Building Cladding Remediation (Update)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the removal of dangerous building cladding, in light of the recent publications by Scotland’s cladding remediation programme. (S6T-02570)
The Scottish Government has established a comprehensive cladding remediation system. Since the essential Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 came into effect earlier this year, we have launched a £10 million scheme to support owners with building assessment. All buildings that were in the pilot programme—
We cannot hear the minister.
Minister, could you angle the microphone towards you?
Thank you. We will see whether that makes any difference.
My card is in. Is that any better?
I will start again, Presiding Officer.
The Scottish Government has established a comprehensive cladding remediation system. Since the essential Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 came into effect earlier this year, we have launched a £10 million scheme to support owners with building assessment. All buildings that were in the pilot programme have had an initial review. Many do not require further action, and all others are either undergoing a statutory assessment, will be assessed by their developer or will have an assessment funded by us.
We have asked owners of social housing to confirm any buildings that are at risk and we will seek assurance that action is being taken. Where necessary, they can apply for funding to support assessment. The building safety levy, once it is enacted, will provide an important funding stream as we continue to mitigate fire safety risks.
I thank the minister for his answer, but it has been eight years since the Grenfell tragedy brought the issue of dangerous cladding to light, and yet the Scottish Government is still dragging its heels while people are stuck in potentially dangerous properties or are unable to sell their homes without proper certification.
Can the minister finally give us a timeline for when the single building assessment will be introduced, and confirm that it will be in line with what United Kingdom lenders require?
I disagree with Mr Balfour’s points. It was essential that the new legislation that we introduced could deal with our unique tenure system and with the challenges that we have that do not exist elsewhere in the UK. Commencement of the provisions in the 2024 act has allowed us to rapidly increase the pace. For buildings for which the Scottish Government is responsible, we have taken urgent action wherever that has been recommended by a fire engineer. I mentioned the launch of the single open call, which has proven to be very successful in identifying buildings that were not known to us via any other source.
We have also concluded an exercise with local authorities and confirmed that a substantial proportion of them have appropriate mitigation measures in place. We have made substantial progress with a universal exercise across registered social landlords and are supporting RSLs to make progress with statutory assessment.
It is not appropriate to compare Scotland with other parts of the UK—it was simply not possible to make the necessary progress prior to introducing the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which gave us the necessary backstop powers to address Scotland’s unique tenure issues.
It is deeply disappointing that the minister has not been able to answer the question about UK lenders and people who are worried about the mortgages on their properties. I will give him a second chance. A variety of stakeholders agree that a central register for affected properties is essential to properly address the issue. Can the minister explain why Scotland still does not have one? When will it finally get one, so that we know the scale of the work? When will there be an agreement between UK lenders so that the issue can be resolved?
Mr Balfour will be aware that UK lending is a reserved matter. We have had discussions with UK Finance on the issue and, along with the Welsh Government, we continue to press that point with the UK Government and UK Finance. I am happy to take up individual issues, but it is a reserved matter at the moment.
Given the number of members who have requested to ask supplementary questions, it is unlikely that I will be able to take all of them, but I request concise questions and responses.
Will the minister outline further details of the next phase of the £10 million scheme and when it will be reopened? Will he also look again at exempting from the land and buildings transaction tax additional dwelling supplement people that are affected by cladding that need or want to move, such as some of my constituents who were affected by the Breadalbane Street fire last year?
We are building on the essential statutory foundations that we put in place to rapidly address the risks associated with combustible cladding. We expect all building owners to take appropriate steps, and we are encouraging them and supporting them practically to do so.
In late March, we launched a new single open call, backed with £10 million of funding for statutory assessments. As of 5 June, we had received 83 expressions of interest, of which 36 were from registered social landlords. By the end of this month, we will move into stage 2, offering support for necessary mitigation and remediation works that are based on the assessments, and increasing their pace and breadth.
The estimates that were published on Thursday highlight again that the problem of combustible cladding on Scotland’s buildings is substantial. With the tools in place, we can now successfully respond.
I will take up Mr Macpherson’s point about LBTT with the appropriate minister and respond to him in due course.
Is the minister confident that, since the single open call, the Government finally has a comprehensive register of all buildings that are affected by the Grenfell-type combustible cladding?
Mr Griffin will be aware of the estimated number of buildings that require various levels of remediation. That information was published just last week—an estimated 1,260 to 1,450 of the residential buildings in Scotland that are 11m or more in height might require work to alleviate external wall system fire risk. Those are estimates and do not represent a list of specific buildings that might or do not need work. The numbers are based on our current best estimates and the UK systems of methodology. I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin further on that point.
I do not understand why the minister, all this time later, is still using words such as “might”. The idea that we cannot compare what has happened in our country with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom is, frankly, bizarre.
We now know that, of the at least 1,300 buildings that need remedial work, only 1 per cent have been addressed, and the Scottish Government has been sitting on UK funding all this time. Can the minister explain how he can justify asking Parliament—at this stage in the session, eight years after Grenfell—to consider a new bill, when thousands of people are living in situations that pose specific risks for them?
