Official Report 802KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is an evidence-taking session on the Scottish Government’s cladding remediation programme. It arises out of concerns expressed by the committee about the progress that is being made on cladding remediation in the committee’s tracker report. In particular, the committee noted that its consideration of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill was subject to an expedited timescale in order to accelerate remediation; however, that acceleration has not materialised and the committee wants to understand why.
We are joined for this item by Paul McLennan, the Minister for Housing, and by Stephen Lea-Ross, director of cladding remediation in the Scottish Government. Before we begin, I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I am happy to come back to the committee to discuss cladding whenever it requests.
I am pleased to be able to update the committee today on our work on cladding remediation since the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 was passed in the summer. As we approach the act’s commencement, I would also like to set out how we intend to accelerate and broaden our action on cladding in the new year.
As we recognised at the time, the passing of the act in May and the publication of the single building assessment and specification in June were important milestones and laid essential foundations for our work. As the absence of such a statutory framework hampered progress on assessment and remediation in recent years, further work has, significantly, been carried out to allow commencement of the act, which will come into effect on Monday 6 January 2025. The regulations that will bring the act into effect are currently going through its parliamentary process.
As members know, the act’s centrepiece is the creation of the single building assessment, which is a statutory process by which the actions that are required to bring a building to a tolerable level of risk can be identified, and around which a range of powers and duties necessary for effective assessment and remediation has been built. The act also gives ministers the power to set standards for conducting such an assessment, and we are on track to publish on 6 January—the day of commencement—the full set of standards, building on the earlier specification.
I was also pleased to be able to share last week with the committee what we intend to be a final draft of the standards. I realise that for the owners and occupiers concerned this has been a deeply stressful time, but I am pleased to say that having the statutory framework in place will now facilitate a much-needed quickening of pace.
I can report to the committee that we have also been taking action in anticipation of the powers coming into effect. In particular, we have drawn from the properties in the original pilot to commission 13 priority single building assessments in circumstances where no developer has been identified and can lead and pay for the assessment and, if required, remediation. I know that the issue of orphan buildings was raised during the debate in the chamber, when the point was made that we had to ensure that such buildings did not fall behind those with identified owners, and I am glad to say that we are taking the issue forward at pace.
We expect the 13 assessments to be available to us in the new year, soon after the powers and duties of the act have come into effect. It will then be for the Scottish Government to consider the recommendations, communicate with the owners and residents affected, and set in train the process of remediation. We have already written to people in those buildings to confirm that the assessments have been commissioned.
In respect of the other entries in the pilot, an assurance process is continuing to ensure that they fall within the scope of the act and to find out whether a developer or other body is in place to take forward assessment and, if needed, remediation. Some of those cases might need to be taken forward by the Government, but in others, the outcome will be clearly communicated to the responsible body and to residents.
All of this means that 2025 will be the first year of substantial Scottish Government-led assessment and, where required, remediation. Of course, we would have wished this to have taken place earlier, but with learning from the pilot programme, the recognition of the particular issues of tenure that we face in Scotland and the development, passing and imminent commencement of the legislation, we are now in the position that we would want to be in, and substantial Government-led action can now proceed.
We have also made good progress with securing agreement on a new remediation contract with the large developers, which have already accepted the responsibility for assessment and remediation of the buildings that they developed. Discussions are at an advanced stage and we hope that, once agreed, the contract will unlock a further programme of assessment and remediation in 2025.
What next? As we approach the important milestone of commencement, it is essential that we ask ourselves that simple question. I can tell the committee today that on 6 January, the day of commencement, we will publish a renewed statement of our priorities and action on cladding, and I will now give the committee an indication of some of the themes in that statement.
First, we will look to increase the pace of action on cladding, and we intend to do so by introducing two new assessment and remediation schemes beyond the pilot scheme. One will centre on a new open call for buildings that are potentially affected by unsafe cladding, and it will enable owners and residents in buildings that are affected by cladding, but in respect of which no owner or developer has been able or willing to take forward assessment and remediation at their own hand, to bring the matter to the Government’s attention and to be considered for Government-led assessment and mediation.
A further complementary scheme will have its own schedule of buildings that appear to be at elevated risk from cladding. With that risk-based approach, we will work with local authorities and fire services to help to identify the buildings that should be prioritised, and I have already contacted local authorities on that basis. We will also consider where responsibilities for taking forward assessment and remediation should lie, including whether the Scottish Government has a part to play. With those complementary schemes, we aim to empower owners and residents to take steps towards assessment and remediation of their buildings and to support and accelerate action where the risks are highest.
I am also pleased to note that last week’s draft budget proposed substantial provision of £52.2 million in 2025-26 to support the acceleration of the action on cladding that we are now taking forward. However, as well as increasing the pace of action on cladding, we also want to increase the breadth of action on cladding in 2025. Government needs to be a very active and positive player in such action, but we also need to harness the skills, knowledge and capacity of others if we are to have the greatest effect. That is reflected in our intention to work with partners to identify the highest-risk properties, as I have already described.
