The forum’s view is that there should be greater acknowledgement of the consequences of losing a smaller community housing association to a larger one. Can you update the committee on how you would respond to its suggestion about how that can be achieved in practice?

When a smaller RSL moves to a larger one, how do you deal with any promises that are made or the checks and balances that are put in place to ensure that things have been fulfilled for the tenants from the smaller organisation? After all, when there is a transfer, there is a change; different dynamics might become apparent; and tenants need to know that things are being fulfilled. Indeed, what about certain improvements, such as, for example, tenants themselves being involved in the transfer process? How are the checks and balances monitored and the promises kept?

It has been very useful to have you come and give the committee this update, minister.

To reference the information that we have received, the concerns that people had were specifically about air quality and the knock-on effect when it comes to what people can endure if they live in proximity to somewhere that has such issues.

As you have identified, the small number of wood-burning stoves would contribute minimally to the air quality difficulties that people might be concerned about. Many of the concerns have been about the knock-on effect on people’s health. However, you have explained very concisely that that would not necessarily be the case. That is the message that I am receiving from you. Could you reiterate whether that is the case?

My question is for Mr Bain. The fact that the UK Government is now talking about a reset suggests that there could be opportunities in the future. It would be useful to get a flavour of whether you see such a reset as a positive development as far as our ability to continue to trade is concerned, and whether it could unlock the provision of more services in some sectors. Over several months, the committee has taken evidence from individuals, organisations and sectors that have told us about various difficulties. Others have told us how they have developed, progressed, changed and adapted to ensure that trade continues to flow. Could you give us an indication of how you see the whole reset happening and how it might change things?

We have heard that loud and clear from some of those sectors, which have given evidence to the committee about the qualifications, the difficulties that they have and how they are having to adapt or circumvent issues in some ways. Given your trade obligations, what are your real asks as part of the reset?

It is no wonder that levels of satisfaction have decreased when budgets have continually been squeezed by the SNP, with councils having to do more with less year on year. How can the cabinet secretary allege that local government is getting a fair deal when councils the length and breadth of Scotland are having to decimate services, close facilities and raise taxes?

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate, and I thank my colleague Jeremy Balfour for bringing it to the chamber.

To be clear, changing places facilities should not be considered to be luxury facilities. They allow certain people with disabilities to access public spaces in a way that they simply would not have been able to do without them. Changing places toilets should be commonplace in communities across the country. As things stand, however, that is far from being the case.

The consistent closure of council-run facilities across many parts of Scotland, including in my region, has meant that many locations no longer have changing places facilities at all. That is very much the case in my Mid Scotland and Fife region. The announcement of £10 million of funding for changing places toilets in the 2021 programme for government was very much welcomed at the time. That same pledge was repeated by several different ministers at different times through a number of announcements. We heard members across the Parliament challenge the Government to allocate the money where it was needed. However, three years later, the funding has still not been allocated.

Just a few months ago, the Parliament learned that the money for changing places facilities was to be reprofiled. We know that “reprofiled” means that something will not necessarily happen according to the timescales that were given. That means that the measures might not happen for the foreseeable future. The Scottish Government has stated that it is still committed to introducing the funding during this parliamentary session. At this stage, however, it is looking very likely that the funding will be kicked further down the road, so the measures might not happen until after the 2026 elections.

The news from the Scottish Government is that it appears to be backtracking on its commitment, which is deeply concerning to disabled individuals and charities, which had supported and been part of the Scottish Government’s processes. Jeremy Balfour’s motion describes that as

“the latest in a long list of examples of the Scottish Government not taking seriously the needs of disabled people”.

The 2021 programme for government discussed creating a new disability equality plan, which would be created in partnership with disabled people. Three years later, several disabled people’s organisations and individuals have made it quite clear that that still requires to be fulfilled. The organisations have been working with the Government for more than 20 months on creating a plan that, they hope, would empower disabled people in every part of Scotland. Now, however, they have been left disappointed, with organisations saying that the process has seemingly collapsed, and all the ambitions that they had no longer seem to be moving forward.

Organisations such as Disability Equality Scotland, the Glasgow Disability Alliance and Inclusion Scotland have all participated, and they are all feeling let down. Their members have been led down the garden path by the Scottish Government, which failed to engage properly with those individuals and organisations. They have called on the Scottish Government to take “urgent and bold action” on the issue. I certainly hope that the Government is able to listen, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say when she sums up the debate.

The debate has been able to shine a light on some of the problems that disabled people in Scotland face. It is now time for the Scottish Government to work with disabled people and their organisations, to deliver the equality plan that disabled people deserve and to ensure that the funding for changing places facilities is delivered in full. Disabled people deserve nothing less.

Good morning. Accountability Scotland has argued that the SPSO is “a toothless tiger” and that you are not able to get much out of public bodies. When you ask questions, they do not always answer all the questions that you pose to them. How would you respond to Accountability Scotland’s interpretation? Do you agree that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 needs to be changed to allow you to exert a degree of compulsion on public bodies?

If convicted, the relevant fine is level 3 on the standard scale, which is about £1,000. Previous private rented housing legislation has increased criminal penalties to encourage compliance. For example, the fine for acting as an unregistered landlord was increased from level 5 on the standard scale to £50,000 in 2011. Is the fine high enough to act as an effective deterrent to such practices, and were other enforcement options considered?

Two weeks ago, Professor Gill indicated that although NHS boards will accept and act on some of your recommendations, they will do so only, as he put it,

“in a rather minimalist and grudging fashion.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 26 November; c 4.]

Once again, that is the perception of another individual, but what is your assessment of that? Does the same go for local authorities? What needs to change so that public bodies are more receptive to criticism and open to ideas for improvement?