Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a number of points to make. Before I became a minister, I remember meeting Solar Energy Scotland and speaking in a debate about the work that it was doing. There have been changes in technology in relation to payback times, for example—I think that there was a members’ business debate on that.

Solar thermal heating will be an important part of the energy strategy that the Government will produce. It will be a useful addition for some home owners, but it will depend on their location and their needs. Heat pump systems generally make a better solution across Scotland, and there will be investment in that way. There might be opportunities for householders to look at solar thermal heating, and Home Energy Scotland interest-free loans can help home owners at that point. Constituents in my area have taken that approach over a number of months and years. Dunbar is meant to be the sunniest place in Scotland, so we often push and promote that. We have all seen the increase in the use of solar panels and solar heating, and Home Energy Scotland interest-free loans provide opportunities to develop that.

A key point relates to the information that is available to householders and home owners. That is really important as we go forward with the LHEES. It comes back to the point that I made about Wester Hailes—it is important that the consultation and discussions with home owners result in the best approach for them. Solar will certainly have a part to play as we go forward.

Again, that is why what the LHEES looks like is really important. You are right that there will be a mix of tenures, as there was in Wester Hailes, for example, for the area-based schemes. The approaches will obviously be slightly different. In Wester Hailes, for example, if there was a private tenant, there were different ways to provide the funding, so there are different ways to look at the issue. The overall funding package is an important part. In Wester Hailes, the area-based schemes allowed people to plan things out.

Having spoken to the City of Edinburgh Council teams at the time, I think that the consultation at the outset and the discussions that took place were key. I had a chance to speak to private tenants and social or local authority tenants about how that was done. That approach worked, and it was very much done in consultation with tenants, whether they were private tenants or council tenants. We need to consider that approach, which worked, as we go forward. The process will need to work in different parts of Edinburgh and in different parts of Scotland. The area-based schemes and the work in Wester Hailes show that that approach works.

I do not know the full extent of that. Cladding and RAAC are slightly different issues, but I am happy to come back to you on the point about legislation.

I should say, though, that this does come down to funding; we will continue to press the UK Government on that, but so far we have not received any positive reply. We will also continue to engage with home owners and see how best we can support them.

We are obviously sympathetic to home owners and their situation. We are getting feedback from Aberdeen City Council and other local authorities on the feedback that they are getting. When I go up there to visit residents, I will probably hear that. We continue to push the UK Government for funding, but it has so far refused. The latest response from the UK Government makes it clear that it does not intend to provide any funding and that the issue is devolved.

There are a number of points to make. I know that the UK Government approach was very much based on hospitals and education buildings, but there was not an extensive look at the RAAC issue in the UK. We continue to push for that. As you know, the budget is set against continued and unprecedented pressures on the public finances, which is one of the issues. We will continue to push the UK Government on that point, and any support that we can get from the committee or from Mr Griffin’s Labour Party colleagues would be extremely helpful.

We have talked about IStructE, which does not define RAAC as a defective material, and it is still widely used. Again, it depends very much on whether we are talking about a repair, demolition and so on. We will continue to look at the issue, but we will need support from the UK Government for any such remediation programme going forward. We will continue to push the matter; the previous UK Government said that it would fund necessary improvements, but obviously there has been a change of Government. The current Government has not, so far, refused to provide funding to help us in that regard, but we will continue to look at the issue as we move forward.

That was one of the key things from Grenfell, and there have been close governmental discussions on that and on cladding.

I will bring in Stephen Garvin on that broader point and then Alan Johnston in relation to the discussions, because it is being discussed on a UK-wide basis.

The first issue comes back to the cladding assurance register, what happens once a building has been remediated and what we do going ahead. I will bring Alan Johnston in on that particular point. The second point is incredibly important, and it was one of the main issues—if not the main issue—that came through in the Grenfell inquiry. That is a reserved matter, and the UK Government has a green paper out on construction product regulation, but we are working very closely with it on that particular point.

I will bring in Alan Johnston on the cladding assurance register, which was set up and designed to pick up on the particular issue that you were talking about. I will bring in Stephen Garvin on the second point, which came out of the Grenfell inquiry and is really important.

I will bring Alan Johnston in, because he has been involved in the discussions. It is safe to say that those discussions have been very good and there are now minor things that we need to tie up. As discussed during previous committee sessions, the process, as with the SBA, has been about engaging with developers to ensure that their concerns were picked up uniformly. I have met developers individually and collectively as we developed the developer remediation contract and we are very close to getting it signed. Although there is some commercial confidentiality in the process, it is important to say that discussions have been collaborative and I thank the sector for its efforts so far.

I will bring in Stephen Garvin on that point, because there is broader building safety work that is being done around capacity.

I am happy to come back to the committee and Ms Gallacher on that point as it develops. We are working very closely with the UK Government on the actions following Grenfell, so there will be on-going discussions on that.

One issue is that each local authority is slightly different in terms of where the RAAC is in their areas. The situation is different in West Lothian, Clacks and Aberdeen. Our approach is based on what the local authorities’ approach would be, which has given them flexibility in their local approaches. Working collaboratively with local authorities is the key thing in that regard.

If members have specific concerns, I am happy to pick those up with local authorities. As I said, I have engaged with all local authorities that have issues with RAAC. If the committee or individual members have any specific concerns, I am happy to pick those up and take them forward. We expect the local authorities to take that approach.

I have engaged with local authorities and I think that they have been engaging with tenants and home owners on that point. If there are any specific issues and if members think that local authorities should be doing more or there is feedback from residents on that, I am happy to pick those issues up with Mr Griffin or with other committee members.

I do not know whether colleagues have anything to add on that. We continue to engage with all local authorities, and officials do so on a regular basis. Stephen Garvin might want to talk about that.