Chamber and committees

This has been a very interesting first session on this topic. My first point is about custody being an outcome for people with addictions, which Kirsten Horsburgh spoke about. Rona Mackay and Ben Macpherson commented on it, too. However, rather than asking any more questions on that, I hope that the fact that there has already been a good discussion on that issue might lead to the committee doing further work on it. I would like that to be the case, because I completely agree with what has been said.

I was going to ask questions about staff, but Rona Mackay and the convener have already covered them. I was also interested to hear about the welfare considerations for staff who could be dealing with deaths in prison.

Another staff-related angle is the pressure on those who are working in the current context. It strikes me that your staff in prisons are dealing not only with a very vulnerable group of people but with organised criminals. When I think about prison staff, I always consider that they themselves are quite a vulnerable group, because organised criminals will go to all ends available to get their drugs into prison or wherever else. What support do you provide for staff to help them with managing the people that they might come into contact with? Do you have specific training for that, or is it more about providing support?

I can imagine. It sounds like you have quite good protocols and procedures in place for things that might happen in work. Is there any guidance in place for what staff should do if they are approached outside of work?

Would that information be reported to you?

I will mainly speak to my amendment 491. The amendment came about through a discussion with the Church of Scotland. I know that Willie Rennie’s amendment 452 came about through similar conversations and may be in a similar area—Meghan Gallacher has just highlighted some of that.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the constructive conversations. I confirm at the outset that I do not intend to move amendment 491; it is more of a probing amendment.

The amendment seeks to address the issue for a landlord who is not an individual, in relation to the proposed new section 51A of the 2016 act. The bill as drafted says:

“The Tribunal may consider in particular ... whether a period of delay in bringing the tenancy to an end would—

i) cause the landlord to experience financial hardship,

ii) have a detrimental effect on the health of the landlord, or

iii) have another detrimental effect on the landlord due to the landlord having a disability”.

Those provisions mirror the considerations that are contained in section 51A(2)(a). In the case of a manse let, the landlord may not be able to prove financial hardship, as they will still be entitled to rent during the period. The provisions in proposed new sections 51A(2)(b) and 51A(2)(c) could not apply to a landlord who was not an individual.

The proposed new section would enable the First-tier Tribunal to consider another detrimental effect on a landlord that is not an individual. For example, in the cases of manses, the detrimental effect would be that the house could not be used by the landlord for occupation by a person engaged in the work of a religious denomination as a residence from which the duties of such a person are to be performed. The detriment would prevent a minister who is called to the charge from being able to take up occupation in the parish if the manse is occupied. The example that was given to me when I met the Church of Scotland representatives was one in which a manse is used for charitable aims such as hosting refugees. Amendment 491 may be helpful in such a scenario.

I reiterate that I do not intend to move amendment 491. I am happy to continue discussions with the cabinet secretary and others ahead of stage 3.

Good morning. It has been a really interesting evidence session; thank you for your contributions. I was going to ask about protections for vulnerable people, but we have had quite a good discussion about that already. Adam Stachura, Jude McCorry and others have contributed with regard to older people in particular, which is what my question was going to focus on.

Instead, I would like to ask about increasing resilience in the population overall, which is possibly something for a wider discussion and not for today’s witnesses. However, while we have been talking today—particularly in the exchanges with Ben Macpherson a few moments ago—I have been wondering whether there has been any discussion about that sort of internet safety awareness being brought in as almost a mandatory topic in schools, for example? If you can start to implement that awareness at a very young age, you can increase the population’s resilience over time so that people are less vulnerable. I do not even know who would be best to answer that, but has that been discussed or thought about, and who would deliver it?

Okay, thanks. As I said earlier, the question came to me during the wide-ranging discussion that we were having.

That is understandable. Given that the issue is here now—and here to stay—would it be any different than schools teaching about road safety, which they do very effectively? Is there also, perhaps, an element of postcode lottery? I know that my kids’ primary school does a wee bit of work on online safety. Is there an argument that there should be something more standard across the board?

For clarity, convener, I note that I am content with the instrument, but I want to briefly raise an issue under this agenda item, which I have notified you and the clerks about. I accept that it does not relate entirely to this SSI; it is an issue with police pensions more generally.

The issue relates to several constituents of mine who are retired police officers, who have experienced lengthy delays—of years, in some cases—in receiving their remedial service statement or RSS, and who are still waiting. The amount owed is considerable and, as you can imagine, it is having a major impact on my constituents. I am aware that other MSPs have had similar cases.

The main issues are the length of time that is taken to pay out the moneys that are due under the McCloud remedy and constituents’ concerns about communication around that delay.

The Scottish Police Authority has advised us that it is working hard to deliver a significant number of RSSs by the statutory deadline and to deliver the bulk of them by 31 May 2025. The SPA says that there are a number of more complex cases that will take longer, but that most eligible police pensioners will receive their RSS by 31 July 2025. It reiterates that not every RSS can be delivered through that process, and that more complex cases will necessarily take longer to complete.

However, as I have said, I have a number of constituents who have not had their pay and, although there is now a July deadline in place, they remain concerned.

I do not know whether other members around the table are receiving similar queries, but I wonder whether the convener would be willing to write to Ivan McKee in his ministerial role about the issue. If that came from the committee, it might carry more weight, convener.

I wanted to keep my intervention brief but, if required, I can provide you and the clerks with further information from my constituents who have been in touch.

Good morning. As the convener said, I will ask some questions on cladding remediation. Minister, how many buildings have had potentially flammable cladding removed or remediated since the launch of the single building assessment, which was about four years ago?

I appreciate your candidness, minister. You will be aware that the committee has been hearing concerns about the lack of progress, so I appreciate your response.

You mentioned that we might ask questions on the open call for residents. I will do that now. Will you clarify the purpose of the open call for residents of buildings with external wall cladding systems? What do you hope that that will achieve? Has the Scottish Government already identified buildings with potentially flammable wall cladding systems following the Grenfell tower fire in June 2017?