Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay, thanks. As I said earlier, the question came to me during the wide-ranging discussion that we were having.

That is understandable. Given that the issue is here now—and here to stay—would it be any different than schools teaching about road safety, which they do very effectively? Is there also, perhaps, an element of postcode lottery? I know that my kids’ primary school does a wee bit of work on online safety. Is there an argument that there should be something more standard across the board?

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 MSPs 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 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.