Official Report 923KB pdf
Cladding Remediation Programme
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the publication of the Grenfell report, what plans it has to ensure that the reported 107 buildings identified in its cladding remediation programme are fixed, including how many will be remediated this year. (S6T-02083)
We are determined that lessons are learned from the Grenfell inquiry report and that delivery is accelerated. Pilot assessments have been undertaken for 30 entries, with works to mitigate or remediate risks having started on five.
With the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and the single building assessment specification now in place, 107 pilot entries are undergoing necessary pre-assessment checks before proceeding to assessment. We have identified 12 pilot entries that are in scope without a linked developer, where we will commission SBAs as a priority this autumn. When a developer is identified, we expect them to play their part in assessment and remediation.
I thank the minister for his reply. I did not quite catch the detail of what he said, or the numbers, so let me ask him again if I may. It was reported in the press last weekend that only £11 million of the £97 million that the Scottish Government received in 2020-21 for cladding remediation has been spent. Is that true? How much of the £97 million has been set aside for remediation this year and next year? The newspaper story also said that the Scottish Government had spent the balance of the money that it had not spent on remediation on something else. Is it budgeted for this year and next year? If so, for how much?
There are 107 buildings in the highest category of risk—is that correct? How many have been surveyed and how many have been remediated?
Let us keep our questions concise, Mr Kerr.
I will try to touch on the points that the member has raised. About 30 pilot assessments have been undertaken, and work on immediate assessment has started on five. There are 107 entries going through pre-assessment checks before proceeding to assessment. There are 12 pilot entries in scope that are without a linked developer, and we will commission SBAs as part of that. When a developer is identified, we expect them to play their part in assessment and remediation.
As part of the funding, £97 million in consequentials was set aside. This year, we have identified an allocation of £29.07 million in 2023-24 and a further £41.3 million in 2024-25.
On the process, we have to undertake the pre-assessment checks and then the SBA process to identify the exact line of work that is required at any particular time. Until we undertake the full assessment, we will not know that, so we cannot spend the funds. We are talking with the United Kingdom Government about a building safety levy. Of course, developers have to play their part, and we have also been undertaking discussions with developers on that.
Unfortunately, the minister’s answer suggests that not a lot of remediation has happened. That is the focus of the anxiety that many residents of high-risk buildings are living with.
A question arises. Why do we, in Scotland, seem to be so far behind England and Wales? What assessment has the minister made of the capacity of the Scottish construction sector to undertake the remediation? When will the surveys be done? When will the work be completed? Will the Government publish a timetable? If so, when?
That is a lot of questions. I will write to Mr Kerr on specific points. I have already talked twice in my answers about the pilot assessments that have been undertaken and the others that are undergoing pre-assessment checks, but I am happy to write to the member on that specific point.
We acknowledge that the pace of work needs to be quickened. That is part of the reason why Parliament passed the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Bill last year. Of course, we have to accelerate the pace, and that includes working with developers to make sure that they play their part. However, we need to go through the SBA process first to identify what work is required to be carried out. I am happy to write to Mr Kerr on that point in further detail.
A significant number of the affected buildings are in my constituency, and it is an issue of concern for many of my constituents, which is why I lodged a portfolio question on the matter for tomorrow. In the interim, I ask the minister to provide an update on how provisions in the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, such as the cladding register, can improve the confidence of residents of affected buildings as their buildings are assessed and remediated. Can the minister give a general update on the implementation of the act?
I was delighted to take the bill through Parliament in May in order to quicken the pace.
The 2024 act will provide confidence to high-risk residents in a number of ways. It will provide confidence that assessment and any required remediation will be carried out to robust standards, backed by statute. We have published the technical specification for the single building assessment, to enable parties to get ready for assessment, and we have met Ben Macpherson and his constituents to discuss that.
The act will provide confidence that any steps that are necessary to make buildings safer are identified and can be taken. Its provisions on a responsible developers scheme will provide confidence that developers are playing their part in addressing the problems that are identified. Its provisions on a cladding assurance register will provide confidence that work has been done, and residents will be able to demonstrate that to lenders and insurers.