More generally, though, we need to make action on cladding a collective national endeavour, where all parties are asked and enabled to play their part. That is particularly relevant in the area of social housing. If people are to be protected in the way that we want them to be, we need to work even more closely and co-operatively with local authorities and registered social landlords to make sure that the necessary actions are being taken, seeking assurance where appropriate, but also being prepared as a Government to play our part where needed.
For example, with properties that are partly owned by a registered social landlord but in which there is a mix of tenure, including private owners, the Government needs to be part of a solution and a way forward. Similarly, there might be properties that are wholly owned by a registered social landlord but it is not in a financial position to be able to take forward remediation. The Government needs to be prepared to consider funding issues on a case-by-case basis.
Our plan for 2025 will therefore include work to engage with local authorities, RSLs and other local partners to identify and prioritise buildings at risk from cladding, to seek assurance of action where that is appropriate and to provide help where it is needed. I have recently written to a range of local representatives to set the process in train, and as with all our work, I will keep the committee up to date with progress.
Finally, on communications, I would like to return to those who are the most important in these discussions: the people who live in the buildings affected by potentially unsafe cladding. I know that the issue of communications has been raised by the committee on a number of occasions, and I have already described how we will set up a route for people in that situation to raise their concerns with us through a new open call.
Beyond that, I commit to maintaining and expanding further the new approach to communication that we have taken forward in recent months, with a new monthly newsletter aimed at residents and updated material on the Government website, including frequently asked questions. There are also the duties on building-specific communications, which will apply when assessment and remediation is taken forward under the act. Stakeholders have told us that our communications have not been good enough; I have acknowledged that and we are taking action in response.
I hope that this has been a helpful update for the committee and a useful indication of our intended next steps. I look forward to discussing the issues with you.
11:00
Thank you very much for that opening statement, which was actually quite helpful, as you touched on a number of the areas that we have questions on. However, we might want to dig deeper into those matters.
I want to open with a couple of questions on why things have taken so long with the single building assessment. As you will understand, stakeholders from whom we have heard are feeling a certain level of frustration. The single building assessment programme was launched in March 2021, but the standard for conducting a single building assessment will, as you have indicated, come into force only in January 2025. Why has it taken almost four years from launching the assessment programme to establishing standards for conducting such assessments?
First of all, I should say that work has been carried out in those four years, and I will come to the timeline and why we have got to where we are with the cladding issue.
I should also highlight the fair wee bit of work carried out by the Grenfell working group, which I chair. In 2021, there was a fire risk advice note on external cladding systems, which was updated in 2022, and that work fed in and was used to test the Scottish advice note, which I will refer to as the SAN instead of saying it in full all the time.
One of the key things at the start of the process was to meet developers. I had a number of such meetings, and when the SAN was discussed, it was felt to be far too broad, and that it needed to be more specific with regard to what we were looking to achieve. As a result, there were discussions with officials and me on how to make the SAN not only as efficient as possible but as extensive as it needed to be in its focus on some of the issues, and SAN 9980 was then agreed as the basis for that work.
When it came to the single building assessment, one of the key and essential things was to ensure that developers were happy with it. After all, if we did not have an SBA process that everybody agreed with, it would be really difficult to take these things forward, and that work took a period of time.
Therefore, the standards have been in place for some time, but what we have been doing is building on them and ensuring that they are focused and homing in on what we need to do in the SBA process. Discussions have been going on, too. A system has been in place, although it has been more specifically about cladding. It is not that the issue has just been sitting there for four years; we have been developing the system and working in partnership with the developers in that respect. That is the key point that I want to get across, and I should add that things will continue to develop as we work with the developers.
To paraphrase, then, a process has been taking place over four years, with a number of fire advice notices being produced and various other bits and pieces happening, and there have been meetings with developers to get to the point where publicly available specification—or PAS—9980, which I think you meant, could be agreed.
Yes. That was seen as the basis of things, but there were other specific aspects that were agreed with the developers, who were feeding back into the process. It was all about listening to what they were saying and trying to amend the process in light of that. We had a number of meetings over that period of time, but that formed the real basis for taking forward the assessments.
Thanks. I will continue on my theme of frustration around why it has taken so long for things to happen. The cladding remediation act received royal assent on 21 June 2024, following expedited consideration by this committee, yet the standard for a single building assessment will not take effect until January 2025. Can you explain why that took six months, particularly given that the standards run to only three pages?
To build on what I said before, there were a number of discussions and meetings. The developers would come back to us, and we would go back to them—there were a number of occasions when that happened. One of the key issues concerns the addition of elements around audit and compliance. If you recall, that issue was raised by a number of members during the debate around these issues. People wanted to know how we could ensure that what we are doing is compliant and auditable, and wanted reassurance that we could have a look at what was going on at any particular point.
The issue just concerns the discussions and the to-ing and fro-ing that I mentioned in my previous answer in relation to ensuring that we and the developers were happy with what had been agreed.
Stephen Lea-Ross might want to add something about the technical discussions that he undertook with developers.
I will make a couple of brief points. The standards themselves will comprise both the single building assessment technical specification and the standards document that was communicated to the committee last week in draft form. The technical specification itself was published on 21 June—the day that the act received royal assent. The reason why we published it on that date was to allow people involved in the industry to familiarise themselves with the methodology that is contained in the assessment and to allow Government to proceed with commissioning Government-led SBAs in anticipation of commencement of the legislation itself.
