Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener. Having not made an opening statement, I will try to integrate some of those points into my remarks during the meeting. When I come to talking about the pilot phase of the programme I will probably turn to my colleague Stephen Lea-Ross, who, as you have said, is the director in charge of cladding.

I will take the last part of your question first and will talk about the lessons learned from the pilot phase. There were two particularly important things for the Government to overcome in making progress on cladding. First, there was a requirement to bring together a single bespoke assessment that would be sufficient for the consideration of dangerous cladding and of what remediation work had to be done. The pilot programme was important in bringing together what is now the statutory single building assessment. The other issue that we had to overcome was that the tenure situation in Scotland is a little different from that elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which meant that we would ultimately need to have primary legislative powers to step in where action was not being taken in a multi-owner building. The pilot allowed us to do that. It has now ended, although you could also describe it as simply having become part of the wider single open call, which is now progressing.

I will leave my remarks there for now, convener, to allow you to come back with anything that you want to say. Those two lessons learned are the most important things, and the pilot has now been integrated into the larger single open call. If you wish, I can say more about some of the buildings that were part of the pilot.

I probably inadvertently answered your second question in my opening remarks. I might ask Stephen Lea-Ross to comment, if there is anything that he would like to say about what we have learned from the pilot, and then we will be happy to give an update. I can come back, convener, on the high-rise inventory and some of the other points.

I understand that, looking at those figures alone, you could readily come to the conclusion that you have reached.

I have a very brief update for the committee that I would have mentioned in opening, but I will do so now. The updated position in respect of completed SBAs is that, as of 30 September 2025, 16 have been completed. That is an increase from what Mr Stewart—understandably—mentioned.

SBAs take about three to four months. They will differ depending on the complexity of the buildings and what is found. Some SBAs will be for more than one building; we would be talking about one assessment, but it could be for a variety of buildings.

Another contextual point is that the SBAs have arisen from the 2024 act, which came into force at the start of this year so, naturally, the number of SBAs will start to build. However, as I said, that does not reflect the work that has already been done by building owners across Scotland to carry out assessments that are short of an SBA, any works that might have flowed from those, and any demolition or planned demolition. That is what our information-gathering exercise speaks to.

It might also be worth letting the committee know that we now have 1,062 expressions of interest through the single open call for single building assessments. As of 30 September, 478 expressions of interest have received their grant support, so you can expect to see a significant ramping up of the number of SBA completions in the coming months.

However, the process is complex, so questions about capacity are understandable. We have been keen to discuss that with the stakeholders that we work with, and I understand that the question was put to the Institution of Fire Engineers. Stephen, will you let the committee know what it said about capacity for undertaking the work?

Stephen, of the assessments that are already under way, do you have a flavour of how many of them have multiple buildings within them?

Between us, we will, Ms Gallacher. You referred to our ultimate overall goal, which we published in the summer. I will read it out, because I think that you inadvertently said that the target date was 2019. It states:

“I am determined that by 2029, every high-risk residential building over 18 metres identified with unsafe cladding will have been resolved — whether made safe, decommissioned or replaced — and that every building between 11 and 18 metres will be on a defined pathway to resolution”.

That was the commitment.

Ultimately, we will not be able to say whether a building qualifies as high risk until it has had an SBA. That is the beauty, or benefit, of having the new bespoke statutory assessment in place. Ultimately, it will be the decider of risk, but there are other factors, such as the building’s height—18m plus is the riskiest, and then the measure moves down—and the cladding type. Aluminium composite material and high-pressure laminate cladding have the greatest potential for risk, so cladding type is another risk factor that would be considered.

That is why, in our plan, you will see that we have spoken about 512 high-rise buildings that have some cladding. According to the high-rise inventory and other sources, 144 high-rise buildings have ACM or HPL cladding, and they are the ones that I have my sights set on most of all.

That speaks to the characterisation of risk and what we are looking at. Ultimately, the SBA will determine that risk. Stephen might be able to say more about the different building types.

That is a technical question, so I will pass it over to my colleague, who I hope can attend to it.

That is a very pertinent question. Earlier, I referred to the significant expansion in the programme that we are seeing now and expect to continue to see. The Government is turning its mind to the total costs but in a way that fulsomely backs this with public money, because we want to see it done. I think that our current estimate is between £1.7 billion and £3.1 billion over 15 years—is that right, Stephen?

I refer to the new commitments that we made over the summer, which were that, by 2029, every high-risk residential building taller than 18m in Scotland will have been resolved, whether that means made safe, decommissioned or replaced; and that every building between 11m and 18m will be on a defined pathway to resolution, supported by a robust assessment, planning and funding for essential cladding remediation.

It is worth noting that that was a new goal that we set over the summer. It is ambitious, but it is right that we focus on getting that work done now that all the building blocks are in place. Stephen Lea-Ross will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that brings us into line with the timetable in England.

That is something that has been on my mind. When I state the principle that it is the home owner’s responsibility if RAAC emerges, I am of course considering what that actually means for the people who are involved. I hugely sympathise with them, because that is a very difficult thing to go through. One of the things that we can do—in exactly the train of thought that you put to me, convener—is to work with, for example, the Institution of Structural Engineers on clear and readily understandable guidance about what to do if you think that your home might have RAAC or other building maintenance issues.

I recently created a RAAC in housing leadership group, which I chair. I bring the leaders of councils together with the heads of the RSLs and others to share best practice on what each council is doing, and so on. One thing that I am keen to use that forum to do is to make sure that there is a clear understanding of what the Institution of Structural Engineers guidance for housing, which is nearing completion, suggests in relation to RAAC, and to make sure that councils are well equipped to inform householders about that.

I am also keen to bring together organisations such as UK Finance and the Association of British Insurers to ask questions such as whether, now that we have this guidance, we can get to a position in which we accept that, if RAAC is present in a house but has been remediated and is now at green status, the house can be borrowed on.

I digress slightly, but your point about people understanding their building is critical. The guidance from IStructE will help with that, and it will also help us to address issues of borrowing and mortgaging.

That is perhaps not the easiest question for me to reflect on, simply because of when I came into post. When I took up my role in June, I immediately wanted to spend the summer speaking to as many stakeholders as I could, to members, and to representatives of the housing and charity sectors. There was a question that I often posed to them, noting that we have some of the most protective anti-homelessness laws of any country and that, in difficult times, we have consistently invested in the delivery of affordable homes—with 140,000 now having been built.

For a long time, it felt like the system was in a state of equilibrium. I was seeking views on what had changed to lead us to a situation where there is considerable strain and demand is outstripping supply. My objective was to turn that into a plan that could respond now, with actions in the immediate term to help release the pressure that exists in temporary accommodation—which was never intended to operate to its current scale—while setting the groundwork for change over the long term.

My plan sought to do that, first, by ending the situation of children living in temporary accommodation and, secondly, by supporting the present housing needs of vulnerable communities, with a longer-term piece of work to create the conditions for investment and growth, which is how we will ultimately reset the housing system in Scotland to function as it was intended and as it ought to. That is what my plan is trying to do. I am very confident that it will make a difference. I would not say this if it was not true, but it has been roundly welcomed by charity and the housing sector, although it is not the last word by any means, and it will continue to be a live document and a live approach to managing what is a complex task.