Diamond and Company has published research showing that there are potentially up to 5,500 high-rise buildings in need of remediation. Given that we have remediated only one building in Scotland since Grenfell, seven years ago, has the Government had a chance to analyse the 5,500 figure? Is it setting a target for remediation completion?
I saw the press reports over the weekend, but I have not heard directly from Mr Diamond. I am sure that he will write to us with details, and we will be happy to consider where he found the figure. I am happy to write to Mr Griffin on that particular point.
On the figures that I talked about, single building assessments have to be carried out first. The pilot programme will identify any work that has been carried out, any work that needs to be carried out and what the timescales are. I am happy to write to Mr Griffin with more detail on that.
Commonwealth Games 2026
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Commonwealth games potentially being hosted in Glasgow in 2026. (S6T-02092)
Discussions with the Commonwealth Games Federation, Commonwealth Games Scotland and the United Kingdom Government on a proposal for Glasgow 2026 are on-going. Scottish ministers have been clear about the financial pressures that the public purse faces. We have a duty to balance potential benefits with the associated risks and to ensure that staging the 2026 games would be the right thing for Scotland at this time.
Given the proximity of the event, we are obviously working closely with stakeholders to confirm a final decision in the coming weeks.
On the table is £100 million of direct inward investment from the Commonwealth Games Federation for Glasgow, if the city hosts the games in 2026. That investment incentive is unheard of. It would help to lever in £150 million in economic benefits to the Glasgow city region, provide multimillion-pound upgrades to venues such as Tollcross and Scotstoun, and provide opportunities for job creation, local procurement and tourism. Does the minister agree that the £100 million investment that is on the table and the associated economic benefits present an opportunity that the Scottish Government should seize?
I absolutely appreciate the work that Commonwealth Games Scotland and the Commonwealth Games Federation have done to get the revised concept for a new Commonwealth games to this point. It is precisely because we understand its potential benefits, as well as its importance to elite sport in Scotland, that we continue to engage in and consider the matter. Alongside that, we are considering the potential risks that exist from exposure to public funding costs that we cannot cover.
The discussions are on-going. Obviously, we understand the potential benefits for the Glasgow economy, tourism, Scottish elite sport and the future of the Commonwealth games itself, which is why we continue to give it very serious due consideration.
We should be ambitious for Glasgow and Scotland, and we should seize the opportunity of that £100 million inward investment, which would not come from public funds. Hosting the games would provide sporting benefits as well as economic ones. Seizure of that opportunity would act as a catalyst for motivating volunteering in sport and for creating international competitive pathways for our athletes, as well as showcasing Glasgow and Scotland to the world.
We all here remember the fantastic Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014. However, we should focus not on the past but on the future. Every child in Scotland under the age of 16 either was not born or would struggle to remember those games. Innovative and new-format games could provide children and young people in Scotland today with a unique opportunity to witness and be inspired by world-class athletes on their doorstep.
Does the minister therefore agree that hosting the games would show that we are ambitious not just for Glasgow, our economy and our athletes but for our young people?
Of course we are ambitious for Glasgow and for Scotland, and we understand the potential opportunities. However, it is important to stress that the concept is not a replica of the 2014 Commonwealth games. We must understand and appreciate that it would not be a rerun of 2014, and the budget that has been set aside for the 2026 games, compared with what was invested in 2014, serves to illustrate that fact.
However, as a former athlete who had a career-ending injury while on a Commonwealth games pathway, I understand as well as anybody the importance of the games to elite and grass-roots sport in Scotland.
However, there are inherent risks that we need to bottom out. We are working with the UK Government, Commonwealth Games Scotland and the Commonwealth Games Federation to understand this new and untested concept. The figures that we have been quoted are ambitious. We continue to be ambitious, but an ambitious programme and an ambitious target within the financial envelope inherently draw risk. We have already set out the situation in respect of the public purse, so we need to be mindful of that as we continue the discussions with the UK Government, Commonwealth Games Scotland and the federation.
