Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2024 of the local government housing and planning committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent and Marie McNair MSP will be joining us online. The first item on our agenda today is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Our members agreed. The second item on our agenda today is to take evidence from the Housing, Cladding and Remediation Scotland Bill from Paul McClellan, who is the Minister for Housing of the Scottish Government. Mr McClellan is joined in the room by Kate Hall, who is the director from the Cladding and Remediation Directorate. Rachel Sunderland, who is the deputy director of the Cladding and Remediation Directorate. Mikayla West, who is the legal directorate of the Scottish Government. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. I would like to invite the minister to make a short opening statement before turning to questions from members. Good morning to the committee and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the important topic of the Housing, Cladding and Remediation Scotland Bill. The safety of foam owners and residents continues to be this Government's absolute priority. The Cladding and Remediation programme is a core element for comprehensive response to the tragic fire that took place at Grenfell Tower. As the committee will be aware, we established a ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding and a ministerial working group on building and fire safety following the tragedy, which included a wide range of stakeholders. Sustainable progress has been made on key issues with changes to fire safety standards and guidance, as well as legislation on smoke alarms. When I gave evidence to the committee on our cladding programme back in May, 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. I am pleased to be back in front of the committee today, giving evidence on the Housing, Cladding and Remediation Scotland Bill. The bill builds on the work of both the ministerial working group on building and fire safety and the ministerial working group on mortgage lending and cladding that I mentioned. The direct experience of delivering the cladding and remediation programme, feedback from partners and stakeholders, including residents, as well as our learning from cladding programmes in England and Wales. I have also given a priority to my engagement with developers and residents both individually and collectively. I would also like to record my thanks to colleagues across the chamber for engaging with me and my officials on behalf of their constituents. Further, as the bill we are committed to further engagement and regulations on guidance and implementation, we will continue to listen and to engage. I recognise that there is a desire to increase the pace of delivery, and that is why we have moved from a grant approach to a direct delivery model. I welcome the fact that 9 developers signed developer commitment letters and have agreed to identify and remediate their buildings, and that we are now working at a pace to agree a developer remediation contract. Is that need to address barriers to delivery, an increased pace that underpins this legislation, and specifically the proposed powers to assess and remediate buildings where the consent of homeowners cannot be obtained? The committee has heard from witnesses agreeing that it would not be fair that willing homeowners are obstructed from remediation by others who are unmulling or are absent. The particular danger posed by cladding has necessitated bespoke powers relating to the issue, balanced by strong procedural safeguards to protect interests of owners and residents. In drafting the bill, we are also mindful of the report produced by Dame Judith Hackett, chair of the independent review of building reviews and fire safety. Is it important that there is a source of information about the buildings 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 this programme. Clearly, responsibility is at the forefront of our minds here. Convener, we have included provisions in the bill to support developers who want to participate in remediation of buildings for which they are responsible. The proposed framework of the responsible developer scheme preserves the position of those who accept the responsibility and ensures that they will not be in a commercial disadvantage because of their participation. Similarly, those eligible developers who decide not to participate should be appropriately sanctioned. Many developers in Scotland have already signalled their intention to mediate their buildings that they constructed or refurbished through the Scottish Safer Buildings Court. It is only right that we prepare a level and consistent operational landscape for them. Accordingly, we are treating the public finances respectively by specifying 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 this will be done in a fair and proportionate way without endangering the viability of participants in the sector that is so valuable to the economy of Scotland. In summary, the bill is designed to facilitate progress of the cladding remediation programme. It will allow for the creation of a cladding remediation register that will provide information on buildings that have undergone a single building assessment in remediation. It will allow for the assessment of buildings through a single building assessment, even in cases where it is not possible to secure the consent of four numbers. The bill will also allow ministers to specify the standard for a single building assessment. The bill will also provide ministers with the power to arrange remediation work where that work has already been identified in a single building assessment report, as well as being 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 where it is not possible to secure consent. The bill also recludes providers to establish a responsible developer scheme. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have, and I said that I'm accompanied by my officials Kate Hall, Rachel Sunderland and Micaela West. Thank you very much for that opening statement, minister. As you'll be aware, we've had some very useful, constructive, round-table sessions on the bill. As a result of that, we've got questions for you, of course. My first question is around the scope of the bill in a way. What we've heard is that owners and residents living in buildings with potentially flammable cladding have raised an issue that the bill doesn't address the key issue facing them. That's the lack of action to remediate fire risk in a timely manner. What reassurance could you offer that the bill will deliver speedy cladding remediation? I think that a couple of things have been mentioned in my opening speech. I've met developers and groups of residents on a regular basis. That comes to us as part of their concerns. When we go back to the scope, the main focus was on the external cladding. One of the key things in discussions that we've had with developers and residents is their overall fire safety. That's on their on-going discussions with every building that we're involved in at that particular stage. There is a difference between fire safety and some issues that are just picked up from residents.  There's fire safety, but maintenance of fire programmes has been removed. We've tried to pick that up in individual discussions. The scope focuses on the cladding itself. However, as I said, there are discussions on going where we have with developers and residents about the overall fire safety. There is a ministerial group on fire safety, which gets included as part of the cladding element in the buildings that we're looking at more extensively across the building network in Scotland. In terms of the owners and residents and what we've heard, one of the key challenges that they face is the difficulty of obtaining insurance and in selling or remortgaging their property. It's not clear from the evidence that we've heard that, in responding to the challenges of cladding alone and not responding to the fire safety issues, that this will precipitate a change in that situation. I'm interested to hear what your thoughts are about that. That's been frustrating, I have to say, in the process that we carried out. I think it was around the back of November, when I chaired a ministerial group. Obviously, that is a reserved matter, so we discussed that with UK Finance. With the Welsh Government, who had previously met me, we had the same concerns at that particular time. Officials have raised it on a number of occasions. I have raised it on a number of occasions with my opposite number, as I did in a ministerial group. One of the key things that we asked for in the process of being aged was a working group with officials to try to move that progress along. The discussions that we had with the UK Government had basically said that it was focussing first of all on England in terms of regulations around where they do, and then we hoped to roll it out to the devolved administrations. So we needed to see a quick none of the pace, and now we've got that undertaking that that would happen. As I said, it's not within our control. Obviously, it's a reserved matter in terms of that. We are aware, obviously, of the issues that are caused. It's been raised by residents on a number of occasions. The discussions are in going with officials on that to try to get to a solution that not only is it for the UK Government but for the Welsh Government ourselves. Now that the Northern Ireland Executive has been reformed, I think that they are obviously just starting the process of them as well. However, it's frustrating at the moment about the pace that it's doing. It's out with our control, but we are continuing to push it whenever we meet with either ministers or officials in terms of that. I don't know if either Rachel Orr, Kate Wunig, want to bring up some of the discussions that I've had lately, but certainly we've continued to push that. However, I don't know if there's been discussions in the last few weeks on the back of that. I think that the only thing that I would add is that the Association of British Insurers is part of our Clothing Stakeholder group, and that they've been closely involved all the way through the process. Certainly, for example, the register is something that we're talking to them very closely about. Part of that is about that being a mechanism to give them the information that they need in terms of buildings having been assessed and remediated, which should help the residents in terms of accessing financial products, including insurance. We will continue to work with them as once the bill goes through its process and, if that is passed, how we operationalise that in a way that works and addresses those concerns that are within our gift. I can be not happy to write to the committee if there's any progress made on that, but we are continuing to push that on a regular basis. Thank you, that would be very welcome. My final question, again, from the views of the owners and residents, they've raised concerns about poor communication from the Scottish Government regarding the cladding remediation and especially about the single building assessment pilot project. I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts are on that and what you want will put in place to improve that communication. Again, in speaking to residents, that's something that's come up quite a bit. I just had a meeting with residents last week of a particular in a number of developments, and that was raised. I think that one of the key things is that there has been a large increase in numbers of the directorate that are working in the cladding area. That's an area that I know we need to do a little bit more work on. We're looking at communication protocols around that. I think that communication is slightly different for each building and each developer in the factory that it's coming on. There has to be that personalised approach, if you like, to the buildings, but communication needs to get better as the directorate has grown over the last number of months as the bill approaches and as we're doing more work around that. There is that, and I acknowledge that we need to do more work on that, but it needs to be personalised to the building itself. I think that one of the things that I can say to residents, even if there's nothing to say, let's tell them there's nothing to say that there's work being carried out, it's leaving that vacuum, which is where they're concerned around that. As part of the pilot project, that's obviously something that we've picked up on. It has been raised by residents, and I acknowledge that there could have been more done, but we are working on that just now. More resource directed towards this initiative, but also communicating more regularly, even if there's nothing to be said. In the chats that have been put by residents, they've said that themselves in terms of communication, even if there's nothing