 Yn ei tych yn iaith, dyma'r gwybodaeth i ddim yn iaith, ac mae wedi'i gynes am 12 yma i gyflym i gaelio'r cyfathau cymaeith yng Nghymru a'r Gweinidog. Mae'r gwaith yn iaith, dyma dŵr i'n gwneud ar hyn ar y cyfle a'r cymryd iawn. Mae'r gwaith yn iaith i gaelio'r cyflym a'r gwaith fwyaf yna, a dwi'n iaith i ddim yn iaith barrel ar hyn o dyma i'r cymaeith cymaeith. I take the opportunity to place on record first my thanks to Annabelle Ewing and Kenneth Gibson who have left the committee to take up different committee roles. Now I ask Keith Brown to indicate whether he has any relevant interests to declare. I have no relevant interests to declare, convener. Thank you very much. Today's main business will be an evidence session on building regulations that fire safety in Scotland. But first item 2, we have consideration of whether to take agenda item 6 and 7 in private. Item 6 is consideration of evidence in building regulations. Item 7 is consideration of our work programme. As we are meeting remotely, rather than asking whether everyone agrees, I will ask if anyone objects. If there is silence, I will assume you are content. Does anyone object? Very much saying that. Item 6 and 7 will be taken in private. Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on building regulations in fire safety in Scotland. This session forms part of the committee's on-going work to monitor the Scottish Government's response to the tragic events that occurred in Grenfell in 2017 and related issues. Today's focus is mainly on the issue of homes with external wall systems and problems that have been risen in connection with this in some cases. Today, I welcome Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Stephen Garvin, head of building standards Scottish Government and Ross Lindsay from Moor Homes division. I'm grateful to you for taking time to answer our questions today and thank you for your recent letters responding to the questions that the committee had raised in advance of this meeting. I also want to put in record that the committee has received a recent response from local authority building standards Scotland. In a moment, I will invite the minister to make a short opening statement. I want to remind members that I will then call them in a prearranged order notified to be used by the clerks. Each committee member will have around nine minutes to ask their questions and I will let you know when you have one minute of your time left. Please give broadcasting staff a few seconds to operate your microphones before beginning to ask your question or to provide an answer. I would like to welcome today Graham Simpson, a former committee member for this agenda item. I will allow Graham and, after all, committee members have asked their questions and any possible supplementaries at the end. If you invite Mr Garvin or Mr Lindsay to answer any questions, I'd be grateful if you could date this clearly for broadcasting's benefit. I now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener. I'm not sure if I'll be able to tell you anything clearly today. I've been out in the garden and my hay fever is playing up a little to apologies for any hoarseness. I thank you for the invitation to attend the committee to update you on the progress of the Scottish Government's campaign for fire safety. I'd like to provide an update of where we currently are. The impact of the pandemic has had a profound impact on the work of Parliament, Government and stakeholders. Like others, we rapidly and significantly reshaped our resources and Governments to deal with the pandemic both in terms of initially the lockdown and, of course, now our framework out of it. I've worked closely with the construction industry to enable a safe restart and to develop a recovery plan that was published last week. I've also instructed officials to bring together a fire safety review panel to examine how we can ban the highest risk cladding materials from taller buildings and to look again at the role of BS 8414. The working group, convener, will be made up of appropriate experts and, with the use of the most up-to-date evidence available, to provide me with recommendations for further changes to the building standards. In March, I set up a technical working group to oversee the development of advice on external wall systems. The draft Scottish advice note is now out for consultation to gain feedback. My officials are engaging with key organisations and there are public webinars where anyone can join the discussion. In addition, you will remember that we introduced changes to building standards in October last year to make buildings in Scotland even safer. Further measures will be introduced early next year. Sprinklers will then be required in all new social houses, all new flats and some new multi-occupancy homes. I know today that the committee will want to concentrate on cladding issues. I want to make it clear that I remain very concerned about continuing issues in relation to mortgage lending and the difficulties that some people have experienced in selling their properties. I do not underestimate the personal impact on people and their families and I understand the stress and the anxiety that that will be causing. The establishment of the ministerial working group on mortgage and cladding earlier this year was a route to examine how Government and key stakeholders could examine solutions to those issues. The committee will understand the complexity and the varying interests involved—personal, professional, commercial and public—in finding resolution. You are also very aware that not all of the levers are in the hands of this Parliament. The ministerial working group met on 28 April, when a full and frank discussion on all the issues took place. The outcome of that was to set up four subgroups, led by stakeholders to look at different stages in the process, obtaining the EWS1 form, using the report and the process after the form is completed and the long-term approach and legislative needs. The group will meet again later this month to consider proposed work plans and timescales for the various groups. My priority through the working group is to be clear about the extent of the problem that needs to be solved, to get clarity on what is a moving situation and to develop practical solutions. The group, as I said, will meet again later this month to look at all those work streams and to set timescales. It is clear, convener, that no one single body can solve the problem. We need all others to play their part and act in line with their responsibilities. There is a real willingness from those who are represented on the working group to come together on solutions, and we need to work towards agreement on what is needed from lenders and insurers for greater transparency for all. I want the working group to focus on all that very quickly. Finally, I remain concerned with the lack of engagement of the UK Secretary of State on that matter. As the committee will remember, I have written a number of times asking to work together to resolve the issue, and I have had only a minimum of response. It is clear that, taking cognisance of the complexity of devolved and reserved issues, we must have a joint response, and I hope that we will see co-operation from the Secretary of State. I am now happy to take questions from the committee. I have a couple of questions. One of the things that comes across loud and clear is the issue that people are having with the EWS14. It is clearly confusing. Is there a set and agreed universal process, or are you looking towards trying to create one, because at this stage people do not seem to understand best how it works? Across the UK, there are difficulties or homeowners in obtaining EWS1 forms. This is not a Scotland-only problem in getting those forms, but I will come back to some of the differences that are here, if you do not mind. The form itself was designed in the expectation that there would be a single form per building. It was also designed with the English in mind. The norm is, of course, to have a freehold system where somebody owns the building and leaseholders have ownership over individual flats on long leases. In