Chamber and committees

Last month’s report by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner recommended that veterans who are accessing benefits through Social Security Scotland should be identified and supported by staff who are trained to be veteran aware and that veteran support needs to have a clear, designated point of contact. That recommendation was made even more urgent when last week’s figures showed that 925 veterans in Scotland made a homelessness application in the past year. I am sure that the whole chamber agrees that that is not acceptable. Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Government will implement the Scottish Veterans Commissioner’s recommendations in full and consider creating a veterans network in Social Security Scotland, so that veterans can get support from those who most understand their lived experience—other veterans?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

We know that the problems with NHS dentistry are caused primarily by dentists leaving the NHS to go private. The Scottish Government’s response has been to promise to train roughly 10 extra dentists a year, while hundreds of migrant dentists are unable to work as NHS dentists because of huge waiting lists to access conversion training. Will the minister stop blaming the UK Government over a marginal dispute about skilled worker visas and take responsibility for creating an effective training and retention plan to serve the ambitions of Scotland?

[Inaudible.]—that structural failure in their tenement building might result in the council’s building control officers evacuating them from their homes at a moment’s notice. Indeed, for several, that has already happened, with devastating personal consequences.

It is clear to me that certainly Glasgow and probably other places in Scotland have a ticking time bomb when it comes to tenement maintenance. If we do not get a grip of the issue soon, we will have an even bigger crisis on our hands. In July, a category B listed tenement at the junction of Albert Drive and Kenmure Street in Pollokshields collapsed after five years of sitting derelict since a fire in the roof, leaving residents permanently homeless but, perversely, still paying for a mortgage on a home that no longer exists. Others in neighbouring closes were evacuated by Glasgow City Council building control officers and are still in limbo.

There were several frustrating flaws in existing legislation that led to the evacuation and eventual demolition of that tenement building, but the recurring theme has been a lack of appropriate block insurance among the flat and shop owners and the way in which that block was managed—it was self-factored, as is the case with many other tenements.

That is not an isolated case. Recently, in the Calton, Wendy Murray, one of my constituents, was ordered out by building control officers when her block was deemed dangerous due to a derelict pub on the ground floor suffering a floor collapse. She did what the system asks and declared herself as homeless only to be offered unsuitable temporary accommodation while an absentee owner and unresolved responsibilities stalled the rapid repair of the tenement building. She ended up paying rent and a mortgage while also paying with her health.

Ultimately, it is similar to having car insurance. Fundamentally, you are obligated to insure the building because it is a critical asset and, as we know, the consequences of not having it are detrimental. There has to be agreement on best value, and the way to resolve disagreements would perhaps be arbitration.

However, first and foremost, getting the fabric repaired is the most important thing, and having common block insurance is critical in that regard. Although the council has powers to clear a building if it is in a dangerous condition, it cannot readily compel or fund repairs that are needed to allow for rehabilitation. Wendy Murray, like too many others, fell into the gap between our existing tenement law and the reality of managing common repairs to residential buildings that are under shared ownership.

The issue is increasingly predictable, certainly in Glasgow, where around 70,000 tenement flats predate the first world war. When it comes to structural condition, roof stonework enclosures are now reaching life expiry. That issue will not be sorted flat by flat, yet the law too often assumes that each owner can solve a shared risk on their own. When that assumption meets fire, water ingress or structural failure, claims stall, responsibility is disputed and buildings deteriorate while families live in limbo, which significantly detriments their health and wellbeing.

Although we urgently need a new comprehensive tenements act to address those myriad issues, the Housing (Scotland) Bill offers an opportunity to make some immediate reforms that will provide greater security for tenemental living across Scotland.

Amendment 336 does that in a simple and practical way. It simply creates a legal requirement for all owners in a tenement building to establish and have a common single insurance policy that covers the entire building. In the 1970s, when storms exposed widespread disrepair in Glasgow, the city organised large-scale rehabilitation programmes and kept communities intact. What we need is not complicated: clear duties, a functioning owners’ framework and rapid access to funds for repairs. A building-wide insurance policy can provide that fundamental underpinning, which would safeguard households and reduce public costs. It is standard elsewhere, so let us make it the standard here.

I move amendment 336.

I accept the points that the cabinet secretary has made, but the Government’s lack of urgency, hitherto and currently, is unacceptable, given that the inadequacy of existing legislation is causing significant public harm.

I disagree with the cabinet secretary on whether there is a need for the obligation on owners. It is clear to me that atomising things into separate insurance policies for flats is not sufficient and that we need to rationalise the system, with all owners in a tenement building having a clear legal duty to maintain a single common insurance policy that covers the entire building fabric. Having one insurer and one claim for one building is essential. I say that as a consequence of my deep study of the issue as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust and as someone who has dealt with several complex cases in the city in that regard over the past few years.

I strongly encourage the cabinet secretary to consider the particular issue of insurance, because my proposal would mean that repairs to the common fabric could start quickly, residents could return sooner and the hold-out problem with absentee landlords, invalid policies and missing signatures would no longer block everyone else and lead to a spiral of unintended consequences.