to say in the next six months, even if it's just an update and say, look, three months later, we're working on this, we expect to be back to you in three months, just that regular communication. I said that there's also a role of factors in the developers themselves as part of that, but it's developing that communication protocol, I think it's really important. As I said, the focus when the director was set up was around about looking at the technical issues and working with developers and so on. Now there's more staff within the director that the communication is incredibly important as we step up the pace. Sounds great that you have that awareness of that needing to take place. I'm going to bring in Mark Griffin. I wonder if you're able to just set out why there was no public consultation when it came to developing the proposals in the bill? I think one of the key things obviously was a mediasay of the bill. When I came back here, I think it was me, I originally came back and said that we were considering that at that particular time. I think if there'd been the consultation process, which was normally three months, that would have taken us probably into towards the end of the year obviously in the back of summer recess. There was a mediasay of moving towards that. We'd also had the ministerial working groups who'd spoken to stakeholders over that period of time. I think one of the key things I think for me was that one-going consultation moving forward. Now in terms of meetings, I've had numerous meetings with Homes for Scotland where the individual developers have been present. I've also had a number of meetings with the individual developers probably two or three each individually to pick up their own individual concerns as well. I think the important thing is as well as lazing and working with the committee, but also working and speaking to residents. So I've tried to meet residents groups on a number of occasions as well. Sometimes two or three meetings we've had as well. So I think the mediasay of the bill was the main thing to try and get us through, because I said that if we hadn't looked at the timetable, we probably would have been into the end of the year. I think that for the reasons we've outlined in the bill, this gives us the power to move and quicken the pace around the programme itself. That was the main reason for that. Again, I've tried to be as open and transparent with all the stakeholders in terms of that on a number of occasions, and we'll continue to do so until the bill passes and after. I appreciate the need for urgency on this in particular. Is there anything that's been picked up after the bill has been proposed through the evidence sessions with the committee that potentially would have been gathered through the public consultation that you're now reflecting on? I talked about communication, and again I think that that was important. I think that there's obviously technical aspects of the bill, and one of the key things I think for me, and I'm not going to bring Kate and Rachel in as well in some of the discussions that they've had. Some of the important things I think for me was talking about the technical specifications as we move forward and around the SBA process. This is where the individual discussions with the developers themselves have been really important in terms of how we move towards that. We've taken a similar approach to England and Wales. The 10-year system in Scotland is slightly different as it is in England and Wales, so we needed to take a nuanced approach to that. That may have picked up some of the issues that were in terms of that. Again, having those individual discussions with the stakeholders around the technical issues may have been picked up in terms of that. Again, we've listened to what the stakeholders are telling us around that, and I'm sure there will be questions around that. The key thing is listening to them. When I went into the process of not having the consultation, I was really keen to make sure that I consulted personally with stakeholders as much as we possibly could. I know that colleagues and officials have been doing that on a regular basis as well. I'll continue to do that as the bill progresses. Developers may or may not have said it. I've always said that it's an open door process, so if a developer needs to come and speak to me or our residents, I'm more than happy to pick that up. However, I think that it was really back to the media say that we're trying to get the legislation through to quicken the pace of what we're trying to do. You know that we've had a range of views throughout the course of the evidence sessions, and someone that sees a raise concerns about the broad scope of the bill and how that could potentially impact the speed and cost of assessment and remediation, but similarly, other witnesses have said that the bill doesn't go far enough that they would look for the bill to cover a sense. They all fire safety aspects of the building rather than just cladding. I wonder what the minister and what the Government is thinking between those balances of argument and whether it's potential to have a prioritisation based on the risk of multiple fire safety issues. I think that one of the key things that was established in the scope of the programme after Grenfell, and I think that there were discussions before I came in the post and before the scheme started to develop around that, and obviously it was around the cladding issue itself. Developers have raised the overall broader fire issue in terms of that, and I'll bring in colleagues in a wee second to talk about some of the discussions that we've had around that. I know that Mr Briggs has mentioned before, and I was on committee as well, and I've mentioned about the scope and how far that goes. I suppose that it's a balancer in how quick the legislation needs to go through. There is a biggest risk in terms of that, so obviously I've read the previous sessions in terms of that. There is a mix of uses, as you said, in having those individual discussions with developers and with the residents as well. They have raised the issue, and it's not just around the cladding, it's overall fire safety in terms of that. There are discussions on going just now with developers and residents in terms of that, but I'm confident in the scope that we've got just now sufficiently to allow us to move on, but I don't know if Rachel or Kate want to come in on the discussions that we've had on the fire issue. In terms of scope, it might be helpful. Obviously there's a cladding remediation programme in Scotland, there's a cladding remediation programme in England, there's a cladding remediation programme in Wales, and there is a similarity of alignment in terms of the scope in terms of the size of the buildings, 11 metres and above in terms of the time period that we're looking at. There is a similarity there. Clearly, as we've seen with things like RAC and other issues, there are other issues that are going on in terms of building safety, but in terms of the focus of this particular programme being quite tightly focused on cladding remediation and the scope of the programme seeking to reflect that, I think that it's always going to be a balance about how broad and how narrow it is. We've tried to have that alignment so that we link up with the programmes in England and Wales and there's a certain similarity there in terms of what we're all trying to do. I think that, as I said, the key thing is discussions are on going on. There's existing legislation, obviously, on the fire safety, and I suppose that Kenny, how do we then, how is it fitting together with obviously the cladding issue in terms of that. So there are obviously discussions, and when we are speaking to residents and as the developers that this issue comes up, and there is, I think that I mentioned to the convener, is there an issue around about fire building safety maintenance and the actual fire building safety itself? There's a difference in terms of that, so if there's things not being maintained, I think that's slightly different from the issues that are around about fire safety. So that's been picked up, but that's Kenny picked up the existing legislation, but as I said, and as Rachel said, we're following the same outlook that both England and Welsh Governments are doing, and I think that the Welsh, the non-Island Government are just starting the process and they've already been in touch, I think, with ourselves to discuss where that Kenny has already fitted in, so we're following very much the scope that was carried out by the UK and Welsh Governments. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mark. Just before I bring in Pam Gossel, I just want to go back to Mark's previous question around the public consultation, and you mentioned that you have had extensive meetings with various stakeholders, but I didn't hear you mention fire safety experts or the surveyors or the people that will need to deliver the work on the ground, and I wondered if you have had meetings with them? Not myself. I know colleagues have, because obviously it becomes an element of technical knowledge, which I have a little, but in terms of actual fire safety and the actual technical knowledge, there's been discussions that have been held, and obviously I've fed back to myself, so again, I don't know if Kate or Rachel want to come in that, but there have been extensive discussions with that sector as well. I think the only thing I would add is obviously that the proposals and the bill come out of quite a long history of engagement, so we've got the ministerial working group on fire safety, the ministerial working group on mortgages and cladding, and then we've got the stakeholder group, so Association of British insurers of fire engineers. There's been a history of engagement, and also it's come out of the learning that we've had from the programme itself, where there's been quite extensive engagement with fire engineers and experts and also the feedback from developers, so whilst there hasn't been that formal period of consultation, there's been quite a lot of engagement, and certain elements such as the previous Scottish advice note, there was public consultation on that, there was quite a lot of engagement around different elements, so I guess it is a reflection of all those different bits of engagement, including with experts. I would also add that obviously as part of what we're doing on the SBA specification, we have technical experts that are contracted to us to support that, and we also have technical expertise within the directorate as part of our wider skills mix, so we are actively engaging all the time to ensure that we've covered all the technical bases fully and completely. I think it's safe to say as well as in terms of the discussions that we've had about the roundtables at the Mitchhomes Scotland arranging also with the individual developers themselves. What we tend to see is that there's a mix probably from the developers around about probably the management directors or finance directors as well as the technical people that need to be in the room to talk about that, so there have been discussions and obviously in terms of what we have, there's technical people in the room in terms of that and policy in terms, so that's discussed at roundtables, it's discussed at the individual discussions as well, so it's quite well covered off in that regard. Thanks very much, that certainly is reassuring. I'm going to bring in Pam Gossel. