Seòmar agus comataidhean

PAS was raised in a number of the discussions that we had with developers. I know that the two people who gave evidence to you last week have not been involved in discussions as such. We consult with the sector more broadly, but the focus with developers has been on the task and finish group. I will bring in Rachel Sunderland on the discussions that have been held on the technical issues, but we listened to what the sector was telling us at the developer round table and in individual discussions.

As I have said, the system is not just some pick-up-and-shift thing coming from the UK Government, because the tenure systems are different, and there are slightly different building regulations. We have been taking on some of the feedback that we have received, and we have gone into the technical specifics of the specification itself. As Kate Hall has said, we are not too far away from getting agreement and moving on.

I do not know whether Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall wish to add anything.

I have had discussions with individual developers: the key thing is to work with developers. It is not in their interests to have tolerable risk in any of their buildings. If we have seen what we think is risk that carries immediate or high danger, we have moved on that very quickly. As part of the wider discussions, which are still going on, we are talking about the specifications in the SBA.

Kate talked about getting agreement on the SBA around April. Easter is at the end of March, I think, so we are talking about getting agreement around that time. The discussions have been part of discussions in the round. Having the SBA process agreed would allow us to move on and set the tolerable standard. Those discussions are on-going on a daily basis and, obviously, risk is assessed on a daily basis.

We have dealt with issues very quickly when we have needed to, in conjunction with developers. Other stakeholders that we need to negotiate with can sometimes be an issue. The legislation that will come into force will give us the powers to deal with such issues without having to negotiate, and powers to negate risk as quickly as possible. However, buildings with that risk are being assessed every day.

I will bring in Micheila West on the legal aspect.

There are a number of reasons why we are talking about a cladding assurance register, and a key one is the residents. The most important point is that their knowing that their building is on the cladding assurance register gives them a bit of comfort. It is also important for developers to know that their building is on the register, and the Government has recognised that.

As part of the pilot project, we have discussions with developers about how to move forward. There is an iterative process. We need to make sure that buildings go on the register. We have talked a bit about the discussions that we have had about insurance and mortgages; that, in itself, is a step forward. It is a technical process. It is almost saying to lenders and insurers that a building is on the cladding assurance register. That is an incredibly important part of the legislation that we are working on. For me, it is very much an iterative process.

I will bring in Micheila West, who might want to add something about the legal basis.

I suppose that a couple of issues arise. First, on the SBA process, I understand that there will be a degree of frustration with regard to getting buildings on to the register, given that doing so moves things forward for residents, for developers, for insurance purposes and so on. It is important that we get through the SBA process, because we can start with remediation, get buildings on the register and so on. In its basic form, this is about getting to buildings that have just been built and have not received building safety certificates. The question is: when is a building safe? The key thing is to ensure that it is safe when it is signed off.

Again, we have been discussing with developers how quickly we can move through the process and get buildings on the register, because that is what will reassure developers and residents, and it is what will address the issues that we have been talking about, including insurance, remortgaging and the sale of buildings. Developers have been raising such issues quite often, and we are working with developers to get those issues through the process as quickly as possible.

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.