Seòmar agus comataidhean

As part of our response to the Grenfell inquiry, we pulled together a group of experts in the sector to look at our response and to address the issues. That was an issue that the group picked up. We remain confident about our position going forward. We will engage with the UK Government and other Government colleagues as well as the sector as we progress with our response to the Grenfell inquiry.

Alan, do you want to add anything on the discussions we have with UK Government colleagues on cladding?

I will comment on the broader issue of the construction sector in the UK. All Governments in the UK are looking at that, because we know that the average age of people working in the construction sector is 58 or 59. All Governments have to pick up that, and they have done so over a period. The member raised a really important point.

The committee has heard from Stephen Garvin and Alan Johnston on the capacity of the sector to deal with Grenfell and cladding issues. We are pretty confident about current capacity, but the broader issue around the construction sector is important, because we have an aging construction sector at an important time. All Governments in the UK are picking up and are working collectively on that.

On some of your other points, we have talked about going through the pilot programme. We will come back to you on that and be as specific as we possibly can.

On the open call, we mentioned that there are 32 expressions of interest. An SBA normally takes eight to 10 weeks to deal with, and we are engaging on that. We are planning to launch stage 2 before a number of the SBAs are completed, so it will almost run into that process and flow from there. One of the key issues, as we have learned, is to make sure that the process moves as quickly as possible, hence why we are launching stage 2 in June.

I would imagine, given the response that we have had, that the number will continue to grow beyond 32. The SBAs will be carried out and we will see what remediation work is required beyond that. The intention is to move on that as soon as possible.

I am happy to keep the committee up to date with the number of open call expressions of interest that come through, with the caveat that we will have to check them against the criteria and so on. I am happy to come back to or to write to the committee on that point, but the intention of bringing forward stage 2 in June is to undertake it as soon as possible, and for us to then move on to the remediation process as well as on to what we are doing through the pilot programme. It is a moveable feast—that is the best way to describe it. We are happy to come back to the committee or to write to Ms Gallacher on that point.

There are a number of things in that. I come back to working with local authorities. Local authorities should, initially, be the point of contact for home owners and tenants when those are first notified that they have RAAC. Local authorities work very closely with us in that. That involves looking at whether a surveyor or other support should be available, and we have found that that has been the case with most local authorities.

Some local authorities’ positions are different. As I said, Aberdeen went through its committee and talked about the number of options that were available. In its case, the chosen option was demolition. We have worked to give Aberdeen City Council some financial flexibility in how it tackles the initial costs that come up. As I said, I have met local authorities, but I have not met any other groups. In my introduction, I mentioned the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, at which I imagine I will be requested to speak, at some stage, and we will discuss with groups at that point. In addition, as I said, I am going up to meet Aberdeen residents at the beginning of May.

As the approach develops, we are still engaging with West Lothian Council and Clackmannanshire Council on where they are in their engagement. The first point of engagement is with local authorities, but I have demonstrated that I do not have an issue with speaking to residents—I have done that on cladding and other issues. It is not a problem to speak to residents—I am happy to do that. I have an invitation from Liam Kerr and Audrey Nicoll on that, and I am happy to go up and speak to residents in Aberdeen on that point.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I thought that it might be useful and helpful to provide a short update on the progress that has been made on some of the issues that the committee has been considering lately, which we will probably move on to.

The overall condition of housing in Scotland has been steadily improving over the years, and that has been driven by existing standards. However, there is still more to do to make sure that everyone lives in a healthy and secure home.

The witnesses at the committee’s evidence sessions in March highlighted some of the devastating impacts of living with damp and mould in homes. I am pleased that we are bringing forward an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to provide for Awaab’s law, which will introduce timescales and expectations for repairs to reported hazards. I am sure that we will discuss that shortly and I look forward to hearing your views and questions on the amendment. The bill already contains proposals to improve tenants’ rights, but these measures will strengthen them further to make sure that tenants’ homes are safe for them and their families.

