Seòmar agus comataidhean

Rachel Sunderland touched on the importance of squeezing out as much information as possible to make sure that we do not get orphan buildings. It is about pushing that as far as we can to find out who the owner of the building is and whether they are responsible for it. As Mr Briggs mentioned, there can be mergers and companies can be bought over. In such cases, where does the responsibility lie?

In looking at the budget that we have, there is an element of expectation that some orphan buildings will become part of that. We have reached an agreement with Homes for Scotland about the buildings that it is responsible for. With regard to the ones that it is not responsible for, we have to look at how we maximise the budget.

The key principle is to try to make sure that we find the owners who are out there. We need to acknowledge that there may be buildings for which we do not have owners but, again, that was part of the process of looking at the budget that was required at the start. That is on-going. At times, it can be difficult until we get into the building and find out what the remediation need is. However, that element is built into the budget.

Is it okay if I make an opening statement?

I think that this is week 9 of my being in post and, in the first week or so, I met Homes for Scotland. Obviously, this is an issue of real importance to me. We have had discussions—I think that it was mentioned this morning that the previous cabinet secretary had been in discussions. There are a few key principles that are important to get across and that, working closely with Homes for Scotland, we have agreed on. One is developer responsibility, and that is being progressed.

Information sharing is another. Among the things that I picked up from today’s earlier discussion at the committee was about communication, which Chris Ashurst mentioned. I would like to take that away and speak to developers and officials about it to make sure that we maximise communication to people. What Chris said about that was very relevant.

There is also the commitment to assess and remediate relevant buildings. That is about the cladding, which the committee has talked about this morning, along with other fire safety defects on buildings. We have talked about how closely we are working with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which is a key partner. As mentioned, we initially focused on the largest developers, which are members of Homes for Scotland.

Another key thing is that our approach is similar to that of the UK and Welsh Governments. We are in constant dialogue with them on the matter, which is a UK-wide problem, and we have followed their approach. There has been significant progress in the past weeks.

That is probably down to the experience of the buildings that we have had to remediate in the first while. It is all about trying to quicken the pace and ensuring that we have the necessary powers to do that.

I will bring in Stephen Garvin, as he has been discussing that. I heard the earlier discussion about the difficulties, with people being away—one person is in China—and so on.

I know that we will touch on this later, as the committee will want to ask about it, but it is important to look at legislation. That would, in part, be about making sure that we get over that problem. We will touch on that more, and I referred to it in my opening remarks. Part of the reason why we are considering legislation is that the more quickly we can remediate buildings, the better it is for everyone. That issue has been identified and will be part of any legislation, if that is where we move to.

I will bring in Rachel Sunderland on that.

That is probably about looking at a number of things. One is remediation of the buildings, and another is the mitigation of fire safety risks and ensuring that we can take action more quickly than we can at the moment. Obviously, we have reached agreement with the developers, but it is about tying that into legislation as we progress.

You are right, Mr Griffin. The first key principle was establishing the agreement with wave 1 developers, which built most of the buildings.

My background is 20 years in corporate banking, and I dealt a lot with small and medium-sized builders and developers. We need a more nuanced approach. The last thing that we need is to put such builders out of business. We are closely looking at the £10 million figure and the loan scheme in Wales, and officials are in constant dialogue with UK and Welsh Government officials. Just a few weeks ago, I had an interministerial meeting with UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland colleagues, talking specifically about cladding, and I will have a follow-up meeting with UK and Welsh Government colleagues on the issue.

We are looking at the two things that you mentioned, but we need a more nuanced approach than that to support SMEs. Obviously, they have their responsibilities, but we need to make sure that they do not go out of business because of the issue. The general principle is that it needs a more nuanced approach. We will go into that, but we are looking at the two schemes that you mentioned and are in constant dialogue with officials from the UK and Welsh Governments.

I mentioned that we are trying to identify where there are immediate issues of high risk. I will bring in Rachel on that point.