I am sure that members will have heard similar accounts in their constituencies. The situation is simply unacceptable. The public sector is paying through having to provide homelessness support and having to deal with the health impacts, and communities are paying through empty buildings dragging down streets, often for years. In the case of Pollokshields, that resulted in a building collapsing into the street and people being made homeless.

We can make a change now. I accept that amendment 336 is simply a way of indicating the need for more urgent movement on the issue by the Government. I am afraid that subcontracting the issue to the Law Commission will not be enough alone, because we need to move at a greater pace than the pace at which the Law Commission can deliver. For several years, I have been working with Mr Simpson and others on the working group on tenement maintenance, and we are disappointed and frustrated that the Government is not moving more quickly. Residents in Pollokshields, Calton and Dennistoun, as well as those elsewhere in Glasgow, need greater security and greater reassurance from the Government that it will deal with the issue sooner rather than later.

I ask members to back amendment 336, which I press.

I extend my thanks and appreciation to Christine Grahame for presenting to Parliament a motion that I know will be close to the hearts of many people across the chamber and throughout Scotland.

Organ donation week is an important moment in the year for us to remember the lives saved by the incredibly generous donations of others, while also, I hope, stirring us to greater action so that we can live in a Scotland where everyone who needs a donated organ can receive one.

Organ donation, as has been mentioned by other members, including Mr Kerr, is the ultimate act of kindness and represents a selfless commitment to the wellbeing of others. It is a recognition that when our life has reached its end, others can be given the gift of life and vitality. It is an ending that becomes a beginning; the moment of death becomes, in a way, an act of love and a continuation or improvement of life. It is through such acts of giving and receiving that we build a society that is based on trust and recognition—one in which we care for the stranger and in which, at the end of life, we can leave with a generous spirit and a hand open to friendship, even to someone whom we have never met.

Like many in the Parliament, I was a registered organ donor under the old system. I am proud that the Parliament created an opt-out system in 2021, after the passing of the Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Act 2019. That monumental act of Parliament still retains choice for those who wish, for whatever reason, to opt out of the system, but the more generous and giving option is now the default. The 2019 act was a profound moment of progress that we should all be proud of—it built a sense of solidarity and community.

That said, although Scotland should be proud of the opt-out system, the figures from Kidney Research Scotland paint a worrying picture of the state of organ donation in Scotland. Five hundred people are currently waiting for transplants in Scotland, but the numbers registering on the organ donor register have reduced dramatically each year, from 155,479 in 2021 to just 7,859. That is a worrying development.

Not registering on the organ donor register can create a lack of clarity for families regarding their loved ones’ final wishes. It can cause delays in organ retrieval, which means that organs that could have been saved to enhance or preserve life are no longer able to be used, often very urgently, in surgery.

I urge everyone listening to ensure that they are on the organ donor register so that their family, and medical professionals, can be in no doubt about their wishes, should they wish to donate organs. I admit that I did not fully appreciate that requirement to clarify my intentions and that I have just done so in the past five minutes. It does not take long at all—I just did it on the website.

The member mentioned Kvaerner. It is important to recognise that the Norwegians played a critical role in rejuvenating and saving the Govan shipyard in the late 1980s and that there is a fabulous legacy in seeing that investment come full circle.

On Tuesday, I was pleased to return to my old workplace, BAE Systems naval ships in Scotstoun, with the newly appointed Minister of State for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, to celebrate the £10 billion deal to supply at least five type 26 frigates to our Norwegian friends. The deal has brought with it a wave of optimism to the shipyards on the River Clyde, in stark contrast to when I worked there a decade ago. I think that I express the will of the whole Parliament in extending our gratitude and thanks to our Norwegian neighbours for their vote of confidence in our shipbuilders and the world’s best frigate design.

Both the Scottish naval shipyards—in Govan and Scotstoun, and Rosyth—now have a formidable order book with an expected 18 frigates in the pipeline: 13 type 26 vessels for the Royal Navy and Royal Norwegian Navy, and five type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy, with export prospects for the latter including to Denmark and Sweden.

Glasgow is now at the very heart of the largest surface naval shipbuilding programme in Europe, a programme rivalled only by those in the United States and China. This is not only about building ships; it is about building a future. It is about supporting Glasgow’s largest manufacturing industry, which has always been a vital engine in the west of Scotland’s economy. Not only will the deal with Norway directly sustain more than 2,000 jobs at the Govan and Scotstoun shipyards, providing a stable workload for the next 15 years; it will cascade work to 103 businesses across the shipbuilding supply chain in Scotland. Together, those businesses support more than 12,000 jobs in this country.

Like many Glaswegians, I come from a family with a proud history of working in the Clyde shipyards. My dad, my uncle and my granddad all worked in the shipyards, going right back to the building of the Queen Elizabeth 2 in the 1960s. I recall the pride of launch days, sitting on my dad’s shoulders, looking at those vast ships being launched into the river and hearing the clatter of the drag chains, but I remember that pride in the industry and the achievement of our families being overshadowed by the fear that the ship that my dad was building would be the last one—the precarious nature of shipbuilding in the 1990s meant that there was a sense that every ship might be the last one. When my dad eventually lost his job, I saw his purpose ripped away from him and the devastating effect that that had on my family. That is the source of my motivation to play my own part in reviving Glasgow’s shipbuilding industry.

