Chamber and committees

I understand the point about underresourcing, but that is due to years and years of underfunding of local government.

We need to get back to the consultation point, if we can. I am concerned that you have consulted on one area, only to ignore the responses that you have received and decide to take different action. How will you restore confidence, particularly in the SME sector, that you will not make another decision in future that will go against the consultations that you have made in that particular area?

There is also an issue around the tribunal that we need to look at in relation to the groups that are impacted. Usually, the congregation needs to go to the tribunal and must weigh up the costs that are associated with that and the time impact on its ability to move a minister in and move the tenant out—that is, of course, if the tribunal agrees with the decision.

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is saying. I do not want to pre-empt what my colleague Edward Mountain would say, but I am certain that he would like to bring these or similar amendments back at stage 3 so that he can speak to them himself, as he been unable to attend committee for the reasons that I gave at an earlier committee meeting on the bill. I can certainly take the conversation that we have just had back to him. As the amendments are his, I do not think that it would be right for me to come to any conclusion on that.

Amendment 180 seeks to put a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision about the consent condition for keeping a pet and what makes that reasonable. Again, that is about seeking more clarity.

Amendment 182 is, as Maggie Chapman and I have just discussed, in relation to carpeted floors and soft furnishings being professionally cleaned by an independent company at the end of a tenancy. Again, that is about responsibility in pet ownership. It is probably what you would do in your own home should furnishings need to be cleaned for any pet-related reasons.

I turn to other amendments in the group, because these are issues that I care about. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right that about my entering a Dogs Trust dog in the Holyrood dog of the year competition. I have done so every year bar one, when I was on maternity leave, and that is because I believe in what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is trying to make it easier for people to own a pet and, of course, ensure that animals do not end up in rescue homes, when they can have forever homes. I think that most committee members would support that.

I have an issue with amendments 24 and 28. Actually, it is not an issue as such; I have a view on the timeframes that are acceptable or reasonable. Will the timeframe be 14 days, 28 days or something else? I do not think that we can necessarily determine that at today’s committee meeting. We might need to have another discussion about it—I know that we will be having a lot of discussions—to work out what would be fair and reasonable. I can come up with scenarios, such as a landlord being on holiday or ill, or there could be other personal circumstances that might mean that they do not have sufficient time to respond within the 14 day period. I understand that there could be workarounds to allow for those circumstances, but I wonder whether 28 days would be more reasonable than 14 days—I have already discussed that with the Dogs Trust—or whether there should be another timeframe. We can all have a good debate about the timeframe as we approach stage 3, because it is important.

On amendment 25, on whether a request would be automatically approved, we need to determine what timeframe would be appropriate before we consider the amendment. However, I understand the reasoning and I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the points that have been raised about people having the right to own a pet, which I think that many members would support in principle. We also need to consider the type of pet, which has been mentioned briefly but not at length. There is a massive difference between a Border terrier and a Siberian husky, for example. I am not trying to say which breed of dog is my favourite, because I have friends who own each of those breeds, but we need to consider that and be mindful of whether a small rental property would be an appropriate place to keep a large dog.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendments on assistance animals, I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the Equality Act 2010, but I would be interested in understanding whether that would cover additional animals such as therapy pets. I am not entirely sure that it does, which is why I am throwing out the issue for discussion. We also need to look at that as we approach stage 3. Assistance dogs could be guide dogs to assist people with their sight or hearing loss, or it could refer to other therapy pets.

I will leave my comments there. I think that I have addressed all Edward Mountain’s amendments in group 26, and, certainly, the amendment that I have an interest in.

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.