Chamber and committees

When we first debated the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill, I said that I would not support legislation that risked further damaging Scotland’s housing sector. At stage 2 and at stage 3 today, we had the chance to fix the bill, but those opportunities were missed. In my view, the Scottish Government has not engaged in the way that it should have done—constructively—with all parties on issues that have been raised not just by the relevant sectors but by house builders and home owners who have been impacted by cladding. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time.

We all agree that building safety is not optional and we all recognise the tragedy of Grenfell and why remediation is required on all affected buildings.

The real question is this: is the bill the right way to fund cladding remediation, or is it yet another knee-jerk response from a Government that has failed to act properly and at pace? In my view, it is the latter.

The issues that Michael Marra raised demonstrate why we are so far behind the rest of the United Kingdom. It is utterly shameful that that £100 million of funding is being used to fill other budget gaps. He is right: this has nothing to do with a proposed new levy; rather, it shows the Scottish Government’s own incompetence.

I think that two members have tried to intervene. I think that Ben Macpherson was first, so I will let him in first.

I genuinely believe that Ben Macpherson’s constituents will be wondering why his SNP Government has refused to spend a penny of the £100 million that was meant to be used for cladding remediation. Ben Macpherson should reflect on that.

Willie Rennie spoke about the intense pressure that the housing sector is experiencing. The minister spoke about what should be cut to fund the remediation of cladding if the levy is not introduced. Willie Rennie is right: we must tread carefully, build confidence in the sector and secure that investment. The Scottish Government should use the £100 million that should have been used in the first place to kick-start the cladding remediation. It should have done that years ago but failed to do so.

Homes for Scotland and the Scottish Property Federation have repeatedly warned that the levy will not simply be absorbed and that it will hit viability, stall projects and reduce the number of homes that could be built—all while we are in the middle of a housing emergency. Why would the Government risk fewer homes being built—fewer affordable homes at that—and fewer jobs across the construction sector?

During scrutiny at stage 2 and stage 3, Michael Marra and I proposed what I believe were sensible, targeted amendments to protect projects that are already under way. They reflected a simple established principle that developments should be judged by the rules in place when they begin, not hit with new costs after significant investment has already been committed. Those amendments were rejected. In doing so, the Scottish Government ignored industry warnings and chose not to mitigate the very risks that it has been repeatedly warned about. We have seen that before, particularly when it comes to housing—the same mistakes and the same refusal to listen, but the same consequences.

Talking about a lack of progress, I previously raised concerns about conflicting letters that were sent to home owners who are affected by cladding. I have now received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing—for which I am thankful—confirming that there was, indeed, a disparity. The Government claims that those letters do not guarantee funding, but that is not how the two letters read that I have in front of me right now. One implies certainty; the other creates doubt.

There are two different messages in those two letters, so there is no clarity, and it is home owners who are paying the price. People are stuck, unable to sell and unable to move on. Properties sit on the market for months, offers fall through and buyers walk away—not because they want to, but because they cannot risk the uncertainty. Who can blame them? There is no guarantee that remediation costs will be covered. There is only confusion, concern and the looming question of personal liability.

Apologies. I am in my last minute, otherwise I would have taken the intervention.

What does the bill deliver? It will introduce a levy that will slow development, a policy that will reduce housing supply and a Government that will press ahead, despite clear warnings from the very sector on which it depends. At a time when Scotland faces a housing emergency, this is the wrong policy at the wrong time. For all those reasons, we cannot support the bill at decision time.

Amendment 7 is similar to the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. It relates to transitional arrangements. The amendment would exempt from the levy a new residential unit where a building warrant application has been submitted on or before 1 April 2028—in other words, where a development has progressed before the legislation’s commencement date. The approach matches the established principle that regulatory treatment follows the rules that are in force at the time of a building warrant application, and it recognises the significant up-front investment in viability decisions that are taken without published levy rates.

Home builders have been clear in explaining that development does not simply start when the foundations are cut. There are years of planning processes, as well as investment, before buildings are constructed. The liability date ignores the investment in the land deal, ground investigations, planning costs and professional fees for design that a developer has already borne before they start building and well before the building is completed.

A retrospective levy risks stalling delivery and hindering much-needed investment. I am certain that the minister does not wish the building of homes to be stalled, considering that the next Government needs to deliver at pace to tackle the housing emergency that Michael Marra has just outlined in his speech.

The minister has agreed to provide 22 months’ notice of rates from June this year, but there has been no consideration that developers will already have appraised and agreed land deals without taking into account the fact that the levy will come into effect from April 2028.

Homes for Scotland has been crystal clear that, without transitional arrangements in place, neither it nor the wider sector can support the bill in principle. I take the opportunity at this point to thank Homes for Scotland for its support and engagement throughout the passage of the bill.

It is for those reasons that I urge the Parliament to agree to my amendment 7 or to amendment 6 in the name of Michael Marra. I believe that both amendments attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. I will leave my remarks there.

The cabinet secretary is right to say that there is media interest, but the public will be concerned at the developments that the cabinet secretary has just outlined.

Bone marrow transplant patients are among the most vulnerable in the national health service, and common airborne mould can cause life-threatening infections. What further action is the Government taking to ensure that wards other than the ones that the cabinet secretary has mentioned have also been inspected for mould and water ingress? When will the bone marrow ward be safe for use? Who will ultimately be held accountable for this latest incident at Queen Elizabeth university hospital?

To ask the Scottish Government when it was first informed of water and mould ingress at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. (S6O-05630)

Does the minister support the creation of a new national whistleblowing officer for the national health service and the social care sector who will deliver in such circumstances? Does he honestly believe that the families who have come forward with such harrowing experiences have been treated fairly by the systems that were designed to protect them?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and, more importantly, for the way in which he has approached the issue—not only meeting me but meeting families—because it is a real and serious issue.

I first raised the issue of Skye house in the chamber almost a year ago. Although I welcome the steps that are now being taken to listen to families and improve services, systemic issues remain. When I raised the issue of the BBC documentary, I revealed that the Government was aware as far back as June 2023 of the abuse that young people were experiencing. I believe that that is yet to be investigated as part of the wider concerns.

I continue to work with affected families because their concerns have not been properly addressed. One family has exhausted every avenue in trying to hold the system accountable for the trauma that their daughter has endured.

An independent review of their case was commissioned, but, when the report was finally published, it was the parents, rather than the professionals who were involved, who were portrayed as the problem. Too often, when families speak up, they are dismissed, ignored or made to feel as though they are the obstacle to change.

My experience in supporting that family points to a culture of closed ranks in parts of our health and social care system. When systems close in on themselves, instead of protecting the most vulnerable, public trust is inevitably eroded.