Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have not done so myself, but colleagues have. There is obviously an element of technical knowledge required, of which I have a little, but discussions involving actual technical fire safety knowledge have been held and fed back to me. Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland might want to come in on this, but I can say that there have been extensive discussions with that sector.

I will bring in officials on that question, too.

There have been a number of cases. With regard to some of the developers that we have spoken to, there are different ownership models. There are historical developments. How has a company developed from where it was 30 years ago to where it is now? That becomes difficult. When it comes to individual discussions, where is the proof of liability? That becomes hard. I know that there have been discussions about design standards, which were probably okay at the time, but where do they come in now? It is about when a building was designed as opposed to when it was built. We are looking at the past 30 years. Some buildings will just be at that 30-year level.

I know that that issue has been discussed, but the question of who takes the action becomes really difficult. Should that be the companies or the Government? That becomes really difficult legally. I do not know whether Micheila West wants to come in on that. I will bring in Rachel Sunderland and Kate Hall on the discussions and Micheila West on legal things that have been discussed.

That is a good point. The SBA process in relation to the remediation contract is really important. That process is almost a dual process. As well as discussing the SBA process, discussions are already going on about remediation and how that SBA process feeds through to the remediation contracts, for example.

When we looked at that, we were doing so almost in terms of the different waves of the programme, focusing on the larger companies first. I have also been having discussions with SMEs on that. One of the statements that I made at the start was about that individual approach. We know that SMEs are in a difficult position in relation to house building at the moment, so there is a balance in how we discuss this with SMEs to make sure that it does not put their business at risk in what is a difficult trading situation across the UK at the moment.

Discussions are being held at SME level on the SBA process and the remediation contracts. For SMEs, knowing about their ability to pay is really important, so there are discussions on how we can look at that. Those discussions involve not just SMEs as a sector but individual companies. The discussions with individual companies have been helpful—I know that they have appreciated that, because we have had feedback directly from them on that approach.

When we started the process with Homes for Scotland, we made it clear that the SME sector is important and that we were not taking a one-size-fits-all approach. It was very much about looking at the sector. We need to be more cautious in how we deal with the SME sector as a whole, but we also know that their individual circumstances are all different. We have tried to get a balance in how we proceed with them.

The approach to UK public limited companies and the larger Scottish house builders will be different from the approach to SMEs. We need to be cognisant of that, and we are working closely with SMEs. We will have continuing discussions with them on the SBA process and how that moves towards a remediation contract. As I said, I know that that has been appreciated, because we have had direct feedback on that.

I do not know whether Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland wants to add anything.

On that point, Mr Coffey, it is important that developers engage on future standards. Are they reviewing their own processes? I would not say as much as that, but in relation to other buildings that come forward, more care is probably taken. We know that they are aware of the on-going maintenance of the buildings; it is not just a case of coming in and replacing cladding. Developers are aware of that issue, going forward.

I will bring in Kate and Rachel on that point. That issue has been raised by developers. We talked about what the SBA process looks like, when the entry goes on the register and by when we should ensure that the work has been carried out. That has been picked up by residents. Part of the issue in the bill is that you could, hypothetically, get a developer to sign a developer commitment letter or a contract, but one of the key points is that, if a company does not carry out the work, there must be sanctions available to us that might result in the developer not being able to develop in Scotland. That is the ultimate sanction, although I do not think that we would get to that point.

On that point, I have been at meetings at the ministerial level, and officials regularly have discussions with UK Government and Welsh Government colleagues. We have also already had the Northern Ireland Executive—which has obviously just been reformed—speak to us about what lessons it needs to learn from that. It is very much a four-Governments approach and process in relation to that learning. There are discussions going on all the time about lessons from the UK Government and Welsh Government in relation to what we need to do. It is also raised in the ministerial Government meetings that we have.

That will be subject to the budget process that we are going through just now. Sorry, I did not pick up the first point in your question.

We have published the figures on the spend, and we will continue to do so as we go forward. We have been as open and transparent as possible on that. We have talked about the split between orphan buildings and remediation by developers, and there is commercial confidentiality in that. Again, perhaps that could be part of what we publish on our own building programme, which we will continue to publish on an on-going basis. I do not know whether Micheila West would like to touch on where that sits within the bill. It is not something that I am aware of.

We have certainly been, and will continue to be, open and transparent about the spend, and I expect to see a significant increase in that as we get through the SBA process and into the long-form contract that we have talked about. Perhaps Micheila West would like to add to that.

That is a really good point. We mentioned that the ministerial groups have discussed the broader fire safety regimes that are out there, which is important. We also discussed the legislation on fire alarms that the Government has introduced. We can certainly take away your point about communications on the existing measures out there. It would be good to check whether people are aware of the regulations in the areas that you mentioned.

The fire service carries out a lot of work with, for example, residents and schools on broader fire safety issues, which I think is why we are seeing such a low figure on the spread of fires.

We can certainly take away your point, and we could consult stakeholders on communications about what is already out there. As the committee might have found, when we have previously had discussions with residents, those tend to raise awareness of the points explored. However, there is no harm in exploring further communications in the future. One learning point from the pilot programme is that, as we move into a larger-scale programme, we must examine what that looks like and what we can do right at the start of the process to ensure that people know what is already out there. If people do have an issue, where should they report it to? Should it be to the factor, the developer, the fire service or the local authority? There is certainly an element that we can take away and come back to the committee on.

One of the key things that was established in the scope of the programme after Grenfell was the cladding issue; indeed, there were discussions about that before I came into post and the scheme started to develop. However, developers have also raised the broader issue of fire safety overall, and I will bring in colleagues to talk about some of the discussions we have had on that.

I know that Mr Briggs and others on the committee have mentioned the programme’s scope and how far it goes. I suppose that this is all about striking a balance between how quickly the legislation needs to go through and where the biggest risk lies.

Having read the evidence from the committee’s previous sessions, I know that there is, as you have said, a mix of views on the issue. Indeed, individual discussions with developers and residents have raised the issue not just of cladding but of overall fire safety; those discussions are on-going, but I am confident that the scope that we have now is sufficient for us to move on.

Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall might want to come in on the discussions that we have had on fire safety.