Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

A lot of the process has been reflective, both when we introduced the legislation and in the discussions that we have had. For me, it has been very much a partnership approach right from the outset. It cannot just be Government going in and saying, “We need this, this and this.” Of course, there is that element of negating the risk, which is the most important part. However, more generally speaking, it has been reflective and it has been about making sure that there is as much of a partnership as possible.

When there have been more discussions, I am happy to write to the convener on how things are progressing as the bill process continues.

That is a good question. When I came to the committee in May, if my memory is correct, that issue was discussed. It is part of broader discussions on the number of fire safety colleagues, in relation to not just cladding but broader issues. The UK Government also faces an issue in relation to that, which we are aware of. The issue is raised in other working groups on building safety, not just in relation to the buildings that we will have on the cladding register but beyond that, because of the issue that I mentioned.

We are aware of the concerns. We are talking to UK Government colleagues about the lessons that they have learned. Again, it is about the scale of the pilot and what it will look like when we move beyond that. I know that there have been discussions with fire safety colleagues and representatives of the trade, but we need to take cognisance of the concerns because, when we step up the pace, we need to ensure that there are fire safety people there to undertake the assessments.

I do not know whether Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall wants to come in on that.

We have to separate out remediation work on orphan buildings, which have no owners, which the Scottish Government needs to pick up, from remediation work on buildings that have a named developer, which the developer picks up. We know about the developers that we have, but we also know the number of orphan buildings, and there is other expenditure outwith that.

For the remediation of buildings by a named developer, the developer commitment letter and the remediation contracts are incredibly important. We need to sign them up to make sure that they do the work that they plan to do. Companies have publicly set aside moneys in their accounts for cladding remediation, so the developer should be setting aside money for that one building that you mentioned. There are issues with regard to expenditure around about that, but the actual remediation should be done by the developer itself.

We know about the issue with orphan buildings, which involves a different approach. Last week, we met residents in a certain part of Scotland, who were talking about this and asking, “Look, we are in an orphan building. Where does that sit? Does that put us down the priority list?” The answer is no. We gave them the reassurance that, just because it is an orphan building, it does not go to the bottom of the queue. In some ways, it is a lot easier to move forward with remediation if the developer is there and it has set aside a sum of money. The developers are all in that position.

With SMEs, nuanced discussions are important, but the large-scale developers have all set aside a considerable amount of money, and have publicly done so, for their remediation contracts.

I will come back in on that. We have discussed coming back to the committee on a couple of points. I am sure that, after hearing the evidence, it will want to come back to us on some aspects, to outline its thoughts. In turn, we could respond through the convener.

Good morning to the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the important topic of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

The safety of home owners and residents continues to be this Government’s absolute priority, and the cladding remediation programme is a core element of our comprehensive response to the tragic fire at Grenfell tower. The committee will be aware that, following that tragedy, we established ministerial working groups on mortgage lending and cladding and on building and fire safety, both of which included a wide range of stakeholders. Sustainable progress has been made on key issues, including changes to fire safety standards and guidance, as well as legislation on smoke alarms.

When I gave evidence to the committee back in May on our cladding programme, I noted that we were looking urgently at legislative options to address barriers to the delivery of the programme to keep residents safe and hold developers to account, and I am pleased to be back in front of the committee today, giving evidence on the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill.

The bill builds on the work of the ministerial working groups on building and fire safety and on mortgage lending and cladding that I have mentioned. As a result of the direct experience of delivering the cladding remediation programme, the feedback from partners and stakeholders, including residents, and our learning from cladding programmes in England and Wales, I have given priority to engaging with developers and residents, both individually and collectively. I record my thanks to colleagues across the chamber for engaging with me and my officials on behalf of their constituents.

In furtherance of the bill, we are committed to further engagement on regulations, guidance and implementation, and we will continue to listen and engage. I recognise that there is a desire to increase the pace of delivery. That is why we have moved from a grant approach to a direct delivery model. I welcome the fact that nine developers have signed developer commitment letters and have agreed to identify and remediate their buildings. We are now working at pace to agree a developer remediation contract. The need to address barriers to delivery and increase the pace underpins the legislation and, specifically, the proposed powers to assess and remediate buildings where the consent of home owners cannot be obtained.

