Seòmar agus comataidhean

One of the key things in that respect was the bill’s immediacy. When I came back to the committee—I think that it was in May—I said that we were considering that at that particular time. A consultation process normally takes three months, which would have taken us towards the end of the year—or, at least, after the summer recess. There was an immediacy about moving the bill forwards.

Ministerial working groups had also spoken to stakeholders over that time, and one of the key things for me was that on-going consultation. I have also had numerous meetings with Homes for Scotland, where individual developers have been present, and I have had probably two or three meetings with individual developers to pick up on their concerns.

The important thing is not only liaising and working with the committee, but working with and speaking to residents. I have tried to meet residents groups on a number of occasions. Sometimes, we have had two or three meetings.

As I have said, the immediacy of the bill and getting it through have been the main things. If we had not gone with our timetable, the process would probably have been taken us to the end of the year. However, for the reasons that we have outlined, the bill gives us the power to move and quicken the pace of the programme. Again, I have tried to be as open and transparent as I can with all the stakeholders on a number of occasions, and we will continue to do so until the bill is passed and, indeed, afterwards.

The key thing for me, from the start, was to have open and transparent discussions with developers. I have said all along that there is an open door and that we want them to come back to us. Even though we could go out and set the specification on our own, it is important to get agreement.

Cladding is one issue, but I meet developers on a regular basis, and issues other than cladding are raised, too. For me, the process has very much been inclusive, and we have tried to listen to developers as much as we possibly can. That is why we set up the task and finish group, which was really important. That work will continue, but I do not think that we are far away from getting that specification, which I think will quicken our progress.

It comes back to how involved developers are in discussions. The technical people from each of the companies involved have been incredibly helpful throughout the process. We leave the technicalities to the people who have the expertise, but updates on progress are fed back to me on a regular basis. We are pretty confident that we will have the specification agreed by springtime, as Kate Hall has said.

We listened to what developers said regarding the PAS standards. That said, the situation is slightly different here. It is not just a case of picking something up from the UK Government and moving it here, given the slight differences in the tenure systems and so on; however, we have tried to work as closely as we possibly can with developers, and they are still part of the task and finish group. This is all fed back to Homes for Scotland, although discussions about some buildings are sometimes conducted on a more individual basis, as they concern slightly different types of building. We are trying to listen.

I agree that it is incredibly important to have an overall process and agreement in place. Once we have that, the pace will be a lot quicker, and it is a key priority for me and officials to move on in that regard.

PAS was raised in a number of the discussions that we had with developers. I know that the two people who gave evidence to you last week have not been involved in discussions as such. We consult with the sector more broadly, but the focus with developers has been on the task and finish group. I will bring in Rachel Sunderland on the discussions that have been held on the technical issues, but we listened to what the sector was telling us at the developer round table and in individual discussions.

As I have said, the system is not just some pick-up-and-shift thing coming from the UK Government, because the tenure systems are different, and there are slightly different building regulations. We have been taking on some of the feedback that we have received, and we have gone into the technical specifics of the specification itself. As Kate Hall has said, we are not too far away from getting agreement and moving on.

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

I have had discussions with individual developers: the key thing is to work with developers. It is not in their interests to have tolerable risk in any of their buildings. If we have seen what we think is risk that carries immediate or high danger, we have moved on that very quickly. As part of the wider discussions, which are still going on, we are talking about the specifications in the SBA.

Kate talked about getting agreement on the SBA around April. Easter is at the end of March, I think, so we are talking about getting agreement around that time. The discussions have been part of discussions in the round. Having the SBA process agreed would allow us to move on and set the tolerable standard. Those discussions are on-going on a daily basis and, obviously, risk is assessed on a daily basis.

We have dealt with issues very quickly when we have needed to, in conjunction with developers. Other stakeholders that we need to negotiate with can sometimes be an issue. The legislation that will come into force will give us the powers to deal with such issues without having to negotiate, and powers to negate risk as quickly as possible. However, buildings with that risk are being assessed every day.

I will bring in Micheila West on the legal aspect.

There are a number of reasons why we are talking about a cladding assurance register, and a key one is the residents. The most important point is that their knowing that their building is on the cladding assurance register gives them a bit of comfort. It is also important for developers to know that their building is on the register, and the Government has recognised that.

As part of the pilot project, we have discussions with developers about how to move forward. There is an iterative process. We need to make sure that buildings go on the register. We have talked a bit about the discussions that we have had about insurance and mortgages; that, in itself, is a step forward. It is a technical process. It is almost saying to lenders and insurers that a building is on the cladding assurance register. That is an incredibly important part of the legislation that we are working on. For me, it is very much an iterative process.

I will bring in Micheila West, who might want to add something about the legal basis.

I suppose that a couple of issues arise. First, on the SBA process, I understand that there will be a degree of frustration with regard to getting buildings on to the register, given that doing so moves things forward for residents, for developers, for insurance purposes and so on. It is important that we get through the SBA process, because we can start with remediation, get buildings on the register and so on. In its basic form, this is about getting to buildings that have just been built and have not received building safety certificates. The question is: when is a building safe? The key thing is to ensure that it is safe when it is signed off.

Again, we have been discussing with developers how quickly we can move through the process and get buildings on the register, because that is what will reassure developers and residents, and it is what will address the issues that we have been talking about, including insurance, remortgaging and the sale of buildings. Developers have been raising such issues quite often, and we are working with developers to get those issues through the process as quickly as possible.

I read what came up in that respect. I will bring in Micheila West in a wee second, but I will say that we are listening to the concerns that are being raised and, as we progress with the bill, we are looking at how we ensure that such concerns and issues are addressed.

Micheila, do you want to address the particular point from the Law Society of Scotland?

Again, that is a good question. In our discussions with developers, they have identified not only buildings that should be in scope but those that they think should not be in scope. There is a balance to be struck with regard to getting the buildings that are in scope through the SBA process and remediation done. Buildings being out of scope is incredibly important, because saying that that is the case will reassure residents in buildings that might or might not be in scope.

I do not know whether Rachel Sunderland would like to add anything, but the issue has certainly been raised by Homes for Scotland and developers. It is, as I have said, about striking a balance between making safe the buildings that are in scope and giving reassurance—a sense of relief, if you like—to developers and residents in buildings that are not.

You are right about that debate. To put it into the broader context, the responsible developer scheme follows the model in England and Wales. That is a really important part of the legislation for me and for the developers. The first stage of that was talking about the commitment letter, which was, in a sense, about them publicly coming out and saying, “We are working with you on that.” The remediation contract itself is another step. The responsible developer scheme then gives us powers in relation to what happens if the work does not get carried out. That is important, because it gives us the ability to look at sanctions.

As I said, we have not had any issues in terms of developers coming to speak to us. None of my individual discussions with developers has involved them saying that they do not want to be part of this. They have all been keen to sit down, engage, be collaborative and work with us. It is important to give that context. They have all been very supportive when working with us because they know what they need to do for, first and most important, the residents, but also their own outlook. If they do not carry out the work, there is that reputational risk. The responsible developer scheme gives that sign and gives us the powers to do that.

I will bring in Micheila West on the legislative issue that has been raised. However, part of the consultation discussions that we have had have been about not teasing out but trying to look at the attitude of the sector itself. The sector has been very helpful in working closely with us on that. It also wants to move as quickly as it possibly can.