���˿���

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAS was raised in a number of the discussions that we had with developers. I know that the two people who gave evidence to you last week have not been involved in discussions as such. We consult with the sector more broadly, but the focus with developers has been on the task and finish group. I will bring in Rachel Sunderland on the discussions that have been held on the technical issues, but we listened to what the sector was telling us at the developer round table and in individual discussions.

As I have said, the system is not just some pick-up-and-shift thing coming from the UK Government, because the tenure systems are different, and there are slightly different building regulations. We have been taking on some of the feedback that we have received, and we have gone into the technical specifics of the specification itself. As Kate Hall has said, we are not too far away from getting agreement and moving on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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