I also welcome the news that the Scottish Housing Regulator will introduce three new indicators, which landlords started collecting data on from 1 April, specifically on damp and mould. That new data, along with the findings of the thematic review on preparing annual assurance statements, will provide a more comprehensive picture of damp and mould issues in social housing.

I also know that this is a worrying time for home owners who are affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. You will be aware of the Scottish RAAC campaign group petition, which asks for funding and a national register of affected homes. I am fully engaging with the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on the matters that are raised in the petition and in May I hope to meet with local residents in Aberdeen who have been affected by RAAC.

Local authorities continue to support home owners in their areas, and the 2025-26 local government settlement of more than £15 billion ensures that local authorities can make the best decisions for their residents. The Government cannot deliver all those ambitions alone and we look forward to continuing to work with the committee as well as with stakeholders to ensure better living conditions for people in Scotland.

I hope that you found that update useful, convener.

In my statement, I made the point that the works are all in slightly different positions. I am happy to come back to you on that, and I will bring in Alan Johnston on where we are with individual cases. It depends on where things are with the SBA process and the remediation process. I think that I indicated where things are with the pathways at the moment, but we can provide more information on that to you, Ms Gallacher, and the committee. I cannot give an indication of the timescale, because it depends on the work that is required in the remediation and SBA processes. Every building is different, but I am happy to come back with more detail on that point.

I will bring in Alan Johnston.

A key issue is the need to look at the barriers and the challenges, some of which Alan Johnston has mentioned. One challenge related to whether the process should be Government led or developer led. We have sought to move through the process as quickly as possible, but there were a number of issues. A couple of developers had different ownership issues that had to be looked into, on which we engaged. Some developers had previous ownership structures in place when the cladding was looked at, so there was some legal work that needed to be carried out with a few of them.

We have also talked about the ability to pay, because the last thing that we wanted to happen was for developers’ liability to carry out repairs to impact on their ability to continue to trade. That was a very relevant issue, which we discussed with various other parties.

The Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill was important in addressing the specific issues to do with obtaining the necessary consent to move forward the process.

Another key issue was the fact that we are dealing with UK-wide companies, which needs to be considered in the context of the SBA process. Scotland has a slightly different tenure system, and we need to consider how that works with what is being done in the rest of the UK. We wanted to make sure that we engaged with UK-wide companies on that point. My officials and I had meetings about that with nine or 10 of the biggest developers in the UK that operate in Scotland. The developer remediation programme, which we have just about concluded with developers, is very similar.

It has been a case of getting the right structure in place to enable us to move forward. I think that we are now at that stage, and we are trying to progress that through the open call.

We have done a lot of the groundwork, but I acknowledge that it has been slow to get to where we are. The budget that we have set aside for this year gives confidence that we will spend much more money on that. We have put in place all those bases, removed as many of the barriers as possible and got agreement from the developers on how we progress to make sure that we do it in a way that is not divergent from the rest of the UK. We will get the properties remediated as soon as possible, because this impacts people, and that is the most important thing.

We are trying to progress the pace as quickly as possible. All the stepping stones that we have put in place will allow us to do that, as well as the single open call, which I have progressed. As I have said before, progress has been far too slow, but I am confident that the pace will now increase.

You make a really important point. You are right: if somebody goes in and addresses the issue with antifungal paint, it might do the job for a short period of time, but the mould will just come back again very shortly afterwards.

One of the keys things in the consultation—you picked up on the point—is about working with local authorities on the technology in that area and ensuring that what we do is more sustainable and long term. It should not just be a case of doing a paint-over job because, within a year or two, the problem will come back, so that will not solve the situation in the medium to long term. It is very much about working with local authorities on ensuring that the technology that is coming forward—there are various initiatives in that regard—leads to longer-term, sustainable action. We will be consulting the regulator and local authorities on that issue. Again, I can come back to the committee on that.

As you said, it is something that the regulator reports on, and we will be discussing the matter with the regulator. I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to add anything.

The important point is that it has to be sustainable.

I will bring in Ruth Whatling on that point.