Chamber and committees

I understand the cabinet secretary’s point about the existing powers, but can we have a little more explanation of why those powers have not been used up until this point? The issue that we are discussing is really important. It involves damp and mould but also the other hazards that the cabinet secretary referenced. When are we likely to see Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sectors?

I thank Graham Simpson for filling in for me the week that I was not able to attend the committee. He raises an excellent point that the proposals are, of course, on the back of really tragic circumstances. I am keen to hear more about the other hazards that have been identified in the legislation that has been introduced in England and Wales. Does Graham Simpson want those hazards to be brought into the legislation that we are trying to pass to ensure that we protect people from not only damp and mould but other hazards that could be life-threatening, as we have heard about this morning?

My amendment 516 deals with cladding issues. On 1 June 2022, Parliament introduced legislation to ban combustible façade materials from being used on the outside of residential and high-risk buildings of 11m or more in height. However, the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2022 omitted certain key buildings, namely hotels and office buildings. That contrasts with legislation in England, where the ban on combustible materials was extended in December 2022 to include hotels, hostels, boarding houses, care homes and other buildings of that nature.

High-risk buildings under 11m in height sit outside the ban—including schools and hospitals, which means that such buildings can still be constructed or retrofitted with combustible cladding and insulation. We know that there are issues with the standard for testing—BS 8414—which has been widely criticised as being not fit for purpose. However, that is still the test standard that we use in Scotland with regard to buildings that could have combustible façade materials.

Rightly, the Scottish Government acknowledged the limitations of the system testing when it introduced the initial ban. However, given what we have seen in minutes from the building and fire safety ministerial working group, such testing appears to continue to underpin the Scottish Government’s approach on external wall products. We need clarification on the Government’s position on the matter and whether it accepts the serious risk that is associated with the use of combustible façade materials that pass a systems test, because it seems evident that we should not necessarily have confidence in that testing system or continue to use it. We should be working UK-wide to find a solution that we can bring forward in Scotland.

I note that my amendment relates to dwellings; I wanted to extend the margins of the amendment to include other buildings that are at high risk with regard to the use of combustible façade materials but was advised that that was outwith the scope of the bill. However, I believe that everything is interlinked, and I will explain why.

Hotels primarily provide members of the public with a place to sleep. They therefore serve a purpose like that of residential and domestic properties. Office buildings have also been excluded from the ban, despite high occupancy and a growing interest in converting such buildings for residential use.

I understand what you are saying and what you are trying to do, but I believe that the onus should be on both sides, not just on one side. For a number of reasons, people will be aware that unions exist; therefore, they could be looked into by the tenant themselves. Saying that the tenant can join a union does not give them much scope in terms of which ones they might want to join. The argument that I am probably reaching is that that information could be better sourced elsewhere. However, I understand the exchange and what you are trying to achieve with the amendments. That is the point that I was looking for more clarity on. I will leave my remarks there.

I agree with the comments that have been made already. We are in a housing emergency, which has been acknowledged not only by councils up and down the country but in the Scottish Parliament.

I agree with Mark Griffin’s comments about SMEs in particular. We do not want them to be priced out of development. We need to ensure that developments can happen across the country in suitable and appropriate areas. Based on that, I believe that we should have the minister in to discuss that matter further and so that we can ask questions.

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.