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. The concept of single building assessment is central to this cladding remediation bill and yet each week witnesses have told us that there is a lack of specification and guidance on the SBAs. What they look like, its specification, what standards it is assessing to. As stated by Phil Diamond from Diamond and Company, charter professionals desperately need something to benchmark so that everyone is working from the same standards and singing from the same hym sheet. Does the Scottish Government intend to clearly define the scope of the single building assessment and standards that it is assessing and if so, when? Yes, and I thank you for that question. Again, having the discussions with homes of Scotland and the individual developers, this has obviously brought up his main issue in terms of, and I'll bring officials in a little second, rather than the technical discussions they've had. When I came in the role, there were a number of key objectives. I had one that was getting developer commitment letter to make sure that they were signed into what we were trying to do and undertook a process of speaking to individual developers at that stage. That was raised, so we got the letter to sign. The next stage was obviously moving into the long form contract in terms of that. The issue that came around about that was about the SBA. When the SBA process was raised, I asked officials to get a task and finish group, which has been undergoing for a number of months, to get down to the specific specifications. We've done that. The homes of Scotland were present at that meeting. We then had individual discussions and round-table discussions. There's been a number of round-tables as we move towards that. The tenure system in Scotland is obviously slightly different. Obviously, there was the sand and the Scottish advice note that was there in terms of that, but we were talking about the paths and moving towards the paths and the technical specifications around that. Having individual discussions with the developers, the SBA will pick up different things in different buildings, depending on where the developers are. We've tried to work very closely individually with the people around that, but we need that specification for the safety of residents that are there. We are satisfied with the technical specifications that come forward, which is incredibly important. However, the key thing for me is that individual discussions are listening to what we had back, and I visited a number of buildings in terms of not just hearing from them, but actually going out and saying, look, this is what we're looking at, this is what we're doing, this is what the clarity that we need on that. I think that that was the key thing for me. That's been a product all the way through in terms of making progress, and I don't think we're far away from getting that agreement with all the developers in terms of that. I think that that's probably the thing that slowed down progress, but it's the most important thing to make sure that we're happy with the specifications and the developers themselves are happy with the specifications. Most importantly, even though the residents might not know the technical specifications that they've got belief in the system both through themselves and the developers. It's been a focus for me all the way through. It will continue to be a focus in the discussions that we've had with individual developers. I'll maybe bring Rachel or Kate in again in terms of where we are just now. I know there's been really good progress made on that. I think that within a short period of time, we'll have that agreement to be able to move forward, but it's important that we have that in place. I don't know if Rachel wants to come in and say a little bit more in about that. The only thing that I would say is that the bill provides for the Scottish Government to be able to produce guidance on what a single building assessment is, so it is specifically within the bill allowing ministers to put that level of detail that people are asking for into guidance, but I know Kate will want to. We have got a contractor working for us at the moment who is working on a technical specification for the SVA. As the minister has said, we've been listening to developers and our own technical experts in developing that. That work is on going. At the moment, we would hope by the spring that we will have a final draft on that, obviously, to provide certainty to developers and others, obviously, until the bill has competed its passage. It obviously cannot be an SVA under the terms of the bill, but we would hope that the technical specification that we work on at the moment would then provide the basis for that to continue in the future. I suppose that the key thing for me right at the start was to have an open and transparent discussions with the developers. I've said that all along to them. We know that it's an open door, please come back to us. Even though we could go out and set the specification on our own, it was important that we had that agreement. The cladding is one issue, but in the line of work I meet the developers on a regular basis. Cladding is raised and other issues are raised, but it was very much for me an inclusive process. That's why we've tried to listen to them as much as we possibly could. Why we set up the task and finish group in terms of that as well? I think that that was really important. That will continue, but I don't think that we're far away in terms of getting that, which I think will quicken the progress about where we're going with us. Thank you for that minister, but it's obviously very, very encouraging to hear that you have a task and finish group and that you're involving good consultation, but industry probably would like to hear when, because obviously there are a lot of questions around this. I said what hym sheet are they singing to, so I know that you mentioned spring cake. What are you looking at roughly? Already there's a lot of delays in the cladding situation so that what is it that industry can take from this committee today to say that there's an assurity, that you will be in the next, what, four months, five months bringing the definitions out? The developers are actively involved in this process, so they will have transparency about where we are in terms of the development of that technical specification. As I say, I would hope that by Easter we would have a final draft of that specification. Obviously it cannot be, as I say, an SBA under the bill until the bill has passed, but we would hope that that technical specification that we reached by that point would be the one that we could then move forward with under the terms of the bill once the bill has completed its passage through Parliament. Secondary legislation there, Kate, or was it guided? The bill is designed to provide guidance to set out the SBA in the future, so it doesn't require secondary legislation under the current terms of the bill in order to put that in out as part of the subsequent arrangements in relation to the bill. Coming back to your point, that is how involved they are in terms of discussions. This is the technical people from each of the companies that are involved who have been incredibly helpful through the process. When it comes down to the actual technicalities, then obviously we'll leave that to the people who have got the expertise, but it's fed back to me on a regular basis on the progress of this. As Kate said, I'm pretty confident that by springtime we'll have this agreed. I think that we listened to what they said when we were talking about the past standards and what else is there. As I said, it's slightly different. It's not just a pickup and move from the UK Government because there are slight differences in terms of the tenure system or whatever, but we've tried to work as closely as we possibly can with them and they are still part of the task and finish group in terms of that, so obviously that's fed back into them. For Scotland more generally, but the individual discussions at the end of some of the buildings are sometimes more individual because there are slightly different buildings that come in that. We're trying to listen, but I agree that having that overall process and agreement in places is incredibly important. Once we have that, I think that the pace will move on a lot quicker, so that's a key priority for myself and the officials to move on. Thank you minister. I have one more question. The committee has heard calls from for the Scottish Government to adopt PAS 990 as the basis of the single building assessment process. It's popular among professionals, offers the more flexibility for professional judgment and is widely used by professionals across the United Kingdom. With a bit of modification to fit legal aspects and such, Phil Diamond believes that PAS would be the way to go. Gary Strong from Royal Institution of Chartered Survey has also pointed out that a fire is a fire and a building is a building wherever it is geographically. Broadly, witnesses seem to agree that there is merit in harmonising standards where possible, so can I ask you how do you respond to the calls to adopt PAS 990 and harmonise these different standards? I think that part of the discussions that we had and speaking to the developers was about PAS being raised on a certain number of occasions. I know the two people who gave evidence haven't been involved in discussions. As such, we consult with the sector more broadly, but in terms of the developers, that's where the focus has been on the task and finish group to try and do that. Again, I'm probably bringing in Rachel in terms of the discussions that have been held on the technical issues. We did listen to what the sector had told us through the developers' round table and the individual discussions that we've had. The system isn't just a pick-up and shift from the UK Government because of the tenure systems, and there are slightly different building regulations. Part of where we are just now is taking on some of the feedback that we've had from them, but going into technical specifics around specification itself and what that looks like. As Kate said, we're not too far away from getting that agreement and moving on. Rachel, I don't know if you want to add anything, nor Kate, add anything on that one. Absolutely, PAS 99.0 is the focus of a lot of our discussions at the moment in terms of how that could apply. In Scotland, taking into account the tenure system different arrangements in relation to the wider fire safety regime in Scotland, that is the focus of our discussions at this phase. We absolutely have been listening to that. That was part of the discussions in the task and finish group last November-December, and we were hearing from developers about the benefits of a certain degree of harmonisation where that was possible throughout the UK. That would also be supporting in terms of the wider supply chain for those people who would also be carrying out SBAs. Obviously, still some further work to do on it, but PAS 99.0 is certainly at the focus of our discussions in relation to that technical specification at the moment. I can be happy to write back to the committee when we get an agreement reached just to keep you up to date on that. Continuing on the single building assessment track, I will bring in Stephanie Callaghan. Thanks very much, convener, and thanks for coming along, minister, this morning, and everyone else too, of course. There have been some issues with the binary PAS fail process and single building assessment, and certainly some learning from PAS 99.0 about intermediate levels of risk. I have heard particular concerns from across all the sectors that this could lead to buildings that are not actually dangerous to life failing the assessment, so I am wondering what your response is to calls for the single building assessment to recognise a tolerable or a medium risk? I will bring officials in on that in a wee second. Generally speaking, the fire safety and the cladding issue safety is the most important thing. When it comes back to individual buildings, there have obviously been issues probably within the first week that I was in the job. There were specific concerns about one specific building where tough decisions had to be made around that. I am not going to name the building, but that was within a day or two of that. There were specific issues in and about issues straight away that were causing real concern to us. There were a couple of buildings that were like that where the decisions had to be made to negate the risk very quickly. On the binary PAS or fail sort of thing, getting down at the level of detail that we are talking about and having that agreement in place and the specification is really important. I suppose that some of the evidence is not aware of the discussions that we have been having with the developers on what that looks like. I think that that is a level of detail that we are down to because it is not just in terms of the specifications going forward, it is in terms of where we are just now. There are always discussions going on with the developers on individual buildings that are going through the system as we speak, so that is always kind of looked at. Again, Kate or Rachel might come in to talk about some of the technical discussions that have been had about that, but it is an issue that is always the forefront of our minds in terms of whether the work is getting carried out or whether we move towards the work that is getting carried out. Is the building safe? What is the standard that is there? If there are specific risks that have been in some buildings, we have taken action in terms of that to negate the risks. Part of the discussion right at the start of the statement that I made was about giving us the powers to do that. At the moment, we need to negotiate with developers, with local authorities, to allow us to do that. When the bill comes through, it will allow us to carry out immediate work if it is required at that particular stage. However, we have had issues around negotiating with other stakeholders about negating some of that immediate risk that has been there. I have seen a couple of examples that I have said straight away, but I remember when Kate and I were in terms of coming back to the terrible standard and what has been fed back, but it is at the forefront of our minds all the time on that. As I said, those technical discussions are still