Chamber and committees

I start by apologising: first, to my colleagues for their having had to listen to me twice today; I spotted the ones who filed out of the chamber just now. I also apologise for the length of the motion, which is—to be frank—ludicrous. I have poked fun at other members for producing similar epics in the past, so I deserve whatever ridicule comes my way.

However, as members may recall, I had originally—well before recess—lodged a motion on tenement maintenance and the Scottish Law Commission’s consultation on the issue. That motion got immediate cross-party support and could have been debated, but, sadly, my whip’s office preferred other topics, so here we are.

There is a benefit to that delay, as it has allowed me to encompass retrofitting in the motion for debate today, which is very much linked to the original topic. I thank all those members who have signed the new, longer motion. There has always been cross-party interest in this important topic, which affects so many lives.

In March 2018, some of us, as MSPs, established the tenement maintenance working group to see what we could suggest to improve the condition of Scotland’s tenements. Around a third of tenement flats were built prior to 1919; another third were built between 1919 and 1982; and the final third were built after 1982. Many tenement flats were in a state of critical disrepair when we started our work, and they are probably worse now.

Members will know from their casework of the difficulties that people can face in getting work done to shared buildings. People can sometimes wait for years to get agreement to have essential work, such as fixing the roof, done. The existing tenement law is not strong enough to get us to a place where our housing stock is brought up to scratch, maintained and made fit for the future. Housing impacts on people’s lives: it can affect their health, both physical and mental, as well as their work, relationships and wellbeing. Living in poor housing is depressing, and no one should have to put up with it.

I accept that the subject of the debate may appear to some to be a little dry, but there is nothing that is more important for people than the condition of where they live. In May 2019, the working group made a number of recommendations: there should be compulsory owners associations, sinking funds and five-yearly inspections. We sent our “Working Group on Maintenance of Tenement Scheme Property—Final Recommendations Report” to the Scottish Government, and it produced a work plan. In May 2022, the Government asked the Scottish Law Commission to make recommendations, but only on the proposal for owners associations. That consultation ran until 1 August.

I will talk about that in a moment. As members will see, that has all taken a long time, and it has been frustrating, so in 2022, we reconvened the working group. The group has been one of the best examples that I can think of that has involved parties working together in the Parliament, with outside experts, for the common good. We really should see more of that kind of thing.

I thank the Scottish Law Commission for the work that it is doing, too. In particular, I thank Professor Frankie McCarthy, who is leading on that work, and who has become something of an expert on tenement law, if she was not one already. The Scottish Law Commission’s discussion paper explores proposals to replace the existing tenement management scheme with an owners association scheme. That would make owners associations compulsory for every tenement building in Scotland and give those associations the power to enter contracts and appoint managers. It would also introduce duties on those associations, including an obligation to organise meetings, approve budgets and standardise titles to ensure that maintenance rules are consistent across tenements.

In its paper, the Scottish Law Commission posed 79 questions. Those included questions on which powers should be made available to owners associations, who should be eligible to act as the manager of those bodies, and in which circumstances an owner should be able to challenge a majority decision. The results of that consultation—I believe that there was a good response to it—will inform the final recommendations, as well as a draft bill, which should be introduced by the Scottish Law Commission in 2026. That will be after the next Scottish Parliament elections, so it will be for whoever is elected then to take the matter forward. That will be no easy task, but it is essential.

That brings me to retrofitting. In order for Scotland to tackle climate change, it is critical that we reduce carbon emissions from existing buildings. Across the United Kingdom, 80 per cent of buildings that will be in use in 2050 have already been built, and those could represent 95 per cent of future built environment emissions. Reducing emissions to net zero will require retrofit work on up to 27 million domestic buildings and 2 million non-domestic buildings across the UK. According to the UK Climate Change Committee, £45 billion of investment will be needed for energy efficiency improvements in homes to 2035. Those are massive numbers.