As the minister points out, the remainder of the standards document also contains provisions in relation to audit assurance and compliance. We have been required to informally consult on the contents of that document, particularly with developers but also with broader stakeholders, to ensure that it meets expectations in relation to the audit and assurance process. I have had to tease out some particularities in relation to the fact that there is assurance built into the SBA methodology itself in relation to peer review, and on top of that we are layering an audit process that would allow us to maintain the integrity of the cladding assurance register.
Those things in tandem will form the basis of the standard, when it is published on 6 January—the date of commencement. Importantly, the technical method for assessment has been available since June and, although entries will not be created on the register until January, it is possible to take forward an SBA at this point.
Thanks for that explanation of processes. However, I think that the fact that it has taken four years, and now this additional time, is concerning, given the safety issues for people who have to live in the buildings.
On that point, it is important to note that part of the reason why we brought in the legislation was to allow us to move more quickly on the SBA process and to discuss issues around that. I acknowledge that the period of time to get us there is longer than I would have liked. When the bill came in, it gave us more clout to try to move things forward. Right from the start, I said to the developers that there would be very much a hand-in-hand relationship, as we needed to make sure that they were happy with what we were proposing and vice versa. More important is that that will give the people who live in the buildings confidence that the process is being carried out, is auditable and is at the level that it needs to be at. That is what took the time.
The bill gave us the ability to move things along more quickly. We now have a process in place that we, developers and tenants can see is auditable and is in a position for us to move forward with, and we can proceed at a pace that everybody is agreed on. However, I acknowledge that four years was far too long.
I appreciate that acknowledgement and I think that some of our other questions might help to surface some other reasons why we are concerned. I will bring in Willie Coffey.
Good morning, again. The standards document tells us that all the single building assessments that have been carried out to date have to be done again. Why is that?
Stephen Lea-Ross touched on some of the points. There has been important assessment work going on—some developers have been in place and have been doing that anyway. One of the key things is to almost top and tail that process by looking at what else needs to be done in terms of assessment. There is existing documentation that could be used, but we need to get it up to the standard that we have agreed with the developers and signed a commitment on—that is incredibly important. That does not mean that the whole process will have to be done again. There will be some existing work that has been carried out that can be used as part of that process.
We have had extensive discussions with the developers; we have not made it to this position without speaking to them. We have looked into what they have been doing over this period of time, what learnings they have from what they have done and what additional work needs to be done. Those discussions on-going.
I will ask Stephen Lea-Ross to add anything that he thinks is relevant with regard to the technical points.
As the minister has outlined, the fundamental point is that, where a pilot assessment exists, it is not necessarily the case that a full intrusive assessment would need to start again from the beginning of the process. What we require, for maintenance of the register, is that any existing pilot assessment be reviewed by a competent fire risk assessor to ensure that the components of that assessment fully comply with the methodology that is set out in the single building assessment, which ensures that every building that is then entered under the register has been the subject of the same form of assessment.
In many cases, where a pilot assessment exists on the basis of the SAN, that will involve little work and will, effectively, be a bureaucratic exercise. There might be some instances in which aspects relating to the external wall assessment require a little more investigation but, fundamentally, the process does not require the assessment to start again; it is designed to ensure that all buildings have been assessed to the same standard. In the single building assessment specification document, we set out the existing pilot assessments that a fire risk assessor can draw on in order to make sure that that then quickly becomes a competent SBA. We need to ensure that the end-to-end process has integrity and that everything has been assessed to the same standard in order to maintain the integrity of the register itself.
Thank you. I have a brief follow-up to that. Suppose a single building assessment is carried out now, but it does not look like work will proceed until a year has passed, do you have to do the single building assessment again at that point? How long is the SBA valid for in terms of allowing you to remediate the building?
As part of the SBA methodology, the fire risk assessor will give an indication of the timeframes in which each of the specific recommendations that are set out in relation to the internal fire risk assessment and the fire risk assessment of the external wall are to be conducted. If those were to lapse, it may be that further assessment would be required. However, our expectation would be that, for any building seeking an entry on to the register—an entry is created at the point when the assessment takes place—further onward remediation works would take place within the timescale specified.
There may be some circumstances in which that is not possible; for example, where materials require to be sourced that are not readily available, or if there were to be an issue within the market. Such a circumstance would not necessarily require a full assessment to be undertaken.
However, we would want to ensure that the fire risk assessors maintain oversight of the overall level of risk within the building and that, therefore, if it were required, we would be able to take forward interim measures, pending the completion of remediation works. Those interim measures are all designed to bring down the level of fire risk in the building. That might be, at the high end of the scale, things such as waking watches and fire alarms, and, at the lower end of the scale, interim measures around removing obstructions, decanting cars from underground car parks and so on.
The methodology includes timeframes within which specified remediation works are to have taken place.
Thank you for that further detail.
You will be well aware that, during the committee’s consideration of this issue, we were interested in whether there are sufficient skills to enable the assessments to take place. That was quite a concern and probably still is. Could you give the committee a bit more confidence about whether we have enough surveyors, fire engineers and so on to carry out the assessments that will be required to take us forward at the pace that you say?
