Chamber and committees

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

A year ago, the Scottish Government was forced to admit that Scotland has a housing emergency. Sir Tom Hunter has said that Scotland’s housing shortage could be resolved “tomorrow” if the Government listened to the sector. He said that he knows of developers who are choosing to take build-to-rent projects to Birmingham and Manchester because of Scottish National Party rent controls. Yet, here we are, progressing a bill to bring in permanent rent controls that is bad for investment and will not result in one home being built. Sir Tom Hunter is right, is he not? We need to “build, baby, build”.

Instead of continuing with plans to push damaging rent controls, will the Government focus on building more affordable housing? Is the cabinet secretary confident that the Government will reach its target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, considering that it is miles off its target and that today’s statement did not mention the word “build” once? Finally, will the cabinet secretary confirm today that the Scottish Government will not cut the affordable housing supply budget next year, given that it has already been cut by £218 million in real terms since 2021?

Falkirk Council cannot afford 20 per cent of the funding. The Grangemouth flood protection scheme cannot come to fruition. Falkirk Council cannot contribute more than £100 million: like many councils, it does not have sufficient funds to commit to such a scheme. What options are available? Is the cabinet secretary suggesting that, if councils cannot meet the 20 per cent requirement, no protection can be put in place? If that is what the Government is saying, communities will suffer as a result.

On the back of my colleague Stephen Kerr’s question, will the cabinet secretary commit to considering a bespoke plan for Grangemouth to safeguard those communities?

Is the Government still reaching out to people who will be impacted by the consultation and actively engaging with all stakeholders to ensure that they respond to the consultation and are aware of it?

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?