³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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

I will bring in officials on that question, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it okay if I make an opening statement?

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

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

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

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

That is probably down to the experience of the buildings that we have had to remediate in the first while. It is all about trying to quicken the pace and ensuring that we have the necessary powers to do that.

I will bring in Stephen Garvin, as he has been discussing that. I heard the earlier discussion about the difficulties, with people being away—one person is in China—and so on.

I know that we will touch on this later, as the committee will want to ask about it, but it is important to look at legislation. That would, in part, be about making sure that we get over that problem. We will touch on that more, and I referred to it in my opening remarks. Part of the reason why we are considering legislation is that the more quickly we can remediate buildings, the better it is for everyone. That issue has been identified and will be part of any legislation, if that is where we move to.

I will bring in Rachel Sunderland on that.

That is probably about looking at a number of things. One is remediation of the buildings, and another is the mitigation of fire safety risks and ensuring that we can take action more quickly than we can at the moment. Obviously, we have reached agreement with the developers, but it is about tying that into legislation as we progress.