on-going at the moment, but we have obviously been listening very carefully to the evidence that has been brought to the committee and to our technical experts as well. I am very happy to provide a further update once that work has progressed a little bit more, but at this point we have not finalised the arrangements for the specification. That is continuing, but I am noting that those are some of the considerations that we need to take into account as we move through that process. I am just wondering if there is any timeline that you are looking at that you are expecting to have a firmer idea then around tolerable risk? I do not think that we have taken a decision yet in terms of what the final risk level will be. We will finalise the process, but that work is still on-going and we will come back to the committee as soon as that is done. I think that the key thing to take back is that I have had discussions around the table of individual developers. I think that the key thing is that it is working with the developers in terms of that, because it is not on their interests to have a horrible risk in any of their buildings that have come through. When we have seen what we think is a risk that is in immediate danger or high danger, we have moved on that very quickly. In terms of the discussions that are still going on, yes, we are talking about specifications in the SBA, but those are part of the wider discussions. We have had that, and Kate was talking about looking to get agreement towards the SBA in terms of April time. He started at the end of March, so we are talking about that at that time. Those discussions are being part of the round. I think that having the SBA process moving on and agreed would allow us to move and set where we are to all the standards, but those discussions are on-going on a daily basis, and obviously the risk is assessed on a daily basis. If there are any issues, we have dealt very quickly with them when we have needed to, and that is in conjunction with the developers and other stakeholders that we need to negotiate with can sometimes be an issue in terms of that. The legislation that will come in to force will give us the powers to do that without having to negotiate and negate that risk as quickly as we possibly can. However, that has been assessed every single year in terms of that every day. So one of the things that we heard, the bit about tolerable risk, but what we heard is that the moment is a kind of pass-fail approach and what people are calling for experts and others are calling for is a more nuanced approach. At the moment you have a building that could just end up being in a kind of higher risk category, but actually there's more nuance in there and that what's needed is something that has that amber bit, that's how people have been referring to it. So just can you talk to that a little bit? I'll bring Kate in on that. As I said, there are discussions on going every day around building safety. As we move towards remediation, there's obviously that element in-between the SBA process and moving towards remediation. Obviously that assessment goes on at an earlier immediate risk. Where does that kind of sit? Again, that's different for every developer. It's different for a very specific building in terms of that, but I don't know if Kate or Rachel want to come in on that specific point. I know that that's been raised with ourselves as well in terms of that by developers. Yes, absolutely. That is absolutely part of the consideration that we're giving at the moment. Yes, we have heard the discussions about how that nuancing could assist in terms of the overall process, but we obviously need to balance that against ensuring that we do meet the objectives of the programme, which is obviously to ensure that whether there is direct or indirect risk to life that are exacerbated by the cladding, that we are then able to resolve those matters and make the buildings safer. Obviously, the question of tolerable risk rather than a sort of yes or no category is something that we're definitely looking at and very much alive to as part of the discussions that we've got with our technical experts and obviously with developers and clearly giving a consideration to the safety and protection of home owners as part of this as well. Okay, great. Thanks for covering that a bit in a bit more detail. I'm not going to bring in Willie Coffey. Thank you very much. Good morning, minister and colleagues. A couple of questions, Paul, on the cladding assurance register, if I may, and one on issues raised by the Law Society. Firstly, on the cladding assurance register, is it the Government's intention that this is a one-off snapshot register and it won't change, or do we plan to regularly update it if and when changes might be made to a building and if it's the latter? Do we need a statutory process to make sure that it's on the responsible persons that can update that register? So, if you could maybe describe the Government's thinking in that area firstly. Yeah, I'll bring in Michaela in terms of the legal aspect of it, I think, when any key things. Again, there's a number of reasons, obviously, if we're talking about the cladding assurance register one, is obviously in terms of the residents themselves. I think that's the most important point of they know their buildings on the cladding assurance register. It gives them a little bit more comfort in terms of that, in terms of the developer themselves. I think it's important that they know their buildings on there and the Government's recognised that, I think, as part of the pilot project. Obviously, we have discussions with them and how do we then move forward in that, I think it's an area of process. And if once it goes on, we need to make sure that when buildings go through that, that it goes on to the register in terms of that. And again, we kind of talked around about some of the discussions that we've had around about insurance and mortgages. And that, in itself, I think, is a step forward. There's more technical, but I think if it moves towards that, I think it's almost a process in terms of saying to lenders and insurers that's on the cladding assurance register. So I think it's incredibly important in this party legislation that we're working. So for me, it's very much an iterative process. And I'll bring in Michaela in terms of any legal points that he kind of touched on in terms of that, about how that then looks like on a legal basis. Can you go on forward if Michaela wants to add anything on that? Yeah, sure. So section 1 of the bill lays out that the cladding assurance register, the information within it includes when a single building assessment was carried out in relation to a building, the works that the single building assessment report identified as being needed to eliminate risk to human life, and the date on which the Scottish ministers were satisfied that work had been completed. And so within that, the Scottish ministers have sort of overall responsibility for identifying whether those works are completed to that. The level that they are satisfied that the work has been carried out or not, I don't know if anybody, if Rachel or Kate, has anything to add to that? I think it's probably fair to say that almost the cladding assurance register becomes the exit point for buildings that are on the programme. So if the single building assessment is the start of the process, then the cladding assurance is the exit point of the process, because what that does is it says this building has been through a single building assessment. The issues that have been identified, which relate to that risk to life, have been remediated and therefore they have been addressed. So I don't think that we would expect a building to come back round through that process again. I think that we would expect that to be it's been identified, it's been assessed, it's been remediated. It now would, you know, it's on that. So if there is an issue raised by a mortgage provider or an insurance provider, this building looks like it's got cladding. How confident are we about that cladding? They would be able to look at that and they would have confidence that that had been assessed and any issues had been remediated. So that's the purpose of the cladding assurance register. What if a building was subsequently modified, changed or otherwise and the registration took place years before that happened then? I think it's probably fair to say that if there was any further cladding put on that building it would obviously then fall into the kind of new legislation in terms of the types of cladding that would be able to be put on it. So it shouldn't then represent a fire safety risk linked to the cladding in the same way that historical cladding could represent a fire safety risk because obviously the legislation has now changed in terms of being very prescriptive about the types of cladding which any developer would be able to put on to a building. Just on that again, Mr Calvert, I think one of the important things I think for developers as well as his engagement in terms of future standards going forward and I think that obviously going through the process there, are they reviewing their own processes? It's probably not to say as much as that, but in terms of any of other buildings that come forward, you know, there's probably more care taken in terms of that and we know that they're aware of the on-going maintenance of the buildings, it's not just a case of coming in and replacing the cladding and so on, it's that on-going. So, you know, they've been aware of that issue going forward as well. Okay, the other question on the cladding assurance register, Paul, was the timing of when the entry is made on the registry. You're probably aware that some of our colleagues given evidence asked for this to be as early as possible. For example, when remediation works have been identified and planned for, could that building then be put on the register to give owners lenders by and all that, the assurance that it's on the register? Is that something that we would support or would we insist on waiting for the work to be done before a building is put on the register? That's the kind of thing. Bring in Kate and Rachel and that specific point. Again, this has been raised by developers, I think once we get through, I think it won't be talked about the SBA process in terms of what does that kind of look like and when does it go on the register and when do we, you know, make sure that the work's carried out again because that's been picked up by residents is when do we make sure that the work's carried out because part of the issue is you could go through hypothetically get a developer signing yes, signing a developer commitment layer, signing the contract itself, but if they don't carry out the work and part of the issues are in the legislation as well, when the key points is making sure that if the company doesn't carry it out, then there are sanctions available to ourselves in terms of that which may result in not being able to develop in Scotland now. That's the ultimate, and I don't think that we would get there, but that's there in terms of the actual time. Rachel, if you want to come in on that one. I've read the evidence sessions on that and I understand some of the drivers around that. However, I think from our perspective, there's also a fundamental safety issue here. There's a reason that we don't name the buildings that are on the programme, and that is because there's a potential fire safety risk for the residents in there, and that follows engagement and discussion with SFRS, that there's a risk that if we say publicly, this building, there is a risk of fire safety there. Unfortunately, we know that there are, you know, just talking to a resident of a building a couple of weeks ago, they'd had a potential arsyn, you know, fire-starting incident in there, so we need to be really careful about that. So I think we would be really wary about putting on the register buildings where risks had been identified but not yet remediated because we're putting that information out into a semi-public domain, which potentially raises risks for the residents there. So we need to balance those considerations really carefully as to at what point we put information out in terms of the fact that there's a fire safety risk. So our preference would be we identify the fire safety risk, we remediate the fire safety risk, and at that point we put this information, which is available, that says there was an issue here but it is now resolved. So there's no risk to the residents of those buildings by having that information in a wider circulation. I suppose there's two things. One, obviously, I mentioned about the SB process, and I would understand if we'd agree with frustration to get the buildings on to the register because it moves things forward for residents, for developers, for insurance and so on. So I think that's obviously once we get through the SB process, I think that's important because