Chamber and committees

I think I will get out while the going is good. The cabinet secretary has called my amendment 70 “sensible”: I will take that, and I will certainly work with her on the matter ahead of stage 3—and that is not for the first time.

Amendment 70, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 71 and 72 not moved.

Amendment 451 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

The cabinet secretary was not kidding when she said that she was going to speak for some time—she did. I imagine that all the members who have lodged very well-meaning amendments in the group will be slightly disappointed. I counted 31 amendments that were not in the minister’s name, and the cabinet secretary has essentially said that she does not support any of them. That is disappointing.

I agree and will come to that, because one of my amendments deals with that very issue.

The minister’s amendment 231 will change section 27 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 so that, instead of setting out what “must” be in regulations under that section, it sets out what “may” be in them, and my amendment 231A would change that back to a “must”. That would mean that everything in section 27(3) of the 2001 act, including the new terms inserted by amendment 231, would be required to be included in the regulations.

The cabinet secretary has already made that point. If she wants to work with me ahead of stage 3, I will of course do that, but we need to have an end point, and that end point must be that we have laws. She should not assume that something is perfect just because Government drafters have written it if other members have perfectly good ideas or if other people have spotted gaps in what the Government has put forward. None of us is trying to be awkward; we are just trying to improve people’s lives.

Amendment 231B is another amendment to amendment 231 and would address the issue raised by Mr Rennie, because it would provide for regulations to include provision on requiring the inspection and approval of repairs to address damp and mould. The convener has a similar amendment, which is amendment 489. When damp and mould are identified in a property, it is easy for someone just to come in, wipe it down, put on a lick of paint and say that it is sorted, when they have not actually sorted it and have not got to the root of the problem, which means that the mould comes back. We need independent assessment and inspection of work, perhaps not in cases of what we might call a light infection but particularly in the worst cases.

That is very good. I completely believe the cabinet secretary. I think that she is serious about this, and if we can move forward in that spirit, we might get to a point at stage 3 where we all agree on something. That is where we need to be.

When I had my discussions with the cabinet secretary, which are always useful, I mentioned that what sparked my amendments in the area was a discussion that I had with an expert on damp and mould. He is a university professor, who I will not name because I do not have permission to do so. He raised the issue of the bill when I was on a visit that was completely unrelated to it. He felt that there were gaps and told me that a new international standard for mould treatment has been set by ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. The Scottish Government might not be aware of that, but I can certainly send it the details. If I get permission from that academic, I will put him in contact with the cabinet secretary, because having access to that kind of expertise when we look at bills such as this will help us to get things right.

If there is that international standard for inspection now—which there is—we ought to be aiming for that. We certainly should not be left with the position, as I outlined earlier, where someone can just rub a cloth over something, slap some paint on and say, “Job done,” because it is not job done—far from it.

Amendment 443 would require the regulations that are envisaged in the minister’s amendment 231 to be laid within six months following the changes to the 2001 act coming into force. The cabinet secretary has already made the point to me that that time period could clash with the election period. I take that point on board, so I will not move amendment 443.

Amendment 444 would require ministers to make regulations that would impose on private landlords the equivalent duties to address damp and mould that apply to social landlords, including a requirement to consult. The equivalent legislation in England will apply only to social landlords, although the UK Government has said that it would like to extend the provisions of Awaab’s law to the private rented sector.

The cabinet secretary has rejected all the amendments in the group that are not hers, including that one. She has been very mean in this particular group. We cannot leave the private sector untouched if we are looking at these issues. In the spirit in which I always work, I will work with the cabinet secretary on the issue ahead of stage 3, but she needs to be clear about what the end point is. It cannot be her saying, “The rules are there, Mr Simpson. Don’t worry about it,” because that is not good enough.

That is good. I am encouraged to hear that.

Finally, my amendment 446 would just apply the affirmative procedure to the regulations that are proposed in amendment 444.

I shall leave it there, because I, too, have spoken at some length. I feel very strongly about this area, but I can see from looking around that everybody feels strongly about it, so I will end my remarks there.

