Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As I have said, discussions are on-going. There is existing legislation on fire safety, but the question is how that fits with the cladding issue. There are always discussions to be had, and when we speak to residents and developers, this is an issue that comes up.

As I mentioned to the convener, there is also an issue around fire safety maintenance in buildings; there is a difference between that and fire safety in buildings. After all, the question whether things are being maintained is slightly different from issues of fire safety, which have been picked up by existing legislation.

As Rachel Sunderland has said, we are just following the outlook of the Governments in England and Wales. The Northern Irish Government is just starting its process, and it has already been in touch with us to discuss where ours fits in. We are very much following the scope that was chosen by the UK and Welsh Governments.

I will come back to the broader discussions. You made a point about underground car parks. There have been specific cases in which action has been required. I spoke earlier about our discussions with other stakeholders; we had to get their agreement before we could do anything about that issue. If a building is at immediate risk, the legislation gives us the ability to take action. There will be consultation, but we will have the power to go and do something, whereas, previously, we did not have that power. We looked at a previous case where things had happened quickly but a period of consultation with other stakeholders was still needed to move things forward. The part of the bill that deals with that is important, because it gives us the ability to act on buildings at immediate risk. We have discussed that regarding individual buildings.

The factors play a really important role. There have been some mixed experiences, which is part of a broader issue with factors. Some residents have been very supportive of factors, whereas some have not. There is a raised awareness of the role of factors and of the broader issue of building safety, particularly fire safety in underground car parks.

The discussion is about not only cladding but overall fire safety. The issue of fire safety needs to be picked up in regulation. If we remediate the cladding issue but there is still a fire risk, there is still an issue. There is existing legislation about that. There are lessons to be learned and we have had experience of having to take almost immediate action to make buildings safe. We have learned from that, and that was also helpful for other stakeholders such as local authorities and the fire service. We work closely with those key stakeholders.

Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall may want to add more.

The pilot was set up to look at high-risk buildings, and ownership was one issue initially. I am aware that you have raised this issue before. Some building safety regimes are already in place and we have learned the process. When we discussed this in May, we did not have to deal with the RAAC issue, which was just coming into view. We were looking at how safe our schools are. I am not saying that there is no on-going building maintenance at schools, colleges or universities; there are regimes in place and we know what those look like.

There is a broader building safety group that looks at those issues. Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland may want to talk about that. There is already an established building safety regime. Rachel or Kate may want to touch on the other things you mentioned.

The building and fire safety group has specific discussions on those points to ensure that the regimes and building control system that are in place are monitored. It is really important that those issues are picked up. We will obviously continue to have discussions with the UK Government on what it is doing; there are on-going discussions on a number of issues. However, as I said, the ministerial group on building and fire safety picks up those issues.

Obviously, we have learned lessons from what the building safety regime looked like for RAAC, which, in a way, came out of the blue. We must make sure that nothing comes as a surprise, so there are regular discussions about that.

Another important point, which we have not touched on so far, is about the building safety levy and how it develops over time.

That is not my area of responsibility, but I work closely with the minister who is responsible for that and I have been involved in but not led discussions on the building safety levy. Developers are aware of the levy being introduced and what it will look like. We are working closely with UK Government colleagues on that.

It is important to set this in the context of the broader, longer-term outlook. We are working closely with UK Government colleagues on how to introduce that legislation. Discussions are already under way with developers, who might have slightly different people at the meetings—perhaps more on the finance side. Those discussions are taking place in parallel with what we are doing already as we look towards introducing the building safety levy.

I will let Kate Hall respond first and then come back on that myself.