those cases, in south of the border, a single person can be identified as the responsible person, and they have the authority to commission an EWS1 report. Our different property tenure system here means that there can be many individual owners in the building, and then you have a situation where an appropriate proportion of the building owner, sometimes 100 per cent, needs to agree to the introduction of the EWS form before it can be commissioned. However, there are instances that we know of where some lenders are accepting forms produced in respect of a single flat here in Scotland, which also makes comment on the wider building. What we have seen with that lack of clarity and consistency are the real difficulties that home owners are experiencing here. That is a system that has been set up without any consultation with ourselves or with the experts here in Scotland. What we can see is a lack of consistency, a lack of clarity, which is causing confusion here in Scotland, but it would also be fair to say that there are difficulties to the border, too, around this entire system. We will do our best to get the UK Government minister to speak to the committee at some stage. You talked about some lenders that are allowing it and some lenders that are not. Can you tell me what clarity you have had from them about when and how they applied a CWS form? I do not think that there is any clarity. That is the problem, convener. What is the minimum that the lenders are looking for, the ones that are allowing it, and why they are others not? I cannot answer that in any depth. One of the things that concerns me most about all of that is that there is no universal process. I want the working group with RICS, the lenders and the insurers. I know, for example, that many of our colleagues, including myself, have had situations in which lenders have asked for EWS1 forms for buildings that are below 18m, for example. However, we have not had the clarity around why they are asking that. What we need is for a universal process to be agreed with what people want, what they are looking for, and then applying that. It is very difficult for us to even try and find a solution unless we know what the problems are and how we can solve them in a logical basis. We really need everybody starting from the same position in all of that. I hope that the working group can get to that point of clarity where there is a universal process, where we can work together with the four other Governments across the UK to come to some agreement about all of that, so that we can do our level best for those homeowners here in Scotland, but also elsewhere who are in some real difficulty here. Who, in your view, should decide what building should be subject to this form? Convener, I never quite caught what you said there. In your view, who should decide what building should be subject to the EWS1? At the end of the day, we have a situation in which the lenders and the insurance companies have said that there are difficulties around that. What we need is what difficulties there are and where they think those difficulties lie. I have no control—the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government has no control over the lenders and the insurers. That is reserved to the UK Government. I do not know what influence the UK Secretary of State has brought to bear in terms of all of that. I would like to know how we can work together, all of that industry and Government, to look at exactly where the difficulties lie, what is required here, and what universal process can we put in place to get that right, to ensure that we get out of the position that we are currently in, where homeowners find themselves in real difficulty? Are you saying that this problem cannot be resolved unless we get the UK minister to speak to the lenders and insurers and the companies? Convener, we can do a job of work here in terms of the ministerial working group talking to lenders and insurers to try and get things right. However, in order to get this absolutely spot on and not do half a job but to do the full job, what we require is the UK Secretary of State to co-operate more and to help us to reach a solution that is workable for all. When would you expect A, subgroups and B, ministerial groups to come back with any kind of reports? Convener, I think that all of that is always very difficult to give timescales on. However, I would want a resolution to that as soon as we possibly can. I have constituents, as have many others, who find themselves in really difficult situations at this moment, where they are unable to gain clarity about what is required to sell their property. Obviously, I want that resolved for my constituents and for the constituents of all my colleagues. We need to get a resolution to that as soon as we possibly can. However, what I would also say is that, in order to get that room, we need full co-operation from others to get to the universal process. However, my ambition would be to get that sorted as soon as we possibly can. First, I will draw members' attention to my register of interests in relation to my former employment for SFHA. Minister, it has been very good to read your response to us and to see the progress that has been made in the working parties that you have set up. What knowledge do you have about the UK fund that was established that owners in England can now apply for in terms of being able to get remedies to their properties? Have you made any progress in considering what would be relevant in Scotland and what the experience has been and whether it has helped to make any progress and cut through the log jam that you mentioned in your opening remarks? I think that we will continue to look at what has happened in terms of the UK fund. I know that there have been some difficulties around that fund. I would say to the committee that I am sympathetic to the calls for government funding and that I am open to that. However, what I would expect is that there should be movement by others to help with costs, depending on particular circumstances. I will give you an example, because the two buildings—there are only two houses that we had in Scotland that were extensively clad with ACMPE in Scotland, Glasgow Harbour—have started work to remediate those buildings at their cost. No cost to government, no cost to the owners of the building, and that is the right thing for developers to do and plaudits to Taylor Wimpy for doing that. I am quite sure that no one will want us to spend Government money on anything if we believe that others are responsible for remediation. I urge developers to do, in circumstances where homeowners find themselves in some difficulty, is to look at their responsibility to follow the lead of Taylor Wimpy. What I should also say is that those two buildings are nothing compared to the extensive use of ACMPE that has been south of the border. I remind the committee that that material should not have been used since 2005 changes in regulations, and that is important. However, I reiterate that I am sympathetic to the calls for Government funding. I am open to that, but we have to look at all that is required and, beyond that, we also have to look at those who are responsible for some of that by getting their hands and their own pooches and paying for remediation work. I do not disagree with the fact that there is an obligation in terms of the builders that they make that contribution. What I was thinking of, Minister, is that we can cut through the chase in terms of the log jam, because I know from the evidence that we have had to the committee that the difficulty about the EWS1 form is that owners are paying for it, being able to get an old building approach and the issue of professional indemnity. There is clearly a log jam here, and it is thinking of what you could do in Scotland or what we could do to try to cut through that and to think of what the solutions could be. We have got a solution to tenement repairs, which the Government came up with, because we have an ownership issue there as well. I am just wondering if that kind of thinking could get us to at least cut to the chase where we could get analysis of