Seòmar agus comataidhean

If a building does not change structurally and there is no record of any changes—

Are there any other views on whether the terminology that we are using in the bill to define things is actively creating a barrier to quicker progress? It would also be helpful to hear if you have not heard that view.

At previous committee meetings, there have been calls for buildings to be added to the cladding assurance register at a much earlier stage in the assessment and remediation process, instead of when the works are completed, which seems a little odd to me. Are there any views on that point?

Are there any other views on that?

I think that someone will be asking a question on the issue that you have raised. I have a final question. The assurance register is a snapshot in time. Should it be regularly updated? Should there be a record of any changes to a building, which would constitute another assessment?

I am the MSP for Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley.

Does anybody else want to add something, or will we move on, convener?

I will combine two questions that I had into one. I want you to help me understand the issues relating to the role of the PAS 9980 quality standard and the EWS1 process in strengthening the single building assessment. On the previous panel, Gary Strong, who is still sitting behind you in the public gallery, said, I think, that if the single building assessment is robust enough, we will not need EWS1—the SBA will replace it. However, Phil Diamond reminded us that the EWS1 process has loads of small print and has to be preceded by a PAS 9980 assessment. Therefore, if we lose EWS1, we may lose the quality standard assurance framework that is given to us by PAS 9980. I hope that I have articulated that accurately.

Where do we stand on the single building assessment? John Sinclair said that the SBA needs to be clarified in certain places, and John Marr said that perhaps that is for secondary legislation. How can the quality standard and the EWS1 process assist us to get the single building assessment correct and in the shape that it needs to be in?

They are complementary, not conflicting, standards; they all seek the same outcome. Is that right?

Are there any other views on the “alphabet soup”, as John Marr described it, that would provide some clarity to aid the committee’s understanding of the issue?