Chamber and committees

That is helpful, cabinet secretary.

We know that roughly £97 million of Barnett consequentials have been sent through in relation to cladding, and we also had a debate last week on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. Can you clarify how much of the Barnett consequential funding has been spent so far? You have talked about upscaling the spend in that area, but it would be good to know how much of the Barnett consequential money has already been spent.

That is helpful, and I look forward to receiving your letter.

I will pick up on that briefly and move to a question about RAAC in a second. I know that you are having to increase the spend for carrying out cladding remediation work. The importance of building safety is widely accepted. No one will dispute it. However, there are concerns over a disparity, in that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has reported that the building safety levy would raise £30 million a year. I know that that will be scrutinised in the Parliament over the next few weeks. Will the figure be clarified at that stage, so that whatever committee that will be dealing with it or scrutinising a part of it knows exactly what the figures are?

That is helpful, cabinet secretary.

Good morning. I want to start with a point of clarification, if I may, which takes me back to the private rented sector and the energy efficiency standards. I know that the cabinet secretary has not seen that plan as yet, but we are running out of time, given the number of weeks that we have before the dissolution of the Parliament. Does the cabinet secretary envisage the plan coming forward between now and then, or could there be a delay to any regulations being brought forward?

I accept your point, but—and I know that you are aware of this—the frustration is with the time that it is taking to get the cladding remediation off the ground. An issue that I have come across, and which I wrote to you about in December, relates to the cladding remediation programme and the differences in letters coming from the Scottish Government to people who are trying to sell their properties but who have been affected by cladding problems. In 2024, the Scottish Government appeared to say that it would fully fund remediation costs in those cases where it could not identify the developer; however, that view appeared to have changed substantially a year later when another person was trying to sell their property.

Having seen the two letters in question, I think that it would be good to get some clarification on this. One individual was able to move on and sell their property, while the other person feels trapped. We need to be really careful with the language in those letters. It would be good to hear from you or, indeed, the officials on the matter, because I am worried that some people have received a letter saying that remediation will be fully funded while others have not.

12:00

That is helpful. I will move on to a question on RAAC. The Government has stepped in to offer investment support in the north-east equating to roughly £10 million, through the housing infrastructure fund. However, other local authorities have not been so fortunate as to be included in that offer; for example, West Lothian Council has estimated that it needs roughly £85 million in order to fully remediate RAAC-infected schools, community buildings and council homes. I know that, in this meeting, we are talking only about homes, but those are included in the £85 million. Will you extend the offer to other local authorities with the greatest need for RAAC remediation, or was what we saw in Aberdeen a one-off?

Thank you for that clarification, cabinet secretary.

The City of Edinburgh Council has said that it is going to see whether there are any further examples of RAAC-related issues in its local authority area. Do you see there being more councils in difficult and precarious financial situations trying to remediate buildings and homes? If no further funding is to be made available to them, could that lead to a situation where we will have empty properties that need to be demolished, or whatever the council decides? I am concerned about that, because those buildings have been identified as risks. How can we remedy that? Is there any potential for discussion between the Scottish Government and councils about that issue if councils lack the financial means to remediate the homes and buildings that are impacted?

I am very grateful, convener. I just want to convey my thanks to the committee for its work on this particular petition. I know from working with the families, and certainly from being part of the debates on the issue, how sensitive it is. However, that being said, there are still some real concerns that have not been addressed by the minister or by the Scottish Government. Some of those concerns have already been touched on, but I stress the concern about the number of beds, because that is a really important point and I have been trying to pursue it with the minister. At present, in neonatal wards, there is, for every 10 babies born, only one bed for parents to stay over. If the centralisation or downgrading—however you want to term it—takes place, there is a risk that parents will not be able to stay close by their babies, who are very vulnerable and very sick. That is not the right care or the way in which we should be treating families who are in that difficult position. I ask the committee, please, to continue with the petition—for the sake of the families and of any families who need to use these vital services in the future.

11:15

The report also said that there could be between three and five specialised units. It is for the Scottish Government to explain why there are three, not five. If there were five, it would give families more reassurance about where they could go, should their babies need that specialised care.

I appreciate having the time for a short contribution.

I am very grateful, convener. I just want to convey my thanks to the committee for its work on this particular petition. I know from working with the families, and certainly from being part of the debates on the issue, how sensitive it is. However, that being said, there are still some real concerns that have not been addressed by the minister or by the Scottish Government. Some of those concerns have already been touched on, but I stress the concern about the number of beds, because that is a really important point and I have been trying to pursue it with the minister. At present, in neonatal wards, there is, for every 10 babies born, only one bed for parents to stay over. If the centralisation or downgrading—however you want to term it—takes place, there is a risk that parents will not be able to stay close by their babies, who are very vulnerable and very sick. That is not the right care or the way in which we should be treating families who are in that difficult position. I ask the committee, please, to continue with the petition—for the sake of the families and of any families who need to use these vital services in the future.

11:15

The report also said that there could be between three and five specialised units. It is for the Scottish Government to explain why there are three, not five. If there were five, it would give families more reassurance about where they could go, should their babies need that specialised care.

I appreciate having the time for a short contribution.

Very quickly, I will note that I was pleased to hear what you said about the private rented sector. When the initial proposals came out, the sector felt that it was being unfairly treated, as it would have been required to have everything in place, particularly for new tenancies, before other parts of the housing sector.

Are you having an on-going conversation with the private rented sector to inform any future pieces of legislation? The feedback that I have had is that the sector does not want to have to meet a lot of up-front costs for putting the new policies in place before other parts of the housing sector. It is really all about fairness.