the buildings done and homeowners could at least know where they are and potential buyers could know where they are, and we could focus on where works are needed, because that appears to be the log jam, even though you have made progress in terms of analysing buildings and their condition. Is that how we pull all that together? I suppose that we could make progress on that with some fresh thinking, minister. Convener, that is one of the areas that the working group will look at. The key thing here in all of that is what are the difficulties and what are the solutions? I am more than willing to look at almost anything. Some of that may require a legislative solution. I hope that that is not the case. Some folk are already calling for legislative solutions to move some of the way that we do things towards the way that they do things south to the border. I think that that would be unwise. I think that we would have a huge amount of unintended consequences. The last thing that I would want to say—I am most members of the committee, if not all members of the committee—would want to move to a freehold leasehold system that is just full of problems for folk, but that is some of the things that some folk have suggested. What we need to do is to know what buildings are subject to EWS1 forms, and we will then know what the extent of the problem is. On the logjam, I think that we need to help. That is why I come back to the point that I made to the convener about finding a universal process that works for all. I hope that we can move as swiftly as possible through the working group and the subgroups to see what we can do in terms of shaping that universal process. I reiterate that, in doing so, we will require co-operation from a lot of people. I agree very much that we do not want to do something that would make things worse, but it is just thinking through what the solutions might be. I realise that we need to get everybody to think about that. One of the things that I suggest is to take the inventory that you have done and then to try to feed through the information that comes through the EWS1 information and to make sure that that information is available to everybody. Is that something that you are looking at? Again, it is about trying to break the logjam and trying to get all those involved in the process to see that everybody is in interest in getting a solution so that owners can move forward and that people are not stuck in their homes forever? We have offered to share information with stakeholders around all of that. We took a step at a very early stage to put together an inventory. That has not been an easy job of work and I would like to put on record my thanks to local authorities in particular for their efforts. As we move forward, we will see on an annual basis an update to that register, which I think is useful. The very simple answer to Ms Boyack is that we have offered to share information with stakeholders from that. There is clearly an issue about the number of qualified staff to be able to undertake the EWS1 work. Is there anywhere that the Scottish Government can help to kickstart that process? Or help fund it, thank you. Convener, again, that is something that I am open to looking at. That highlights the real difficulty of introducing something without consultation. The fact that that form has been introduced without checking first of all whether there are the qualified people to carry out the checks that are required for it shows that it has not been particularly well thought out, in my opinion. That lack of co-operation leads to those real difficulties. That is one of the reasons why, in all of that, there needs to be a four-government approach for many of those things. It may well be that one of the Governments tries to put in a solution to that, and then we find that there is no personnel to carry out the work that is required. Again, what I would ask is that the UK Government, the Secretary of State, actually comes together with all of us to try and sort of what is a problem for all. I know that my officials are in talks on a regular basis across the four governments to try and gain co-operation. I think that we need to do that at ministerial level as well. Of course, in all of that, we are also reliant on the likes of RICS in terms of their determination around all of that, too, in terms of qualification. We will continue to talk to RICS. They are part of the working group and the subgroups, and we hope that we can make progress there, too. Alexander Stewart Thank you, convener, and good morning minister. Can I just follow on from the EWS work? You identified there with the previous question that there seems to be a lack of qualified staff who are able to deal with the cladding. That is specifically about their knowledge and training, and that has come out in witnesses who have told us that to the committee. The Government has identified that as an issue. What are the Scottish Government doing to ensure that there is full access to that experience and that expertise that is needed across the construction industry here in Scotland? As I pointed out in my earlier answer to Ms Boyack, across the whole UK, the number of appropriately qualified professionals to produce the EWS one form is low. There is no central register of consultants able to do that work. However, given the different designations used by the different professional bodies, work is required, in my opinion, to determine who is competent to do the inspections of external work. Again, as I said to Ms Boyack, the RICS review is considering who is competent to do that work, to do those inspections, and they are working with other professional bodies on that. RICS is doing that work. Beyond that, there is a job for governments here, too. I think that we need to have co-operation with the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government to get that absolutely right. I know that Mr Stewart's colleagues have previously tried to be helpful in getting the UK Government to engage on that, and I would be very appreciative if Mr Stewart and his colleagues would do that once again. I think that it is in all of our interests whether we are in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales to get that right for those folks who are currently suffering in Limbo because they can move on from properties. I give you that assurance that I certainly will now that I am back in this new role in local government to engage with yourself and with my counterparts. Can I then move on to the area about zero value? There have been lots of issues occurring with owners who have zero value homes seeking to develop solutions. They do not appear to be part of the working group, so can I ask? They have obviously fed into what is going on here, and how has the Scottish Government acted on their suggestions, if there have been any suggestions from owners who are in zero-valued properties, and how have you responded to them with that process? I will come into some depth on zero valuation in a minute, if I may convener. Let me talk about owners first of all. My officials are now back working on that. People have been moved during the course of the pandemic, and one of my key people was off for a long period of time with Covid. We are now strengthening the team—that is a word that I probably should not have attempted there—in order to move forward on that front. I have asked owners to give evidence at the next meeting of the working group. Beyond that, I have agreed with officials that I will meet the chair of the High Rise Scotland Action Group in the near future. I am also aware that a number of groups affected have sent me their ideas for possible solutions to all of that. I can assure the committee that myself, my officials and the working group will look at all those ideas, some of which are pretty comprehensive. We will look at the practicality of the solutions that people have put forward. I should also say to the committee that, in response to owners, I take all of that so seriously, and I want to see exactly what is being said by people. I am signing off every single letter from owners who are writing to me about the difficulties