I am keen to allow as many members as possible to ask questions, so concise questions and responses would be helpful.
Come on, Glesga.
Has the Scottish Government been advised whether cities in England or Wales have been approached to host the games? Has there been confirmation that the UK Government would fully fund such an endeavour?
We have not been made aware of any cities in England or Wales having been approached by the federation to host the games in 2026, and we are therefore not aware of any decision having been requested of, or made by, the UK Government to fully fund such an endeavour. We are in continuing discussions with the UK Government in order that we can understand its position on that in relation to Glasgow.
The UK previously considered a four-nations proposal in 2023. In December 2023, the UK Government announced that such a proposal would not be supported and that it would be in the best interests of the movement for the games to be hosted elsewhere.
Glasgow is an incredible city with amazing people who would undoubtedly put on a fantastic show. We trust that the sun would, like the last time, shine on our city during the games. If—or, I hope, when—the 2026 Commonwealth games come to Glasgow, what are the Scottish Government’s specific strategies to ensure that hosting the games would deliver lasting social, economic and cultural benefits for Glasgow’s communities? The evaluation of the 2014 games showed limited improvement in population-level health, physical activity and sports participation.
Ensuring a lasting legacy in terms of infrastructure, sports participation and population-level health benefits, as well as wider cultural aspects, is at the heart of our major events strategy. The revised concept of the games on a much reduced budget, compared with what we had in 2014, makes that more challenging—as, I am sure, Mr Gulhane appreciates.
I reiterate to Mr Gulhane, as I did to Mr Bibby, that the games would not be a replica of 2014. The proposal is for a smaller version of the games, with fewer sports over fewer sites. Therefore, Glasgow would carry a reputational risk as well as a financial risk because—he is absolutely right—Glasgow and Scotland have an international reputation for major events hosting and for doing so incredibly successfully. I point to the world cycling championships and the world indoor athletics championships as the most recent examples of that. Therefore, we need to ensure that the concept as well as the financial considerations around it are right for Scotland at this time.
If the Government concludes that the balance of risks and benefits is positive, I would certainly welcome the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow. Although it would not be a replica of 2014, it would still be a major event for the city, and we would need to mitigate any unintended consequences. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary work with Glasgow City Council to ensure that there is rapid use of the visitor levy powers to ensure that some of the money that could be generated from the related economic activity would be invested back in social purposes?
Will he also ensure that, if the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill are not yet in force, the Government considers use of temporary rent control measures in the region to prevent price gouging, which we have seen during the periods of some major sporting events?
Glasgow City Council would, of course, be a central partner in delivery of the games coming to Glasgow. It has a very strong and internationally renowned reputation for the delivery of major events going back to 2014 and beyond.
Some of the points that Mr Harvie raised would be part of the consideration, but the immediate consideration for us is whether the prospect and the concept that has been devised are right for Glasgow and for Scotland. Because we understand the importance of the Commonwealth games and their future to Scottish elite sport, we will continue discussions to look at every eventuality until the point at which we take a final decision.
The cabinet secretary has outlined some of the issues that he is wrestling with, but the Commonwealth Games Federation has highlighted that it will have to come to a conclusion sooner rather than later. Will he highlight to the Parliament what the approaching deadline is and what timeframe we are looking at? Is it a matter of weeks or months?
As I said in my first answer to Mr Bibby, we are looking to conclude matters in the coming weeks. Obviously, every passing day makes delivery of the event in itself more challenging, because we already have a very tight timescale. One of the additional considerations around risk is whether delivery can be achieved within the time that is available. We want to give clarity to Commonwealth Games Scotland and the Commonwealth Games Federation as soon as possible, which is why engagement with the United Kingdom Government and others has intensified so that we can arrive at a decision.