then we can start getting immigration done and then get on to the register. I think on its most basic forms, I mean I suppose it's getting to a building that's just been built and it's not got its building safety certificate, you know, and it gets to that level when it's a building safe and it's when it's signed off, I think it's the key thing. But again, we're, in disgust with what we've had with developers, it's how quickly can we move through that process to make sure it gets on to the register. And again, so that gives reassurance to developers, to residents, and I'm also talking about the issues that we face around about insurance and remortgaging and selling buildings and so on. But again, that's raised quite often by developers and we're working on them to try and get that through that process as quickly as possible. Okay, that's clear enough. The Law Society, as you probably also heard, raised some issues about clarity of definition of terms throughout the bill and they gave a number of examples, Paul, about where they felt there could be scope for misinterpretation here. They mentioned what does otherwise undergone development mean and there is some other issues as well about defining risk, comparing it to risk for human life. So they gave a whole number, a whole host of examples, Paul, of where some of the definitions might lack a little bit of clarity to ask you, as a Government, aware of that and are we looking at trying to define, sharpen up, polish whatever the terminology that the bill will contain to assist everyone? What had come through in terms of that, and I'll bring Michaela in a wee second, obviously, even though we're listening to the concerns that have come forward, you know, as we move towards the actual bill itself, I think, obviously, we'll be looking and adding about how we can make sure that any issues at the raise are addressed in terms of that. So Michaela, do you want to come in on that particular point that the Law Society made up? Yeah, sure. So obviously there were a number of definitions that were identified from the Law Society. I think, in particular, the single building assessment will be defined or will be outlined in accordance with standards that are specified by ministers, and then in the single building assessment there will be scope to go into risk to human life that's being identified in a little bit more detail, the way that the definition of a building operates in the single building assessment, which includes that language undergone development. So that will create more detail in relation to those definitions, and we're taking to account the other comments they had to see if there's anything we do think needs to be sharpened up. One of the other helpful suggestions, Paul, is would the Government consider determining if there's some buildings that can be deemed out with the scope of the SBA process itself that are of no risk whatsoever, because that would aid purchasers byers, mortgage lenders and so on and so forth to take a building and sell it by it, etc. But they felt that if that were without that, then that could delay those types of processes for buildings that are essentially safe. Again, I think that that's a good question in terms of discussions that we've had with developers. There is an assuring about them identifying the buildings they think are in scope, but they've also identified buildings that aren't in scope. There's almost that balance in terms of the buildings that are in scope. Let's try and get through the SBA process, let's get the remediation going through that in terms of being out of scope. I think that that's incredibly important, because until we say that, and people who residents who live in buildings who think they may or may not be in scope, I think it gives it reassurance in terms of that. Rachel Kerr, I don't know if you want to add anything on that, but it has certainly been raised by homes for Scotland and developers in terms of that. It's a balance around how we move towards making sure that the buildings are safe, that they are in scope, but also give them the reassurances to developers and residents to those who aren't, and to give them that sense of relief, if you like. Kate, you might want to add something, but I think that there's a couple of different layers to that. One is that there's obviously the scope as set out in the bill, and it's really clearly setting out the scope of the programme. I think that it's helpful in the first instance and saying that it's over this kind of height. That, I think, will be helpful for making clear we're not talking about these buildings over here, so I think that that would be helpful. There's buildings that potentially fall within scope, but once you do a light-touch assessment, you can see that they don't really need any work done to them. There's that that needs to be done. They still need to go through some kind of an assessment, but actually you might find, just because a building is assessed, it might not mean that you necessarily find things that need to be done. Actually, the bill allows for you could do a single building assessment and actually find out that there is nothing that needs to be remediated, and that building could then very quickly straight away go on to the register. I think there is a challenge in the register seeking to include everything that is potentially out of scope. It almost appears to negate the process because actually the other thing is that we won't have assessed those buildings, so we won't know if there are other things that are not to do with cladding, but are other things that might be issues in relation to that building because we're not looking for them. I think that there are things that we can do about clarifying the scope really clearly, and there are things that we can do about if we do a single building assessment, and actually it's fine, it goes straight on, and how quickly we can get through remediation, but we also need to be really clear about what the purpose of the cladding assurance register is, and it's not about providing assurance to the broader sector about safety of buildings. If those types of buildings don't go on the cladding assurance register, where do they go? Where would the public get that information? I think that that is a broader issue, which I know is being worked through in terms of building safety, colleagues, because obviously there are a broader set of issues around building safety, which I know that colleagues are working through on the back of some of the things around rack and other issues, but which are not necessarily cladding assurance issues. It's a very important issue, but it's not the purpose of this particular register, but we can pass that back to colleagues if that would be helpful. Okay, that's good. That's in consideration by the Government. We'll have to deal with that in some way. Thank you. Thanks again. Thanks really. I'm now going to bring in Stephanie Callaghan again. Back again. In evidence prepared calls for more detail on the face of the bill and the responsible developers scheme, there has been a real debate around that as well, with some saying that the bill is too broad and relies too much on the secondary legislation, which could come too slowly, while others are stating the bills too narrow that it should be the framework bill with secondary legislation following quickly. I'm just wondering what your reflections are on this minister and what your response is. In also might draft secondary legislation be available during parliamentary consideration of the bill? I'll probably bring in McKaylin. I think that you're right. Part of the coming back probably to the broader context about the responsible developer scheme and obviously that's following the model in England, in Wales and in terms of I think that that's a really important part of the legislation. For me, can you go ahead and obviously the developers. The first stage of that was obviously talking about the commitment letter, which I think was almost then public announcement. We're working with you on that when the mediation contact itself is another step in terms of that. The responsible developer scheme then gives us the powers to, if we're talking about the work that doesn't get carried out, which I think is really important, because it does then give us ability to look at the sanctions. As I said, we haven't had any issues in terms of the developers coming and speaking to us. I've had individual discussions. I'm not getting anything from individual discussions from developers saying, we don't want to be part of this. They've all been really keen to sit down and engage and be very conducive with us and very much working with us in terms of that. I think that it's important to give that context. They've all been very supportive in working with us because they know what they need to do for, first of all, most importantly, their residents, but in terms of their own outlook on what they need to do. There is that reputational risk as well if they don't carry out the work. The responsible developer scheme does give us that sign and gives us the powers to do that in terms of the legislation issue. I remember bringing Mikaela in in terms of what's been raised in that, but overall, I think that that's the important thing. However, as part of the consultation discussions that we've had with Mikaela, I'm not saying tease out, but I'm almost trying to look at what is the attitude of the development, the sector itself, and I have to say that they've been very helpful in working very closely with us in terms of that. They want to move as quickly as they possibly can as well, but in terms of the points that have moved a bit of legislation, Mikaela, I don't know if you want to come in on that. The responsible developer scheme section in the bill is obviously a framework power to take to allow ministers to create regulations, and informative regulations specifically, which would be brought back to be considered by this committee. I don't know if Kate or Rachel would come in. I think that there's probably a couple of things. You've raised the point about how do you get the balance right between what you've put in primary and secondary legislation, and there will be differing views about that. What we've tried to do in the primary legislation is set out the types of things that will be included in the secondary legislation to give the committee a sense of where we're going. As Mikaela said, we will be bringing that detail back through affirmative regulations. I think that we've also looked at the approach in England and learned from that a little bit in terms of the primary framework legislation, the regulations. It also allows us to link it to the ongoing discussions that we're having in terms of the developer remediation contract. What we agree in the developer remediation contract, we would expect to see very close alignment between that and the regulations. It also allows us to put a level of detail in the regulations that we wouldn't normally expect to see in primary legislation, and it allows us to reflect back to some of the other kind of moving parts around that that we've already talked about to give that degree of certainty, hopefully. Coming back to the point that you made, a lot of this process has been reflective in terms of that when we've brought the legislation forward. I should just go through the discussions that are reflecting very closely, and it does right the outset. For me, it was very much a partnership approach. It can't be just the Government going in and saying, we need this, this and this. Of course, there's that element of when they get the risk, and that's the most important part. More generally speaking, it's been that reflective in making sure that it's as much a partnership as possible. Can you go on through and again, happy to, once we're more discussed and happy to write back to the convener in terms of how that progresses as well as the bill process continues? It's certainly good to hear you highlighting that around the developers as well in the first instance, too. I know there have been issues about having to make changes to primary legislation in England as well, and we don't want to be in that position there. I've had meetings at ministerial level in terms of officials discussing that. Officials discuss on a regular basis whether you could give them colleagues. We've already had the Northern Ireland executive, which has always just been reformed, speaking to us around what lessons do you need to learn from that. It's very much a process, a four-government approach process in terms of that learning. Discussions are going on all the time about lessons from the UK Government and the Welsh Government and what we need to do. It's raised in the ministerial Government meetings that we have. Can I bring in Mark Griffin on a brief supplementary? Just when we were talking about the developer remediation contract discussions, I brought that up when the officials were here, just to ask how far