Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are starting to see that now. I acknowledged that issue, which was discussed during the passage of the bill. Over the period, we have tried to engage with individual residents and a group of residents on what we need to do. I mentioned the newsletter, which is incredibly important. Another key thing is working with factors. How do we make sure that we are engaging with them and getting the message out as best we can?

The communications have improved and they will continue to improve. I understand from the evidence that was taken before that there was an issue, but we are seeing an improvement. It is a really important point. I have acknowledged that we need to do better on communications, but I think that we are doing so now.

Stephen, do you have anything to add?

I will bring in my legal colleague. Laura, do you want to touch on the specific point about how that would work in practice?

Renters’ rights are one of the key issues in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment, so the provisions fit in with that. The Housing (Scotland) Bill is obviously looking at various other matters, such as rental disputes involving pets and so on. It is important that we have these provisions as part of that. The provisions are very explicit and right in your face, so I think that they give a strong message to people out there who are undertaking the practice that they cannot continue to do so.

First of all, this falls into broader renters’ rights provisions to increase the rights of renters. For a number of years, we have heard of people being discriminated against because they are on benefits. It is a surprise to lots of us that that has not been legislated against previously. It has been discussed a number of times.

You mentioned advertising, which is important. As I said, the measure falls into legislation to protect vulnerable groups.

There are a number of issues. We will probably come on to whether such discrimination is seen as a civil matter or a criminal matter in Scotland. Like Wales, we have decided to go down the route of making it a criminal matter. Therefore, we would say to people to report a case to Police Scotland and let the police take that up as a criminal offence, as it will be a criminal offence in Scotland if the Parliament consents to the LCM. Certainly, we would hope that people would take a case to the police and that the police would pick it up. The practice is not one that we can continue to see in the UK and in Scotland.

To build on what I said before, there were a number of discussions and meetings. The developers would come back to us, and we would go back to them—there were a number of occasions when that happened. One of the key issues concerns the addition of elements around audit and compliance. If you recall, that issue was raised by a number of members during the debate around these issues. People wanted to know how we could ensure that what we are doing is compliant and auditable, and wanted reassurance that we could have a look at what was going on at any particular point.

The issue just concerns the discussions and the to-ing and fro-ing that I mentioned in my previous answer in relation to ensuring that we and the developers were happy with what had been agreed.

Stephen Lea-Ross might want to add something about the technical discussions that he undertook with developers.

Stephen Lea-Ross touched on some of the points. There has been important assessment work going on—some developers have been in place and have been doing that anyway. One of the key things is to almost top and tail that process by looking at what else needs to be done in terms of assessment. There is existing documentation that could be used, but we need to get it up to the standard that we have agreed with the developers and signed a commitment on—that is incredibly important. That does not mean that the whole process will have to be done again. There will be some existing work that has been carried out that can be used as part of that process.

We have had extensive discussions with the developers; we have not made it to this position without speaking to them. We have looked into what they have been doing over this period of time, what learnings they have from what they have done and what additional work needs to be done. Those discussions on-going.

I will ask Stephen Lea-Ross to add anything that he thinks is relevant with regard to the technical points.

We would be happy to write to the committee once we have an agreed date.

First of all, I should say that work has been carried out in those four years, and I will come to the timeline and why we have got to where we are with the cladding issue.

I should also highlight the fair wee bit of work carried out by the Grenfell working group, which I chair. In 2021, there was a fire risk advice note on external cladding systems, which was updated in 2022, and that work fed in and was used to test the Scottish advice note, which I will refer to as the SAN instead of saying it in full all the time.

One of the key things at the start of the process was to meet developers. I had a number of such meetings, and when the SAN was discussed, it was felt to be far too broad, and that it needed to be more specific with regard to what we were looking to achieve. As a result, there were discussions with officials and me on how to make the SAN not only as efficient as possible but as extensive as it needed to be in its focus on some of the issues, and SAN 9980 was then agreed as the basis for that work.

When it came to the single building assessment, one of the key and essential things was to ensure that developers were happy with it. After all, if we did not have an SBA process that everybody agreed with, it would be really difficult to take these things forward, and that work took a period of time.

Therefore, the standards have been in place for some time, but what we have been doing is building on them and ensuring that they are focused and homing in on what we need to do in the SBA process. Discussions have been going on, too. A system has been in place, although it has been more specifically about cladding. It is not that the issue has just been sitting there for four years; we have been developing the system and working in partnership with the developers in that respect. That is the key point that I want to get across, and I should add that things will continue to develop as we work with the developers.

We were talking more about what we needed to look to add on in that regard. PAS 9980 was established as the foundation to enable progress to be made quickly with developers. It was concerned more with the internal fire risk assessments and those for external walls, in relation to which there are slightly different procedures in Scotland and England. That was part of the discussions that we had to have with the developers and technical experts. There were early discussions to establish and agree on PAS 9980, and there was work around additionality. Of course, the fire risk assessment, in particular around the external walls, was important. There were discussions on the technical element, and that was moved on.

As I said, PAS 9980 was established pretty quickly as the standard that action would be based on, with the understanding that other things would need to be added to that.

Again, Stephen Lea-Ross can say more about the technical discussions that were held. However, essentially, there was a need to add a little bit more to PAS 9980 to make it more applicable to Scotland.

That is an important point, Mr Griffin. We talked about that issue during the debate in the chamber. I have had individual discussions with developers about the ability to pay. The last thing that we want is to put any business out of action.

You are right that that might be due to a number of reasons. One reason is exposure and another is previous ownership—we have seen businesses being bought over or whatever, so there are complexities to do with that. We have recognised complexities in each of the businesses that we have talked to.

We cannot go into every business, but we are trying to work with them as closely as we possibly can to make sure that the buildings are remediated. With regard to the pace of that work, that is where the flexibility around some of the funding comes in and we are speaking with them about how we can work with them on that particular point.

You are right—that is something that we have to recognise. However, we can do both. We can make sure that the companies survive and have an ability to grow; we can also make sure that the buildings are remediated.

I have had a number of meetings about that. Perhaps Stephen will want to speak to the discussions that colleagues have also had at the technical level. Stephen, do you want to add anything on the ability to pay and on discussions that we have had with developers on that point?