Chamber and committees

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is attempting to do with amendments 273 and 274, but I do not think that requiring the landlord to provide the tenant with information on the ability to join a tenants union is as clear-cut as it might look on paper. There might be issues in relation to how that information is conveyed. We are living in a digital world, so would it need to be done by email or physically? All of those things need to be worked out before we even begin to discuss the issue. I am a little concerned about discussing the proposal without understanding exactly what the landlord would be required to do and how they would be required to do it. How the tenant would be able to join the union is another issue that would need to be resolved. A lot more information is required than is contained in the amendment.

The reason for my lodging amendment 516, to which I will speak in due course, was frustration at the slow pace at which we are beginning to deal with buildings with that particular facade and the safety and wellbeing of people who reside in such buildings and are therefore impacted.

As I have said, I will be able to speak to my amendment in a little while, but I will just say that I did want to extend its scope—although I do recognise that that would have made it fall outwith the competency of the bill. We might be talking about housing, but there is clearly an issue with other buildings that have cladding such as hotels, hostels, boarding houses and care homes, to name just a few. Will that issue be part of the consultation? Will we look at the test standard, which has been declared not fit for purpose?

Does Maggie Chapman agree that the EPC system is completely out of date? It should have been reviewed long before now. Given the current EPC system, it is difficult for landlords in the private rented sector to get homes, particularly rural ones, up to standard in certain circumstances. We need that review to come forward as quickly as possible, in order to have a new EPC system that will give landlords in the social or private rented sector or otherwise more opportunities and options to decarbonise their homes, so that they can choose how best to do that for their tenants.

I accept that. We have had the Minister for Housing at committee on that exact issue. My concern is that we are moving significantly more slowly than our UK counterparts. That needs to be reflected on. In particular, England, as I referenced, has included as part of the ban the buildings that I referenced. We should move towards that at pace.

I understand that there is a consultation, that the responses are being analysed and that we will probably have an update in due course. However, as things stand, any such building being retrofitted, renovated or built can still have that particular building material placed on it. We need to recognise that, particularly if a ban is to be put in place and we have to look at those buildings again.

I believe that there is an issue with schools and hospitals. Although I am not talking about dwellings in terms of housing, all is encompassed in the overall cladding strategy that we need to move forward on and deal with. I do not intend to move amendment 516 today—the cabinet secretary will probably be pleased to hear that—but I have put those issues on the record. The reason for lodging the amendment was to raise the issue of cladding and the urgency of dealing with issues of combustible façade materials.

I will pick up on a couple of the other amendments in the group, convener—I understand that you want to wrap up fairly quickly, but I need to raise concerns about amendments 249, 385, 538 and 539. A number of amendments in the group involve potentially heavy penalties if a landlord fails to maintain a property to what is perceived to be an acceptable standard. I believe that that plays into a wider issue.

Scottish Land & Estates has raised concerns with the minister about a key flaw in the bill, which is that who the relevant landlord is when it comes to the provision of information is not clearly defined. Although the minister’s amendments 303, 304 and 313 sought to address that, they have not resolved the ambiguity around who the person responsible is when a tenant is also a landlord and the head landlord is at arm’s length from the tenancy agreement. It is clear how quickly the complexities can expand. That confusion affects compliance with wider housing regulation, including that on landlord registration and repairing standards.

I understand that SLE has proposed a fix via a clearer definition in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which would bring consistency across housing regulations, provide clarity in relation to compliance, reduce the likelihood of disputes and delays to repairs, and provide clarity on who is responsible for enforcement.

We need to be careful about the amendments in this group. Although they are well intentioned, it is wrongly assumed that the necessary clarity already exists. Given that failing to meet the repairing standard can, ultimately, lead to a criminal offence, surely it is only right that landlords are given clear guidance on what they must comply with. Will the cabinet secretary and the minister commit to lodging further amendments at stage 3 that would deliver that clarity? I would be more than happy to work with the cabinet secretary on that.

