Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We previously talked about the ministerial groups. There were discussions with other bodies about the SBA process, and we are quite confident about it.

There are ministerial groups covering more extensive building safety. The issue has been raised in those groups, so an eye is being kept on it as things develop. For example, the RAAC situation kind of came out of the blue for everybody a number of months ago, and we had to deal with that at that point. Those ministerial groups look at the more extensive building safety regime in Scotland.

There is always a question whether we have enough qualified professionals, and there are discussions about work with colleges and universities with regard to what is required. However, we are comfortable with what we have in place. It is not just about considering where we are now; it is also about what future demand is likely to be here and in the rest of the UK.

I am happy to come back to you on that, convener.

You are right. As you know, some buildings might have 200 or 300 flats. Some flats are rented out by people who might not come back to them for a number of years. If work needs to be carried out, we must ensure that that is carried out.

As the committee will probably have seen, in Edinburgh, we tend to have a mix of properties. I know that, in Glasgow, which I have visited, people rent out properties. There are therefore various ownership models. We must ensure that we take account of that. Factors have told us that they have issues on communicating with people who rent out their buildings, for example. If work needs to be carried out, going through the tenant might be one way of resolving that, but actually getting to the people who own the buildings is a different matter. We must be aware of that broader communication aspect. Again, that is where the communication protocol and how we deal with such matters are important.

There are therefore points for us to take away on those issues. I will be happy to come back on any thoughts or any feedback that the committee might have.

I am happy to write to the committee if there is any progress on that, but we continue to push the issue on a regular basis.

In speaking to residents, that issue has come up quite a bit. It was raised at a meeting that I had just last week with residents of a number of developments. A key point is that there has been a large increase in the number of people in the directorate who are working in the cladding area. I know that we need to do a bit more work in that area, and we are looking at communication protocols.

Communication is slightly different for each building, each developer and each factor. There has to be a personalised approach, but communication needs to get better. As I said, the directorate has grown over the past number of months as the bill has developed and as we have done more work in this area. I acknowledge that we need to do more on communication, but it needs to be personalised to each building.

Even if there is nothing in particular to say, we should tell residents that there is nothing to say but that work is being carried out. The fact that there has been a vacuum is what people are concerned about. We have picked up on that in the pilot project. The issue has been raised by residents. I acknowledge that more could have been done, but we are working on that just now.

Homes for Scotland has arranged round-table discussions and we have also met individual developers. We tend to meet a mix of managing directors, finance directors and the technical people who need to be in the room. We also have technical people in the room when policy is discussed at round tables and at the individual discussions, so things are quite well covered.

That has been the main issue in the discussions with Homes for Scotland and with individual developers. I will bring in officials to talk about the technical discussions that they have had.

When I came into this role, I had a number of key objectives, one of which was to get a developer commitment letter to ensure that they signed up to what we were trying to do. The issue was raised when I spoke to individual developers at that stage, and we got the letter signed; the next stage was to move towards the long-form contract, which was when the SBA issue came up.

When the SBA process was raised, I asked officials to set up a task and finish group, which has been running for a number of months now, to work on the exact specifications. We did that, and Homes for Scotland was present at that meeting; we then had individual and round-table discussions. In fact, there have been a number of round tables as we have worked on that.

As the tenure system is slightly different in Scotland, there was a Scottish advice note, and we talked about moving towards a publicly available specification and the technical specifications to go along with that. We also had individual discussions with developers.

The SBA will pick up different things in different buildings, depending on where the developers are. We have tried to work very closely with developers, but we need to have technical specifications, both for the safety of residents and so that we are satisfied. That is incredibly important.

The key thing for me was to have individual discussions and to listen. I visited a number of buildings, so that I was not just hearing from developers but going out and telling people what we were looking at, what we were doing and what clarity we needed. That has been the priority all the way through and we are not far away from getting agreement with all the developers. It has probably slowed down progress, but it is important that we, and the developers, are happy with the specifications. Most important, even though they might not know the technical specifications, residents must believe in us and in the developers. That has been a focus for me all the way through, and it will continue to be a focus in our discussions with individual developers.

I will bring in Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall to talk about where we are now. I know that really good progress has been made on that and that we will soon have that agreement and be able to move forward. It is important to have that in place. Rachel might want to say a little more about that.