The motion mentions the publication of the report, “Meeting Scotland’s Retrofit Challenge: solutions from the industry”, which was jointly published by 14 leading built environment sector organisations. That followed a retrofit round-table meeting that was convened at the Parliament in May last year. The report calls on the Government to

“Establish a Ministerial Oversight Group on Retrofit”,

stating that

“Retrofit is a complicated, cross-portfolio issue”

on which “relevant ministers” must be brought together. The report also says that the Scottish Government should

“Develop ... a long-term Retrofit Delivery Plan with a joined-up approach to funding, regulating and incentivising retrofit work across Scotland.”

The report goes on to list some items that the plan should address, stating that it should

“Establish long-term targets and measurement tools”

and consider

“the human resources ... necessary ... to undertake”

retrofit “projects properly”. That really means skills.

In addition, the report calls for “a fabric first approach”, which means that heat conservation repairs and improvements should be prioritised before any changes are made to heat generation, such as installing a heat pump. People should do work to their property before they put a heat pump in.

None of that is headline grabbing; housing tends not to be, until things go wrong.

In my foreword to the tenement maintenance working group’s final report, I wrote about the tragic death of an Australian, Christine Foster, who was killed by falling masonry while she was working in an Edinburgh city centre pub in June 2000. She was just 26. Her dad called on the Government to lay down tougher regulations to ensure safer construction in Scotland, but not much has happened since then, which is why the action that I have set out is essential. I look forward to hearing today from other members, and from the minister.

Does the minister agree with Ben Macpherson’s very good point that the heat in buildings bill needs to work with tenement law, so the Government needs to ensure that there is flexibility in the bill when such law comes along?

While I am on my feet, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. It is good to see such interest in the subject. If anyone wishes to be part of the tenement maintenance working group, please let me know.

The minister will know that deer are a natural part of the rainforest ecosystem, but the increasing number of deer and their mobility mean that they are one of the main barriers to rainforest restoration.

Given that the Scottish Government has committed to restoring Scotland’s rainforests, I ask the minister to reconsider his current position and to ensure that the deer management incentive scheme will be extended to key rainforest locations.

I regularly use the train, and my staff use the train all the time. It is just going to become more expensive for them now. That is a real shame, and Mr Stewart should know that.

Fiona Hyslop should have sent back the evaluation for the reasons that I have outlined. In addition, the evaluation measured passenger demand in terms of journey numbers rather than distance travelled, which could give a different picture. The transport secretary has said that the trial cost around £40 million. The RMT suggests that the actual figure is nearer to £20 million, because without the trial, passenger numbers would have increased, similar to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that the RMT is right. It is not small change, but it should be seen as investment.

Public transport should be seen as a service, and it should become the go-to choice. When times are tough for people, we should not be making things harder. The reintroduction of peak fares should be reversed, as the motion in my name says. I call on Parliament to do the right thing and back the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway.

Yes, very briefly, because there was a mention of Near Me. I do not know if that is an app or a service—I will call it a service. Did you do any research on how many people actually have access to that?

You are right, Mike. The moment that people go online, they potentially expose themselves to risk. Although everyone in this room probably has access to digital, there might be some out there who think, “That’s too risky for me.”

I will move on. Earlier, we discussed the human rights issue. I am drawn to exhibit 2 in your report, where you give examples of areas in which human rights could be affected. My general question on that is whether you think that such rights are being impacted or, indeed, breached because people do not have access to digital services.

I have one more question, which is about the digital inclusion alliance. Perhaps you could explain what on earth that is. While you are answering that, could you tell us why its launch did not go ahead? Perhaps you could go on to discuss the digital citizen unit, tell us what that is and why there has been slow progress on it since it was formed.

That is for the Government to answer; it is certainly not for you to say why the Government set up those bodies and did not do anything about them.

I will go back to the question about R100. I am a bit puzzled as to why you did not go into that a little more deeply, because it is surely key. If people do not have access to the internet, they are automatically digitally excluded. What was the reason behind your decision not to go into that?

Let me turn that on its head a bit. Digital exclusion might be a choice for some people. You do not have to have a mobile phone or a computer, and some people might choose not to have either because that is just the way that they want to go through life. There is a cost to those things, and it is not always cheap to have broadband in your home or a mobile phone with full internet access. Is there a risk that people who make the choice not to be digitally connected will be excluded from public services? We are talking about public services, after all.