Seòmar agus comataidhean

I put it on the record that I have no relevant interests to declare, but I should note that I am a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and that I will be scrutinising crossover elements of the cabinet secretary’s portfolio next week.

I also apologise to the convener and the cabinet secretary for arriving late; family life is sometimes not as adaptable to a late substitution request as we might like it to be.

The areas that I want to touch on relate to homelessness. The Scottish Housing Regulator has reported that some council homelessness services are at risk of systemic failure, which has impacted on their delivery. It said:

“for some councils the demands in the homelessness system—the number of people who are homeless, and the level of need they have—exceed the capacity in the system to respond, particularly the availability of suitable temporary and permanent accommodation. The increase in capacity that is needed goes beyond that which the impacted councils can deliver alone.”

Given that the regulator’s view is that councils cannot solve the problem on their own, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that the budget allocation to local councils will be sufficient to address the heightened risk of systemic failure in homelessness services? Do you think that the regulator will come to the view that the funding has removed its concern about systemic failure in homelessness services?

I know that you cannot pre-empt or pre-judge what a regulator might say, but is the Government’s aim or ambition that those councils will no longer be at risk of systemic failure?

Your answer leads me to my next question, which is about the balance of the funding for the affordable housing supply programme. It is good that that budget has increased on last year, although, in real terms, it is not quite at the level that it was two years ago. How is that budget allocated and balanced, given the stark and desperate need for suitable temporary accommodation, particularly in the city of Edinburgh? How will the long-term ambitions of the affordable housing supply programme be balanced against meeting the real and harsh needs of those who are living in unsuitable temporary accommodation right now?

I have a final question. Unfortunately, homelessness has been on an upward trend for some years. Do you think that, as a result of the spending decisions in the budget, we might finally see it come down in next year’s figures?

It would be broadly helpful for the committee to get information on authorities that you have described as being in systemic failure, but I will leave it to the convener to pursue that.

In previous weeks, we have heard evidence suggesting that the self-assurance approach to regulation could be subjected to more scrutiny. For example, Tenants Together Scotland members said that they would like to see the housing regulator

“carry out more regular checks on landlords categorised as low-risk to verify the accuracy of reported performance data.”

I have two questions on that. First, how can you give us assurance that social landlords’ performance information is checked for accuracy?

Secondly, with largely desktop-based regulation, is there a risk that it is potentially more difficult to pick up on culture issues in organisations?

I want to touch on an answer to a previous question. Some evidence from tenants’ groups has suggested that they would like the regulator to take a stronger approach when a social landlord’s performance is poor. For example, Robyn Kane from the City of Edinburgh Council area told us that the regulator identifies when performance is poor, and said:

“However, we do not see the benefit of that at all. It has taken more than six years to get some benefit.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 3 December 2024; c 35.]

How can tenants see performance improving at a quicker pace following an intervention from the regulator?

Minister, is the cladding assurance register operational? If it is not operational, will you outline progress to date? When might it be available?

I am hoping to abuse my position as a committee member and ask a broader question on building safety. I visited a group of residents in Bathgate and they showed me the extent of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in their properties. They gave me a really fantastic warm welcome, and they would be more than happy to extend such a welcome to the minister if he can talk to them about the issues of RAAC.

The issues that they raised about RAAC are really similar to the issues that we are talking about with regard to cladding. They are to do with access to finance, access to insurance, access to skills to assess properties and potentially replace RAAC, difficulty with selling properties, and communication from local and national Government. Is the minister in a position to update the committee or Parliament on RAAC issues that are affecting residents, as he has committed to do—and has done—on cladding?

In a previous evidence session, Professor Gill and Professor Mullen talked about the lack of national data in areas relating to the complaints system. Generally, what data should be available to assist Parliament in scrutinising the effectiveness of the complaints system? More specifically, is anyone responsible for collecting statistics on the total number of complaints that are received by public bodies and not just the ones that are escalated to the SPSO? Do we have any idea of the proportions of those that are escalated and not escalated? Should we collect that information?