Chamber and committees

I will pick up Evelyn Tweed’s initial line of questioning on the affordable homes target. The funding for that was reduced in previous years and although its level has now been reinstated, that is still a real-terms cut. I am looking for reassurance from you, cabinet secretary, that that will not happen in future years in order to give certainty to the market, particularly when you are trying to meet affordable house building targets.

I understand. The issue is about having certainty of funding, and I appreciate that you have talked about providing multiyear funding.

It has taken 18 years for the Government to elevate housing to a cabinet secretary post. We have got there—I am pleased that we have done so—but it should not have taken that long.

You mentioned investing up to £4.9 billion over the next four years. I refer to the report by CIH Scotland, Shelter Scotland and the SFHA, which says that you will need almost to double that amount—I think that you will need £8.2 billion as opposed to £4.9 billion—to invest in housing and to build the number of homes that are required in order to tackle the housing emergency overall.

Will the cabinet secretary review the target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 and update it to the 15,000 homes that is said will be needed each year? Are you looking into that? What is your response to the calls to double the investment from other housing spokespeople and charitable organisations?

I understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from. The national director of CIH Scotland has said that the

“£4.9 billion is a welcome demonstration of intent, but it fails to meet Scotland’s social and affordable housing need and resolve the housing emergency.”

Without investing more, is there a real risk that we will not be able to tackle the housing emergency? Is that work still the top priority of Government?

That is helpful.

The BS 8414 testing system has been seen as a route to compliance when it comes to cladding. What is the Government’s position on that particular testing model, given that the stark evidence from the Grenfell tower inquiry was that it should not be used as a testing system?

On that point, Homes for Scotland, the Scottish Property Federation and Scottish Land & Estates say that they do not agree with the building safety levy, so how will you, as cabinet secretary, discuss that and engage with people who are concerned about it, to ensure that those concerns are voiced? In the grand scale of what you are trying to achieve to make buildings safe, £30 million per annum seems quite small.

Cabinet secretary, I am going to probe you further on the timings for the bill. The consultation began on 28 November 2023, but I believe that the Scottish Government started talking about the issue in 2021. That is a substantial amount of time. This morning, we are hearing that there is the warmer homes plan and that nothing will be brought forward until the climate action plan has been completed, but you have had all that time to bring something forward. We have five and a bit months of this parliamentary session left. Is there sufficient time for a committee to scrutinise the bill, for amendments to be considered and for the bill to be brought to the chamber for stage 3 proceedings before the Parliament is dissolved for the election?

Okay. We have heard that the warmer homes scheme has been delayed for several reasons. It was introduced in 2024—I have just looked it up. I understand that you are still relatively new in post, but your predecessors had a sufficient amount of time to bring something concrete to the table. I know that there have been issues, given that you were in coalition but now are not, but there is uncertainty for the sector, which I do not think is fair. Is that a fair assessment—that you must ensure that the sector is coming along with you on that journey and that the uncertainty as to whether a bill will be introduced is not very helpful for it?

That is helpful; thank you very much.

I would like to explore what qualifies as a high-risk building over 18m tall that should be remediated or demolished by 2019. I understand that there is a residential element, and I hope that the cabinet secretary can expand on that. I am certainly interested in other buildings that have cladding attached to them, such as hotels, hospitals, boarding schools, hostels and so on. I have tried in the past to gather an explanation or an answer from Government on whether those buildings will be included in the remediation work. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that?

I accept that, but there is a problem with those particular building types. My concern is that Scotland has still not extended the ban on cladding in order to include such buildings. Is that actively being explored? When will we see an answer on that? For months, I have tried to get a direction from the Government on whether an extension or potential extension of the ban will include such buildings. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such an extension would bring us into line with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom?

That is helpful, thank you. My next question is linked to cladding but also the proposed building safety levy. What is the estimate for the total amount of Scottish Government funding that would be required for evidence gathering, single building assessments, remediation work and future monitoring requirements, and what role would a potential levy play in that, if any?