Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government how many transgender prisoners have had their criminal records erased, following a self-identification process and changing of their birth name. (S6T-02590)

We are hearing the same thing time and time again. It is always someone else’s fault when it comes to the SNP failing to achieve its targets.

Over the years, the Scottish Government has promised to deliver a number of policies to eradicate child poverty, such as free laptops, free bikes, smaller classroom sizes, new swing parks and closing the attainment gap, to name just a few. However, not one of those policies has been delivered in full.

I want to go back to the important question that was raised by my colleague Liz Smith about the mitigation of the two-child cap. The issue comes down to finances. As Liz Smith rightly pointed out, the mitigation of that policy will contribute significantly to worsening the pressure on the social security budget. I will simply repeat the question, because I do not believe that the cabinet secretary answered it when Liz Smith asked it originally. How will that be funded?

My next question relates to the point about data. Campaigners have called for a review of Police Scotland and Crown Office policy following the story that emerged in the press at the weekend. Given that a name change allowed an individual to separate himself from his criminal past, there needs to be a further investigation into the processes that Police Scotland and the Crown Office followed. We should not have had to wait until the initial incident took place and was reported in the press.

Record keeping is vital, especially in circumstances in which an individual changes—or can change—their name. Will the cabinet secretary commit to ending any practices by which a criminal can obscure their criminal record via a change of name or gender, to stop convicts hiding in plain sight before the authorities? Most importantly, can the cabinet secretary assure me and other members that safeguards will ensure that records are not misplaced in the system—which, as it stands, may be open to abuse, as we have seen through the story that was reported in the press?

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement.

Despite knowing for years that RAAC presents a serious safety risk, the Scottish National Party has failed to take action to address the issue. While councils face mounting repair bills to fix RAAC in public buildings, local government budgets have been cut year on year.

At the same time as politicians prioritise the debate on the use of toilets at Holyrood, thousands of homeowners who have been forced out of their homes are having to make mortgage payments on properties that they cannot access, while the value of those properties plummets.

In Aberdeen, SNP councillors refused to commit funding for RAAC repairs, which means that affected homeowners will have to shell out thousands for a new roof or see their home demolished. It is a complete injustice that, through no fault of their own, homeowners in RAAC-affected properties find themselves living in defective homes with little to no resale value. Does the minister think that that is an acceptable situation for homeowners to be in? Why will the SNP not step in, at either local or national level, to support people who are affected by the scandal?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

A year ago, the Scottish Government was forced to admit that Scotland has a housing emergency. Sir Tom Hunter has said that Scotland’s housing shortage could be resolved “tomorrow” if the Government listened to the sector. He said that he knows of developers who are choosing to take build-to-rent projects to Birmingham and Manchester because of Scottish National Party rent controls. Yet, here we are, progressing a bill to bring in permanent rent controls that is bad for investment and will not result in one home being built. Sir Tom Hunter is right, is he not? We need to “build, baby, build”.

Instead of continuing with plans to push damaging rent controls, will the Government focus on building more affordable housing? Is the cabinet secretary confident that the Government will reach its target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, considering that it is miles off its target and that today’s statement did not mention the word “build” once? Finally, will the cabinet secretary confirm today that the Scottish Government will not cut the affordable housing supply budget next year, given that it has already been cut by £218 million in real terms since 2021?

Falkirk Council cannot afford 20 per cent of the funding. The Grangemouth flood protection scheme cannot come to fruition. Falkirk Council cannot contribute more than £100 million: like many councils, it does not have sufficient funds to commit to such a scheme. What options are available? Is the cabinet secretary suggesting that, if councils cannot meet the 20 per cent requirement, no protection can be put in place? If that is what the Government is saying, communities will suffer as a result.

On the back of my colleague Stephen Kerr’s question, will the cabinet secretary commit to considering a bespoke plan for Grangemouth to safeguard those communities?

The statement tells me that the Scottish Government is not confident in delivering the outcomes and targets that have been announced by the minister. If the new national contingency resource facility had not been opened last month, there would be no beds available for children who require secure accommodation. That is not progress.

Members have asked about data in relation to young people who have not been able to be placed into secure accommodation because of the lack of beds. It is simply nonsense for the minister to respond by saying that the Scottish Government does not hold any data on that whatsoever. The minister has known that we need such data in order to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government. Why has she not looked into that?

We are talking about matters relating to the Promise, so why has it taken the minister so long to introduce the bill, given that her party gave its word to care-experienced young people that it would be introduced before the end of this parliamentary session?

Will Ross Greer take an intervention?

That is why we need to look at the whole of our housing sector. We need to build more homes in order to tackle the housing emergency. We are not going to do it otherwise, because, as it stands, supply is completely outweighed by the demand of people who need homes. I think that we can all agree on that point.

Just before the debate, I had a look at what properties are available in certain areas, including north Ayrshire, which Ross Greer represents. I discovered, from looking at the website of just one selling company, that, on Arran—to take that as a silo—there are 81 properties available right now. Therefore, there are homes available, but we need to look deeper into the reasons why people are not buying in those areas. That is an important point to make in the debate that we are having today.

We need to look at the facts. Second homes equate to just 1 per cent of the total number of dwellings in Scotland. People tend to buy second homes in areas that they would like to move to permanently when they retire, which means that they contribute to not just one but two economies. We have had discussions about exemptions and all the rest of it. It is in the interests of people who have second homes to play an active role in supporting both the community in which they have their primary home and the one in which they have their secondary home.

The best way of ensuring that communities that have particularly high levels of second home ownership are able to thrive is to make sure that we have a sufficient supply of homes to meet demand. That is the biggest point that I can make today.

We also need to look at how we approach the housing sector from an ideological perspective, given the need to ensure that we have enough homes to tackle the housing emergency. If we put in place policies that stifle investment and development and constrain the provision of more affordable homes in the private rented sector or elsewhere, we will not be able to tackle the big problems that we face with housing today.

I will leave my remarks there, in case I get a telling-off about timing from the Presiding Officer.

I hope that you feel better soon, Presiding Officer.

One of my favourite comic strips when I was growing up was “The Broons”. “The Broons” is a staple in many Scottish households, with generations eagerly awaiting the next edition. It is published in the Sunday Post each week, and many people collect the annuals.

Why on earth am I talking about “The Broons” today? The Broons, fae Glebe Street, have their but and ben,

“a rare wee beauty spot wi a difference”.

It is a second home, which is the topic of the debate today. A but and ben, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is a traditional Scottish residential house featuring two rooms—the but being the outer room or kitchen area and the ben being the inner room or living space.

The Broons, a typical working-class family who live in a tenement flat, have that second home in the Highlands, which is a relatively short distance from their home. The Broons belong to more than one community. Second home ownership is intrinsically Scottish.

The fictional Broons enjoy their weekends there and, although the younger Broons need some encouragement to enjoy their short breaks, the family have many an adventure while enjoying some time away with the family. One short comic strip section even shows how the family renovated the but and ben to bring the property back into use.

The point that I am making is that second homes are not always for the rich and wealthy. I hope that that is taken into consideration during the debate, because ordinary working Scots are also involved in second home ownership.