I greatly appreciate the clarity that the cabinet secretary has provided on that, which will reassure those who are concerned about the nature of the Government’s amendments, as opposed to the intent behind them. Given the complexities and the potential for knock-on effects elsewhere, we need to make sure that we look at the issue in the round. That is relevant in relation to Awaab’s law and the amendments to legislation that are required in that regard. We must make sure that the scope of the amendments is correct and that matters such as other hazards and the need to consult the private rented sector are encompassed. We must look at all those issues in the round, and I very much look forward to taking part in those conversations.

I thank Maggie Chapman for that clarification, but I am still a little unclear about how it would work in practice. You have said that the information would not necessarily be about which union to join, and I believe that there should be some duty on the tenant to look into the matter. My point is perhaps that it works both ways. We might disagree on that, but I think that the onus needs to be on both the landlord and the tenant in that instance, instead of on just one of them.

The statement tells me that the Scottish Government is not confident in delivering the outcomes and targets that have been announced by the minister. If the new national contingency resource facility had not been opened last month, there would be no beds available for children who require secure accommodation. That is not progress.

Members have asked about data in relation to young people who have not been able to be placed into secure accommodation because of the lack of beds. It is simply nonsense for the minister to respond by saying that the Scottish Government does not hold any data on that whatsoever. The minister has known that we need such data in order to scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government. Why has she not looked into that?

We are talking about matters relating to the Promise, so why has it taken the minister so long to introduce the bill, given that her party gave its word to care-experienced young people that it would be introduced before the end of this parliamentary session?

Will Ross Greer take an intervention?

That is why we need to look at the whole of our housing sector. We need to build more homes in order to tackle the housing emergency. We are not going to do it otherwise, because, as it stands, supply is completely outweighed by the demand of people who need homes. I think that we can all agree on that point.

Just before the debate, I had a look at what properties are available in certain areas, including north Ayrshire, which Ross Greer represents. I discovered, from looking at the website of just one selling company, that, on Arran—to take that as a silo—there are 81 properties available right now. Therefore, there are homes available, but we need to look deeper into the reasons why people are not buying in those areas. That is an important point to make in the debate that we are having today.

We need to look at the facts. Second homes equate to just 1 per cent of the total number of dwellings in Scotland. People tend to buy second homes in areas that they would like to move to permanently when they retire, which means that they contribute to not just one but two economies. We have had discussions about exemptions and all the rest of it. It is in the interests of people who have second homes to play an active role in supporting both the community in which they have their primary home and the one in which they have their secondary home.

The best way of ensuring that communities that have particularly high levels of second home ownership are able to thrive is to make sure that we have a sufficient supply of homes to meet demand. That is the biggest point that I can make today.

We also need to look at how we approach the housing sector from an ideological perspective, given the need to ensure that we have enough homes to tackle the housing emergency. If we put in place policies that stifle investment and development and constrain the provision of more affordable homes in the private rented sector or elsewhere, we will not be able to tackle the big problems that we face with housing today.

I will leave my remarks there, in case I get a telling-off about timing from the Presiding Officer.

I hope that you feel better soon, Presiding Officer.

One of my favourite comic strips when I was growing up was “The Broons”. “The Broons” is a staple in many Scottish households, with generations eagerly awaiting the next edition. It is published in the Sunday Post each week, and many people collect the annuals.

Why on earth am I talking about “The Broons” today? The Broons, fae Glebe Street, have their but and ben,

“a rare wee beauty spot wi a difference”.

It is a second home, which is the topic of the debate today. A but and ben, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, is a traditional Scottish residential house featuring two rooms—the but being the outer room or kitchen area and the ben being the inner room or living space.

The Broons, a typical working-class family who live in a tenement flat, have that second home in the Highlands, which is a relatively short distance from their home. The Broons belong to more than one community. Second home ownership is intrinsically Scottish.

The fictional Broons enjoy their weekends there and, although the younger Broons need some encouragement to enjoy their short breaks, the family have many an adventure while enjoying some time away with the family. One short comic strip section even shows how the family renovated the but and ben to bring the property back into use.

The point that I am making is that second homes are not always for the rich and wealthy. I hope that that is taken into consideration during the debate, because ordinary working Scots are also involved in second home ownership.