The United Kingdom Labour Government shares my ambition for reviving the industry right across Scotland. The £10 billion deal with Norway represents the largest shipbuilding export deal in our country’s history. It will give people across Scotland confidence that shipbuilding has a secure future, giving young people confidence that a career on the Clyde will be a prosperous and fulfilling one, working on some of the world’s most complex engineering projects. I am hopeful that the Norway deal will also signal to other countries that Scotland is leading the way with its specialist naval shipbuilding capabilities. Indeed, a United States Navy delegation, led by the US Secretary of the Navy, was on a tour of the Clyde shipyards this week. The delegation was hugely impressed with how far ahead we are in skills development and facilities investment, with that confidence in long-term orders.

We should seize this generational opportunity to reposition Scotland as a leading force in world shipbuilding again, leveraging the critical mass of the naval shipbuilding programme to drive commercial shipbuilding growth too. It should be a springboard for growth, not just a hammock where we can get complacent. This Government’s decision earlier this month to scrap its ridiculous ban on support for naval shipbuilding is a welcome first step to grasping the opportunity that the deal with Norway represents for the nation. However, there are still deep concerns in the industry that the new policy amounts to a shadow ban of defence firms. Industry tells me that greater clarity is needed from the Government on its new policy.

Although the UK Government is backing Scottish shipbuilding, the Scottish Government’s outdated, laissez-faire public procurement policy is handing an unfair advantage to state-supported overseas competitors. It is frankly absurd to export Scottish skilled work and jobs to shipyards in Poland and Turkey by awarding contracts for CalMac ferries to them rather than to Scottish shipyards that can do the job. It leaves one with the impression that the Norwegian Government seems to have more confidence in Scotland’s shipbuilding capabilities then this Scottish National Party Government has—that is the reality.

We need a specific shipbuilding strategy for Scotland, and at the heart of that strategy must be a change to Scottish public procurement law to include a mandatory social value weighting in tenders for shipbuilding programmes. That would ensure that Scottish ships are more likely to be built in Scotland. Take, for example, the current procurement process for the two new freight flex vessels that will serve the Aberdeen to Kirkwall/Lerwick route. Four shipyards have been invited this week to tender for the contract: two in Turkey and two in China. Why are the Scottish Government-owned Ferguson Marine, Babcock in Rosyth, or Harland & Wolff not in contention for that £200 million contract? The irony is that the only work that is keeping the lights on at Ferguson Marine today is the subcontract steel work fabrication from BAE Systems for the type 26 frigates. Even the promised capital investment to improve Ferguson’s antiquated shipyard has not yet been made, despite it taking years to install critical equipment such as a panel line.

Although the UK Government’s national shipbuilding strategy sets out that a minimum 10 per cent social value weighting should be applied to evaluations of all new shipbuilding competitions, the Scottish Government has no equivalent. It considers only quality and price, which means that, as we have just heard during First Minister’s questions, Scottish firms often do not even bother to tender for the work, fully aware that they cannot compete with the competitive shipbuilding finance provided by state investment banks in Spain, Turkey, Poland and China.

I also note that the minister mentioned size. If Ferguson Marine leased the Inchgreen dry dock, it could easily assemble the ship for the northern isles project.

The tender for the Northern Lighthouse Board vessel replacement project was won by Gondán, a Spanish shipbuilder. Although BAE and Ferguson Marine were invited to tender for that contract, they withdrew shortly after being informed that they were among the six suppliers to be selected, and for the following reasons. BAE said that a UK-based social value consideration was not regarded as essential in responding to the tender and Ferguson’s said that the Northern Lighthouse Board’s stated position on economic and social impact scoring would make no distinction between impacts in the UK and other countries, weighting apprentices in foreign countries the same as those at home. That is crazy.

I asked the Scottish Government to accept the UK Government’s generous offer of a legislative consent memorandum to update Scottish public procurement law and to introduce mandatory local industrial social value weighting in all public procurement competitions. There is a real opportunity for Scotland to build on that £10 billion contract with Norway. If we are to rejuvenate Scotland as a leading shipbuilding nation, we must use the Scottish National Investment Bank to remove the financial barriers that impede Scottish shipyards from competing with those in Turkey, Poland and China and must add minimum social value weighting to all tenders.

This is personal, not political, for me. One of the main reasons why I am here in this Parliament is to help Scottish shipbuilding succeed and I hope that the whole Parliament can agree with that endeavour.

The minister has made an important point about the supply chain. Around 80 per cent of the value of those ships is bought into the shipyard through the supply chain, so maximising that content is key. Will the minister outline what Scottish Enterprise, other enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank could do to get patient finance in place to support investment and get more Scottish content into those ships?