Chamber and committees

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.

This should not have happened in the first place. We are talking about convicted criminals—some of them violent or sexual offenders—whose records could, at any point, be obscured through self-identification and a legal name change. The cabinet secretary needs to provide clarity—I am pleased that she did so in her response—because we cannot have further instances happening in the future. We need to ensure that victims, women’s groups and the wider public have faith in the justice system when the Government looks at such issues, because we need to know whether there have been instances of authorities having missed a person’s criminal record because they changed their gender. Is the cabinet secretary absolutely sure that that instance was an isolated one? Is she sure that we will not return to the chamber to hear of any more such instances in the future?

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?