Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Official Report 1006KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. If a member wishes to raise a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button, or indicate so in the chat function by entering the letters “RTS”, during the relevant question.

---

Cladding Review (Findings)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported findings of an independent review of the cladding remediation programme that “successful delivery of the project is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent”. (S6T-00933)

I reassure home owners that the programme is not in any way at risk. It is standard Government practice to carry out independent scrutiny of large programmes to ensure that they deliver public value and to help them to succeed. We will continue to do that, and I fully expect that home owners will find that the programme is making progress. The review recognised that cladding issues cannot be dealt with quickly, and it provided eight recommendations, which we accepted and have actioned.

As I announced in a statement in May, our single building assessment programme has changed since the review was carried out and has been expanded from 27 to more than 100 buildings. It is a complex programme that is moving forward, with assessments being completed and discussions on remediation under way.

The idea that the Government has been delivering on the cladding remediation programme is farcical. Reports confirm that home owners have been given nothing more than the runaround. Risks are unmanaged, there is no plan, the damning verdict is that whatever comes next is unclear, and successful delivery is in doubt.

If there was no plan in July, that calls into question whether the statement that the cabinet secretary made in May was even accurate. All summer, I was contacted by families who were worried sick that they were living in unsafe homes that they cannot escape, because they cannot sell or remortgage. In some cases, they cannot even secure insurance.

I say to the cabinet secretary that barely a building has been made safe. The documents point out that just one of the 26 buildings in the pilot scheme is expected to be given the green light for selling or remortgaging. Does she agree that it is unacceptable that the families who contacted me over the summer have been left in absolute despair? They need to hear an update urgently.

It is important that, first of all, we recognise the concerns of home owners and families. I did that when I made my statement back in May.

We must also recognise that the process is a complex one—it is not easy. The owners of each building that is part of the programme are being kept updated by their factors. If there are issues with communications for particular buildings, I will be happy to speak to Mark Griffin about those. If we can do more to ensure that such communications happen, we will do so. A lot of discussions and meetings are taking place, and progress is being made. It is important that that is communicated. The grant-based model gives factors important roles to play, one of which is communication. When we move to a national roll-out, responsibility for communication will fall to the Scottish Government, and we want to ensure that it will be as good as it can be. If members such as Mark Griffin have suggestions about the best way to do that, of course we will listen to them.

The reports that we have received are undergoing technical review. If any issue that needs to be addressed immediately comes to light, of course that will happen. The assessments themselves require complex specialist interventions from fire engineers, who ensure that surveys are carried out to the highest technical standards, which takes time. Such skills are rare—there are not a lot of fire engineers about—so we have had to work hard to get people with the skills that we require. Of course, we will then take action based on the recommendations made by the independent fire safety professionals.

I agree with Mark Griffin that communication is important. If we need to do more in that space, we will. However, providing assurance to home owners is also important. We will do everything that we can to ensure that they are able to move forward with their lives as soon as possible.

I will aim to feed back to the cabinet secretary the cases that I have been receiving. It has been difficult to do so because those who have contacted me are generally not my constituents; they are primarily home owners in the Edinburgh area. However, I will forward their concerns. I also note that, in her statement in May, the cabinet secretary promised a cross-party briefing, which, had it been forthcoming, could have provided a platform for us to share constituents’ concerns.

The documents that have been released also confirm that the cabinet secretary herself set a deadline of September for establishing an accord with house builders. We are now into November. Where is that agreement with developers?

With Julie James, the minister who is responsible for this area in the Welsh Government, the cabinet secretary wrote to the house-building sector, saying that they saw

“no reason why the Accord and Pact cannot be agreed”

over the summer, after the change in United Kingdom Government roles. Last month, the Welsh Government confirmed that it had signed up Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and other builders to its pact. What can the Scottish Government say about the developers that it has signed up to its accord? What contribution will they make towards remediation? For the sake of home owners, another update to Parliament by means of a statement from the cabinet secretary would definitely be helpful.

I will take those points in order. The accord is a critical part of the process. It is due to be signed in the coming weeks. We have taken time to get as many developers on board as we can. I thank Homes for Scotland and the developers that have come to the table for agreeing to step up and do the right thing for home owners. Of course, that represents their chance to put things right and reassure home owners that their homes will be fixed.

I will be happy to give a statement to Parliament. I wanted to do so once we had made sufficient progress on bringing the accord to a satisfactory conclusion. However, I am happy to come to Parliament, and I will try to do that before the end of the year if I can. I am also happy to provide a cross-party briefing to bring members up to speed with all those things. We will organise that as quickly as we can.

I agree with Mark Griffin that there is growing concern about the lack of leadership from the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government. Our constituents expect action. I am concerned by the reports that I am getting that people living in those buildings are being told that they, rather than the developer, will have to pay. The cabinet secretary needs to be clear about how the programme will be properly resourced and funded. The accord was meant to be delivered in September, but it is now November. Can she guarantee that that work is taking place and that people living in relevant developments are being communicated with, given that they are having conversations with factors in which they are being told that they will have to foot the bill?

Let me remind Miles Briggs and other members of what I said in my statement. The reason for the accord is that we want those developers that are still in existence and that have a relationship with a building to step up, take responsibility and do the right thing for home owners. We will prioritise Scottish Government spend on buildings that are essentially orphaned buildings—that is, where either no developer can be associated with them or the developer no longer exists.

As I said, we have committed all the consequentials so far—£400 million—to the programme of work. The programme is appropriately resourced. We have expanded the programme and we are taking action to address those buildings in order of priority. So far, we have committed spend of almost £1 million on assessments. We have committed to funding assessments of all the affected buildings, so home owners will not need to pay for any of those assessments.

