³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We are at the discovery phase. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, we are working with the regulator and councils to establish the scale of the issue in social housing. That will also ensure that we have a greater awareness of what might affect certain schemes in which people have exercised their right to buy in previous years. We are already conscious of the issue. I have asked officials to look at it, and to ensure that we discuss it with the local authorities.

We are also conscious that, as we sit here and talk about these things in the round, we are talking about people’s homes and concerns. We are keen to be able to reassure, wherever possible. One of the most important ways of doing that is for councils and registered social landlords to work, as they are doing, to ensure that we have a greater awareness of the extent of the problem.

As I have said, I have already tasked officials to work with COSLA and others to see what we can learn from previous examples in which there has been a right to buy in areas of non-traditional construction methods.

We have a degree of reassurance on some of those issues. Stephen Garvin is involved with a group on which that issue has already been raised. At the start of the process, the Government had questions on capacity and capability—Stephen can give more detail on the reassurances that we have already attempted to receive.

One of the key aspects is the level of expertise and knowledge that already exists in our 32 local authorities, which is very important. We should compare that with the rather disparate nature of the situation down in England, particularly in education, where schools do not have the ability to access local authority knowledge because of the different way in which the system is set up.

We are very close to the fact that we need to keep an eye on the issue. Whether there is a role for Government or whether it is a role for someone else, we are already asking questions about that.

I will bring in Stephen Garvin, as he is on the group that has discussed that issue.

Forgive me for interrupting, but the issue of transparency is important. We have been very keen to work with local authorities to ensure that the information relating to the school estate was published and that information was given to parents about the extent of the issue in a particular building and the mitigations and other measures in place. Clearly, the naming of a building could give rise to great concern that the problem is throughout the building when, in fact, it affects only a very small part of it. In some cases, it turned out that the issue affected a part of the school estate that had not been used for years. The local authorities have that information, which will be published, and they will continue to update it.

In the NHS, each health board will publish that data for its area, and NHS Scotland Assure will publish an update for the whole of Scotland. That will ensure that that information is brought together at strategic level for the whole of Scotland. I am very keen to do that, but in such a way that the responsible building owner provides information to, for example, parents and staff and trade unions about where that is a concern within a building, so that context and reassurance can be given rather than just a list of names.

A really significant part of the evidence that the committee heard earlier this morning was about how knowledge about and expertise on the situation with RAAC has developed over time. Research is, of course, a very important aspect as we learn more about RAAC. It is already being discussed at the UK-wide level and Scottish Government officials are involved in those discussions. The Scottish Government is not looking at the issue alone.

With the possible exception of the Department for Education down south, we are trying to work collaboratively and jointly to discuss research, the capacity in professional organisations and so on. I recognise that the previous panel discussed that and I reassure the committee that it is being discussed across Governments, including the devolved Administrations, to see what more needs to be done in that area.

That is perhaps something that the first panel could have assisted with, but I will give an overview.

There might be a number of issues. You heard from Scottish Fire and Rescue Service colleagues earlier that some of the work can be done in the building, which can still be used. A variety of things can be done. The work might be to deal with water ingress that is having an impact.

I will ask Stephen Booth to assist in answering that question, and perhaps refer you back to the professional bodies that were on the first panel.

You touch on a very important point. I urge colleagues right across the Parliament to be very careful about the terms that they use when talking about RAAC. Members have used terms that would suggest that there is an imminent risk of collapse or that there has been a collapse or structural failure that suggests that we should have closed buildings earlier. We need to be cautious in our use of language in this area.

We are taking the issue very seriously and have been doing so for some time. I hope that the committee is reassured about that. We are happy to provide further evidence of how that work has been taken forward, not just by the Government but by others. However, some of the public discourse has been unhelpful and may cause concern.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that the Government is being held to account and that we are doing what we need to do—and the same is true for local authorities. However, it is not the case that, if people are in a building that has been identified as containing RAAC, they are in an unsafe building, and we must reassure them that the building owner is monitoring the building to continually check that it remains safe. If anything changes and the Institution of Structural Engineers guidance required mitigation to take place or a full building closure, that would happen. Indeed, it has already happened in some areas. It has not come as a surprise. In some parts of the school estate, work had already been undertaken before the summer and areas of the schools were closed.

That aspect of reassurance about the situation is very important, as is the reassurance that we will continue to stay in close contact with the Institution of Structural Engineers, the HSE and other Governments to ensure that, if anything in our approach needs to change or if there is anything that we think should change in the wider public sector’s approach, we will be saying that publicly.

We listened carefully to the previous session, so I will bring in Stephen Garvin, who can go through some areas of work that have already been looked at and say where the discussions are at this point.

We have tried to do what we can in the system while case transfer is on-going, and I have given examples of what we intend to do once case transfer is complete. There are priorities that relate to additional payments for caring for more than one person, for example. A number of calls have been made to the Government for carer support payment changes, and we have to look at those as we look at all aspects. We cannot make all those changes at once, we certainly cannot make them before case transfer, and the significant ones come with a significant cost attached. When the Government and the Parliament look at any changes, we have to look at how they can be funded.

I totally recognise that it is a priority for us to look at that and that there are calls for that, and I know that people are aware that such changes would not come without a significant cost. It is not a matter of their being a low priority; we simply need to do what we can in the short term and fulfil the priorities that we have laid out for after case transfer. We will then have to keep up a discussion about the other aspects—that issue is only one of them—that people would like us to bring in in addition to what the Government has already proposed.

Yes.

As with all devolved benefits, a great deal of work has gone into working with carers to ensure that we provide the information that they require and that we get the application form right. As the committee will be aware, all the benefits can be applied for online, by telephone or by using paper forms. An important difference in Scotland is that people can also receive assistance from the local delivery service, which will assist people in their homes or in a community setting if they require additional help. The local delivery service is very important because it is embedded in local communities and will have connections to local carers groups and to those who provide advice in the community. The service can be a bridge to a young carers group, or any carers group, that allows people to come in and help directly.

There is a recognition that some communities do not necessarily recognise themselves as carers and perhaps do not have the same expectation that the state is there to support them. We are keen to work with different organisations to ensure that our information is provided in different languages, that we have easy-read formats and that, particularly through local delivery, we make that connection. It is fine to have everything available in local community languages, but it is about what we do with that and how we make sure that the information is there for people to read and that they are supported. That is the benefit of local delivery. It is not just about having the information available; it is about having links with the local community to encourage people.

I hope that that reassures the member about what we are trying to do on that aspect.