that they have and are suggesting solutions. I can give the committee assurance that we will bring owners into play and we will look at the solutions that they have put forward. Let me turn to the zero valuation aspect of all of that. First of all, it may be helpful to clarify that, according to RISES, zero or null valuations are used in the process of valuing a property for mortgage lending purposes, where a value is unable to provide a value at that moment in time. For example, when the value inspection takes place due to insufficient information being available. At that point, I know that value-afted signals that the lender requires further information before a valuation can be made. That is rather than the property being unsellible. However, in cases of properties with external wall cladding, in order to provide the additional information that is required, a satisfactory report on the cladding is required, and now that is EWS1 form. If it is provided, lenders will not provide mortgage lending for the property, and that acts as a barrier to most purchasers. There have been questions about how all of that affects the market. I should say that that is difficult to engage at this moment because of evidence that we do not have. Because of the shutdown in the market during the course of the pandemic, and because the process is still quite early in terms of inception. Again, I have asked that we get the evidence on all of that as soon as we possibly can. That is a priority for me, and I have asked that we have evidence of that brought to the next meeting of the working group. Thank you, minister. That shows very much how you are taking the matter very serious, and I think that it is important to give that assurance out there to the industry, but also to the stakeholders and homeowners that are in this situation. Can I ask the final question about how you are dealing with and supporting people who, in good faith, bought properties? They are now not in a position to get the EWS certificate because of the way that the whole process has moved forward, and they took that in good faith because that is what the standards and the building standards system provided at that time for them. I am very sympathetic to the plight of homeowners at this moment. In order for us to do what we need to do to help them out, the key thing in all of this is to get all of this process sorted and to get a universal process in place, which everybody understands, where everybody knows where they stand and where we can look to see what other additional help may be required to get people out of what are very, very difficult circumstances. My assurance to the committee is that we will continue to listen to homeowners and where people—and there are a number of them—have sent us proposals on possible solutions. We will look at all of that. In doing so and bringing all of that together, what we will need to do next is to look at how we remediate what needs to be done there. As I said earlier, it is something that I would prefer not to do if we do not have to, but if we need to, that also means looking at legislation in order to provide the comfort that is required. Thank you very much, convener. I think that I should preface my remarks. As the minister knows, I have been convening a group of experts looking at this. It is clear by now that we are a year into this that the EWS form process is working well for many building owners and they are securing lending and they are being able to sell property. It is important to say that. I am a little bit bemused by the minister's constant focus on the UK Government. This is a pattern that he has established over appearances at this committee. EWS form is a private arrangement between insurers and surveyors. It is fundamentally about risk, because lenders do not know whether those buildings are safe and therefore want some assurance that they are safe before lending and, likewise, insurers as well. Given that lenders and insurers are perfectly entitled to choose who they give lending and insurance to, can the minister give us a little bit more clarity about what he thinks the UK Government can do about this, given that it is not really minded to tell people and force people to lend if they do not want to lend and they think that the risks do great? I think that the simple answer to Mr Wightman's question is that, at this moment in time, insurance and lending regulation is reserved to influence directly these industries whereby the UK Government can. Obviously, the UK Government has taken a number of steps in recent times to try and satisfy its interests in getting this right. My understanding is that the minister, Lord Greenhaith, held a round table in recent times with industry representatives, but there was no one from the devolved governments at that meeting. It would be useful for us to have knowledge of what is going on across the board. I want to have good relationships here to resolve this, because my key interest in all of this is not to pick political fights or anything like that. My key interest is to help those folks out there to find themselves stuck at this moment. Mr Wightman is right that some folks have managed to get out of all of this, but, as he knows and others on the committee and elsewhere in Parliament know, there are a number of folks who are in real difficulties here, including some of my constituents. What I do not want is a situation in which we find half a solution and we do not find the whole solution, because we have not had the co-operation of others. I want good relationships not only with the UK Government but with the other devolved governments to resolve this. I am also trying to ensure that we have the best possible relations with the professional groups and to find out where their sticking points are so that we can do what we can to resolve those difficulties. What I would say to Mr Wightman and to others on the committee who have engaged on this, I appreciate the fact that they have been involved in this. Mr Wightman talked about the group that he convened. My officials have been to some of those meetings, and we will continue to co-operate in that regard. I am not interested in the party politics of this, and I am not interested in the constitutional politics of this. I just want a solution for those folks who find themselves in real trouble at this moment in time. That is helpful, and I am certainly grateful to the minister's officials for engaging with that group. We have had a year now, so there have been a lot of building inspections going on. Information has been given to me from surveyors who are looking at those buildings and have surveyed hundreds of them. When I say surveyed hundreds of them, they have been commissioned by a particular owner, but they have looked at the whole building. The whole building is essentially one unit. They have identified 20 to 30 buildings in Scotland that are quote, fundamentally not compliant with building standards in place at the time of construction. They have found that EWS forms are being signed off with an option A1, which is a complete green light. Again, for buildings that are fundamentally dangerous properties, and they have identified quite a number of fraudulent EWS forms in circulation. My question is given that we know which buildings—the industry knows—individuals in the industry know which buildings are dangerous, have been identified as dangerous, what is the Government's response to that, and how is it going to make sure that everyone in those buildings, all owners, know that they are living in buildings that are fundamentally not compliant with building standards and where they may be fundamentally dangerous? First of all, I would say to Mr Wightman that I would be very grateful for any evidence in that he wishes to pass on to myself and to my officials. I should say to the committee that there have been 1,100 EWS forms across the UK. We have asked UK Finance for a Scottish breakdown of those forms, and we do not have a Scottish breakdown of those forms at this moment in time. If Mr Wightman has managed to gather up evidence from around about some of those issues, we will look closely at our