I am sure that, when I was on the committee before I became a minister, I asked the same question. It is very relevant. When we were doing the previous assessments, that is something that we have not had an issue with. From working with colleagues across the UK on Grenfell, I know that that is a very relevant issue in that regard, as well as cladding. However, at the moment, all the Governments are quite confident that the skills are there. The sector is beginning to skill up, realising the work that is required. We have had numerous intergovernmental meetings, and officials have had numerous meetings on that particular point. I have a meeting coming up with my UK Government colleague, and we will be asking the same thing. However, we have been reassured that there is a sufficient skills base at the moment. The sector recognises the need for that skills base, and is taking on more people.
At the moment, we are confident about what we have in Scotland and across the rest of the UK, but we are aware of the increased demand following the Grenfell inquiry and the cladding work both here and across Britain. We will continue to keep an eye on the issue, as it is incredibly important. We do not want any delays as a result of a lack of the availability of skills. However, at the moment, I am confident about the position.
Stephen Lea-Ross might want to add to that.
11:15
As part of our putting in place of appropriate frameworks for taking forward Government-led remediation, we have taken a number of steps to manage and ensure the sufficiency of skills within the market. For example, we currently have 12 suppliers as part of our framework for commissioning SBAs. That allows us to commission from those suppliers assessments as and when the need arises. We also use existing Crown commercial services framework contracts to ensure that we are ready to go should we require to put in place provisions for urgent interim measures, and, similarly, we use Crown commercial services frameworks for onward remediation works.
We are in constant engagement and dialogue with the market, and we keep a watchful eye on the market, as it is adjusting as developers and we commission activity and put things out to tender. However, as I said, we have taken all the pre-emptive steps that we can in terms of using existing Crown commercial services frameworks to tee up availability to enable work to be taken forward.
My next question is on the UK fire safety standard PAS 9980, which you mentioned earlier, Paul. There was a huge discussion at the committee about why we did not just immediately jump to embrace that at the time and incorporate it in the developing technical specification. Did you say earlier that you were discussing with developers the applicability of that standard to the Scottish circumstances?
We were talking more about what we needed to look to add on in that regard. PAS 9980 was established as the foundation to enable progress to be made quickly with developers. It was concerned more with the internal fire risk assessments and those for external walls, in relation to which there are slightly different procedures in Scotland and England. That was part of the discussions that we had to have with the developers and technical experts. There were early discussions to establish and agree on PAS 9980, and there was work around additionality. Of course, the fire risk assessment, in particular around the external walls, was important. There were discussions on the technical element, and that was moved on.
As I said, PAS 9980 was established pretty quickly as the standard that action would be based on, with the understanding that other things would need to be added to that.
Again, Stephen Lea-Ross can say more about the technical discussions that were held. However, essentially, there was a need to add a little bit more to PAS 9980 to make it more applicable to Scotland.
Yes, essentially, the fundamental decision point for us in relation to PAS 9980 was the switch from the existing SAN to PAS. I suppose that the debate with industry and with stakeholders in the broader market was around whether that was acceptable in the context of the previous SAN articulating a tighter binary safe or unsafe outcome and the move to the tolerable risk standard as a fundamental underlying basis. Operationally, that has been demonstrated to be the only practicable solution.
As the minister pointed out, in addition, we then had to technically overlay a mechanism—which is set out in the single building assessment technical specification—for undertaking an internal fire risk assessment in addition to the assessment of the external wall. That is because, in private multi-residential buildings, there is not currently a compulsory internal fire risk assessment. For the assessment itself to be holistic, and noting that there can be issues within a building that then further exacerbate the fire risk that is created by potentially unsafe cladding, part of the process that we then had to go through in coming to the method that is currently set out within the SBA involved ensuring that we had those two elements in place and then working out the interplay between them for our purposes and for the Scottish context. That has been a key component of the underlying discussions with industry and coming to that standard latterly.
So, we have a variability scale rather than a safe or unsafe outcome.
Yes. The fundamental underlying standard is that there is a tolerable risk. It is a question of judgment, and it is for the fire risk assessor undertaking the assessment in accordance with the methodology to determine when a building would be a tolerable risk, taking into account the recommendations that they set out in the context of the two assessments that are required for the single building assessment—the internal fire risk assessment and the fire risk assessment of the external wall.
Mark Griffin, who joins us online, has a couple of questions.
Minister, is the cladding assurance register operational? If it is not operational, will you outline progress to date? When might it be available?
It is not yet operational. I know that the committee has raised the issue previously, and it was raised during the passage of the bill. I am glad to announce that it will be operational on 6 January. That is an important step forward. We will communicate with the committee on that around 6 January.
My other question is about the Scottish safer buildings accord. When will agreement be reached with developers on that? Is there a date? Is there anything outstanding on it that needs to be resolved?
That comes down to the technical discussions that are going on. I have met the developers on the issue, and I mentioned that I would be available for discussions at any time. About three or four meetings have taken place already. We are now down to the point of agreeing the technicalities. Without prejudice to any discussions, I am confident that we will have something early in the new year on which we can write to the committee.