further down the line are you with discussions with developers, particularly with Governments, thinking of how they're going to treat SME builders in line with what the UK Government is doing down south. I think that that's a really good point in terms of the SB process and the remediation contract. That process is almost like a dual process. When we're discussing the SBA process, there are discussions already going on about remediation and how does that SBA process feed through to remediation contracts? I think that when we looked at this, we were almost looking at it in terms of the waves. Obviously, it was the larger companies. I've been in discussions with SMEs in terms of that. I think that one of the statements that I made right at the start was about that individual approach. We know that SMEs have a difficult position for housebuilding at the moment, so there's a balance around how we discuss with SMEs in terms of making sure that that doesn't put their business at risk in a difficult trading across the UK at the moment. Again, the level of discussions at SME levels are being held. What does that look like for the SBA process in terms of the remediation contracts going forward? On their ability to pay, I think that that's really important to our discussions on how we look at that. Again, this is down not just in SMEs as a sector but in individual companies. Having discussions with individual companies has been really helpful as well. I know that they've appreciated that because we've had to feed back directly from them around that specific approach. We made that really clear when we started out the process with Homes for Scotland that the SME sector was really, really important. It wasn't a one-size-fits-all approach. It was very much talking. Looking at the sector, the SME sector, we need to be more cautious in terms of how we deal with that, but in terms of their own individual circumstances, they're all different. We've tried to get a balance on how we take that forward with them. The approach to the UKPL season, the larger Scottish housebuilders, will be different. Obviously, in terms of SMEs, we need to take a nice into that and we're speaking to them very closely. I will have a continuing on discussions with them in terms of the SBA process and how that moves towards remediation contact. However, as I said, I know that that's been well appreciated because we've had that direct feedback. I don't know if Kate and Rachel want to add anything on that at all. As you say, minister, those discussions are current and they're live at the moment. We're listening to the views of SMEs around ability to pay matters. Obviously, starting from the premise that we seek some sort of contribution from developers, we're obviously seeking to find a proportionate and balanced response, which is mindful of the particular position of SMEs in the marketplace and consider their role in terms of that wider economy within Scotland in their ability to continue to play an active part in building houses in Scotland at the end of the day. Those discussions are on-going and we're having regular meetings with them to discuss the particulars of their situation. Mr Griffin has just picked up on the question that I was going to ask originally, but just a follow-up. Are you considering making provision for a profit threshold as far as SMEs are concerned, or is that something that's been ruled out or not really on the radar? I'll bring Kate and Rachel in. Obviously, in the discussions that we've had and the approach that the UK Government has taken, there are on-going discussions about that. Some of the things that we've been talking to the SMEs about, and SMEs within the homes of Scotland kind of context as well as what does that look like. There are discussions on-going around that at the moment. Again, this is really important. I'm not just taking the SME sector over there as a one, but it's actually speaking to the individual developers themselves and saying, okay, where do you sit, where are you? I know that we're trying to look at the similar approach. It has very much got to be based on what the developers are telling us as well now. There's a balance. There's always that balance around, let's remediate the building as quickly as possible, but there's not much of a point in doing that if we lose five or six developers because of their ability to pay and where they are. That's been a really important approach. Kate emphasises the individual discussions that I've had and obviously officials have had in terms of that. Our doors are open. It's very much a partnership as we move towards that. It's a real learn through the pilot programme. It's what we need to do in terms of that. Rachel, Kate, I don't know if you want to come in on that particular point about the profit threshold. I think that that's a good example where we're looking very closely at what's happened in England and in Wales. In England and in Wales, they've both adopted a profit threshold for their main developer remediation contract of profit over 10 million over three years. However, in Wales, they've also put in place, in addition to that, an approach whereby for smaller developers they also make a contribution. That was just set out in a statement to their Parliament back in November time. We're looking very closely at what has been done elsewhere and how we take the learning from that but also ensure that it's appropriate to the Scottish market and the Scottish context and how we ensure that we balance both the need to get value for money for the taxpayer but whilst also recognising the need to the financial stability of the market and the individual developers. I think that that's really important as well, and we've not touched on it so far as obviously about the building safety levy in terms of how that then develops over a period of time. Obviously, that's not my area of responsibility, but obviously we've worked very closely with the minister responsible for that and have been involved in discussions but not led them in terms of building safety levy. Developers are aware of the building safety levy. Can you come in? We're working really closely with UK Government colleagues on that and what does that look like? Developers are aware of what that looks like going forward, but I think that that's an important context to add to that as well in terms of that broader, longer term outlook. I think that it's important that that's recognised, but we're working closely with UK Government colleagues in terms of that but how do we bring in that legislation? Again, there are already discussions on their way with developers who have maybe slightly different people at the meetings and maybe more of the finance kind of stuff, but again these discussions are on going in parallel with what we're doing already as we look towards the building safety levy. I suppose just really for clarity it sounds like that provision for a profit threshold sounds like a nice easy simple solution but actually maybe the situation is a lot more nuanced than that as well and it's not as straightforward as it might sound. I think again it's learning lessons because down south you could come and have been meant through the same thing because there'll be SMEs that are at certain levels. We all know whether thresholds can assist with SMEs. Where do they sit within that? Again, this is where they're really important. Yes, having that broader discussions within almost for Scotland and SMEs, but it's having the individual ones and learning from them in terms of what does this look like for you in terms of that and I think that that's a really important part to get to the nuanced position in terms of doing that as we learn from the pilot programme and go forward. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thanks, Stephanie. I'm now going to bring in Marie McNair who's joining us online today. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Minister and your officials. Over the last few weeks, a number of witnesses have raised concerns about a lack of qualified professionals able to undertake single building assessments in the cladding remediation work. Is that something new, Shair? And if so, how are the Scottish Government likely to address that? That's a good question. I think the last time I came to the committee I think in May if my memory reminds me at that time, that issue was discussed. It's part of broader discussions in terms of the number of fire safety colleagues, not just in terms of the cladding, but broader issues as well. I think that there's an issue that faces the UK Government on that. So we are aware of that. There are other working groups looking at building safety where that issue is raised as well. It's not just in terms of cladding and the buildings that we have registered in cladding, but it's beyond that as well, because obviously there's that issue. It's something that we're aware of. We're talking to UK Government colleagues in terms of the lessons that they've learnt for that. Again, it's something in terms of the scale of the pilot. What does it mean when we move beyond that? What does that look like? I don't know if Rachel wants to come in on that particular point. No, there have been discussions with fire safety colleagues and representatives of the trade, if you like, in terms of that. That is something that we need to take a nice instance of, because if we step up the pace, we need to make sure that there's fire safety people there to undertake the assessments that are there. Rachel, do you want to come in on that one? Obviously, we've been engaging with others, including Ricks. Ricks, in their evidence to the committee, also took the view that they don't at this point consider this to be an issue. Obviously, at this stage, we haven't found it to be a barrier in terms of being able to move forward with the programme, but, as the minister said, we will be mindful, and as we said in the evidence session in December, of the importance of ensuring that there is a thriving supply chain from those that are able, for example, to carry out assessments and then follow through in terms of remediation. I would certainly say that it's an ongoing live issue and one that we continue to engage with the sector and those that would be providing those services in due course. That is obviously part of our ongoing planning for any subsequent national roll-out once we move beyond the pilot phase of the work. Thank you for that. On to my last question. What funding commitments does the Scottish Government plan to make over the next few years in terms of supporting cladding remediation work? I think that there are a number of things in terms of that. Obviously, there's very much demand-led. I think that that's one of the key things that we're looking at in terms of that. So, there is that discussion around what does that programme look like in the next number of months and in the next year or so. I think that we've probably seen the spend in the last number of months has increased as we do more work around that. I think that that's really important in terms of doing that. I'll get the actual figure that we're looking at in terms of 24-25. It's £41.3 million this year to try and look at it. As I said, there's very much demand-led as we go forward in terms of that. That cost isn't just any variation. Obviously, there's other costs that are involved in that as well. That's a figure that's being set aside in that regard at the moment. As I said, there's very much demand-led in terms of that. Hopefully, if we quicken the pace, we'll see where that leads us in 24-25. A substantial increase, obviously, from previous years in terms of that, as we get more into the programme. Thank you for that, minister. Thanks very much, Marie, for those questions. I'm just going to follow up on both of them. Just on the funding commitment, you said there's going to be £41.3 million of building that we went to. I understand that it's demand-led and that I presume that fund will increase as the demand increases. However, we heard a building that we went to see. I think that it was about £40 million estimated to just remediate that one building. I'm just concerned about that number. I mean, again, coming back to them. Obviously, that would be subject to the budget process that we're going through just now. Sorry, I didn't pick up your first point of the question. It was just about the funding commitment, and you pointed out that there's £41.3 million, but we visited a building that is estimating about £40 million to remediate it. I understand from what you said in your previous answer that it's demand-led and there will be more money coming about. That's just at the moment. That would be just the amount for one building. Obviously, different buildings will require different amounts. Obviously, if we're looking towards the one building, because partly, we've got to try and separate the two. One is orphan buildings where there aren't owners. Obviously, that's where Scottish Government needs