Chamber and committees

Improving building safety is not optional. The tragedy at Grenfell tower exposed catastrophic failures in regulation, oversight and accountability, and it is right that Governments should accept responsibility for ensuring that people are safe in their own homes.

However, good intentions do not give this Parliament or this Government a free pass. The duty before us as parliamentarians is not only to improve safety but to ensure that the policies that we introduce here are coherent and fair and do not cause further harm, particularly to vital sectors such as house building and construction, which we will need if we are to address a deepening housing emergency.

I do not for a second believe that anyone here doubts the importance of building safety. Of course it matters, but the real question is whether the levy, in its current form, would be the right mechanism to fund cladding remediation or whether it threatens to compound one failure with another. Homes for Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation and others have been absolutely clear in their evidence that the levy would not simply be absorbed by developers but would hit viability, could stall projects and could, in some cases, stop development entirely.

We have been here before. Willie Rennie referred to the problems caused by rent controls, and I fear that the exact same thing will happen again. At a time when supply is already lagging dangerously behind demand and when construction costs are soaring, private investment is fragile and confidence in the pipeline is weak, the levy, if it goes through as it is, will act as a further brake on the delivery of housing supply.

I therefore directly ask the minister whether we want to build fewer homes, deliver fewer affordable homes through planning obligations and support fewer jobs in the construction supply chain. That is the gamble that the Scottish Government is taking, and I believe that it is a reckless one.

Data shows that, since 2019-20, more than 73,000 pupils have missed at least half of their schooling, with more than 6,000 not attending school at all. Persistent absence not only impacts on children’s educational experience; it risks long-term harm to their education and wellbeing. Will the cabinet secretary accept that urgent national action is required and that the Scottish National Party Government has failed to act with urgency on the issue?

Will the minister take an intervention?

In my earlier contribution, I raised the issue of letters that I received from two residents of the same building who received two different responses from the Government, one of which was fully supportive of funding cladding remediation, while the other was lukewarm at best. I need to know from the Government when the cladding remediation directorate changed the content of its letter of support to residents, who approved that letter, whether it was seen by Scottish Government ministers and how many people have been sent different types of letter. The inconsistency means that there will be different levels of support, which is, frankly, wrong.

We have had exchanges in the chamber up to this point, but the Scottish Government cannot tell us how much money it has already spent out of the £97.3 million for cladding remediation. We do not know what the levy is for or why people are paying into the fund, because we do not know how much money the Government has already spent on remediation. I would rather focus on that first and look at other alternatives thereafter.

I turn to what I consider to be the most damning aspect of the debate, which is the Scottish Government’s handling of cladding remediation. It is now nearly eight and a half years since Grenfell and there is still no comprehensive, consistent or fully funded remediation plan in place. Instead, we have seen confusion, contradiction and chaos, and the only people who are paying the price are home owners.

I have brought with me today some letters that expose the failings of the Scottish Government quite starkly. A constituent contacted me when they had tried to sell their flat, only to be told by the Scottish Government cladding remediation directorate that issues that they had with cladding would render the property effectively unsaleable. In a letter from the Scottish Government dated October 2025, they were informed that funding would be dependent on the findings of a single building assessment and that some works that were identified could be deemed the home owners’ responsibility, including those that were not considered a live fire safety risk.

That is where it gets interesting, because my constituent’s neighbour in the same building had received a letter the year before, in November 2024, that stated something entirely different. That letter said that, where the developer could not be identified or was no longer operating, the Scottish Government would use public funds to undertake assessments and carry out works that were needed to eliminate or mitigate any risk to human life associated with the external wall cladding system.

Which is it? Those two neighbours in the same building had different outcomes and received two entirely different messages about liability, funding and responsibility. That is not a minor administrative error; it is a complete failure of governance by the SNP. I ask the minister why the Scottish Government changed the content of the letters that it sends out to home owners who are impacted. How many people have potentially been misled about the support that they should expect, given that their properties have been impacted by cladding?

Residents in general, not excluding my constituents, are still living in fear and anxiety because properties remain unsaleable and costs continue to be pushed on to home owners who did absolutely nothing wrong—and, even now, the Government cannot provide consistent answers to people whose lives have been put on hold. It is simply not credible for ministers to argue that developers today should be made to pay for historical regulatory failures, particularly when the Government has had almost a decade to act and has failed to do so.

I know that I am running out of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. Until ministers can demonstrate competence, consistency and fairness in how cladding remediation should be handled, they have no moral authority, in my view, to impose new levies that could further damage our housing market and supply. The approach is failing home owners, it is failing builders and it is failing Scotland, and until it is fixed, I will not play any part in it.

John Mason is talking about exemptions. We have been here before with rent controls. As soon as we start adding exemptions, would it not be more sensible and practical to realise that what we are bringing forward is just not right and that we need to go back to the drawing board?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve pupil attendance in schools. (S6O-05350)

I am afraid that the annual report exposes the Scottish National Party’s continued failure to get a grip of Scotland’s housing emergency. Record numbers of households remain stuck in temporary accommodation, and the number of people who are rough sleeping continues to rise. I hope that the cabinet secretary shares my view that it is disgraceful that, while we are in the chamber today, 10,000 children are growing up without the security of a permanent home. All the while, councils are left struggling as a result of the savage cuts that the SNP Government has made to council budgets.

Prevention is key, but we also know that, in order to end homelessness, we need to ensure that the supply of homes meets the demand. I have asked the cabinet secretary this question before, and I will ask it again: if the Government is hellbent on dismantling the housing sector brick by brick, how does she believe that the Government will reach its target of providing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032?

Well, they are not free then, are they?

That is the approach of the SNP and other political parties to taxation in this country. Their policy is, “If it moves, we’re going to tax it,” but they must know that that punishes ambition and penalises progression. It hits hardest those who are trying to move up the career ladder, take on extra responsibility or secure a better future for their family. The SNP tells us to wait for the budget for clarity, but, as colleagues have conveyed, nothing prevents the SNP from putting out those messages before the budget. A different approach to the taxation system would be welcomed.

For working parents, the situation is even more stark. Too many families are forced to make impossible choices when it comes to childcare in this country—they have to reduce hours, turn down promotions or leave the workforce altogether. They have to choose what they can do, because they do not have the additional money in their pocket to be able to make those decisions of their own free will. For many younger people in this country, the dream of becoming a home owner or parent is made more difficult because of the choices that are made in this chamber.

I know that I am in my last couple of minutes—

Sorry. In my last couple of seconds, I want to say that it is time for a different approach—one that backs working people, that recognises the real pressures that they face and that puts fairness, growth and opportunity back at the heart of Scotland’s tax system.