Our approach is very much like the one that we used for the discussions on the SBA. We have been working hand in hand with the developers, and that has been the process over the past number of weeks and months.
I will bring in Stephen Lea-Ross to cover the technical aspects of the discussions.
As the minister has noted, we are actively and formally negotiating the contract with nine major developers that previously signed the accord. We are using a twin-track approach. We are negotiating by correspondence on legal points, then negotiating in person on the substantive points. We will meet this week and again next week.
Again, without prejudice to those negotiations, the minister is right that we hope to conclude that process as quickly as possible in the new year. We sent the published draft remediation contract to those developers on 24 September. One thing that has intervened since has been the publication of the draft standards. We will be reading those into the contract, and it has been a requirement that we engage with the developers and their legal representatives on the content of the draft standards and work through with them the process of how they will be read into the contract.
We have also been picking up with the developers a suite of practical points about the operation of the contract in relation to the register, and further, the key issues for them in relation to the extent of their liability under the contract.
Insofar as is possible and suitable for the Scottish context—this is partly because it is a requirement of aligning with the developers and with the contracts that are in place elsewhere in the United Kingdom—we are mirroring the outline liability that is in place for the English contracts as well.
As I said, we hope to have that over the line as early as possible in the new year. The developers are being very proactive in working with us to get that over the line.
I had previously asked about how small and medium-sized enterprise developers were going to be treated, and talked about the turnover thresholds that exist at UK level and the exemptions that are in place there. Minister, you spoke about treating developers almost on a case-by-case basis. Has any consideration been given to particular developers that have high exposure given the size of their business? Are there any concerns about the liabilities putting developers out of business? What discussions have you had about putting in place a similar scheme to support SMEs and for developers that might be swamped and put out of business by the measures?
That is an important point, Mr Griffin. We talked about that issue during the debate in the chamber. I have had individual discussions with developers about the ability to pay. The last thing that we want is to put any business out of action.
You are right that that might be due to a number of reasons. One reason is exposure and another is previous ownership—we have seen businesses being bought over or whatever, so there are complexities to do with that. We have recognised complexities in each of the businesses that we have talked to.
We cannot go into every business, but we are trying to work with them as closely as we possibly can to make sure that the buildings are remediated. With regard to the pace of that work, that is where the flexibility around some of the funding comes in and we are speaking with them about how we can work with them on that particular point.
You are right—that is something that we have to recognise. However, we can do both. We can make sure that the companies survive and have an ability to grow; we can also make sure that the buildings are remediated.
I have had a number of meetings about that. Perhaps Stephen will want to speak to the discussions that colleagues have also had at the technical level. Stephen, do you want to add anything on the ability to pay and on discussions that we have had with developers on that point?
Briefly, on the on-going negotiations on the contract, at this point, we are not asking any developer that does not have operating profit of more than £10 million in specified years to formally sign the contract. The fundamental underlying purpose of the contract would be for the developer to assume 100 per cent liability in relation to remediation. It is for that reason that we are not asking other SME businesses to come forward and sign the contract at this point. We will deal with assessment and remediation differently for those enterprises. As the minister has already outlined, we will remain in discussion with them.
For the purposes of getting the contract over the line and the remediation programme as things stand, we are, in effect, aligning with the position that has been taken forward in England. As the minister has outlined, we are keeping under review our need to engage with SME developers.
As Stephen said, that very much follows the procedure in the rest of the UK.
Thanks, Mark Griffin, for asking that bit of detail about SME developers, which was very helpful. I will now bring in Alexander Stewart.
Minister, the Scottish Government has allocated £41.3 million for cladding remuneration. There is a vast difference between the amount that has been allocated and the amount that has been spent. In quarter 2, only £1.16 million was spent. Why is there such an underspend? How have things been allowed to get to this stage? What will happen to any underspend?
That is to do with a number of things. We have talked about the building blocks being put in place. One important part is to get in place the SBA process, because the buildings first need to be assessed before being remediated. That has taken slightly longer, but it is important that we get right the SBA process. If we do not get it right, that will stock up problems for the future.
At the moment, the spend is around £5 million, and it is estimated that it will be around £12 million. We, including Stephen Lea-Ross, have sat down and talked about the budget that is required. I am very confident about the pace of spend increasing next year, because we now have in place the building blocks. We have had discussions and we have partnerships and agreements with the developers, and we are not too far away from agreeing the remediation contract. All that will increase the pace of spend.
Have things taken a little longer than expected this year? Yes, they have, but it is important that we take the proper time for the SBA process, because it is quite literally the building block of everything else that we need to put in place.
I am confident, given what we have laid out previously and for this year, that the pace will quicken. I am quite happy to come back next year and to be held to account on the point. With a lot of the uncertainties that we had previously no longer there, the legislation in place and the agreements in place with developers, we can really quicken the pace.
Stephen, do you have anything you want to add on that particular point?
11:30
The only material point that I will add is that, when we have sought capital allocations to the cladding remediation programme from the Scottish Government budget, up to this point we have had to bid for those allocations on a precautionary basis. That is partly because, until a building assessment is undertaken on a building, we do not necessarily know what the extent of the remediation costs for that development will be or, indeed, what the timeframe over which remediation will need to take place will be, as that will depend on the specific findings of the SBA report. There has been an element of, if you like, precautionary allocation when it comes to the cladding remediation programme. That is to ensure that we are not in a situation in which funding would not be available to take forward necessary or urgent works in a building.
