Chamber and committees

This discussion has been helpful in relation to what is required for the pilot schemes, how they will work, how much they will cost and what additional pressures will be placed on local authority areas. This is a prime example of why such work should be undertaken before we look at legislative processes and bills, because we do not know the answers to those questions. We are in the unknown sphere regarding how things will look, what the challenges will be and what potential problems will arise in the pilot schemes. That being said, the principle is noble and I understand why the Government is progressing in this way.

However, Mark Griffin raised valid concerns about the financial memorandum. I stress to the Government that it should be realistic regarding how much the bill’s provisions will cost. As a former councillor, the minister will know the cost pressures that councils are under and how much of an undertaking the provisions will be—not just for housing departments but for all the wraparound public services that also play a huge role in housing service delivery.

The point that Jeremy Balfour raised about post-legislative scrutiny is crucial. I welcome the minister’s commitment to come back to the committee with updates on the pilot schemes. That will need to happen across the board. I would welcome the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having that opportunity, given the increased service expectations that there will be on all our councils up and down the country.

The convener is aware that I will not press amendment 1012 on behalf of Alexander Stewart. Graham Simpson raised the point that, although we are debating and voting on amendment 1012 today, we are relying on an amendment that we have not yet discussed fully or voted on in order to make changes. The minister needs to reflect on that, because that amendment might or might not pass, but we need to ensure that we have amendments of that nature so that we can scrutinise and make sure that what we implement will change homelessness prevention and have positive results.

Amendment 1012, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1012 would require the Scottish ministers to provide an update to the Parliament on progress to implement the duty to act within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. The update would include the financial cost to implement the duty to act and a timescale for the duty to act to be implemented. However, from the further discussions that I have subsequently had with the minister and with Alexander Stewart, although I will move the amendment, I am aware that there are further amendments coming down the line that would supersede it.

I move amendment 1012.

I welcome the minister’s response to my amendment.

I am still very concerned that there will not be consistency in the training that will be rolled out throughout public services or to people who deal with homelessness prevention on the front line. In introducing the ask and act duties, that training will be very important, because the duties will be brand new. A lot of public services will be working out how they will manoeuvre under the ask and act duties to ensure that they provide the best possible service to those who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. Therefore, there should be guidance from the Scottish Government on what it means and what it expects of public bodies in relation to the ask and act duties, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the minister further about that before stage 3.

Amendment 1011, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1090 not moved.

Amendment 1046 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

I have a question on the first part of your response. If someone presents at one public body and then needs support from another public service, how does that join up, and will they receive a consistent level of service?

My concern is that, if we do not have clear guidance and training rolled out in all the different services, people might receive a different level of service and will not be signposted to the place where they need to go for help and support.

Amendment 1007 seeks to create an alternative approach that provides a stronger link to the Scottish social housing charter. I suggest that we amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 by inserting after subsection (1)(b)

“the needs of tenants who the social landlord has reason to believe have experienced or are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse.”

and by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection:

“In this section “domestic abuse” means abusive behaviour within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 (as read with sections 1 and 3 of that Act).”

Potentially, this is a suggestion for the minister to look at, and perhaps expand on, the standards and outcomes of the social housing charter. We have perhaps moved on from 2010, when the charter was created, and we need to look at other areas where someone might find themselves at risk or vulnerable. This is one of the amendments that would seek to amend that area; I do not intend to move it today, but I would welcome further discussions with the minister on how we can strengthen the charter and protect women who are fleeing domestic abuse and are in need of a safe and secure home.

Following on from amendment 1007, amendment 1006 also relates to the social charter and adds domestic abuse to the possible list of standards and outcomes in it.

I appreciate that Rachael Hamilton will speak to her own amendment in this group, but I support the review of provisions for tenants who are affected by domestic abuse. We need to look at ways in which we can strengthen the bill, particularly by looking at an issue that is impacting so many women and girls in our society today.

Thank you.

Finally, we have spoken a lot about homes this morning, but there are issues with other buildings such as hotels, hostels and boarding houses. The UK Government consultation on and review of the ban on the use of combustible materials in and on external walls of buildings said that those types of buildings could present an equivalent or greater sleeping risk and, as such, should be captured within a ban on combustible facade material. Is the Scottish Government supportive of that approach and are you taking that forward?

I will now move on to assessors and assessments. How many qualified assessors work for the companies that are contracted by the Scottish Government to conduct single building assessments? On average, how many assessments will they be able to complete each month?

Good morning, minister and officials. Minister, you and I have had exchanges regarding Awaab’s law, and I am pleased to see that it will feature as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, as it rightly should. My question relates to the number of homes that are no longer deemed habitable under the tolerable standard. You and I have had exchanges regarding that in the chamber.

When I asked a topical question on the issue on 11 March, you said:

“The increase in the tolerable standard failure rate is due to the introduction of smoke and carbon monoxide alarm criteria. The vast majority of the failures were in the private sector.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2025; c 6.]

However, the response to the freedom of information request that was made by my party in January 2025 shows that there are still council homes that do not have such interlinked fire safety alarms fitted in them. That includes 2,800 homes in Fife, 800 in Aberdeen, 524 in South Lanarkshire and 500 in Edinburgh. The committee would be interested to hear an update from you, minister, on whether the Government is engaging with local authorities on that. It fits in with making sure that homes are safe and secure for people to live in.

Okay. We know that the open call will be extended until June. I must admit that I was hoping for more information on the time frames, the scope and the numbers. I have not received that from the minister this morning. It would be really helpful if he could provide that information to the committee at the earliest opportunity because I think that that is what people need at this point, which is eight years down the road from when Grenfell happened.

I want to know about the assessed capacity of developers to undertake remediation work while still meeting new building targets. We are, of course, in a housing emergency, and it is appropriate for us to look at the need to build more homes—on which I am sure that we are all in agreement—and to make sure that developers are carrying out important remediation work at the same time.

I appreciate the detail, because I think it important that we tease it out. I have a follow-up question. There are 107 properties in the pilot programme. Given that the programme was launched in 2021, why do we still not know, four years later, which of the properties are subject to Scottish Government-led remediation and which are not?