Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will bring Kate Hall in on that. As I said, discussions about building safety are on-going every day. There is obviously an element between the SBA process and moving towards remediation, in which there is assessment of whether there are immediate risks and where those sit. Again, that is different for every developer and every building. Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland might want to come in on your specific point. Developers have raised that with us, as well.

I will bring in Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland in a moment.

In the discussions that we have had, we have considered the approach that the UK Government has taken—there are on-going discussions on that. We have been talking to the SMEs, including in the Homes for Scotland context, about what that looks like.

This is a really important issue, so I am not just looking at the SME sector as a whole. We are speaking to individual developers and asking them where they sit. Even though we are considering a similar approach to that of the UK Government, our approach has to be based on what the developers tell us. There is always a balance: we want to remediate buildings as quickly as possible, but there is not much point in doing that if we lose five or six developers as a result of their not having the ability to pay.

That has been a really important approach. I emphasise the individual discussions that I and officials have had. As I said, our door is open. This is very much a partnership as we move forward, and we need to learn about that through the pilot programme.

Rachel or Kate might want to come in on the point about the profit threshold.

Again, it is about learning lessons. Down south, the UK Government has gone through the same process. There will be SMEs at certain levels. We all know where the threshold sits for SMEs, but where do the different SMEs sit within that? It is important to have the broader discussions with Homes for Scotland and SMEs, but we also need individual discussions to learn what it looks like for different SMEs. That is an important part of getting to the nuanced position as we learn from the pilot programme and go forward.

There are a number of things to say on that. It is very much demand led, which is one of the key points that we are considering. There is a discussion about what the programme will look like in the next year or so. In the past number of months, the spend on it has increased as we have done more work on the matter, and it is important to do that.

The figure for 2024-25 is £41.3 million. As I said, it is very much demand led. That cost is not just remediation; there are other costs involved as well. That is the figure that has been set aside in that regard at the moment. As I say, it is very much demand led. Hopefully, if we quicken the pace, we will see where that leads us in 2024-25. It is a substantial increase on previous years, as we get more into the programme.

That has been a frustration of the process. In November or December, I chaired an interministerial group meeting. It is a reserved matter, so we discussed it with UK Finance. The Welsh Government, which I had previously met, had the same concerns at that time. Officials have raised the issue on a number of occasions, and I have raised it on a number of occasions with my opposite number, including in the ministerial group.

One of the key things that we asked for, which is in the process of being arranged, is a working group with officials to progress matters. In the discussions that we had, the United Kingdom Government said that, with regard to regulations, it was focusing its approach first on England, and that it hoped to roll that out to the devolved Administrations. We needed to see a quickening of the pace. We got an undertaking that that would happen, but, as I said, that is not within our control because we are talking about a reserved matter.

We are aware of the issue, which has been raised by residents on a number of occasions. Discussions are on-going with officials in an effort to get to a solution, not only for the UK Government but for us, the Welsh Government and—now that it has been reformed—the Northern Ireland Executive, although it is just starting the process.

The pace at the moment is frustrating. It is outwith our control, but we continue to push the matter whenever we meet ministers or officials. Rachel Sunderland or Kate Hall might want to mention some of the discussions that they have had in the past few weeks.

I have not done so myself, but colleagues have. There is obviously an element of technical knowledge required, of which I have a little, but discussions involving actual technical fire safety knowledge have been held and fed back to me. Kate Hall or Rachel Sunderland might want to come in on this, but I can say that there have been extensive discussions with that sector.

I will bring in officials on that question, too.

There have been a number of cases. With regard to some of the developers that we have spoken to, there are different ownership models. There are historical developments. How has a company developed from where it was 30 years ago to where it is now? That becomes difficult. When it comes to individual discussions, where is the proof of liability? That becomes hard. I know that there have been discussions about design standards, which were probably okay at the time, but where do they come in now? It is about when a building was designed as opposed to when it was built. We are looking at the past 30 years. Some buildings will just be at that 30-year level.

I know that that issue has been discussed, but the question of who takes the action becomes really difficult. Should that be the companies or the Government? That becomes really difficult legally. I do not know whether Micheila West wants to come in on that. I will bring in Rachel Sunderland and Kate Hall on the discussions and Micheila West on legal things that have been discussed.

That is a good point. The SBA process in relation to the remediation contract is really important. That process is almost a dual process. As well as discussing the SBA process, discussions are already going on about remediation and how that SBA process feeds through to the remediation contracts, for example.

When we looked at that, we were doing so almost in terms of the different waves of the programme, focusing on the larger companies first. I have also been having discussions with SMEs on that. One of the statements that I made at the start was about that individual approach. We know that SMEs are in a difficult position in relation to house building at the moment, so there is a balance in how we discuss this with SMEs to make sure that it does not put their business at risk in what is a difficult trading situation across the UK at the moment.

Discussions are being held at SME level on the SBA process and the remediation contracts. For SMEs, knowing about their ability to pay is really important, so there are discussions on how we can look at that. Those discussions involve not just SMEs as a sector but individual companies. The discussions with individual companies have been helpful—I know that they have appreciated that, because we have had feedback directly from them on that approach.

When we started the process with Homes for Scotland, we made it clear that the SME sector is important and that we were not taking a one-size-fits-all approach. It was very much about looking at the sector. We need to be more cautious in how we deal with the SME sector as a whole, but we also know that their individual circumstances are all different. We have tried to get a balance in how we proceed with them.

The approach to UK public limited companies and the larger Scottish house builders will be different from the approach to SMEs. We need to be cognisant of that, and we are working closely with SMEs. We will have continuing discussions with them on the SBA process and how that moves towards a remediation contract. As I said, I know that that has been appreciated, because we have had direct feedback on that.

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

Is it okay if I make an opening statement?

I think that this is week 9 of my being in post and, in the first week or so, I met Homes for Scotland. Obviously, this is an issue of real importance to me. We have had discussions—I think that it was mentioned this morning that the previous cabinet secretary had been in discussions. There are a few key principles that are important to get across and that, working closely with Homes for Scotland, we have agreed on. One is developer responsibility, and that is being progressed.

Information sharing is another. Among the things that I picked up from today’s earlier discussion at the committee was about communication, which Chris Ashurst mentioned. I would like to take that away and speak to developers and officials about it to make sure that we maximise communication to people. What Chris said about that was very relevant.

There is also the commitment to assess and remediate relevant buildings. That is about the cladding, which the committee has talked about this morning, along with other fire safety defects on buildings. We have talked about how closely we are working with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which is a key partner. As mentioned, we initially focused on the largest developers, which are members of Homes for Scotland.

Another key thing is that our approach is similar to that of the UK and Welsh Governments. We are in constant dialogue with them on the matter, which is a UK-wide problem, and we have followed their approach. There has been significant progress in the past weeks.