Seòmar agus comataidhean

The concept of the single building assessment is central to the bill, but witnesses have told us each week that there is a lack of specification and guidance about those SBAs and that we do not know what they will look like, what the specifications will be or what standards buildings will be assessed to. Indeed, Phil Diamond from Diamond and Company (Scotland) Ltd told the committee:

“chartered professionals ... desperately need something to benchmark that, so that everybody is working to the same standard and singing from the same hymn sheet.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 30 January 2024; c 19.]

Does the Scottish Government intend to clearly define the scope of the single building assessment and the standards that the SBA will assess, and, if so, when?

Obviously it is encouraging to hear that you have a task and finish group and that you are having good consultation, but industry would probably like to hear when the work will be completed. A lot of questions have arisen; indeed, I have already raised the point about professionals singing from the same hymn sheet. Kate Hall has mentioned spring, but what timescale are you looking at here? There have already been lots of delays with the cladding situation. What can the industry take from the committee today by way of surety that you will be bringing out the specification in, say, the next four or five months?

Would you be looking at using secondary legislation for that, or will there be guidance?

The committee has heard calls for the Scottish Government to adopt PAS 9980 as the basis for the single building assessment process. It is popular among professionals, offers more flexibility for professional judgment and is widely used by professionals across the United Kingdom. For example, Phil Diamond believes that

“With a bit of modification”

to fit in legal aspects and such,

“the PAS could be the way to go”,

while Gary Strong from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors pointed out that

“a fire is a fire and a building is a building, wherever it is, geographically.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 30 January 2024; c 20.]

Broadly, witnesses seem to agree that there is merit in harmonising standards where possible. How do you respond to the calls to adopt PAS 9980 and harmonise the different standards?

Good morning, I am an MSP for the West Scotland region.

Good morning, panel. Last week, witnesses indicated that there was a “lack of clarity” as to what a single building assessment is—its specification, what it looks like and what standards it is assessing. They also felt that, until that is adequately specified, the programme will not quickly address the life-critical fire safety issues that are associated with external wall systems. Would you agree with that? Do you believe that the use of the PAS 9980 guidance would provide much more clarity on issues that are unclear in Scotland? I put that to Phil Diamond first.

Would completion of the substantial remediation works be enough for insurers to be comfortable ensuring a building?

John McKenzie, the regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union Scotland, said that failure to make meaningful progress in removing the cladding more than six years on is “reprehensible” and shows

“complacency to the point of contempt for those living, working and being educated in buildings wrapped in these materials, and for the firefighters who would be called to rescue occupiers and extinguish cladding fires.”

What is your view on the possible inclusion in the bill of timescales for delivery of cladding remediation, and how might that work in practice, given the various technical and industry factors that could delay such work?

Good morning, panel. Last week, witnesses expressed the need to rapidly get to a place where everyone agrees, including banks and insurers. However, we have heard concerns that, because all the work in a building will need to be completed before it can be included on the cladding assurance register, there is a risk that more substantial cladding remediation works may be completed, but a building will still not be declared safe if other works remain outstanding. Would completion of the substantial remediation works be enough for insurers to be comfortable with insuring a building?

I put the question to Mervyn Skeet first.

A previous witness, in their written submission, raised concerns about the appropriate balance of responsibility for funding remediation work. The Law Society of Scotland expressed concerns that the bill will place commercial pressure on developers to fund remedial works without building a coherent legal framework for distributing costs between all relevant parties. Can you expand on that and say what sort of implications the bill would have for developers and the remediation programme more broadly to proceed without a coherent legal framework?