The committee has heard from witnesses who agreed that it would not be fair for willing home owners to be obstructed from remediation by others who are unwilling or absent. The particular danger posed by cladding has necessitated bespoke powers relating to that issue, balanced by strong procedural safeguards to protect the interests of owners and residents.

In drafting the bill, we were mindful of the report that was produced by Dame Judith Hackitt, the chair of the independent review of building regulations and fire safety. It is important that there is a source of information about the buildings that fall within the scope of the bill. The cladding assurance register is therefore intended to reassure the public about those buildings that have been assessed and remediated under the programme.

Clearly, responsibility is at the forefront of our minds. We have included provisions in the bill to support developers who want to participate in the remediation of buildings for which they are responsible. The proposed framework of the responsible developer scheme preserves the position of those who accept responsibility and ensures that they will not be at a commercial disadvantage because of their participation. Similarly, eligible developers who decide not to participate should be appropriately sanctioned.

Many developers in Scotland have already signalled their intention to remediate the buildings that they constructed or refurbished through the Scottish safer buildings accord. It is only right that we prepare a level and consistent operational landscape for them. Accordingly, we are treating the public finances respectfully by spreading the financial burden of remediation to those who are most directly responsible. Our focus as a Government on the communities that we all serve means that that will be done in a fair and proportionate way without endangering the viability of participants in a sector that is valuable to the economy of Scotland.

In summary, the bill is designed to facilitate the progress of the cladding remediation programme. It will allow for the creation of a cladding remediation register, which will provide information on buildings that have undergone a single building assessment and remediation. It will allow for the assessment of buildings through a single building assessment, even in cases in which it is not possible to secure the consent of home owners. It will allow ministers to specify the standard for a single building assessment, and it will provide ministers with the power to arrange remediation work where that work has already been identified in a single building assessment report and is needed to eliminate or mitigate risks to human life that are directly or indirectly created or exacerbated by the building’s external cladding system, even in cases in which it is not possible to secure consent. The bill also includes provisions to establish a responsible developer scheme.

I look forward to answering any questions that members may have. As the convener said, I am accompanied by my officials Kate Hall, Rachel Sunderland and Micheila West.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have regularly met developers and groups of residents, and that has come through as part of their concerns. With regard to the scope of the bill, the main focus was on external cladding. One of the key issues in discussions that we have had with developers and residents has been overall fire safety. Obviously, there are on-going discussions about that in relation to every building that we are involved in.

There is a difference between fire safety and remediation if, for example, fire doors have been taken off. We have picked that up from residents. There is the issue of fire safety, but there are also issues around the maintenance of fire programmes. We have tried to pick that up in individual discussions.

The scope of the bill focuses on the cladding, but there are on-going discussions with developers and residents about overall fire safety. The ministerial group on fire safety gets included in relation to the cladding element of the buildings that we are looking at, as well as more extensively in relation to the building network across Scotland.

I talked about communication, and that was important. Obviously, the bill has its technical aspects. I will bring in Kate Hall and Rachel Sunderland to talk about some of the discussions that they have had, but one of the key things for me was to talk about the technical specifications as we move forward as well as the SBA process. That is where the individual discussions with the developers have been really important.

Although the approach that we have taken is similar to that in England and Wales, the fact is that the tenure system in Scotland is slightly different. As a result, we needed to take a nuanced approach, and that might have picked up some of these issues, too. Again, things might have been picked up in our individual discussions with stakeholders on the technical issues, but we have certainly listened to what the stakeholders were telling us, and I am sure that there will be further questions about that.

The key thing was to listen to stakeholders. Because I was going into the process without having had a consultation, I was keen to make sure that I consulted the stakeholders as much as possible. I know that colleagues and officials have been doing that on a regular basis, and I will continue to do it, too, as the bill progresses. I have always said that it is an open-door process, so if a developer needs to come and speak to me or our residents, I am more than happy to pick that up. However, it all comes back to the immediacy issue and the need to get the legislation through to quicken the pace of what we are trying to do.