���˿���

In terms of—

One of the key things for that work will be indicators. We can all say anecdotally whether something is working or not, but what does that actually look like? That is still being discussed. Again, that comes back to the LHEE strategies, which should not include just what we need to do in relation to the fabric first approach and district heating systems, for example, but should include information on support. It is important that we get indicators about that particular point.

I can come back to you with more detail. A lot will come down to what local authorities are doing, how they monitor the work and how that information is fed into the Scottish Government. That needs to be part of an LHEE strategy. It is not just about how much money it is costing, where it is going and what the heating systems are—it is also about how we put out the required information.

When we spoke at the Skye and Lochalsh conference, we talked about how communities get information. I talked about insulation, as a small example. How do we get out and speak to communities that are out there, and how do we indicate that? Metrics need to be in place around how we develop that work, and that should be part of the LHEE strategies.

By the end of this year, it will be about deliverability and not just strategy. The question will be, “How will you actually deliver this?” It will be a challenge. The information that we put out and how we measure outcomes play important parts; that work is being developed with local authorities, at the moment.

That is another important point. I met the city region team in Edinburgh and we talked about the fact that there are seven or eight strategic housing developments that need to be brought forward there, and about how that could be done. At the end, we came to the view that the council needs an investment prospectus, so it is now developing that. There will then be an opportunity to sit down with investors and ask how we would deliver on that.

I also had a discussion with the Scottish Cities Alliance, which is important in terms of delivering housing and redeveloping city centres—Glasgow City Council is doing something similar in relation to the city region element.

We also need to consider what we need in terms of institutional investment in the main cities in Scotland, and the Scottish Cities Alliance is, in a way, trying to do part of that work as well. We need to think about what demand we can generate in relation to the city regions around Edinburgh and Glasgow, but we also need to think about what can be done through the Scottish Cities Alliance in terms of investment.

If, when we speak to investors, we aggregate the figures that are involved, we will be talking about a substantial amount of money. Over a period of time, that would involve institutional investment and Scottish grant funding, as well as funding that can be delivered by flexing the system that we already have around housing. We need to bring all those things together. The demand is there. The most important question is how we finance the supply. That is why we are talking about flexing the finance system that we have at the moment and getting the housing investment task force to look at the issues as a whole.

As you heard—I think that Joe Brown mentioned this—the first minutes of the housing investment task force will be published soon. Some of the ideas that came forward were encouraging, and the group will make recommendations.

That is an important point. Ken Gibb is a member of the housing investment task force and his input will be valuable. He talked about data, and he offered to do a piece of work around that. That will be developed as part of the work of the housing investment task force.

The reason why Ken Gibb was asked to join the group was to give a broad overview. If we are talking about flexing the system and bringing in institutional investment, it is important to have a balance across all tenures. Ken Gibb’s influence in that regard and on the issue of de-speculating the market will be key. I am not saying that there needs to be systemic change, but there has to be a whole-systems approach: we cannot change just one part of the system. Having Ken Gibb on the task force is important in terms of his academic input.

As I have said, Ken Gibb advises all the UK Governments on the matter. He has given an overview of what is available in terms of guarantees from the UK Government and his article in The Herald also talks about opportunities for the Scottish Government to consider guarantees that might help us. There would be no additional costs to the UK Government. That sort of thing would be really helpful. His input to finding a whole-systems approach will be important, and I think that he will be feeding into all of this from an academic point of view.

We have also heard the housing to 2040 group talk about innovative finance and the fact that one of the main short-term priorities is to flex the finance system. The housing investment task force is looking at that, too, as well as other issues. It is looking not just at how we deliver more housing but, if we are talking about temporary accommodation, at models in that respect, too. Ken Gibb will give us that balance with the expertise that he has.

I have had discussions with individual developers: the key thing is to work with developers. It is not in their interests to have tolerable risk in any of their buildings. If we have seen what we think is risk that carries immediate or high danger, we have moved on that very quickly. As part of the wider discussions, which are still going on, we are talking about the specifications in the SBA.

