Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a really good point. We mentioned that the ministerial groups have discussed the broader fire safety regimes that are out there, which is important. We also discussed the legislation on fire alarms that the Government has introduced. We can certainly take away your point about communications on the existing measures out there. It would be good to check whether people are aware of the regulations in the areas that you mentioned.

The fire service carries out a lot of work with, for example, residents and schools on broader fire safety issues, which I think is why we are seeing such a low figure on the spread of fires.

We can certainly take away your point, and we could consult stakeholders on communications about what is already out there. As the committee might have found, when we have previously had discussions with residents, those tend to raise awareness of the points explored. However, there is no harm in exploring further communications in the future. One learning point from the pilot programme is that, as we move into a larger-scale programme, we must examine what that looks like and what we can do right at the start of the process to ensure that people know what is already out there. If people do have an issue, where should they report it to? Should it be to the factor, the developer, the fire service or the local authority? There is certainly an element that we can take away and come back to the committee on.

One of the key things that was established in the scope of the programme after Grenfell was the cladding issue; indeed, there were discussions about that before I came into post and the scheme started to develop. However, developers have also raised the broader issue of fire safety overall, and I will bring in colleagues to talk about some of the discussions we have had on that.

I know that Mr Briggs and others on the committee have mentioned the programme’s scope and how far it goes. I suppose that this is all about striking a balance between how quickly the legislation needs to go through and where the biggest risk lies.

Having read the evidence from the committee’s previous sessions, I know that there is, as you have said, a mix of views on the issue. Indeed, individual discussions with developers and residents have raised the issue not just of cladding but of overall fire safety; those discussions are on-going, but I am confident that the scope that we have now is sufficient for us to move on.

Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall might want to come in on the discussions that we have had on fire safety.

We previously talked about the ministerial groups. There were discussions with other bodies about the SBA process, and we are quite confident about it.

There are ministerial groups covering more extensive building safety. The issue has been raised in those groups, so an eye is being kept on it as things develop. For example, the RAAC situation kind of came out of the blue for everybody a number of months ago, and we had to deal with that at that point. Those ministerial groups look at the more extensive building safety regime in Scotland.

There is always a question whether we have enough qualified professionals, and there are discussions about work with colleges and universities with regard to what is required. However, we are comfortable with what we have in place. It is not just about considering where we are now; it is also about what future demand is likely to be here and in the rest of the UK.

I am happy to come back to you on that, convener.

You are right. As you know, some buildings might have 200 or 300 flats. Some flats are rented out by people who might not come back to them for a number of years. If work needs to be carried out, we must ensure that that is carried out.

As the committee will probably have seen, in Edinburgh, we tend to have a mix of properties. I know that, in Glasgow, which I have visited, people rent out properties. There are therefore various ownership models. We must ensure that we take account of that. Factors have told us that they have issues on communicating with people who rent out their buildings, for example. If work needs to be carried out, going through the tenant might be one way of resolving that, but actually getting to the people who own the buildings is a different matter. We must be aware of that broader communication aspect. Again, that is where the communication protocol and how we deal with such matters are important.

There are therefore points for us to take away on those issues. I will be happy to come back on any thoughts or any feedback that the committee might have.

Yes. In the chats that I have had with residents, they have said that about communication. Even if there is nothing to say in the next six months, they should at least get an update after three months that says, “We’re working on this, and we expect to get back to you in three months.” They simply want some regular communication. There is also a role for factors and developers to play as part of that process.

Developing a communication protocol is really important. When the directorate was set up, the focus was on looking at the technical issues and working with developers and so on. There are now more staff in the directorate, and communication will be incredibly important as we step up the pace.

One of the key things in that respect was the bill’s immediacy. When I came back to the committee—I think that it was in May—I said that we were considering that at that particular time. A consultation process normally takes three months, which would have taken us towards the end of the year—or, at least, after the summer recess. There was an immediacy about moving the bill forwards.

Ministerial working groups had also spoken to stakeholders over that time, and one of the key things for me was that on-going consultation. I have also had numerous meetings with Homes for Scotland, where individual developers have been present, and I have had probably two or three meetings with individual developers to pick up on their concerns.

The important thing is not only liaising and working with the committee, but working with and speaking to residents. I have tried to meet residents groups on a number of occasions. Sometimes, we have had two or three meetings.

As I have said, the immediacy of the bill and getting it through have been the main things. If we had not gone with our timetable, the process would probably have been taken us to the end of the year. However, for the reasons that we have outlined, the bill gives us the power to move and quicken the pace of the programme. Again, I have tried to be as open and transparent as I can with all the stakeholders on a number of occasions, and we will continue to do so until the bill is passed and, indeed, afterwards.

The key thing for me, from the start, was to have open and transparent discussions with developers. I have said all along that there is an open door and that we want them to come back to us. Even though we could go out and set the specification on our own, it is important to get agreement.

Cladding is one issue, but I meet developers on a regular basis, and issues other than cladding are raised, too. For me, the process has very much been inclusive, and we have tried to listen to developers as much as we possibly can. That is why we set up the task and finish group, which was really important. That work will continue, but I do not think that we are far away from getting that specification, which I think will quicken our progress.

It comes back to how involved developers are in discussions. The technical people from each of the companies involved have been incredibly helpful throughout the process. We leave the technicalities to the people who have the expertise, but updates on progress are fed back to me on a regular basis. We are pretty confident that we will have the specification agreed by springtime, as Kate Hall has said.

We listened to what developers said regarding the PAS standards. That said, the situation is slightly different here. It is not just a case of picking something up from the UK Government and moving it here, given the slight differences in the tenure systems and so on; however, we have tried to work as closely as we possibly can with developers, and they are still part of the task and finish group. This is all fed back to Homes for Scotland, although discussions about some buildings are sometimes conducted on a more individual basis, as they concern slightly different types of building. We are trying to listen.

I agree that it is incredibly important to have an overall process and agreement in place. Once we have that, the pace will be a lot quicker, and it is a key priority for me and officials to move on in that regard.

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.