Chamber and committees

During stage 2 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I lodged amendments that sought to strengthen the Scottish social housing charter. The amendments looked specifically at the relationship between social landlords and individuals who they believe may

“have experienced, are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse”.

Given that the charter was created in 2010, this is an opportunity for the Housing (Scotland) Bill to strengthen support for women, especially if they are at risk of being homeless. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that the Government will lodge amendments at stage 3, but I hope that she will work with members who lodged the related amendments at stage 2 to make sure that they are agreed at stage 3.

On the point of childcare, there are councils across the country that are not allowing eligible two and three-year-olds to access the 1,140 hours of free funded childcare until the beginning of the term after they have turned two or three years old. Does the cabinet secretary realise that that is a problem and that we need to fix it if we are going to encourage women back into work, alongside the childcare policy?

Alex Cole-Hamilton is talking about issues in relation to women’s health, but what about young women’s health? We know that young women, particularly those from poorer areas, are less likely to take up the PVG vaccine for cervical cancer. What does Alex Cole-Hamilton think that we can do to encourage take-up of the vaccine by young women, which is a huge issue right now, because it is life saving?

I have time, so I will.

I have been really generous with interventions during my contribution. However, I recommend that Alex Cole-Hamilton meets the EHRC, because that point might be made clearer for him.

I will get on with what I was going to say, because I am well over time and have taken a lot of interventions on the issue.

It is important for the Government to clarify why we are still stalling. It is clear that we can get on with matters now. With that, Presiding Officer, I close my remarks.

If memory serves me well, my point was about having more talking shops, more ministerial engagements and so on. That is not progress. What people need is confirmation from the cabinet secretary today that, in the case of Torry residents, the money will be released, and they need to know whether the Government will commit to any solutions in relation to funding or otherwise that residents can rely on in order to remediate their homes.

I congratulate my colleague Liam Kerr on achieving cross-party support on the topic of the debate. I also congratulate him for his work on it—he is not just standing up for his constituents but raising RAAC as an important issue for the Scottish Parliament to consider.

As this is my first opportunity to do so, I welcome Màiri McAllan back to Parliament following her maternity leave, and congratulate her on her new post as Cabinet Secretary for Housing. I look forward to working with her over the next few months.

I am relieved that the penny has finally dropped for the Scottish Government. I have long argued that housing should be a stand-alone portfolio, and should sit in the Cabinet. That is the only way that we can ensure that the Scottish Government can be held fully to account on progress on tackling the deepening housing emergency. I am certain that one of the many issues that the cabinet secretary will be well aware of is RAAC—specifically, how the Government will remediate properties that are affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete.

I will not ask the cabinet secretary how many properties are affected by RAAC, because we all know the answer that I would get. I tried to obtain that figure from the previous housing minister, but was unsuccessful, because the Scottish Government has not got a clue. We know from data that has been collected by the Scottish Housing Regulator that around 2,500 social housing units have been identified as containing RAAC. However, although 145 social landlords have confirmed that no RAAC is in their properties, some are still investigating. Of course, those figures do not include home owners, many of whom are conducting their own investigations to find out what position they are in.

Despite knowing for years that RAAC could present a serious public health risk, the Scottish Government has failed to address the issue head on. RAAC hotlines have been set up to try to identify the exact number of people who live in homes that are riddled with RAAC, but, frankly, it is embarrassing that we are no further forward than we were when the issue was raised in 2019, after the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service identified the presence of RAAC in fire stations. That is why my colleague Liam Kerr’s members’ business debate this afternoon is important.

On 22 April, at a meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the former housing minister promised that he would meet local residents in Aberdeen in May. That is on the official record, and I am pleased that that meeting took place. That could have been an opportunity to alleviate the concerns of local residents and for the Scottish Government to commit to a plan to assist home owners to remediate their homes. However, again, we are no further forward.

At the same time, cash-strapped councils face mounting repair bills to fix RAAC in public buildings and thousands of Scots have been forced out of their homes while the value of their properties plummets. As was the case with the 150 privately owned affected properties in Torry, the buy-back offers that are proposed by councils are likely to be significantly less than the homes were bought for. That is a grave injustice that home owners, through no fault of their own, are suffering because of Scottish Government inaction.

Lastly, I raise the issue of the disparity in the approaches that are outlined by local government. Some councils have opted for demolition, while others try to remediate. As there has been no leadership and no direction from central Government, that has undoubtedly led to inconsistency across the board, which means that RAAC remediation is a postcode lottery.

We have a new opportunity, however, as we now have a Cabinet Secretary for Housing who will sit at the top tier of Government. She has an opportunity to do three things. First, she can meet with the campaign groups in order to fully understand their concerns and the issues that they have continuously raised and campaigned on. Secondly, she can create a plan to work with local authorities to ensure that remediation options are consistent and that they prevent upheaval for home owners specifically. Thirdly, she can outline—finally—whether the Scottish Government will assist with the remediation of privately owned homes. That is the very least that the Government can do in order to provide the reassurance and clarity that many people across Scotland desperately need, given that the properties that they own are affected by RAAC.

Good morning. My first question is on targets for house building. We are in a housing emergency. There is a severe housing shortage and demand completely outstrips supply in all the different housing markets. I was interested in what Clare Symonds had to say about the 40,000 empty homes and the 24,000 second homes. I understand the points that she is raising but, even if those homes were to be brought back into use, that would not touch the sides of the present demand for housing and the need to build more homes if we are to tackle the housing emergency as a whole.

On that point, Homes for Scotland has asked for a minimum target of building 25,000 new homes each year to be established. How would that work, given that NPF4 has a presumption in favour of brownfield sites, which are of course more costly to build on, with serious issues in relation to the need to treat ground? Brownfield sites tend to be smaller development areas; they are not necessarily the larger areas that developers might need in order to tackle housing need in the areas concerned.

I will try to put my last three questions together, because they are on the same issue. This morning, we have spoken a lot about out-of-date local development plans and the length of time that it takes to draft and adopt new ones. It would be good if someone wanted to expand on those points and on what we can do to accelerate the process.

We have also heard about the overly rigid interpretation of NPF4. There are policies, whether they are contained within NPF4 or sit outside it, that stifle development. One example of that could be the application of 20-minute neighbourhood policies to remote rural developments.

Does anyone want to expand on those points? The future of LDPs and where we go with them is an important point.