���˿���

For clarity, convener, I note that I am content with the instrument, but I want to briefly raise an issue under this agenda item, which I have notified you and the clerks about. I accept that it does not relate entirely to this SSI; it is an issue with police pensions more generally.

The issue relates to several constituents of mine who are retired police officers, who have experienced lengthy delays—of years, in some cases—in receiving their remedial service statement or RSS, and who are still waiting. The amount owed is considerable and, as you can imagine, it is having a major impact on my constituents. I am aware that other ���˿��� have had similar cases.

The main issues are the length of time that is taken to pay out the moneys that are due under the McCloud remedy and constituents’ concerns about communication around that delay.

The Scottish Police Authority has advised us that it is working hard to deliver a significant number of RSSs by the statutory deadline and to deliver the bulk of them by 31 May 2025. The SPA says that there are a number of more complex cases that will take longer, but that most eligible police pensioners will receive their RSS by 31 July 2025. It reiterates that not every RSS can be delivered through that process, and that more complex cases will necessarily take longer to complete.

However, as I have said, I have a number of constituents who have not had their pay and, although there is now a July deadline in place, they remain concerned.

I do not know whether other members around the table are receiving similar queries, but I wonder whether the convener would be willing to write to Ivan McKee in his ministerial role about the issue. If that came from the committee, it might carry more weight, convener.

I wanted to keep my intervention brief but, if required, I can provide you and the clerks with further information from my constituents who have been in touch.

Good morning. As the convener said, I will ask some questions on cladding remediation. Minister, how many buildings have had potentially flammable cladding removed or remediated since the launch of the single building assessment, which was about four years ago?

I appreciate your candidness, minister. You will be aware that the committee has been hearing concerns about the lack of progress, so I appreciate your response.

You mentioned that we might ask questions on the open call for residents. I will do that now. Will you clarify the purpose of the open call for residents of buildings with external wall cladding systems? What do you hope that that will achieve? Has the Scottish Government already identified buildings with potentially flammable wall cladding systems following the Grenfell tower fire in June 2017?

Will those who request a single building assessment through the open call be allocated a survey on a first-come, first-served basis, or will there be a prioritisation process? Will you describe how the process might work?

I support Russell Findlay’s amendments, which are supported by the cabinet secretary, but I think that he does a huge injustice to our stage 1 deliberations when he refers simply to SNP members being for the proposal and he and his party being against it. Mr Findlay was a very collegiate member, I have to say, and I think that the committee has worked very well together. However, his summary of events plays down the amount of time that we spent debating the issue in committee with witnesses and in the preparation of our report, and the complex nature of the proposals in front of us. As Rona Mackay rightly said, many organisations were in favour and others were not. We took all that into account, and the convener will remember, as will the clerks and other members of the committee, that we spent hours on the issue.

I am not disputing that—I was going to come on to say that. You are right to say that you had only a brief period in which to describe the committee’s work, but the manner in which you have chosen to describe it has prompted me to come back and say, as Rona Mackay has already said, that that is an example of the Government listening.

I feel that I have also provided a factual record of events.

I will be brief. I wholeheartedly welcome and support amendments 207 to 214. It is a very important group of amendments. The bill runs the risk of being pushed through quickly because of the other debates that we have had in other areas, all of which are very important. It strikes me that the group is very important as it addresses a lot of practical asks that have been made to us by victims and witnesses during their quite harrowing evidence—as committee members will remember. Those practical asks are, in the main, incorporated as much as they can be in this group of amendments—which, I reiterate, is a very important group.

I will not pick out all the amendments, as the cabinet secretary has already outlined them. The best interests test in amendment 208 strikes me as a very important change. We heard from victims and witnesses that we can never assume how they might want to give their evidence. Some victims and witnesses told us that they wanted to give their evidence in person; others told us that they did not. Amendment 208 is an important change and will bring real comfort and empowerment to victims and witnesses who are going through such a process.

It is clear that the Government and the cabinet secretary have listened not only to the committee at stage 1 but to the many victims and witnesses who have spoken to us and to the cabinet secretary. The Government has tabled these important amendments; I fully support them and I am sure that other members will, too.

Amendment 207 agreed to.

Amendment 208 to 211 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Section 59, as amended, agreed to.

��

Section 60—Taking of evidence by a commissioner

Amendments 212 and 213 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 50 not moved.

Section 60, as amended, agreed to.

After section 60

Amendment 214 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 61—Giving evidence in the form of a prior statement

Amendment 51 not moved.

Section 61 agreed to.

After section 61

Amendment 215 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 62—Sentencing power of the Sexual Offences Court

Amendment 52 not moved.

Section 62 agreed to.

After section 62

Amendments 218, 216 and 217 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

I am developing a point, and I will come back to you. It is an example of the Government listening to the concerns that have been raised and being willing to change its mind, which is to be commended.

I support your proposal, and the cabinet secretary supports it, but I want to reflect for the record that it is not as simple as saying that so many members were for it and so many members were against it. I am happy to put that on the record. If you still want to come in, that is fine.

I thank the member for that intervention. I prefer the phrase “moving into the unknown” rather than “shot in the dark”, but I take the general premise of what she says. However, the committee has already made decisions and we need to take responsibility for that.

As a committee, we agreed that we wanted to move away from the not proven verdict. We put that in our stage 1 report and we have moved on from that point. We are now in a position where, as Liam Kerr said—although I do not agree with where he was going with it, I agree with what he said—we need to make a decision. Although we are moving into the unknown, the cabinet secretary’s proposals are the most balanced. They try to take the majority of views and bring them together into as balanced an action as possible.