Chamber and committees

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.

Good morning. I will go back to your discussion with Willie Coffey on heat pumps to ask about something that I hope can be expanded on.

When we started talking about heat in buildings back in 2023, there was a huge emphasis on heat pumps, even though there are, in fact, other clean energies that can be used to heat homes efficiently and effectively. Has there been any change in direction from the Government? Businesses and stakeholders tell me that they want to help and be part of this story. Are you now having those kinds of conversations to inform any legislation that might come forward?

Although an uplift to the housing budget is welcome, the cabinet secretary knows that encouraging private investment is key to solving Scotland’s housing crisis. It is interesting that, in her statement, there was little to no mention of the housing emergency, given that a housing emergency has been declared by the Parliament.

The cabinet secretary talks a good game about attracting investment to deliver more homes, but policies such as rent controls and the proposed building safety levy threaten to put additional pressure on the private sector. How will today’s budget support the private house building sector? Will the cabinet secretary commit to eradicating punitive taxes that will make it more difficult for the sector to build the homes that we in Scotland desperately need?

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.