very serious allegations. I reiterate that, at this moment, we do not even have a Scottish breakdown from UK Finance in terms of those EWS forms. I certainly will be in touch with that regard, and I should point out for the record that my understanding of the Scottish Fire and Rescue has been notified of that. There is one issue that I am sure that the working group will be looking at, and that is the title conditions act 2003, particularly the development management scheme order 2009 that created a default management scheme for developments that enabled factors to instruct works without consent for health and safety reasons. Given that many of those properties have been constructed since the 2003 act was passed and the management scheme order was passed, there seems to be a problem with the factors act in terms of its code of conduct where it is saying that it is difficult to do that. I could ask the minister to urgently look at that, because it seems that there is a remedy already existing in law that there is a little bit of confusion as to factors powers to instruct those works. When I say instruct the works, I am talking about instructing a survey of the whole building. There may still be problems as a consequence of that survey, but at least you have one survey that has been instructed, and therefore we have information, and that information, critically, will be available to all building owners. It will be a major step forward, so I could ask the minister to have a look at that as a matter of priority, because it seems that if we can deal with some of that under existing legislation, obviously we should not be continuing to explore what further legislation might be required. The officials have been going through previous legislation with a fine tooth comb to find solutions and remedies. Without doubt, I ask officials to explore Mr Wightman's suggestions to see what his belief is and the reality. I reiterate again that if anyone thinks that there are solutions that exist in current legislation, I am willing to look at that. However, I assure the committee and Mr Wightman that my officials have already been through a lot of existing legislation to try and find possible remedies. We will write back to the committee about the point that Mr Wightman has made, but we will look at that most definitely. I am going to have to move on, Andy. Keith Brown, welcome to the committee. Thank you very much, convener. I am new to the issue, although I have to say that the issue of a complete non-responsiveness of the UK Government to request from committees or ministers seems to be a pattern on the other committees that I am involved in in the Scottish Parliament. It really is the limit when you cannot get responses or any co-operation. I am a bit surprised by Andy Wightman's eagerness to absolve the UK Government, but that is obviously his issue. The minister has mentioned previously, as I understand it, that the committee has been discussing calls for possible legislation to fix the need to obtain an ESW-1. I wonder if the minister could say what he believes. He mentioned some of the concerns that he would have going down that route earlier on, but what he believes are the challenges that are presented by trying to take forward that legislation? I agree with Mr Brown about the lack of co-operation. In fairness, in terms of the one decent-ish response that I received back from Robert Jenrick, the UK Secretary of State, that came after the prompting of Mr Simpson. I am grateful to Mr Simpson for that. I hope that Mr Stewart, Mr Simpson and Mr Balfour, who are at this meeting today, will once again use their influence to try and help us to find solutions. Co-operation here is essential, because although we have difficulties here, there are difficulties right across the UK. Surely, it is in everybody's interests to actually get that right. In terms of legislation, sometimes legislation is seen as a quick or easy fix, and sometimes there are huge amounts of unintended consequences. It is like the suggestion that has been made to me that we should look at the English system in terms of building owners, in terms of freehold and leasehold. We all know the horror stories that exist sides of the border with that system, and yet some folks see that as a simple solution to deal with that particular problem. The unintended consequences of moving along that line would be horrendous for all. The other scenario, which Mr Wightman pointed out, is that factors may be a solution if we were to change legislation or may require tweaks, but there are risks there as well in terms of people who do not have factors or people who lose factors. Again, that could create gaps. In terms of looking at legislative solutions, if that is what is required and it may not be the case, we have to be very careful in terms of catching all, but at the same time not setting up a solution that may have real unintended consequences, which have other problems that we have to deal with in the future. We will look at all of that. I understand the frustration that is coming across the minister's response that the different interactions of two different Governments, one of whom seems to wish to stand back from this, and the issues of lending, of insurers, and the different elements that come together in relation to that. I understand how problematic that is, but I suppose that the bottom line is that, for the minister, does he believe that legislation is going to be essential? To the extent that he does not, and I hear some of his reservations, what does he think the solution might be? Is it a solution that can be reached, which does not involve an unwilling participant like the UK Government? Is there a potential solution through that, or is it going to have to require their active assistance and input? I mentioned in an earlier answer the fact that the UK minister Lord Greenhey held a round table where no-one from the devolved Governments were present. The only reason that I know that he had a meeting with lenders was through a parliamentary answer that was given, and through discussions with my officials and UK Government officials, rather than any direct communication. In order to look at all that in the round, which will allow me to balance what we need to do, would be, first of all, to get an idea of what can be done in terms of those insurance and lending issues that are reserved. A good first step in all of that would be a four nation approach and discussions about the nature of the problems that we are all facing, the issues that we need to resolve and what shared action can we take to resolve that. Again, I reiterate that insurance and lending are both UK-wide issues. They are reserved, but we have a shared interest in terms of safety and protecting people's lives, their homes, their investments. At the very least, let's all sit down together to see what the shared interests are and what can we do to resolve some of those difficulties. My final point is that, having listened to that stuff for many months, having heard the minister say that, for example, the ESW1 form was brought in without any consultation, thereby not allowing for people with expertise to do the inspections that are required. Ministers in the UK Government have meetings to which they exclude the devolved administrations. Are we a bit sceptical that we might end up in six months' time exactly the same place, saying that there is a UK and all of this? Setting that to one side, if it was to be a legislative process, does the minister have any idea how long that might take? That is how long is a piece of string, convener. First of all, we would have to consult about any legislative proposals if that was what was required. It may well be that, during that process, we find other unintended consequences. For me, the best way to do all of that is to combine efforts to find a solution before jumping to legislation. I am quite sure that ministers across the islands want to find a solution to that. Let us work together with what we can do to co-operate to find a process that might not be a universal process, because it might have to take account of different legislation in different