Many of the buildings will not require any remedial action, because they will be found to be safe. That is a good thing and will allow people to move on with their lives. Where remedial action is required, it is important that developers are held to account for those buildings for which they are responsible and that the Scottish Government uses its resources to step in for those buildings where a developer cannot be found.

I would be happy to go into far more detail by way of a cross-party briefing and a further statement, if members would find that helpful.

Can the cabinet secretary advise us whether she plans to continue with gateway reviews to ensure that the programme is on track and that the complex technical expertise of external support is available to maintain and develop the programme?

Yes. We invite scrutiny of our programmes to ensure that we deliver public value to the highest of standards. Independent examination of any complex programme is standard Government practice. We welcome further independent examination of the cladding programme.

I commissioned the changes to the programme back in March, and I announced the new direction for the programme in May, having learned from the experience so far. The second gateway validated that decision, which was helpful. Of the gateway recommendations, all are on track and four out of the eight have been completed.

---

Ferry 801 (Cost of Fitting Sensors)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it will cost to fit sensors for the liquefied natural gas system on ferry 801 as reported to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. (S6T-00926)

Ferguson Marine informed the Scottish Government on 27 October of an issue relating to the liquefied natural gas system for the MV Glen Sannox, which requires sensors to be procured. Due to issues with the global supply chain, ministers are advised that it may take something in the order of 36 weeks. Ministers are seeking urgent options for the next steps and expect all possible measures to be taken to deliver the vessel to serve islanders as soon as possible.

Officials will continue to engage with Ferguson Marine as it assesses the full impact of that development, including any financial implications, which Ferguson Marine will share with both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament once that has been confirmed.

My question was, how much will it cost? I am afraid that the Deputy First Minister has not answered that question. Perhaps he can try again.

I will put this to him, because we need to get to the bottom of what has happened. Is it the case that the need for sensors has been known about for some time and someone simply forgot to place the order? If that is correct, has anyone fallen on their sword, or been got rid of, over that? If not, why not?

In addition, I still want to know the cost.

I gave Mr Simpson the best answer that I could on an issue that was raised with the Government just last Thursday, which was that any financial implications arising from that issue will be shared with both the Government and the Scottish Parliament once the cost has been confirmed by Ferguson Marine. That is the answer to the question of cost.

With regard to the issue that has arisen, the sensors are clearly necessary because, as I understand their function, they are part of the safety system around the LNG system that will operate on the Glen Sannox. The sensors had not been ordered. They have now been ordered, and the answer that I gave Mr Simpson is the substantive answer on the current estimate of the timescale for delivery of those sensors.

I am having to read between the lines. I assume that I am in fact correct in saying that the need for sensors was known about and they simply were not ordered. Again, can the Deputy First Minister confirm that?

He has not answered any of my questions yet. Perhaps he can tell us this: is he aware of any other issues with the building of the Glen Sannox? I have been told that there are on-going concerns about certain aspects of the build.

Can he also confirm whether the Government has recently been asked to provide any extra funding to help to keep the yard going?

I addressed the substantive points that Mr Simpson raised with me. He then asked me whether I had any further concerns or whether any issues had been drawn to my attention. As he will know, there is regular reporting on progress on the Glen Sannox, which is shared with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

He went on to say that he has heard concerns about

“certain aspects of the build.”

With the greatest respect, I point out that that is not the most specific comment that has ever been put to me in the Parliament chamber. If he has specific concerns, he can, of course, raise them with me.

On the financial position in relation to the contract, Mr Simpson is aware of the details that have been shared with Parliament on the estimates by the management team at Ferguson’s regarding the financial implications of their assessment of the current work programme. Those estimates are being assessed by the Government, and further decisions will be taken in due course once that assessment has been completed.

I think that it is safe to say that the ferries network has become a bit of a favourite plaything of the Tories lately, but, as someone who represents a great many islanders, I know of the importance of these vessels and of the Scottish Government’s strong commitment to the provision of lifeline ferry services. Can the Deputy First Minister tell me what progress is being made on the two vessels that were recently announced, and on enhancing resilience and capability on the whole Clyde and Hebrides network?

Since the Government was elected in May 2021, we have purchased and deployed the MV Loch Frisa; we have taken forward construction of vessels 801 and 802; we have commissioned two new vessels for the Islay routes; and we have progressed improvements to key ports and harbours. We have also taken further investment decisions.

The Minister for Transport has announced that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is progressing the procurement of a further two major vessels, which will deliver significantly increased capacity and reliability for the communities of the Western Isles and will improve resilience across the wider Clyde and Hebrides network. The procurement notice for those vessels was published on 27 October, with a deadline for submission of 6 December.

In addition to the on-going vessel investments, we will expand the tide and weather monitoring equipment that is currently in place at CMAL ports to other third-party ports, progress the Skye triangle and Islay route port works, and continue the work to improve the harbour infrastructure for Arran services.

I go back to the problem of the missing safety valves. It appears that there was a long-term need for those valves. When Tim Hair was appointed, at vast expense, he took on a new warehouse and carried out a complete stock check that confirmed that all the parts were there. Obviously, he missed those valves. Was Tim Hair an expensive, £2 million mistake?

Obviously, there has been parliamentary committee assessment of the steps that have been taken to deliver the ferries. Interim management was put in place to take forward the construction of the vessels. Under the leadership of David Tydeman, the yard is making good progress in advancing those vessels. The Government will work with Ferguson Marine to ensure that we complete the construction of vessels 801 and 802, to enable them to be deployed on the network to deliver the quality service that we expect for islanders.