As the minister has outlined, in practical effect we have needed to put in place those building blocks before significant assessment and remediation work can take place. Moving forward and looking ahead to 2025-26, we have continued to take a precautionary approach when seeking allocations through the draft budget. Another thing that we have done as part of that bidding process is to seek to ensure that we can take forward as much activity as possible with regard to stepping up the pace on assessments. We are also assuming that all the buildings that are undergoing an SBA will require significant remediation works, so we are ensuring that funds are available to cover that, although that might not be the case in practice. The other thing is that we are giving consideration to how funding might be allocated across different funding streams in relation to the broadening of pace that the minister outlined in his opening remarks.
People who are residing in some of these buildings are anxious and in fear. We know that a large number of them that require support, and that the cladding still needs to be removed. What contracts has the Scottish Government agreed with professional services companies and cladding contractors to deliver the cladding remediation programme now that legislation and standards are in place? There needs to be a step change to ensure that we can deliver on the work.
Daily, individuals are anxious about and in fear of what could happen to the building that they are living in. We need, and they need, to see a step change on delivery. As far as I can see, things have stalled to some extent. That is not helping to allay their fears and anxiety in any way, shape or form.
There are a number of things to say in response to that. On step change, earlier on, we set out what we are doing. If we go back to the previous year, we had to get in place the legislation because, without that, there were some things that we just did not have the ability to do. Following that, one key thing was building on the partnership with the developers, and it was really important to ensure that we were all in agreement about work that was to be carried out. The work was carried out to that level, and could be inspected and looked at by the tenants. For example, if they wanted an independent assessment of it, that was carried out. That was an important part.
We are just about there with the remediation contract. That is an incredibly important part, which is about tying developers in legally and setting out exactly what they are liable for and what the Scottish Government’s part in that is.
The other key thing, which I acknowledged at the start of the meeting, is communication. We need to communicate, even if there is not much happening—for example, we might set out what we are working on and that it might take three months. If there is an assessment process or a discussion going on, we need to ensure that people know that, because if there is a void people—quite rightly—will be worried about what is going on. The communications part needs to be picked up as well.
A lot of the building blocks, which have been put in place over the past number of months, will get us to a position that will enable us, when commencement starts at the turn of the year, to really move quickly. You are right—it needs that step change. I acknowledge that we need that, and I said that as part of my comments.
Communications is an incredibly important aspect. We must tell people what is going on. I have had a number of meetings with residents in different parts of Scotland, to try to explain that. We will always be open to doing that.
I hope that what we have laid out earlier today shows that we have made a step change on delivery. We are also looking at things to ensure that we extend the breadth of that. I have met residents. I totally acknowledge that it is an extremely worrying position for them. You have to understand that they are living with that every day. We need to move, and the measures that we have laid out will quicken the pace of delivery.
I have a couple of questions that are about comparing what we have been doing in Scotland with what is going on south of the border. In England, cladding remediation has been completed on 1,412 buildings over 11m high that were known to have potentially flammable cladding. The Scottish cladding remediation programme has seen work begin on five buildings and completed on one. The committee is interested in understanding why Scotland is lagging so far behind England on remediation.
I acknowledge what the UK Government has been doing in England and where it is at. Unlike England, we needed to put a statutory framework in place to allow remediation work to be undertaken, and the safeguards that I mentioned are important. The tenure system is different as there is a lack of a single freeholder for a property.
I acknowledge where England is and where we are. We need to quicken the pace. I acknowledged that during the debate. The reason why we introduced the legislation was to address that very point and to make sure that we have what we need in place legally. We needed a statutory framework, given the different tenure system in Scotland, and that has delayed things.
I acknowledge that we need to quicken the pace. I said that during the debate and I have said it today as well. However, as I have set out, we are learning from the pilot programme how we can quicken the pace going forward, and how we can broaden what we are doing. I am confident that, given what I have set out this morning, we will see the pace quickening quite considerably.
Okay. Thanks for that.
So that colleagues are aware who will come in to ask questions and when, and to create a bit of relaxation in the system, I note that I have another question, after which Willie Coffey will come in. I will then bring in Mark Griffin and Megan Gallacher.
Minister, please forgive me if you have already answered the question that I am about to ask. The UK Government published a remediation acceleration plan for England on 2 December 2024, which includes a commitment to complete Government-supported remediation of buildings that are 18m or higher by the end of 2029. Does the Scottish Government intend to set a date for completion of that type of remediation in Scotland? If so, when might that be?
We have not set a date yet. I do not think that the UK Government has set a date for every type of building, either. The UK Government minister who is responsible for cladding wrote to me about what they are doing, and we are in the process of trying to have a discussion around that. I say again that we are working very closely with the UK Government on the Grenfell issue. Obviously, there are related issues.
On what we need to do, I talked about some of the work that we are doing on broadening. We will continue to monitor that as we go ahead, but it is not something that we are doing at this particular moment in time. One of the key things is that we are required to report to Parliament every year. As you know, I am also happy to come to the committee at any stage to discuss cladding. I have made that offer before and I make it again.