parts of the UK. I have talked about a universal process for Scotland. It might not be a universal process for the whole of the UK, but let us see if we can find a process that works for all in order to bring that forward. It is in all of our interests to help the folks out there, whether they be in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland or Wales, who are finding difficulties at this moment in terms of selling on their properties. That should be a priority for all to find those solutions for people, or we may find, as we move on, other impacts on the housing market and the buying and selling of homes. Jeremy Balfour Good morning, and it is nice to be back. Good morning to you, minister. I would like to talk about buildings that have been built and are now trying to be sold. My understanding from a number of different conversations is that there are buildings that are still being built today that could fall into the trap around the issues that we have been talking about. What is the Government doing in regard to regulations, particularly building standards, to stop buildings that have not yet been completed, perhaps falling into the trap in the future? Convenant. I will bring in Mr Garvin for some of the technical aspects on this, and then I will come back and answer some aspects of Mr Balfour's question. On the technicalities around the act and the regulation changes, let us hear from Mr Garvin first. Members probably remember that we brought in new requirements last year around the fire performance cladding, so that any building above 11 metres should be either non-combustible cladding, although alternatively it could be approved, should be S8414 route. That was a significant step in reducing the trigger height from 18 metres down to 11 metres. As the minister said at the introduction to the committee, we will set up a further review panel and look at the issue of some of the most high-risk materials, particularly metal composite materials, and how we can ensure that they are not used in the cladding of buildings. As part of that, we will also look at the role of BS8414. It has recently been updated and the latest version of that is published by the British Standards Institute. We will look at that. Those changes should be improvements to the previous standard, but we will look at that in light of a lot of evidence that has come around, particularly test evidence in this area. Thank you, convener. I thought that maybe Mr Garvin was going to talk a little bit more about the act, but what we have here in Scotland is the ability with the act that was put in place to change regulation on a regular basis, which has not happened to the border. What we will continue to do is to review everything as we move forward, in particular in light of evidence that comes to us. I said earlier that Mr Garvin has just reiterated that. I put an independent review panel back in place to look at all metal composite materials. On changes that we bring forward, I will sign the statutory instrument to bring our sprinkler systems into play in many other homes, including all new-build social housing, from next year, which is part of the proposal that David Stewart put forward. We continue to adapt. What I would be interested in, Mr Balfour has said that his understanding is that some buildings that are being built now may fall into a trap. What I would be interested in is not here, because I think that it would be inappropriate to do so, but to hear from Jeremy exactly where he has that information from and what that information is, so that we can look at that and respond to him accordingly. Like Mr Balfour and everyone else, I do not want anybody falling into any traps, as he put it. I will come back to you with that. If I can just put you on your feet with a wee bit, are you confident that any flat building that is being built today is not being built with materials that could be seen as claddon? Have you got that confidence? What I would say, convener, is that it should be complying with building regulations. Building regulations, of course, are not retrospective, but buildings that are being built at this moment should be complying with building regulations. One of the things that I would say to Mr Balfour and to the committee is that homes for Scotland are on the working group. My understanding is that, at the last session, Nicola Barclay, who is the head of homes for Scotland, has said that builders are cognisant of all that is going on and are adapting accordingly. However, I reiterate this again and again. Every single building that is being built in Scotland at this moment should comply with building regulations when that building was signed off. Again, that is not retrospective. I can also assure the committee that I and my officials will continue to look at the evidence and take the necessary steps to scrutinise what is going on out there. We will use independent expertise and we will adapt and change our building regulations accordingly. Time is against me, but maybe one quick question, convener, just before I have to go, my time comes to an end. That is around this 18-11-metre issue. I have been contacted by at least two or three constituents here in Lovian who are having problems selling the property. They are below that 11-metre issue. I appreciate that that is an issue for the lenders and for insurers, but in any review that you are carrying out and any working review that you are carrying out, is it your remit to look at all properties or are you simply looking at properties over 11 or 18 metres? There is a danger that we get a resolution for taller buildings, but we fall back into the judgment both at 11 or 11 metres and are unable to sell. I am concerned about all buildings, no matter how high or low they may be. Like Mr Balfour, I have had situations in my constituency whereby folks who are in buildings below 18 metres have been told that they require the EWS1 form. In one of the cases, that matter has been resolved. I think that we should look at what EWS1 said to begin with, which was over 18 metres. That was what was put in play, but the lenders themselves are up to them how they deal with all that. Again, this is the difficulty where individual lenders are taking individual decisions around that. That is why I would say that a universal agreement to round about the process is required. Mr Balfour can be assured that that will form part of the discussions in the working group, because what is required is the clarity about when that form is used. I suppose that, tangentially from what Jeremy Balfour was talking about, he received a letter from the local authorities' building standards. What role do you think that the building standards officer has to play in preventing houses with the wrong cladding that is getting built? Are you satisfied that that is happening? Obviously, building standards has a part to play in terms of verification of all, committed previously, that we will continue to review the role of building standards in Scotland. We are looking closely at what is coming forward, size of the border, in terms of its new bill, and some of which will have an impact on what we do here. I am more than willing to keep the committee up to speed about that. We will continue to look at what comes out of the Grenfell inquiry. We have moved very swiftly here in Scotland to change the way that we do things and to change regulations in light of the Grenfell tragedy. We will continue to look at evidence that is in and to take appropriate action. I recognise that the committee received a fairly comprehensive letter from labs. I was helpful in garnering that response, because I wrote to labs because they had not responded to the committee. If there are any aspects of that highly detailed response that the committee has, I am more than willing to answer in writing, individually, at any point that the committee may have. I appreciate that, minister. I am now going to ask Liam Simpson if he has any questions. I have got a few, convener. How long have I got? You have got about 30 things. A couple of minutes, you have got a few. Maybe say four minutes, five minutes. Right, thanks very much. I