Dog Attacks (Restrictions on XL Bully-type Dogs)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent reported dog attack in Aberdeenshire, what effect the restrictions on XL bully-type dogs have had on the incidence of dog attacks. (S6T-02090)
I thank the police for their swift action and I wish the people who were injured in the incident a speedy recovery. Although I cannot discuss details of live cases, incidents such as these illustrate the dangers that arise if any dog is not kept under effective control, which is why we support responsible dog ownership, whatever breed of dog is owned.
The Scottish Government took action to introduce safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs specifically to ensure public safety following the impact in Scotland of steps that the United Kingdom Government took in England and Wales. Those new safeguards include measures that mean that XL bully dog owners must ensure that their dogs are muzzled and on a lead in order to reduce risk when they are in a public place.
We continue to work with key stakeholders to encourage responsible dog ownership no matter the breed of dog, in order to help to drive down the incidence of dog attacks.
I endorse the cabinet secretary’s words about the people who were horrifically attacked. Although the cabinet secretary did not actually answer my question, I ask her whether the Government holds data on, say, the top 10 breeds that are known to have been involved in attacks on people—or, indeed, on other dogs? If she does not have that data to hand, perhaps she could write to me with it.
I will try to answer Ms Grahame’s questions better. Data is available from the national health service on in-patient and day-case admissions to hospital when a dog attack was recorded as the reason. Information is also available from National Records of Scotland on deaths from being bitten or struck by a dog. However, data is not recorded on the breed or type of dogs that were involved, so there is no central record in Scotland—or, indeed, in the UK—of the sort that the member asked about. However, my ministerial colleagues Siobhian Brown and Jim Fairlie would be happy to engage further with Ms Grahame to discuss what more can be done in that area to gather more data.
I would welcome progress in trying to identify which breeds are involved. As members know, my party’s long-standing policy has been that it is about the deed, not the breed. My Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill tries to address the issue by making sure that people become responsible owners. Can the minister advise me what information is held on the circumstances of such horrific attacks and, if so, where it is kept? I note that she mentioned the NRS. Such information would help to inform policy and behaviour.
Ms Grahame has raised a fair point. Some of the information that is held is top level and somewhat general. She may be interested to know that, on 20 September, ministers Ms Brown and Mr Fairlie will hold a responsible dog ownership summit, to look in general at dog control and good practice, but also at dog welfare. I would be very surprised if data was not discussed at that meeting.
The restrictions in Scotland were somewhat delayed, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. That led to suggestions that there was perhaps an influx of dogs across the border. Is there any evidence that that was the case?
From a statistical point of view, how many XL bully-type dogs have been registered in Scotland, and are there any estimates whatsoever of the volume of unregistered or illegally held dogs of that type?
If I may resist Mr Greene’s attempt to rewrite history, I say that it is important to put on the record, once again, that the engagement of the previous UK Government with the Scottish Government on this very serious matter was absolutely woeful. My colleague Siobhian Brown found out about its new legislative measures via the BBC, and when she sought to clarify matters the experience was somewhat frustrating.
It is also worth remembering that it was the previous UK Government that created the loophole that caused an unacceptable risk to public safety and animal welfare.
The number of exemptions that have been granted is 3,385. It is somewhat difficult to establish precise numbers of dog owners—never mind the precise numbers of dog owners who own specific breeds.
I have heard from constituents who feel stigmatised and worried about the health and behaviour of their pets as a result of measures that were introduced through the XL bully legislation. How is the cabinet secretary reacting to calls from such owners to revisit the legislation, given the detrimental impact on the wellbeing of them and their pets?
The Scottish Government was faced with a difficult situation due to the actions of the previous UK Government, which affected Scotland. We needed to take action—I am glad that we did—to balance public safety interests with the rights of XL bully dog owners. I believe that we have found that balance—for example, through the longer period for owners to seek an exemption in Scotland than they would have in England and Wales, and a more flexible approach to neutering.
Regular engagement with dog welfare stakeholders such as the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association continues to help to minimise any undue impact on dog owners and, of course, on the wellbeing of their dogs.
That concludes topical question time. I will allow a moment for the front benches to organise before we move to the next item of business.
Air ais
Time for Reflection