Chamber and committees

That is a really important point, particularly, as you say, to ensure that the valuation matches the remedial work that has been done, as well as to ensure that it does not fall behind just because of what has happened across the board in some areas up and down the country. Gary Brady, do you have a costing associated with the remediation work that you have undertaken?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. We are now eight years on from the Grenfell tragedy. The Scottish Government has had eight years to carry out remedial works to properties with unsafe cladding, yet here we are with another statement, and we are no further forward. It feels like groundhog day in Holyrood.

To be frank, it is embarrassing that the Scottish Government has concluded the single building assessment process for only 13 properties. Progress has been painfully slow and the Scottish Government has shown a distinct lack of leadership, leaving us miles behind our UK counterparts.

Today’s statement is riddled with next steps that should have been completed following the passing of the 2024 act. There will be more consulting and assessments, more information gathering and a resetting of the ministerial working group, but that will lead to no further action. Today’s announcement is a kick in the teeth for those waiting for work to be carried out on their homes. People want to know when cladding will be removed from their properties, not when the latest Scottish Government talking shop will next meet.

The Grenfell tower inquiry’s second report, which was published on 4 September last year, made 58 recommendations, 43 of which fall within areas of devolved competence. Does the minister accept all of those 43 recommendations? When will remediation works on the five properties where work has begun be completed? Finally, it feels as if it is a lifetime since the Government announced it in the first place, so when will work on the remaining 102 properties be completed?

I am looking at a report on the Scottish Government website that says that

“when our children leave the care system, they are too often not ready for adulthood”,

and they become homeless. The whole purpose of these amendments is to try to address the homelessness issues that care-experienced young people face. That is part of the Promise, and it was part of the legislation that was passed in this Parliament and that the Government said that it would fulfil and achieve.

I might be mistaken here, but I have not seen anything directed at the Promise that relates to tackling homelessness for care-experienced people. Will the minister outline how that will be achieved and what the Government has done thus far? We will end up in 2030 not having anything in legislation that tackles the problem.

In relation to the debate yesterday, recommendations were made, but there is a clear disconnect with regard to the implementation of the recommendations on children in temporary accommodation. That is on the back of the 2023 outcomes set by the Scottish Government. We need to look at those specific issues, and it is incumbent on the Government to do so and see whether something can be brought back at stage 3, because it is clear that what the Government is doing just now is not working. The amendments in the group have been lodged, because there is a significant problem with children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland, and we need legislation that will help solve that problem.

The points that have been raised in relation to data are very important with regard to different categories of persons who could be impacted. I wonder whether the Government might want to explore that further with members, looking toward stage 3. Members have referred to particular groups, but I am certain that there are probably more groups that have not been identified in committee.

The amendments raise a lot of concerns regarding strategy and whether various groups of people need direct support and therefore need to be included in the legislation. Perhaps the minister can expand on those points, because I believe that they are important. Care-experienced young people fall into a different category, right enough, given that we already have the Promise, which all political parties signed up to and endorsed and which they continue to support.

Roz McCall’s comments about how we need to do more are bang on. Housing is critical to ensuring that we deliver the Promise by its benchmark target dates, so amendments that would promote that and allow those targets to be met should be welcomed and supported.

That is all that I have to say just now, but I am interested in the aspects around the amendments in this group, and I think that other discussions might need to be had.

Will the minister take an intervention?

There are two housing waiting lists—a general waiting list and the homelessness waiting list. Given the minister’s local government background, how does he think that Kevin Stewart’s amendments would work in practice, should they be agreed to? Do they relate to the concerns that the councils raised in the short consultation that the Government carried out? If so, that would need to be looked at. That relates to Jeremy Balfour’s contributions on strengthening those elements. The minister would need to take a serious look at how the housing waiting list system works.

I hear what the member is saying but I think that it comes down to what it looks like in practice. We know that councils have vast numbers of people who are stranded, languishing on waiting lists up and down the country. As Jeremy Balfour rightly pointed out, amendment 1052 would mean moving to one waiting list, and that would change the whole structure of the housing list system and how it functions. Would it be the case that people who desperately need help might not be able to get that help because of the new system and what it could look like within the scope of what is being asked in the amendments? That is something that we all have to watch out for.

Again, I am not saying that the issue should not be looked at, but we should look for the unintended consequences that could come from the amendments in this group. I believe that we need to know what it would look like in practice before we progress.

Given the responses to amendments this morning at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I am not sure that what the minister says is quite accurate. Fife Council underspent its housing budget by almost £9 million this year, despite declaring a housing emergency a year ago. Included in that £9 million was £3.5 million for the property acquisition programme. Acquisition plays a key role in any council’s housing approach, but it does not necessarily add properties to the overall stock. Will the minister engage with council officials to ensure that all levers are available to local government to prevent slippage? Will he also give an update on the roll-out of the planning hubs? We have not heard much about those since the Government’s announcement.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the findings of the fatal accident inquiry for Lea Lamont, Ellie McCormick, and Mira-Belle Bosch, published on 14 March 2025, which suggest that the three child fatalities were avoidable.