appreciate that. I hear what the minister is saying about the need for a full-nation approach. I can see why that would be useful in that we have movement between countries, so there is a housing market that operates across the UK. Of course, we have a separate Scottish housing system, so I think that there are fixes that could be done here. In terms of the remedial fund set up by the UK Government, I was not really clear what the minister was saying there. Is he asking for that to be extended to Scotland, or was he saying that he is looking to set up a separate fund here? What I said, and I do not think that I could have been much plainer to be honest with you, is that I am sympathetic to those who have called for the Scottish Government to set up a fund, and I am open to that. However, as I quite clearly stated, my expectation would be that those who have a responsibility should put their hands in their pooches, their pockets first, as Taylor Wimpey has done with Glasgow Harbour. I would say that Glasgow Harbour, as I pointed out previously, is the only domestic properties in Scotland that were extensively clad with ACNPE. Others buildings have some, 23 domestic buildings have some ACNPE. My expectation would be that the developers of those buildings again follow the line of Taylor Wimpey and sort that out. Beyond that, we will look at the best use of taxpayers' money, because we want to target money to effectively help people where that is required. However, one of the things that we need to do is to find out the circumstances in some of those cases anyway. One of the issues that the committee has picked up on is that when we look at buildings, we do not know whether they have been built in accordance with building regulations. No, so this is an historic issue, you are well aware of it. Would it not be better to do a comprehensive inventory of all buildings in Scotland so that we know exactly what is on the buildings? Is there not a role for councils to do that work and we can involve labs in that? At the moment, we just do not know what is on every building. Convener, we have done a comprehensive high-rise inventory for the first time ever. That has not been easy to do in any way, shape or form. In doing that inventory, we found another two buildings that had partial ACMPE. That work in itself has led to the discovery of another couple of buildings that have that on it. Of course, the inventory itself is to be updated annually about change. I do not know what Mr Simpson is driving at in terms of a more comprehensive inventory. I am more than willing to hear suggestions in that front or for Mr Simpson or other members to get a briefing around the work that we have done with the co-operation of the local authorities. Rather than questioning you further, it would be useful to hear how that inventory was done, whether it was a paper-based exercise or involved people going out and having a look. A final question, convener, if that is okay. We have a ban on possible materials being used in buildings in cladding in England and Wales, and now it seems to be coming in in Northern Ireland. I have asked you about this before, minister. Scotland is an outlier on this. You did hint earlier that you might be prepared to reconsider that. Is there a timescale for that work? Convener, I never hint. I am not prone to hinting, I have to say. What we have done, and I should correct Mr Simpson, because what has happened south of the border, is that folks are not allowed to use combustible material on buildings over 18 metres, and they have moved to A1, A2. What our independent fire review pill came back with was not a full-scale ban on buildings over 18 metres, but a situation whereby, if there was a BS8414 full-scale fire test to test all of the system, that could proceed. I think that BS8414, which is being improved, that full-scale test is extremely important. In terms of the hint, which is not a hint, what has come to my attention is more advice, expert advice, on other metal composite materials. Not ACM, but other metal composite materials. Because I have caught sight of some of that, I have asked the fire safety review group to come in to play again to look at all aspects of that. One of the things that I have heard, and it is worrying, is that the use of some materials, which may be okay, but some of them are prone to discoloration quite quickly. If they are repainted, for example, that can cause real difficulties. In light of some of that, I have heard and some of the other evidence that I have seen, I have asked for the reconvening of that to look at all of that carefully. Again, I think that we need to look at that as the whole system approach. We can see from the Grenfell inquiry that, while a huge amount of the emphasis was on the panelling, other big mistakes were made there, which caused real difficulty. We need to look at all of that in the round. That is why I think that full-scale fire tests BS8414 are more important than many of the other aspects of looking at individual things. That is not to say that we will not look at individual aspects of that. The committee recognises, as I am sure, that as we have progressed here, we have moved further and faster than most things, taking independent advice as we move forward and being very, very careful in all that we do, because I want people to be as safe as they possibly can be in their homes. Thank you for that. It was nice to see the minister double-act back again. We have been talking about the EWS forum pretty much the whole meeting, but it has come across from you, minister, that the crux of the matter is that the decisions are made by companies that can profit from it. Is there any suggestion at all that some people might benefit from the EWS process at the expense of their householders? I have no evidence of that, convener. I am more than willing to have any evidence that anybody has, or even any evidence of that. That is something that we can explore as we move forward, but I do not have any evidence of that. That concludes the question and concludes the evidence session. I thank the minister and his official for taking part in this meeting. I will now suspend briefly, and briefly means two minutes, to allow a witness change over broadcasting of stop recording at this point. Okay. Thank you very much. Agenda item 4 is consideration of the draft rent-a-rears-pre-action requirements coronavirus Scotland regulations 2020. The committee will first take evidence of the instrument and I welcome, again, Kevin Stewart, minister for local government, housing and planning, along with Ivette Shepherd, team leader, better home Scottish Government, and James Hamilton, solicitor, housing and local government, Scottish Government. This instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener, and thanks once again for allowing me to do this today as part of your consideration of our draft regulations to bring in pre-action protocols that will apply in rent-a-rears cases in the private rented sector. The last few months have been challenging with the coronavirus outbreak, having significant implications for everyone, including for the many people who have been rented accommodation. In responding to the outbreak, we have been clear that taking eviction action against a tenant because they have suffered financial hardship due to coronavirus should always be a last resort. Instead, we want landlords to be flexible with their tenants, signposting them to the range of financial support that is available to help to prevent rent arrears and working with their tenants to manage any arrears that do occur. We introduced legislation to protect renters from eviction, and we have made most grins for evictions discretionary to ensure that the tribunal considers the reasonableness of granting an eviction order at this time. We have now confirmed our intention to lay regulations that will, subject to their being approved by the Parliament, extend those protections to the end of March 2021. We also want to further strengthen protection for tenants who find themselves in rent arrears at this time by making sure that the landlords work with them to manage those arrears before