Gillian Keegan: how’s the ‘hot mic’ thing gone down with you?

[Crinklycut]

For my part, I don’t think it was very ministerial, and I do wonder how No. 10 all talk to each other these days (do they just swear all the time?) BUT she is a bit right, isn’t she?

The DfE have finally acted to make the public aware that their children are not safe in school. That’s more than anyone else in the Conservative party has done since they cancelled ‘Building Schools for the Future’ in 2010 and during their 13 years of government.

So how’s it gone down with you?

It appears to be a case of unknown unknown thought.

What was their RAAC obligation, given that it's so dangerous that it has just closed 100 schools? Thinking of asbestos, schools are required to have a register of where asbestos is in their school and a management plan. The HSE are now going to inspect schools to make sure they are meeting their obligations here.

What's the obligation re RAAC? It seems a bit odd that there's this dangerous material and the only obligation on heads around it seems to have been to fill out a survey saying they've had a knock around the school with a hammer and not heard anything dodgy. A survey that the DfE then incorrectly accused them of not completing.

Why was the DfE survey not 'pull out your structural inspection report and let us know your RAAC status'? Or 'if you haven't had a structural engineer inspect for RAAC, get it done ASAP and let us know your RAAC status?

There’s around 13 schools on the BSF list with RAAC.

That was incredibly expensive in terms of mark up, we’re still paying so rebuilding non RAAC schools wouldn’t have resolved this issue. But it would be something we’re still paying even more for

If we’re going to fund rebuilds, and not through eye watering private mark up, they need to be the right schools

@EasternStandard I totally agree. BSF was political and didn’t look into quality of buildings as a prime reason to be on the list. If a rigorous assessment had been done then some issues might have been looked at much more quickly.

If a rigorous assessment had been done then some issues might have been looked at much more quickly.

Same thing could be said for the Conditions of Schools survey 2017-2019, yes?

For whatever reason RAAC wasn’t the criteria

Just using an example 400 schools could have been rebuilt but only 13 resolved with RAAC issues

We’d be paying back loads more now, on top of what we already are, but still with say the near same number of RAAC schools to do

BSF would have rebuilt all schools by this year wouldn’t it. It’s 400 schools a year. I thought that list was the ones that had had the funding agreed and then had it withdrawn when Gove cancelled it.

Yes, there were 700 schools all lined up, some with building work expected imminently and the plug was pulled at the last minute.

But the longer plan was to rebuild all schools.

And RAAC isn’t the only reason schools are falling down and need repairing.

Given the rise in prices it’s going to cost millions more to fix everything now.

It would have sorted the asbestos problem too.

They could have used some of the millions they overspent on setting up unnecessary free schools.

Depends if people prefer huge mark ups or not

A bit like putting something on HP

Although not on gov books

@TizerorFizz do you not think the LAs should have passed on details of the buildings when they were transferred into MATs. Or do you think they were rubbing their hands with glee when passing over potentially dangerous buildings? Because it’s only potentially children’s and education staff lives at stake

The Confederation of School Trusts are holding an extraordinary meeting this week with Baroness Barran, Under Secretary of State fir Education, to discuss RAAC in particular the question of intrusive surveys. She couldn’t answer many questions at a meeting held last week. And had to apologise many times for the Government’s approach to this issue

Absolutely. A political agenda pushed by the DfE which has cost money for new builds and conversions. In my area, bringing about falling roles, staff redundancies, deficit budgets and reductions in the number of classes in existing schools.
And none of the new free schools are much needed special schools, because although planning is in place for new special schools, either new builds or conversions of existing buildings, Academy trusts willing to open special schools have not been found. Three years on, still just a plan.

Ridiculous!

All schools would have been re built! not just 400.

Either way, has to be paid for, there is no alternative, they have to be rebuilt..... taxes, borrowing or PFI.. these are the only choices but by delaying, we ve added billions to the costs & put teachers and pupils at risk.

PFI is particularly bad. It was said at the time even by unions

It looks good though, and even better politically as it’s magicked off the books when it comes to government debt

That doesn’t stop it being really bad value for taxpayers who still have it on their to pay list.

There’s a reason no one will touch it again on both sides, plus even the private part found returns not competitive enough in the end

Anything you get on HP will cost you loads more

There’s loads out there but the sector press said similar, talking about toxic contracts

https://feweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SW-49-subscribers.pdf

And now we’re entering buy back territory

Unison Scottish secretary Lilian Macer said: "These PFI buyback clauses are quite frankly a scandal. Private firms have already been handsomely paid by the taxpayer over the course of the contract. Aug 2023

Rising taxes and or borrowing it is then.... both will have bad affects on the economy.

Wed still be paying back now, we already are the contracts are still there

It’d just be much higher with buy back coming in about now across the economy

I doubt those existing contracts are immune to interest rates either

A car on HP goes up when interest rates do. Commercial entities usually know how to protect investment

I get PFI issues... so we will have to raise taxes and or borrowing... borrowing is hyper expensive atm/100% of GDP already... so who would you tax more?

Bear in mind these schools have to be rebuilt... along with many other public buildings.. we are talking 10s of billions surely?

Rebuilding all school buildings as proposed on HP is a bit like the start of imagining a massive house, holidays and gadgets on credit then feeling the pain later.

Hence that union quote, it all feels shiny until the bond of a contract feels toxic and like a scandal. Someone will be always be capitalising on that

In this case a political blinder btw as that wasn’t even on the gov books but passed on to now

As for now, well I had issues with pandemic approach which cost a huge amount but that’s in the past and can’t be changed.

So the reality is like any reality, the fancy house and cars get replaced by more realistic pay as you go model

I’m glad the economy is not looking as dire as predicted, and inflation is falling. I would go through the RAAC list by need and pay through taxes. I don’t know if that can be done slowly or how much it will cost so I’m not sure if it would take tax rises

By why just the RAAC list and not the schools that are falling down through other reasons? The school estate is the responsibility of the DfE. The government have let it get into such a state of disrepair that a lot of it is risky. You can’t just replace the RAAC and hope the rest of it doesn’t damage the children. It all needs looking at. The government have known about this since 2010 when they decided to cut funding for building work.

I'd be cautious over those ONS figures... R4 did an piece on them last night... & huge spending commitments coming our way.. NHS, pensions, wage rises, defence, road repairs, now Schools/public buildings.

I think PFI in principal can work but first the Tories and then Blair/Brown/Cameron allowed contracts to be awarded with almost no cost control.. ridiculous....

Done properly, can be more like a mortgage than HP... or the Never Never as my Gran called it....

A one off wealth tax on assets over £5million would probably be enough.

The tax Alan Sugar is trying not to pay HMRC would probably cover the costs of fixing or at least stabilising the RAAC alone.