Seven years on, it is an important first step. That highlights the massive job that we have to do to make sure that the legislation works in practice and that we do not have yet more years of delay and yet more stress and anxiety for home owners and residents.