I reiterate that it is not possible to compare Scotland with the rest of the UK. We needed the cladding bill to introduce some of the powers that were needed, and the bill was passed.
With regard to the actions that we have taken, I mentioned the single open call and the work that we have been doing with local authorities and RSLs on that. We are also working with the social housing sector on the remediation of buildings for which it has responsibility.
I have talked before about being disappointed about the previous pace and breadth of progress, but, as I said, with the single open call and the work that we are doing, the pace of action is now increasing.
We know that the Scottish National Party is in trouble on performance when it refuses to be compared with England. The reality is that the Government is way behind. It says that it is moving at pace, but if it is moving that fast, why can the minister not give us a date, like in England, when the work will be completed?
When we talk about cladding—Willie Rennie will know about this—one of the most important points is to get the single building assessments done and in place as soon as possible. We worked very closely with the development sector on that point, and that work was done collaboratively. The greater our ability to get the SBAs done, the quicker we can get the buildings remediated. The open call that I have talked about and the work that is taking place with local authorities and RSLs will see that pace increase.
Gender Identification (Police Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of claims by a whistleblower at Police Scotland that officers are being “coerced” into logging individuals in line with their gender identity, even in serious sexual assault cases. (S6T-02583)
Although decisions on how crime data are recorded are operational matters for Police Scotland, Police Scotland has been clear that it does not direct officers to record sex or gender in a way that breaches legal obligations. I also expect it to ensure that its practices are lawful and support accurate and consistent data collection.
Police Scotland is already reviewing how it records and uses sex and gender data. That review was under way before the recent Supreme Court judgment, and Police Scotland will now take full account of the ruling when reaching its conclusions and making recommendations. Public bodies are also guided by advice from the office of the chief statistician, which encourages data collection based on user needs and context.
The position is far from clear. There are reports in the press that there is widespread confusion and unease among staff about how suspects who identify as transgender are recorded in official systems. Many staff say that they have to record someone and, indeed, search them based on how they present, even if that is at the moment of arrest. It appears that there is no official guidance, so staff are left to navigate sensitive and legally significant decisions without clear guidance.
A whistleblower said that that is
“putting officers and staff in a situation where they are having to do things where no one knows where this decision is coming from, and there is not an actual policy. People are just feeling kind of coerced into doing it.”
Given the press reports, is the cabinet secretary concerned about the apparent lack of clarity that is being experienced by officers on the front line about how to record the sex and gender of suspected serious sexual offenders?
I believe that there currently is clarity. Bearing in mind that this is an operational matter, I will provide the response that Police Scotland gave to the press reports. It said:
“It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest a male accused of rape would be recorded as a woman. It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest female officers and members of staff are coerced into carrying out intimate searches on male prisoners. The Chief Constable has been clear that our ongoing review of sex and gender will take into account all views, the legislation, guidance and legal advice.”
I assure the member that, notwithstanding that these are operational matters, I discuss this matter in my engagement with the chief constable, and progress is being made.
I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that, in relation to sexual offences, it is critical that the offender is recorded on the basis of their sex, because to do otherwise would distort the statistics. In September 2024, the chief constable stated that offenders in rape and other sexual offence cases would be recorded on the basis of biological sex—so, we are happy. However, in a letter to me and in press reports, Police Scotland has since indicated that there is “no set policy” on how to record the sex and gender of individuals. I stand by what I said when I quoted that press report. It must be true, because there is clear confusion—that is why I wrote to Police Scotland.
Police Scotland is undertaking a review of sex and gender data. Surely the cabinet secretary must have a discussion now with Police Scotland about how it is recording the sex of perpetrators of sexual crimes. There must be clarity for police officers on the front line. Does she agree that it is critical that the Government gives proper guidance to all public services?
In September 2024, the chief constable advised the Scottish Police Authority that
“a man who commits rape or serious sexual assaults will be recorded by Police Scotland as a male.”
I acknowledge and respect that Ms McNeill has long voiced her strong and clear views on the matter, including with regard to the importance of using biological sex for data accuracy, understanding patterns of offending behaviour and shaping public policy. I also concur that the transparency and accuracy of data is important.
Police Scotland is responsible for its own guidance, which it is reviewing. It must, of course, ensure that it fully complies with the Supreme Court judgment and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission guidance, when that is published. That guidance is under review, and I understand that the review will end at the end of this month.
Further to that, the Scottish Government has a Government-wide commitment to ensuring that our recording of sex and gender is in line with the very best statistical practice and the guidance that goes with that, and that it is fully compliant with the Supreme Court judgment.
We are now in the final minute that was allocated for this item of business, so I must insist that questions and responses are brief.
Police Scotland’s review on the recording of sex and gender is on-going. However, that is not an excuse to kick the can down the road. The force provided assurances to the Scottish Police Authority that the timeline for review does not preclude any immediate improvements that have been identified and are required to internal practice or policy from being made. That is in stark contrast to what was said at the meeting that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs held with the chief constable on 30 April, in which she emphasised that Police Scotland must await EHRC guidance on the Supreme Court ruling. Will the cabinet secretary’s Government get off the fence and finally issue an urgent directive to public bodies to comply with the law and put an end to this mess?
