Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to be here and to give evidence. Thank you for the invitation. We also submitted evidence in advance, which I hope members have had a chance to look at, as well as the evidence that we submitted on 22 September, which it builds on.
It is hard to touch on all those things in one answer, to be honest. It is a very complex situation and many players are involved. From our perspective, one of the biggest factors is that, over the past 20 years or so, the traditional role and structure of the design team has been eroded. Design and build contracts have become very prevalent in large-scale public sector work, and especially in developer-led housing schemes, for example. The consultant’s role has become very limited during the site works. The contractual obligations are to the contractors as their employers, and the architect may, for example, not be aware of changes during construction. To simplify, they are not in a position competently to issue certificates such as the EWS1 form.
A lot of factors are at play in the industry as a whole and in how the traditional role of the design team has evolved—one could say—or been eroded. The reason behind that change, and the elephant in the room, is cost. There has been a narrowing down of expenditure at that stage in construction. As a consequence, the position is that no one can issue the certification that is required, which is what we are talking about today in relation to zero-value homes and mortgaging. Ultimately, it is the consumer who suffers. Cost is the main factor.
In the paper that we submitted on 6 November, we proposed two solutions, because there are two ways of looking at it: what we can put in place to mitigate the issue when it comes to new-build properties, and the problem of the existing building stock and how form EWS1 is applied to that.
You ask a loaded question when it comes to where blame may lie, or how we get to the nub of the issue. It is very tricky.
On new build, the solution is essentially threefold. We can improve site inspections by the professional design teams—almost going back down the traditional roles route. The key elements can be checked, through compliance with the building regulations as work progresses. An onerous inspection scheme can also be put in place from the outset. That is one thing relating to the EWS1 forms that can be an issue. They appear once the building is complete and they are a retrospective application of compliance. I think that that is where the feeling that those forms are onerous lies. The certifier is being asked to certify something that they may not have had a robust process of inspection for or involvement in during the works. It is therefore asking a huge amount of them to sign that form.
The cost links back to industry and what is happening in the insurance market. The problem is that architects are not insured to sign the forms, and it is almost impossible to gain insurance to do so. That is a market failure—not an architect failure. The cost element comes back in relation to certification and inspection.
09:30
The issue is all about the involvement of the design team on site. Expectations must be outlined from the outset so that a robust inspection process is built into the procurement system and the appointment. That must guarantee design team involvement and independent scrutiny. One of the biggest issues in the design and build approach is that there is no third-party scrutiny. Schemes are in place, such as the NHBC scheme, which has been mentioned. They are backed by insurance and are of high quality. More use of third-party quality control and insurance-based schemes should definitely be considered, but that comes with a cost. All those things must be balanced.
On top of that is enhanced statutory scrutiny. The Scottish Government’s building standards division is examining an expanded compliance management scheme with the involvement of a range of stakeholders, including the RIAS. That is fantastic to see. We support that proposal, especially for the future, as it is more appropriate for new builds. Such an approach would work more effectively alongside more use of third-party control and insurance schemes and continuing design responsibility from the professional design team. Those things are linked in managing the new-build situation.
A cost is always associated with such things. To return to the elephant in the room, the issue is how to manage that to get the most out of the situation, given the mortgage concerns that are linked to it, and allow owners to sell properties.