Chamber and committees

Yes, I would agree with that. Scotland has led the way in the delivery of affordable housing across the United Kingdom. In 2009, we reintroduced grant funding for council house building, which has supported the delivery of more than 16,000 council homes across Scotland. By ending the right to buy, we have also protected existing social rented homes and prevented the sale of up to 15,500 houses over a 10-year period.

Flexibility is built into the existing legislation through a provision that sets out that the work should be done

“within such period as is reasonable in all the circumstances”.

That allows flexibility for home owners who cannot install alarms by 1 February 2022.

Home owners are generally responsible for paying for works to protect their properties. However, in recognition that some people might not be able to meet the cost of fitting the necessary alarms, we provided additional funding of £500,000 to Care and Repair Scotland to help older and disabled people. That was in addition to the £1 million of funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for its home fire safety visit programme to install alarms for owner-occupiers who are assessed as being at highest risk from fire. Furthermore, our £15 million in loan funding for social landlords enables them to fit compliant alarms to the new standard by next year.

We have not in any way said that the issue should be taken into account by insurance companies. Insurance policies are a matter between insurance companies and the people who hold policies, but we have never specified that the issue should be included.

As I said in my original answer, the legislation provides flexibility for the work to be completed within a reasonable period, taking into account individual circumstances. I think that that is a reasonable position. It is a matter of getting the message across to people that we want them to install the devices because they improve fire safety within their homes. Of course, that originated from the Grenfell tragedy. It is important that we all give the message to home owners that installation is an important thing that they should do as quickly as possible.

Legislation often refers to a reasonable period, which is not defined as a number of weeks or months; it means a reasonable period for someone to get a fire alarm system installed. We understand that there have been issues with supply of systems, so we are prepared to give people a reasonable period that will give them a bit of breathing space if they are finding it difficult to get their hands on devices or to get devices fitted. As I set out in my initial answer, support is available for people who require assistance.

Christine Grahame has made a reasonable point. People are understandably concerned about having the necessary alarms fitted by the deadline of 1 February, and I understand the current challenges with living costs and Covid, which the member pointed out. I emphasise that the legislation provides flexibility.

Careful consideration is needed to balance the risks that are associated with further delays to implementation of the legislation, which I am not keen on. At the end of the day, it is about improving fire safety. One death from a fire in Scotland’s homes is one too many. It is important that we give the message that people should prioritise making the investment—and, of course, that support is available for people who will struggle with that.

I am aware that some manufacturers are facing supply issues, particularly with imported components. Some manufacturers have stock availability, and specialist retailers are also able to meet demand, subject to logistical challenges. My officials are in discussion with manufacturers to establish when supply issues are likely to be resolved more generally. That is why—as I said in my previous two answers—we are giving a degree of flexibility. It is important that people get the devices installed as quickly as they can, because it improves their safety and that of others in their homes.

We recognise, however, that, because of the challenges, people need a bit of flexibility, which is why we are giving a reasonable timeframe for people to comply with the law.

We are determined to play our part in eradicating structural and systemic racism across Scotland, informed by the views and lived experiences of minority ethnic people. Through our immediate priorities plan for race equality, we aim to ensure an equal and anti-racist recovery from Covid-19. That is backed by our £21 million equality and human rights fund, which has enabled Grampian Regional Equality Council to carry out valuable work in gathering lived experiences alongside quantitative data, providing the evidence that is needed for the development of strong and effective anti-racist policies to improve outcomes for minority ethnic people in the north-east.

As I said, there are complex legal issues that many of us have been involved in looking at. What is important is that the issues are considered carefully, and that proposals are brought to Parliament as soon as possible. I am sure that the member and others will be informed of the timetable for that as soon as possible. I gently point out to Pam Gosal that we would not be in this position had the UK Government not gone to the Supreme Court in the first place. However, the debate has been mainly consensual, and I want to keep it that way.

This year, 2021, also marked the 70th anniversary of the UK’s ratification of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is no exaggeration to say that that act—in combination with the Scotland Act 1998—has transformed human rights in Scotland and is a central pillar of Scotland’s constitutional settlement, albeit that there is further work to be done. I therefore urge the UK Government, which is currently considering its response to the independent review of the Human Rights Act 1998, to step back from any attempt to undermine or erode existing human rights protections.

The Scottish Government will of course robustly oppose any attack on the Human Rights Act 1998.

I invite members to reaffirm the long-standing view of the Parliament that there must be no changes to that act without our explicit consent. I am sure that Stephen Kerr will agree with that.

Maggie Chapman has raised the important issue of asylum seekers and refugees. I am happy to write to her with more information about the work that we are doing in relation to people who have no recourse to public funds and preventing destitution.

Maggie Chapman also mentioned hate crime and, again, I am happy to write to her with more details. The rise in hate crime is concerning and we should all take that very seriously.

Finally, on support during the pandemic, we supported the development of the ethnic minority national resilience network to help individuals, families and organisations during this time, and we provided more than £312,000 to support minority ethnic communities. There was a particular focus on young people and older people who are experiencing isolation. Again, I am happy to write to Maggie Chapman with more detail.