Kate talked about getting agreement on the SBA around April. Easter is at the end of March, I think, so we are talking about getting agreement around that time. The discussions have been part of discussions in the round. Having the SBA process agreed would allow us to move on and set the tolerable standard. Those discussions are on-going on a daily basis and, obviously, risk is assessed on a daily basis.

We have dealt with issues very quickly when we have needed to, in conjunction with developers. Other stakeholders that we need to negotiate with can sometimes be an issue. The legislation that will come into force will give us the powers to deal with such issues without having to negotiate, and powers to negate risk as quickly as possible. However, buildings with that risk are being assessed every day.

I will bring in Micheila West on the legal aspect.

There are a number of reasons why we are talking about a cladding assurance register, and a key one is the residents. The most important point is that their knowing that their building is on the cladding assurance register gives them a bit of comfort. It is also important for developers to know that their building is on the register, and the Government has recognised that.

As part of the pilot project, we have discussions with developers about how to move forward. There is an iterative process. We need to make sure that buildings go on the register. We have talked a bit about the discussions that we have had about insurance and mortgages; that, in itself, is a step forward. It is a technical process. It is almost saying to lenders and insurers that a building is on the cladding assurance register. That is an incredibly important part of the legislation that we are working on. For me, it is very much an iterative process.

I will bring in Micheila West, who might want to add something about the legal basis.

I suppose that a couple of issues arise. First, on the SBA process, I understand that there will be a degree of frustration with regard to getting buildings on to the register, given that doing so moves things forward for residents, for developers, for insurance purposes and so on. It is important that we get through the SBA process, because we can start with remediation, get buildings on the register and so on. In its basic form, this is about getting to buildings that have just been built and have not received building safety certificates. The question is: when is a building safe? The key thing is to ensure that it is safe when it is signed off.

Again, we have been discussing with developers how quickly we can move through the process and get buildings on the register, because that is what will reassure developers and residents, and it is what will address the issues that we have been talking about, including insurance, remortgaging and the sale of buildings. Developers have been raising such issues quite often, and we are working with developers to get those issues through the process as quickly as possible.

I read what came up in that respect. I will bring in Micheila West in a wee second, but I will say that we are listening to the concerns that are being raised and, as we progress with the bill, we are looking at how we ensure that such concerns and issues are addressed.

Micheila, do you want to address the particular point from the Law Society of Scotland?

Again, that is a good question. In our discussions with developers, they have identified not only buildings that should be in scope but those that they think should not be in scope. There is a balance to be struck with regard to getting the buildings that are in scope through the SBA process and remediation done. Buildings being out of scope is incredibly important, because saying that that is the case will reassure residents in buildings that might or might not be in scope.

I do not know whether Rachel Sunderland would like to add anything, but the issue has certainly been raised by Homes for Scotland and developers. It is, as I have said, about striking a balance between making safe the buildings that are in scope and giving reassurance—a sense of relief, if you like—to developers and residents in buildings that are not.

You are right about that debate. To put it into the broader context, the responsible developer scheme follows the model in England and Wales. That is a really important part of the legislation for me and for the developers. The first stage of that was talking about the commitment letter, which was, in a sense, about them publicly coming out and saying, “We are working with you on that.” The remediation contract itself is another step. The responsible developer scheme then gives us powers in relation to what happens if the work does not get carried out. That is important, because it gives us the ability to look at sanctions.

As I said, we have not had any issues in terms of developers coming to speak to us. None of my individual discussions with developers has involved them saying that they do not want to be part of this. They have all been keen to sit down, engage, be collaborative and work with us. It is important to give that context. They have all been very supportive when working with us because they know what they need to do for, first and most important, the residents, but also their own outlook. If they do not carry out the work, there is that reputational risk. The responsible developer scheme gives that sign and gives us the powers to do that.

I will bring in Micheila West on the legislative issue that has been raised. However, part of the consultation discussions that we have had have been about not teasing out but trying to look at the attitude of the sector itself. The sector has been very helpful in working closely with us on that. It also wants to move as quickly as it possibly can.