taking steps to seek eviction. For that reason, we have introduced legislation that allows for pre-action requirements to be brought in that will apply to private landlords seeking to evict a tenant for rent arrears. Compliance with those pre-actions will form part of the discretionary consideration of the tribunal in such cases. The regulations that the committee is considering today set out those pre-action requirements, giving clear direction to landlords in the steps that they must take in advance of seeking an eviction order for rent arrears. They have been drafted with input from stakeholders and are established to inform us as we move forward. The introduction of the requirements is welcomed across all sectors, with agreement that they will play a role in sustaining tenants at this time, which is beneficial for tenants and landlords. I welcome that we have the regulation in front of us today. I would like a couple of questions about clarity. We have a briefing from Shelter. The minister has seen it. However, he has asked about information that would be available to tenants in advance of a rent-tier tribunal, which sounds like a reasonable request. It is about being able to test the reasonableness of a decision by a landlord. Given that that is in front of us today and we cannot amend it, is there a way that the minister could communicate that reasonable request to landlords through the Scottish Association or to rent-tier tribunals, so that we get maximum support for tenants and they can see clarity if they have to go to a rent-tier tribunal? I have not seen the briefing from Shelter. I assure the committee that I will have a look at it and consider what is in that briefing. I would be dishonest of me not to say that in terms of dealing with a tribunal, I would be unable to direct. I am always a bit swayered of anything that may look like instruction, which I cannot do to a tribunal, but I would say to the committee that I will look at what Shelter has put forward and I will consider what is being said there. I will write back to the committee with a decision and the reason for my decision and all that. What I would also say to the committee in general is that I have tried my best to let tenants know exactly what their rights are. I have written to every private rented sector tenant in Scotland about rights and signed to posting them to help. I want to do as much as I can to ensure that tenants know their rights as we move forward. Andy Wightman I welcome that response from the minister. I think that a key thing would be monitoring the implementation and the effectiveness of pre-action requests. If you could commit to that, that would be much appreciated. Andy Wightman I will commit to monitoring all that as we move forward. I think that it is absolutely essential that we gather up as much data as possible as we move forward to see what the impacts on people's lives are. Andy, I believe that you have a number of questions. It would be good if you could put a couple of them together, if it is possible, to ask the minister. Andy Wightman I will do my best, convener. At stage 2 of the coronavirus 2 bill in the committee minister, you said that, to ensure that the regulations will be effective and workable, we will work with stakeholders, including Mr Wightman, and representatives of landlords and tenants to develop them. In the policy note that the Government has consulted with a range of stakeholders, have you consulted with private tenants? Andy Wightman We have consulted with the private rented sector resilience group, which was established to inform the Government during the course of the pandemic. As I have said to Mr Wightman before, in answer in the chamber, if I remember rightly, I may be wrong, it might have been a committee. We have folks who are private rented sector tenants. Andy Wightman You talked in response to a question from Sarah Boyack about the importance of monitoring. Shelter has been monitoring evictions in the social sector for some years. In their 2016 report into evictions by social landlords, they found that, despite the policy intention and broad buying across the sector, three action requirements have not had a sustained long-term impact in reducing evictions. What makes you think that introducing them in the private sector will make any difference? Andy Wightman As you can well imagine, I do not have the Shelter report from 2016 in front of me at present. What I would say is that, across the public sector, pre-action protocols are seen by many as the right way of moving forward and communicating with tenants and have stopped a large amount of evictions, which I think is extremely important. I am back and look at the 2016 Shelter report, but I would say that that is four years old now. From the anecdotes and discussions that I have, pre-action protocols, including constituency cases, seem to work in many cases. I will look at 2016, and I will have further discussion with Mr Wightman if he wants offline, but that is a report that is four years old. Andy Wightman I will wrap my final question into one. First of all, you also said at stage 2 that you would consider making those permanent in the private sector. I am just wondering if you are thinking as a club from that. Secondly, in the social sector, the instrument says that, in complying with the pre-action requirements, the landlord must have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish ministers. That is on the social side. There is no requirement for any statutory guidance in the private sector, in the ones before us today. Was there a reason for that? I do not think that there was any reason for that. What I would say to Mr Wightman is that, at stage 2, I said to him that we would be looking to make those permanent. I have officials working on that. We will also take a license of what he has just said about guidance, if we decide to make those permanent. We will look at that as well. However, at stage 2, I said that we would like to make those permanent. I have officials working on that. Thank you, convener. The final question is from Jeremy Balfour. Thank you, convener. This is a slight tangent to what we are talking about, but it is the consequences of what we have introduced. I have had a number of constituents who were hoping to carry out work to their property, who had the appropriate warrant in place. However, because of the ability not to evict the tenant, they have not been able to carry out the work and are going to have to reapply for all the work. Would the minister have a look at that? If he is going to continue on with the non-eviction for a number of months, there are going to be a number of people who are planning to do work to their property, but are now not able to do that. Would you look at that with those officers to see that anything can be done? Convener, if any member wants to send me any case work that they have to try and look at to resolve situations, I will. However, we have put all of that in for the protection of people. I am quite sure that solutions can be found in terms of looking at building warrants or other things, but in order for me to look at some of those things, which may be anomalies, I have to see them first. It is not anything that has crossed my desk thus far, and there has been a lot of communication on that front, it has to be said. That is an interesting point that Jeremy Rees has raised, but thank you very much for that, minister. The question is, therefore, that motion S5M-22417, in the name of the minister for local government housing and planning, be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. That is agreed. The committee will report on this instrument in due course, and I invite the committee to delegate authority to me as convener to approve a draft of the report for publication. That concludes the public part of this meeting, and we will resume the meeting in private on Microsoft Teams. I propose that we take a five-minute comfort break. Please accept the CLARTS meeting request for the private discussion, which will be sent shortly. I can exit the meeting by clicking on the red telephone icon. Thank you for the participation so far.