The Scottish Government is taking action now, and that action is focused on ensuring that, come the issuance of guidance from the EHRC—which is, after all, the regulator—we are in a state of readiness to progress matters. That applies to the Government and to Police Scotland.
The reports in the press are, indeed, concerning. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is equally concerned by what she has read. However, I am not convinced by what she has said to us this afternoon. I do not believe that the leadership in public bodies in this area is as she is suggesting.
The Istanbul convention obliges the Scottish Government to accurately record the sex of perpetrators. If that is not happening, that is extremely concerning. It is now eight weeks since the Supreme Court clarified the law. The fact that we are still having weekly exchanges with the Government suggests that there is still a problem. Will the cabinet secretary urgently commit to issuing that clear direction and guidance to all public bodies now?
Of course, it is not in my gift to issue guidance to all public bodies, bearing in mind that I am the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, not the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, which applies to the Scottish Government and, indeed, all our public bodies. However, there should be no doubt that the Scottish Government, our public bodies and Police Scotland are required to comply with the law—end of.
Industrial Action by Stagecoach Drivers (West of Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure the connectivity of local communities in the west of Scotland, in light of reports that over 400 Stagecoach drivers in Ayr, Arran, Ardrossan and Kilmarnock have begun industrial action until 21 July. (S6T-02586)
The majority of bus services in Scotland are operated on a commercial basis by private bus companies in the open, deregulated market. The Scottish ministers cannot intervene in commercial matters. However, I encourage Stagecoach West and the unions to work together to resolve the issue as soon as possible and limit the impact on the passengers who are affected by it. For the duration of the industrial action, Stagecoach will operate a limited service with the drivers who are available to it, so passengers are encouraged to check the latest timetables online.
The problem is that the issue is not coming to any resolution. Anyone who saw the news last night will have seen that it is the elderly and vulnerable across the west of Scotland who are suffering, through no fault of their own.
Many people have sympathy with the drivers and believe that they should get a fair deal on pay. Equally, some people in my part of the world are now housebound because there is no public transport. That includes, in particular, people who do not have cars, who live in rural communities, who are on low incomes or who have disabilities.
One or two days of striking here and there is one thing, but six weeks is another. More than 30 services have been cancelled. Although the dispute is a private matter between the two parties, public connectivity is not. What is the Government doing to help to resolve the issue?
I absolutely take on board Jamie Greene’s point about the impact that the strike is having. However, I reiterate that this is about a private company in a deregulated market. The unions and the bus companies must get together to find a resolution sooner rather than later for the passengers who are affected.
Has the minister spoken to Unite the Union or Stagecoach in the past three days? I would be keen to hear an update on that in response to my supplementary question.
There is a much wider and more problematic issue here. It should simply not be the case that, in Scotland in 2025, entire communities can be cut off completely from public transport because of industrial action in a single bus company. Rural communities in particular expect and deserve more reliable services, better connectivity and more resilience in public transport.
Is the Scottish Government willing today to commit to a full root-and-branch review of rural bus services, which will look in particular at contingency planning, so that no one in Scotland is treated as a second-class citizen when industrial action takes away their only method of transport?
Jamie Greene raises a number of questions. He asked whether I have spoken to Stagecoach or the unions. No, I have not, for the simple reason that we would not intervene in a commercial matter.
The member asked what more we could do. I remind him that, when he was sitting on the Conservative benches, he was a member of the party that deregulated the bus market in the first place, and that has allowed commercial considerations to be part of the conversation.
I add that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives the local authority the powers to do the things that he is asking about, because they are local authority issues.
Many of my 6,000 constituents in Beith rely on buses, as there is no railway station there. Constituents cannot travel to work, to study or even to visit loved ones in hospital at this time. It is completely unacceptable.
What discussions has the minister had with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport on providing emergency bus services to ameliorate the situation? Does he agree that bus drivers in Ayrshire should be paid the same as the drivers in his constituency in Perthshire?
As I have set out before, Scottish ministers cannot intervene in such matters. I appreciate that disruption is being caused to communities in Ayrshire and I understand that there are reduced operating timetables on some routes. Again, I encourage Stagecoach West and the unions to work together to resolve the issue as soon as they possibly can, for the benefit of their passengers.
Is the minister aware that Stagecoach drivers in West Scotland are the worst paid in the United Kingdom? The latest Stagecoach offer of a 4 per cent pay rise was rejected by 98 per cent of Unite bus drivers, on an 81 per cent turnout. The unions say that, even if that offer had been accepted, West Scotland drivers would still be the poorest paid across the UK. Does the minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, that Stagecoach is a very profitable company and that we need to ensure that it makes a better offer so that our constituents are able to use that service?
I am very aware of the figures that Katy Clark is telling us about, but I reiterate that this is about a commercial business that is dealing with a union. It is entirely appropriate for those organisations to come to a resolution themselves and not to have the intervention of Scottish ministers.
With apologies to those members who we have been unable to get to, given the timings, that concludes topical question time.
Previous
OathNext
Business Motion