to pick up. If there's remediation work that's set out aside for buildings that have the name developer, they pick that up. Again, we can know in terms of the developers that we have, but we also know the number of orphan buildings that are sitting there. Now, there's other expenditure out with that. Obviously, the remediation of buildings by a named developer—this is where the developer commitment letter and the remediation contracts are incredibly important. It's signing them up to make sure that they do the work that they're planning to do. Companies have set aside and publicly set aside monies and their accounts to say that this is for clad remediation. If that's the one building, then obviously the developer should put that in terms of that. Obviously, issues are in the expenditure around that, but remediation should be by the developer themselves. We know that the issues are in the orphan buildings. That's a specific—it's a different approach. We were asked that—we met residents last week in a certain part of Scotland who were talking around that and saying, look, we're in an orphan building. Where does that sit? Does that put us down the priority list? No. That goes—that's a reassurance we gave them to them at that time, because it's in the orphan building. Does that go at the bottom of the queue? It doesn't. Obviously, it's a lot easier in some ways to move forward with a remediation if we know the developers there and they've set aside that sum of money. They're all in that position. The developers are all in that money. In terms of SMEs, this is where the importance and the nuanced discussions are, but in terms of the large-scale developers, they've all set aside a considerable amount of money and publicly set aside money for the remediation contracts themselves. Okay, great. I just wanted to make sure that we had a reality check on the scale of finance needs to happen here. On the previous question around the lack of qualified professionals, we heard evidence session that Glasgow Caledonian has a course. It's the only course in Scotland and it's due to come to an end. I would be quite concerned about that if we need to bring on more professionals. We also heard that what's happening is that, because work is moving ahead more quickly in England, people are going there, people are focusing there. How do we ensure that we've got enough of a pipeline of people that are going to be able to take on this work? We've got this emergency bill in a way. We're taking evidence quickly so that it can move forward, but if we don't have the professionals to take it forward when we're going to run into a problem there. I think that we've touched about the ministerial groups that were there previously as well. Obviously, in discussions with the SPA process and with other bodies in terms of that, I think that you've just heard that it's quite confident in terms of that. There's obviously other ministerial groups, for example, on more extensive building safety in terms of that. Now, she obviously has raised within that. I suppose that there's a watch and anion on that one, as things have developed. We have the situation, for example, in about RAC, which Kenny came out of the blue for everybody a number of months ago. We had to deal with that situation and obviously dealt with it at that particular point. There's other ministerial groups that look at the more extensive building safety, I suppose, regime in Scotland in terms of that. There's always that element of, do we have enough qualified professionals? There are other discussions going on in terms of work with colleges and universities, in terms of what's required now. I think that in terms of where we're at, it's now we're comfortable about what we have in place. Obviously, the future demand, because it's not just looking about where we are just now, what's the future demand likely to be, both in here and in the rest of the UK as well. I don't know if I can touch on that, but Rachel, do you want to touch on that? Maybe just add to what the minister and Kate have said, just to give the committee maybe reassurance that this is something that we do talk about. Indeed, we discussed this at the last cladding stakeholder group meeting and, specifically, Ricks, who are members of that, talked about some of the measures that they had put in place at a UK level to try and grow the market, so they were certainly expressing a degree of confidence in that discussion. Certainly, it is an issue that we have explored and which we will come back to, but which we are regularly keeping under review. There is no complacency there, but we are not picking that up from the discussion that we had in the stakeholder group that people were flagging this as being a significant issue. It was a concern that was raised by one of the members. Should this be something that they should be concerned about, and there was a degree of reassurance given by others around that table? Thank you very much. I think that we might take this further, because maybe we've heard something a little bit different in our evidence session, so maybe we'll highlight that in our report. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning to your officials as well. I have a couple of questions that are a bit scattergun, but you can bear with me maybe on this. I just wanted to go back to our previous conversations with regard to other private entities and whether or not there has been some conversation over them being required to help fund clanding remediation. For example, organisations based on design, manufacture and installation of clanding systems. Is that too complicated for this current system? I'll bring officials on that one as well. There have been a number of cases. I think that when you look at some of the developers that we've spoken to as well, there are sometimes different ownership models. There are sometimes historical I suppose, how a company was three years ago and how it has developed and where it is now. That becomes difficult in terms of that. When it comes to individual discussions, where does proof of liability come in terms of that? It really becomes kind of hard, I think. I know that there have been some discussions and it becomes really difficult in terms of design standards, which were probably okay at the time, but where does it come now? It's when the building was designed, set out as against when it was built. It becomes really difficult in terms of that. Obviously, the scope that we're looking at is the last 30 years now. There will be some buildings that will just be on that 30-year level, but I'll bring me back in, Kate and Rachel. I know that that's been discussed, but it becomes really difficult in terms of who takes the action? Is it the company itself? Is it Government? Is it really difficult legally? I don't know if Micaela wants to come in on that one, but Rachel, Kate, in terms of discussions and maybe Micaela, in terms of legal things that have been discussed? I'm happy to... Sorry, I'll let... I think there's probably... We would see developers as being the primary people here that we're engaging with, mindful that the developers themselves may well have had professional relationships with people they contracted to to deliver the services. I think that's... We would see that probably in the first instance as being a relationship between the developer and those that they contracted to, and so our focus is in relation to the developers. There's obviously UK Government separately doing work looking at manufacturers, and they've obviously taken some steps in relation to manufacturing at a UK-wide level. So I think there are different layers to this. There are obviously those elements which are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, which we are able to progress. That's helpful. Thank you for that. During the investigations we've been undertaken, there's been some specific issues raised in relation to concerns over EV cars and bikes in the buildings, which will be part of the scheme. I just wondered what discussions are taking place, specifically car parks underneath these developments. There's been quite a drive, quite rightly, to have more EV charging points fitted, but not necessarily any regulations over what that looks like. So I just wondered if that's something, as the bill comes forward, will be considered, because I think there were quite serious concerns, and also part of that is factor management around that. I know that that's not specifically part of the bill, but there's various issues over how management will be taken forward around that. So I just wondered if that was something which has been picked up and will form part of what's coming. In terms of the broader discussions that I'll come back to, I think in terms of the point that you mentioned about underground car parks and so on, there have been specific cases of that, whether it has to be an action that had to be taken. I'm going to talk to her in about before or in about some of the discussions that we had to undertake with other stakeholders. We had to get their agreement first before we could do anything about that. Now part of the legislation gives us the ability to go on, if there's a building that's under immediate risk, it gives us the ability to go on and undertake that action without, you know, obviously there'll be consultation. But if not, then we've got the powers then to go on and do something. Whereas previously we didn't, until the bill comes, it previously we didn't. Now when we looked at a previous case that we had to work with, it happened very quickly, but it did still take a period of consultation in terms of other stakeholders to move things forward. I think that's a really important part of the bill, as part of that going forward. It gives us the ability to do that if that's an immediate risk. Again, we've discussed that with individual buildings where the factors come in. I think that's incredibly important as well, because they play a really important role in terms of some of the experiences that have been mixed. Now that's a broader issue in terms of factors and where some residents have been very supportive of the factors, some haven't been. Again, I think that there's that raised awareness in terms of where the factors role is, but also in terms of the broader building safety and talking about fire safety particulars on the ground car parks, for example. Again, this is the part that discusses it when you said that there will be regulations around about the fire safety that needs to be picked up. If we remediate the cladding and there's still that fire safety risk, then there's obviously still an issue there in terms of that, but there's existing kind of legislation around about that. It's lessons to be learned from that, but we have had live experiences of having to negate and take almost immediate action to make a building safe in that particular time, so there was a learn from it in terms of that. Again, that was really helpful for the other stakeholders in terms of local authorities, in terms of the fire service. Again, we work very closely near key stakeholders going forward, but I don't know if you want to add anything else to that, Tom. I think that I've just added. Obviously, as part of an SBA process, we'll be looking at those direct and indirect risks that are related to cladding or exacerbated by it, so those could be examples of things that might be exacerbated as a consequence of having cladding there. Obviously, SBA would make recommendations about what you would then need to do in relation to cladding and how other elements of the building could contribute to that process. Obviously, as the minister said, we need to be mindful of arrangements in buildings that did not themselves have cladding and therefore to ensure that there's a sort of level playing field and a consistent approach to why the building safety matters, so I hope that that helps. Yeah, that's helpful. Thanks. I've raised previously in sessions in relation to hotels, care homes, student accommodation where people are sleeping and wondered with this bill whether or not Government are now mindful to include them in this as they have been in other parts of the United Kingdom and just wondered what the plans are around these buildings. I think that from conversations I've had, student accommodation, a lot of this work is now progressing actually, but specific concerns around hotels and care homes not being included in those over 11 metres. I wondered where Government is on that at the minute. In terms of that, obviously the pilot phase was set was to get main high-risk buildings, and obviously in terms of the ownership I think was one case, I think that was a national thing. Obviously, where you've raised this before, there are some building safety regimes already in place, for example. And we kind of learned the process. I know when we discussed this and maybe we didn't have the rack issue or the rack issue was just kind of set and just coming on to the scene kind of