Given that the issue is something that we are tracking, we might take you up on that.
Minister, you mentioned communications and the issues in that regard that have been raised with the committee in the past couple of years. You have given the committee some assurances about the communications improving. Do residents get information from any source other than the Scottish Government? Do the builders who built the buildings that may be subject to this work communicate regularly or otherwise with the residents? When will we see some tangible evidence that residents are getting the information that they seek?
We are starting to see that now. I acknowledged that issue, which was discussed during the passage of the bill. Over the period, we have tried to engage with individual residents and a group of residents on what we need to do. I mentioned the newsletter, which is incredibly important. Another key thing is working with factors. How do we make sure that we are engaging with them and getting the message out as best we can?
The communications have improved and they will continue to improve. I understand from the evidence that was taken before that there was an issue, but we are seeing an improvement. It is a really important point. I have acknowledged that we need to do better on communications, but I think that we are doing so now.
Stephen, do you have anything to add?
Specific terms and obligations are being written into the contracts that will require developers to undertake best practice communications with residents and home owners as they go through the process of assessing and then remediating buildings. We will require evidence of that in relation to any request that a developer makes for ministers to exercise their powers under the legislation.
As Mr McLennan outlined, we now have in place a routine process to update residents and home owners, who can choose to sign up to our newsletter. It is issued quarterly with a monthly update. That gives them updated information on where we are in the programme, outline information on which SBAs and things have been commissioned, and links to the frequently asked questions information.
In addition, for the SBAs that we have already commissioned, we have gone through an extensive process of writing via factors or residents associations to all individual home owners and residents and, similarly, writing to MSPs and local authorities. We are trying to broaden out the suite of communications and we expect that best practice to be replicated by others who undertake remediation work, be they developers or other building owners.
Is that access available for people now?
Yes. We have an edition of the newsletter up, along with two monthly updates. They are published on our website, but we also have a Mailchimp account that people can sign up to in order to be proactively provided with that information.
In addition to that, I have had numerous meetings with MSP colleagues who are representing their constituents. I have offered those meetings to anybody who thinks that they would be useful, and they have taken place with a number of colleagues and residents.
It is good to get that detail on communication and the concerted efforts that you are making there. So that we remain on the theme of cladding, I have reshuffled the order of members’ questions. Meghan Gallacher will be next.
Good morning. Minister, a number of weeks ago, I submitted a written question to the Government to ask whether the Government would provide an update on how many buildings have been identified as having flammable cladding. The response that I received from you states:
“We have previously estimated that around 350 high-rise and up to 500 medium-rise buildings across Scotland may require assessment and some level of remediation, across all tenure and building ownership types.
We continue to use this data as an outline planning assumption. However, we are working through a number of routes to enhance both the quality and efficacy of our estimate of potentially affected buildings in Scotland.”—[Written Answers, 25 November 2024; S6W-31234.]
That suggests to me that you still do not know how many buildings are impacted with cladding across Scotland. That is really concerning. How can we accelerate the programme of cladding remediation when we still do not know how many buildings have cladding?
I will try to address that in a number of ways and will then bring in Stephen Lea-Ross. The pilot buildings were identified, and the risk criteria are important. I talked about the breadth and what we need to do with RSLs and local authorities. They should have a list of buildings that fall into the category. The discussions that we will have with RSLs and local authorities will go into that in more detail. Local authorities have a responsibility to make sure that they have the data in place. In the discussions, we are trying to home in on that particular figure. Stephen Lea-Ross can say more about where we see that going.
I also mentioned the open call. If there are buildings that have not been picked up, what do we do about that and how do we take that forward? As part of the pilot programme, 107 buildings were identified, and that programme enabled us to learn, to pick things up and to deal with those that are most at risk.
Stephen, do you want to add anything on the open call, on local authorities and RSLs, and on how we intend to take that work forward? I return to my point about increasing the breadth.
11:45
I have a few practical points. First, it is not possible, prior to an SBA being undertaken for a building, to confirm that it has potentially flammable cladding. That is not just the position in Scotland; it is the position for the assessments across the UK. Programmes across the UK are making planning assumptions about the outline number of buildings that may require assessment and/or remediation across medium and high-rise, and those planning assumptions are part of how we build the delivery of our programmes.
As the minister outlined, we therefore feel that we need to ensure that we have both proactive and reactive identification of buildings so that, if anybody is at any point concerned about the risk of cladding in their building, they can come forward via the open call and seek an SBA.
We know from work that has already been undertaken that the high rise inventory does not give categorical assurance that given buildings have flammable cladding. Where there are buildings that we should prioritise for assessment on the basis that we understand that they may have, for instance, high-pressure laminate or aluminium composite material cladding, we will look to prioritise them for assessment as part of the process that the minister described for working with local authorities, so that we take a risk-based approach to bringing down the risk where we suspect that there is such cladding in high-rise and medium-rise buildings.
The reason for having that open call approach is that it is not possible from public records data alone to categorically determine that a building has potentially flammable cladding on its exterior. We also know from the findings of the Grenfell inquiry and elsewhere that we need to have processes in place for situations where the material on a building differs from the material that was specified in building warrants and so on, in order to capture where there has potentially been mischief in the system.
