Seòmar agus comataidhean

I stress that, as I mentioned in my original remarks, it was the Department for Education and not the UK Government as a whole that signalled a change. We have not received any evidence that would suggest that we should do anything differently from what we are doing and have been doing for some time, which is to look at the Institution of Structural Engineers guidance. We have not seen compelling evidence that justifies the Department for Education in England’s departure from that IStructE guidance. We have asked for all the information that is available to ensure that everyone is sharing that information and that we have full knowledge. However, as I think you heard this morning, IStructE has confirmed that its guidance remains good practice in the area and that it uses the risk-based approach to managing RAAC.

I again point to the fact that there is a very different management model for schools in England, where more than 3,000 bodies are responsible for the school estate. In Scotland, the 32 local authorities occupy that role, each of which has a professional estate management team. That is one of the many reasons why we do not feel that it is necessary or, indeed, would be wise to follow where the Department for Education has gone. The change relates to that one department in the UK Government; it is not UK Government-wide.

The responsibility for decisions about the decanting of services or the closing of buildings would lie with the local authority or the responsible building owner, and not with the Scottish Government. In the case of local authorities and schools, decisions would be taken on a school-by-school basis. Your previous panel went through some details of the discovery work and the more intrusive surveys that can go on within a building, which may lead to the building owner taking a decision either to put mitigation measures in place or to decant and close part or all of a building. That really is a matter for the building owner—quite rightly, as they have the information about the survey.

I can give examples from the school estate—there are others elsewhere—of where RAAC may affect an exceptionally small part of a building and full closure is therefore not required, or where the matter can be dealt with through mitigation measures and no part of the building needs to be closed. However, that will be an issue for the building owner.

That is certainly a very important aspect that the building owner would need to be cognisant of. Witnesses on your first panel gave some examples to do with schools, although not just about the school estate, and best value was mentioned. There can be an advantage to replacing a whole building rather than just the roof, because we can look to improve environmental standards. Best value is an important aspect of that, but I stress that the decision would be for the responsible building owner to make, having looked at how much the mitigation measures would cost and what the capital costs would be if they were to go through major building improvements rather than a completely new build. Such decisions will be for responsible building owners to make on a case-by-case basis.

All Governments should be working on the concept of best value. We have to work very closely with our local government colleagues. I give them as an example because, to date, most of the discussions have been about schools and local government analyses of whether building work or completely new buildings will represent best value.

To be frank, convener, I would settle, as a first step, for the UK Government recognising that there is a need for all the Governments across the UK to work on that—and that there is a requirement for additional capital funding for departments and the devolved Administrations—so that, once the discovery work is at a more substantive point, we can get into discussions about what that will actually look like.

One aspect of that was, I hope, answered by Stephen Garvin when we talked about the register. I or Stephen can perhaps help if Mr Briggs would like further information on that.

However, there is another aspect, which is about ensuring that things work closely together. Although the building standards system is devolved, construction products are a reserved matter. To have good building standards, we also need to have good construction products and a good system of reassurance around them. We are keen to work with others, including professional organisations, to see whether they have any concerns about how building standards and construction methods work together. We want to ensure that the devolved bits and the reserved bits work together as effectively as possible. If there is anything that we can do in a devolved setting, or if there are any concerns about aspects that are reserved, we want to work with the UK Government to design a solution that will deal with any concerns that professional organisations have about construction products or non-traditional methods.

We are working very carefully with COSLA. Ms Gilruth and I have met COSLA a number of times, particularly to discuss the school estate. We are widening those discussions at the ministerial level to the wider estate and, of course, officials have been having those discussions on the wider estate, too. We are keen to learn the lessons about what worked well in the publication on the school estate, and we are working with local authorities to see what could be done, not just for housing but for their other buildings as well. The knowledge is out there with that context, and the councils are working with the individuals who may be impacted.

That work will vary from council to council and from situation to situation. For example, in Clackmannanshire, there was a specific issue in a small number of flats, and that was dealt with by the council, which worked with the individuals involved. We are keen to learn from good practice about what has worked and what we need to improve on. Being able to reassure people is vital to the Scottish Government and, indeed, to everybody who is involved; we want to ensure that we are being as transparent as possible about the information that we have.

Clearly, all councils will be affected by RAAC, given that it was used throughout Scotland. The situation will vary from council to council, and it will vary in its severity, depending on the state of the RAAC at this point. I strongly encourage the committee to take particular cognisance of some of the very early evidence that was given about the fact that RAAC being in a building does not mean that it is unsafe or that there is immediate concern. I go back to the point about reassurance. We are keen to work with local authorities to understand the extent of the issue.

The issue affects not just local authorities but the wider public sector. The challenge will be how responsible building owners fund that work. That is why the liaison with the UK Government is so important, because it will not be a small issue. Just as local authorities are not sitting with a pot of money and looking to change priorities, the Scottish Government is also not sitting with a capital allocation that is simply for RAAC. If there is an ask of the Scottish Government, without anything coming from the UK Government, the Scottish Government would have to look at that, too.

That depends on the building. A structural engineer and other professionals would go in and assess that case by case.

You raise an important point. There are the aspects around new build, which I think is where Mr Coffey was going with some of his questioning initially. However, when the initial buyer sells, the home report will be there. If there are lessons to be learned about how the home report process needs to be improved or adapted, it can be looked at, because none of it is set in stone. There is information in the home report, but those aspects can always be built on, should we feel the need for that.

No. There has been a disappointing response on that so far. We have sent letters to the UK Government on the specific issue, asking that that be looked at and that additional funding be made available to the devolved Governments, as it should be made available to departments in the UK Government as they seek to deal with the issue. It is fair to say that the letters that we have had back on that have been disappointing. There is no sign that the UK Government has recognised that there is a need for mitigation funding for RAAC for the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government. That is clearly a concern, and we will look at that.

As I think someone mentioned earlier, local authorities are not sitting with an unallocated pot of money to deal with the mitigation of RAAC, nor is the Scottish Government. Our capital funding is allocated and it is under pressure, given the great increases in construction costs that we have seen over recent years. I will not go into the reasons for that, but it is a fact about the context that we are in. At this point, it is clearly concerning if there is an expectation that the Scottish Government should assist all public sector bodies with the situation without UK Government support coming in to assist with that process.