Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

We would be happy to write to the committee once we have an agreed date.

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.

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.

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?

As Stephen said, that very much follows the procedure in the rest of the UK.

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.

We are working with the UK and Welsh Governments on the bill because it obviously impacts on us all. We would get royal assent first and then move on to commencement. Mr Coffey touched on the key issue of getting the message out and letting tenants and landlords know about the bill.

I do not whether we have discussed the timescales that the UK and Welsh Governments are talking about, but we are trying to move as soon as possible.

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.