stuff, so obviously there was a look in terms of how safe we are, you know this obviously was focused on rack, but how safe were the schools, and not to say that there's not on-going building maintenance carried out in terms of that and identified. So in terms of the schools, in terms of colleges and universities, that was kind of… So there's existing regimes that are in place just now, and I think obviously part of things is in terms of what does that kind of look like. There's the broader building safety group, which obviously looks at these issues on an on-going basis, but I don't know if Kate or Rachel want to pick on that, but it's… There's obviously a building safety regime already in place, an established building safety regime in place, but I don't know if Rachel or Kate want to touch on anything else you mentioned. Obviously in these buildings, there is an identified owner in a way that is distinguished from domestic premises where obviously the freehold and tenure system is such that that ability to then enforce in that respect is not as straightforward and obviously the bill is aimed to try and overcome the gap that's been identified. So obviously things like schools, obviously it's a responsibility of local authorities and for others, and the same with hotels and care homes, there is a responsible owner that has statutory duties that they need to fulfil in that respect. So I think what we're trying to do is focus the additional effort into areas where there's a gap in arrangements at this point in time that I'm happy if my colleagues want to add any more to that. I think the only thing that I would add is obviously we talk quite closely to England and to Wales. Our understanding is in England that they gather and publish data on hospitals and care homes and hotels, but they're not formally part of the programme as such. I guess similarly the minister mentioned the ministerial working group on fire safety, which I guess is an overarching mechanism. So health colleagues come to that group and talk about the work that they are doing in terms of remediating their buildings. Do we know what is happening in those places? And secondly, do they need to be formally part of the process? I think it is informally part of the process, as Kate has mentioned. They don't have the same kinds of challenges because they've got a single owner who can take that responsibility on and we see is doing that. It's maybe an area to, in reality, these buildings will have almost a version of a night watch in place, but I think specifically around hotels and student accommodation, how that's regulated, what sort of fire evacuation programmes are managed is also another area we need to consider. I think that some of the work that's going on in England, we maybe need to see how that needs to be replicated up here as well, but it's maybe a wider piece of work beyond this bill, like the factor management aspects that we've discussed around these buildings. Yeah, and I think in terms of the building safety group and fire safety group in terms of that, there are specific discussions around that, and that needs points to make sure that the regimes that are in place, if you like, the building control system that's in place and in terms of how they're monitored, I suppose. In terms of that, it's really important, so that's kind of picked up within that, and obviously we'll continue to have on-going discussions with the UK Government in terms of what they're doing. As I said, these are on-going on a number of issues, but it is picked up within building safety and fire safety ministerial groups to make sure that issues are picked up. We know, we obviously learned lessons from RAC in terms of what did that building safety regime look like in terms of that, and how do we make sure that we... And again, RAC, can you come out the blue in a certain way? So again, it's making sure that nothing comes as a surprise, if you like. So there's on-going discussions around that on a non-regular basis. Thank you. And just finally, in the interests of transparency, would the Government look towards the bill including a requirement for Scottish Government to report regularly on the progress being made on the remediation programme, but also scrutiny, I think, around finances around the bill? Ministers outlined £41 million available, the £97 million in Barnett consequentials, which I think the Scottish Government's got to be interested, I think, as a committee to know where that's being spent and being reported back to us on. I mean, I'll come back. I mean, I think we've published the figures in terms of the spending. We'll continue to do so, you know, as that goes forward. I think we've been open and transparent as possible in terms of that, and obviously, you know, that's something that's... We talked about the split between obviously orphan buildings and remediation for developers, that's commercial confidentiality in terms of that. And again, that's something that could be asked in terms of our own building programme, that's something that we've... We'll continue to publish on an on-going basis. As part of being in terms of the bill, I'm not... I don't know if you want touching that at all in terms of where that can be sits with it within that, and it's not something that I'm aware of in terms of that. But it's certainly been open and transparent, and we'll continue to be open and transparent going forward around the bit of spend to which I expect to see a significant increase as we get through the SBE process and into the loan form contract that we talked a bit about. Michaela, do you want anything on that in terms of that? I'll get Richard O'Connor. Yes, absolutely. Minister, you've said that we've previously committed, minister's previously committed to quarterly publishing data. I think that remains a commitment. And I think probably we will want to be looking to see what other information we might look to publish if we look at what England do. For example, there is a regular proactive publication schedule, and I'm sure there are things we could explore there. I think it would probably be difficult at this point to put that into primary legislation to commit what that would look like, as opposed to the principle of, just as we've done with the quarterly, of looking at what we could proactively put into the public domain that would be helpful to the committee whilst also seeking to maintain the confidentiality of the buildings. But I think there's a commitment there to explore that. Sorry, Kate. I don't know if you want to. No, again, come back to that. We talked about a couple of things. We would come back to your committee about them, and I'm sure there will be points that you want to come back to us around after hearing evidence. In terms of that, if it's maybe outlining some of what your thoughts are in terms of that, obviously we can come back on that particular point through the convener also. That's good. Thanks, convener. Thanks very much. This has been such a good session, and I was bringing out more questions, so I'd like to bring Stephanie Callan back in. Thank you, convener. Just the conversation there, my colleague Mr Briggs, bringing some stuff up.  But I did find it quite reassuring last week. I think it was Jim McGonagall was talking about the fire statistics in Scotland indicating that we don't have a big problem that only 1 per cent of fires spread, and that's quite a lot of that around the really good work that's been done about coverage of fire alarms and other Scottish standards that have been brought in and added on over the years. So, absolutely not to minimise the need for this bill or the serious risks around cladding, but I'm wondering if those exist in protective measures have been something that residents are aware of and that they understand, and if that provides some reassurance to them as well as this bill moves forward? I think that that's a really good point, because you talked on about the broader fire safety regimes that are out there, ministerial groups, in terms of that which I think is important. We talked about the fire alarms that, again, the Government kind of brought legislation in about that the Government brought forward. In terms of communications, I think that's certainly something for us to take away in terms of what are you existing, what's already out there, in terms of what would be a good thing to take away and consider in terms of are you aware of what the regulations should be around about just the things that you mentioned. In terms of the broader work that's carried out by the fire service, the fire service isn't just about, you know, they do a lot of work with residents and a lot of work with schools, for example, around the broader fire safety issues, and I think that's why we see such a low figure in terms of that. So, I think that that's certainly something to take away and, consult with stakeholders, is there something we can mention to them about and the communications around about that, the broader what's already out there, in terms of some of the discussions now. What you probably tended to find that, when we've had discuss with residents that there's a raised awareness, for obvious reasons, around about that, but I don't think there's no harm in looking around about further communication around about that as we go forward, and that's a learner thing from the pilot programme, is as we move into the larger scale programme, is what does that look like and what can we do as part of the process right at the start to make sure, look, this is what's already here in terms of that. If you do have an issue, where do you report it to? Is it through the factors, is it through developers, is it through the fire services, is it through local authority? So I think there's an element to take away from that and come back to you on that. Just to say, I think that that would be really great to hear any further feedback on that as well, because I can imagine as well, I mean you've spoken about, you know, there's that raised awareness amongst residents, but sometimes there is a vocal group and then there's maybe that kind of more outside group that aren't quite as involved, and we don't have that full understanding. I know certainly, I can imagine when we went out to visit some of the flats in Edinburgh, had I got the news that there was cladding on my flat, I would have been quite panicked at the thought of that, so it would just be good to know about that bit more.  Some of the flats are rented out by people who don't actually, you know, might not come back for a number of years, so, you know, if there is work needed and carried out, do you make sure that's there? So, you know, and you tend to see a mix of that, you've probably seen it in Edinburgh, I know, in Glasgow, and where I've visited, there's people who rent the properties, you know, there's different ownership models, if you like, in terms of that. So, again, picking up that to make sure that we deal with it. In fact, there's a kind of told us of some issues around about communicating with people who rent out their buildings, for example. And if there is work needed and carried out, or small things, then, you know, going through the tenant might be one way, but actually, to the people who own the buildings is slightly different as well. So, we've got to be aware and cognisant of that as well, in terms of that broader communication. And, again, this is where the communication protocol and how we deal with that is really, really important. So, I think that there's things for us to take away in that regard, and I'm happy to come back with any thoughts or any feedback you've got on that issue as well. Great. I look forward to it. Thanks for allowing me back. Thanks very much for that, yeah. So, thank you very much for joining us this morning. It's been a very useful constructive session. I think that we've gotten some clarity on a number of issues there, and we'll certainly highlight some other bits and pieces in our report as well. So, yeah, very much appreciated that you joined us. I'm now going to briefly suspend the meeting to let the minister and the officials leave. The next item on our agenda today is to consider the following negative instruments. Non-domestic rates, Scotland order 2024, SSI 2024, slash 3. Non-domestic rates, levying and miscellaneous amendments, Scotland regulations 2024, SSI 2024, slash 4. Non-domestic rates, transitional relief, Scotland regulations 2024, SSI 2024, slash 5. And council tax, dwelling and part residential subjects, Scotland amendment regulations 2024, SSI 2024, slash 10. There are no requirements for the committee to make any recommendations on negative instruments. Do any members have any comments on the instruments? No members have any comments. Is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments? We are agreed, thank you. We previously agreed to take the next three items in private, so as that was the last public item on our agenda today, I now close the public part of the meeting.