³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Some of the relevant powers here are reserved to the UK Government, particularly around insurance. The regulation of insurance is not something that we are able to intervene in through devolved powers. Insurance premiums are obviously a matter for individual insurers. We are working with the Association of British Insurers through the cladding stakeholder group and, through that forum, we are seeking fair treatment for home owners by the insurance industry.

The answers to all the issues lie in working together to reach solutions that will work for people, and that will include insurers and lenders. As for what we believe would help people most, where developers or others step up to carry out remediation work, the insurers should trust the single building assessment process to deliver a safe building and return the market to acceptable premium levels.

I was pleased to hear from the committee’s meeting last week that the ABI and many of its member companies welcome the single building assessment approach and what it can deliver.

Yes, although some of those issues were dealt with by the cabinet secretary in her statement to Parliament last week.

The single building assessment is intended to overcome a difference between the UK and Scottish tenure systems, in that in Scotland there is not a single building owner.

The committee will be aware that the single building assessment is about the safety of buildings and the people in them, and it includes a generic fire risk assessment as well as an external wall appraisal. It needs to be carried out in a professional and rigorous manner, and only by undertaking that work can we identify where changes to existing systems might need to be made. There is a fairly high degree of confidence that the majority of buildings will be found to be safe, so the mere conducting of an assessment should not give people cause for severe anxiety. However, the work needs to be undertaken to identify where those changes have to happen.

Training of surveyors to undertake the external wall appraisals is under way. We expect that to improve the capacity of the sector to deliver the assessments that are necessary. Reducing the level of competence of those who are undertaking the work is really not an option, so we have to work with the sector to increase the supply of competent professionals who can undertake that work. I think that the committee will understand the need to work with the sector to increase capacity but also to make sure that those assessments are conducted to the required standard.

It is also an important principle that the assessments come at zero cost to home owners, and the Government has ensured that they will.

Again, as that is a highly technical matter, I will rely on officials.

I ask Stephen Garvin whether that is being explored in those terms.

I ask David Blair to jump in again.

Again, I will turn to officials for an answer to that question.

As I said in my previous response, the committee will be aware that the single building assessment process needs to be undertaken to identify where we believe changes need to be made. David Blair might want to come in here and say whether there has been any assessment of the numbers.

It would be inappropriate to predict the outcome of the discussions that we are having with COSLA. We need to work in a co-operative and collegiate way with local government, and that is the spirit in which we are entering the process.

However, as an indicative example, the most recent pilot phase offered local authorities the option of bidding for up to £50,000 for staff or consultant capacity to allow them to undertake their work. I think that, of those that followed things through to completion, most drew down slightly more than half of the £50,000 on offer—from £25,000 up to the mid-£30,000s. That is an indicative example of the kind of ballpark that we might be talking about but, as I have said, it would be wrong to pre-empt the discussions that we are having with COSLA by trying to predict the outcome at this stage.

Our experience of working through the pilot phases gives us confidence that, with the right resources and capacity in place, local authorities will be able to complete that work on the timescale that we have set out. As I said in my opening remarks, we have worked very well and closely with COSLA as a body and with the individual local authorities that have been taking forward their pilots, and I do not think that significant concern has been raised about the timescale for the first strategies.

I am sure that Monica Lennon and I agree that not only local government but the heat in buildings agenda more generally are extremely exciting places to work.

Beyond LHEES, we also have the clear commitment to introduce a phased schedule of regulations to ensure that our homes and buildings are brought up to standard on energy efficiency and the transition to zero-emissions heating. The clear sense that the Scottish Government and local government working together are committed to that long-term agenda will give the industry confidence to invest in the recruitment, training and skills that are necessary. That, in turn, will send strong signals to the further education sector about the opportunities.

I believe firmly that there are not only good jobs but long-term, high-quality careers to be had in the transition. It is a massive investment in the transformation of our building stock. That must be done to a high quality and in a way that meets people’s needs on fuel poverty. It has to be a just transition. That means that a huge amount of work needs doing. The Scottish Government is committed not only to signalling the long-term commitment to seeing that work through but to maximising the investment from public and private sources to ensure that it is well funded.

We should see the situation more as an opportunity than a challenge. It is a huge technical challenge, but it is a really big opportunity for our economy as well.