Going back to an earlier point, the cabinet secretary’s argument is that we already have existing laws to tackle the issue in the private sector, but those are not being used, which means that there is an issue. If she accepts that there is an issue, we need to do something about it. This is an opportunity to do something about it: to send a message in law—in legislation, which is what we are here to do—that such behaviour is unacceptable and that we will deal with it.

Yes, I do, and I would be interested to hear what those other hazards are—I do not know, but they will be listed somewhere. My focus is on the damp and mould issues, which, as I said, the committee looked at on 18 March. We heard then from Sean Clerkin from the Scottish Tenants Organisation, who called for “proper statutory intervention” that would require accurate information about housing stock, annual inspections and training, so that all employees of private and social landlords can identify damp and mould. He said:

“For too long, the housing sector has lacked the knowledge and has been totally inadequate in dealing effectively with damp and mould.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 18 March 2025; c 9.]

That was a good point. Statutory intervention is required to help to protect tenants against the problems of damp and mould.

I think that it was you, convener, who said earlier that most of us will have had to deal with such problems at some point in our parliamentary careers, or if we have been councillors, as I was previously. When you said that, I reflected on an experience early in my time as an MSP when I had to deal with a case in Motherwell and saw the worst conditions that I have ever seen, in a block of flats that was riddled with damp and mould. The walls were absolutely black, but nothing was being done and those flats were not fit for habitation, but people were living there. The law was not adequate then and it is not adequate now, so we must do something about it, because people should not be living in those conditions in modern Scotland.

I have been listening very carefully, as I always do, to the arguments that have been put forward by Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman. Emma Roddick suggests increasing from 21 days to 42 days the period during which a tenant can appeal a rent increase. The cabinet secretary is suggesting increasing the period from 21 days to 30 days. If, for example, someone were on holiday for two or three weeks, that would eat up the 21 days and not give them much time to do anything, even in the proposed 30-day period. Will the cabinet secretary reflect on that ahead of stage 3 and accept what other members are attempting to achieve?

You would think that a group entitled “Reviews and reports” would not be too controversial. I am sure—really sure—that it will not be, although the cabinet secretary might have different ideas. We will wait and see.

Amendment 70 would require ministers to review and report every five years on the provisions in part 1 of the bill that relate to rent control. The Minister for Housing has already felt the need to review and consult on the rent control aspects of the bill at stage 1, and that created some uncertainty. There are also some concerns that data collection restrictions might impede councils from the effective use of the powers that are contained in the bill. Robin Blacklock from Dowbrae told the committee:

“I have a real fear that we will be reviewing and amending the bill in five years’ time, because we do not have the data.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 18 June 2024; c 24.]

Given those concerns, proper progress, monitoring and reporting will be required.

In amendment 70, therefore, I am putting a five-yearly deadline on the Scottish Government. Better monitoring and reporting would maintain transparency and accountability for all stakeholders and investors. We might not think that that is awfully complicated or controversial, but we will wait to see what the cabinet secretary has to say.

I will move on to amendment 71, which I call the “Graham Simpson taking leave of his senses amendment”, because it would give ministers the power to

“make any provision they consider appropriate for the purposes of delivering an effective rent control framework”,

including modifying this or any other act. Members can look as horrified as they wish at that one. I do not know what I was thinking of, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary does not either. I will leave it at that.

Amendment 72 would set out the procedures for ministers to modify the act. The pre-laying procedure includes laying

“a copy of the proposed regulations”,

before the Parliament with

“a statement setting out their reasons for proposing”

them and specifying a period for representations on the proposed regulations.

Amendment 76 would attach the affirmative procedure to the regulations that are laid under amendment 71, which would give ministers the power to make any provisions, as I outlined earlier. You can probably ignore that one as well.

I shall leave it at that—it is a nice short group.

I move amendment 70.

In relation to amendment 258, I note that Maggie Chapman wishes to leave the setting of minimum standards to ministers. However, can she give us an idea of what she means by “minimum standards”?