We hope that that twin-track approach of proactive risk management and reactive identification will allow us to progressively reduce the risk as much as possible in the stock that potentially has flammable cladding. I do not think that anybody could categorically determine at this point how many buildings are affected. That is why we have to work on the basis of reasonable planning assumptions and the total building stock within the built environment across the country.
I take your point, but this goes back to the speeding up of processes. You could achieve the work on the 500 buildings and the 350 buildings that are identified in the budget that you have allocated, but then more people could come forward with concerns about cladding on their buildings. How long do you expect this to go on for? Will funding be available until all the identified buildings have been remediated? It will not be a quick fix if you are relying on people to come forward with information for assessments to be carried out. I am trying to get an idea of the scope and the scale of the work, because it will not be a quick fix or a speedy process, as you highlighted earlier.
I have written to local authorities and we hope to meet as soon as possible—it will probably be very early in the new year—to try to identify that and firm it up. The same applies with RSLs. There is immediacy around this work. They will have existing information that we need, and that is an important aspect. Stephen Lea-Ross mentioned the information that we have, but in some cases more thorough investigation will be needed, rather than just the desktop information that we have. In setting out the budget this year, we tried to estimate what is needed.
As I think I mentioned at the time, we have talked about the consequentials coming through from the UK Government. The money has been spent as quickly as possible this year. If there is demand to spend more money this year, I will take that up with Government colleagues. However, we need to know what we need to know, if you know what I mean. That is an incredibly important part of it.
In addition, discussions are continuing with developers about the levy. They need to play their part in that regard. That has been well discussed and it is well established. We are in consultation with them at the moment. Although we have talked about the breadth, it is also about trying to home in and determine the timescales. We will come back to the committee once we have had the discussions with the local authorities. RSLs are slightly different because they do not have an umbrella group, but we are also engaging with them.
The work is very much based on risk-based assessment of where we are and identifying the most important parts. If risks are identified, we will put in place mitigations to make sure that they are lessened.
Stephen, do you want to add anything on that?
That was a pretty substantive answer. The only thing that I have to add is that we have cross-referenced our recent planning assumptions against programmes elsewhere in the UK. Proportionally, we have a broadly similar built environment profile relative to the size of our population, and we expect the completion of our remediation programme to take roughly the same length of time as programmes elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Once remediation requirements have been identified in a building, the remediation in complex developments can take three to five years. We know that from work that has taken place in significant developments in Glasgow. That is broadly why the timescales are as they are.
The annual report can cover that as well. Meghan Gallacher was quite right to ask the question. This time next year, we should be able to come back and say, “This is what we have done with local authorities, RSLs and so on, and this is how it has developed”. We need to increase the breadth of the work for the reason that was mentioned in the question. We need to identify where the risks are, mitigate them and get on with moving the SBA process on. I think that the committee will quite rightly ask the same question next year.
Meghan, I appreciate your digging into those points. Finally, I bring in Mark Griffin to ask a supplementary question.
I am hoping to abuse my position as a committee member and ask a broader question on building safety. I visited a group of residents in Bathgate and they showed me the extent of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in their properties. They gave me a really fantastic warm welcome, and they would be more than happy to extend such a welcome to the minister if he can talk to them about the issues of RAAC.
The issues that they raised about RAAC are really similar to the issues that we are talking about with regard to cladding. They are to do with access to finance, access to insurance, access to skills to assess properties and potentially replace RAAC, difficulty with selling properties, and communication from local and national Government. Is the minister in a position to update the committee or Parliament on RAAC issues that are affecting residents, as he has committed to do—and has done—on cladding?
I am happy to do that. A number of local authorities have been impacted, including West Lothian Council, Aberdeen City Council and Clackmannanshire Council, and there have been impacts outside housing as well.
Your point about finance and insurance is important. Those are reserved matters, but we have had discussions about them. In Aberdeen, we have had UK Finance involved in discussions to try to give advice to people who own their properties, and the Association of British Insurers has also been involved in giving advice.
Each local authority will have a different mix. Aberdeen has a mixture of private owners and council tenants. I think that parts of West Lothian will be the same, as will Clackmannanshire. The local authorities will be assessing their options. We are in discussions with all three of them and we will continue those.
In discussions with the previous UK Government, it said that, on RAAC, the amount that would be spent would be what was required. We have written to the new UK Government on that and I am still to hear from it formally on that point. We will need to sit down with it and have discussions on that.
I am aware that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is considering a petition on the matter, and I suspect that I will be asked to appear at that committee at some stage, but I do not have a date for that.
We continue to engage with local authorities on RAAC. I will raise the issue when I meet my UK Government colleague, but we still await a reply from the UK Government on financing that work. We will continue to push it on the matter. As I said, I have met the local authorities on that. If Mr Griffin wants to write to me about visiting others, I will be happy to consider that.
That is another area that we are keeping track of, so we will be in touch on it.
I thank the minister and Mr Lea-Ross for their evidence, which we very much appreciate. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow them to leave the room.
11:56 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Renters’ Rights BillAir adhart
Subordinate Legislation