Seòmar agus comataidhean

In my discussions over the summer, the all-tenure target was probably third most frequently put to me as something that would make a difference, after multi-annual funding and the increase in funding. I am therefore glad to have been able to commit to it, and I think that it will drive development.

There was a question of whether we went for a target that was X number of houses or whether it should be a percentage. I decided to go for a percentage that climbs to reflect that we need to build capacity, and we have been discussing how to do that today. I feel that it is more realistic to take the 10 per cent each year over three years rather than set an overall figure.

Matt, do you want to say some more about the baseline from which we start?

Absolutely—the aim is at least 10 per cent, and we have exceeded that. I do not know whether we have the figures, but Matt Elsby will have a look for me. I am very pleased that we have exceeded the delivery on that, and I want that to continue.

I always encourage every community group in my constituency to get a stake in a turbine, because it provides a group with on-going revenue and stability. We should be moving towards much more community ownership of energy assets.

I will always be open to ideas about how the rural and islands housing fund and the key workers fund are working and how they can be improved. I would welcome the committee’s views on that, if you would like to put them to me.

I am hugely enthusiastic about community developments, while being mindful that I do not want to put on to community groups what should be being organised and delivered by Government, whether national or local, and other housing actors in the area. I want to make sure that the funding works to best effect, but I do not want to overburden communities with responsibilities that ought to be part of their governments’ responsibilities.

Me too. I will try to work through those points, and I will bring in my colleague Jess Niven to speak to some of them.

In general, we have had a lot of discussion about the reality that none of us can escape, which is that the delivery of social homes in the wider sector has to ramp up considerably. We have discussed that the role of planning in the process must be facilitating, not hindering, and the regulatory environment is another area in which I have to be very watchful to ensure that that approach applies. To a large extent, much of the regulatory landscape—on safety, fire, accessibility and all those things—is non-negotiable as far as I am concerned. I am also deeply personally committed to net zero.

In that space, I need to ensure that changes are sequenced in a deliverable and reasonable way. They must not impede the delivery of homes, but they must ensure that people live in good homes when they are delivered. That is where I am.

Having come into the post in June and taken on all the parts of the work that you mentioned—the EPC reform, the private rented sector measure and the social housing net zero standard—I am taking a moment to look across the board and ensure that the changes are sequenced properly. They must be deliverable and not a drag on delivery. Jess Niven will help me out, but I will try to speak about them all.

The EPC reform is a hugely important piece of work. You will all have been involved with it and know a huge amount about it. It is the foundation from which we will deliver the minimum energy efficiency standards, and it will inform the heat in buildings bill. We will lay the EPC reform regulations shortly, and I suspect that we will be back in front of the committee to talk about them quite soon.

The private rented sector minimum energy efficiency standards are very much caught up with the bill, which I hope to introduce soon. We are taking some time to ensure that that really complicated piece of legislation, which I hope that you will be able to support, is lined up well so that I can present it to the Parliament. One issue is the UK’s warm homes plan—we have some idea of what will be in it, but, frankly, not enough. My officials and I have asked the UK Government, which we have a very good relationship with, but we still do not know what is in the plan.

One of the really important things that will impact the bill is the work that the UK needs to do to balance the cost of gas relative to the cost of electricity, because that will impact the fuel poverty implications of the legislation. Although I am keen to get all that done and present the bill to Parliament, the UK’s warm homes plan, the detail of which I am not apprised of, could have a big impact on it, so I am balancing all that.

I think that I missed out the social housing net zero standard—

It is a substantial amount of time, and it is a hugely substantial piece of legislation. I know that you will all appreciate that point. I have said previously that I think that the heat in buildings bill will be one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation since devolution, because, depending on its content, it could legislate right into the heart of people’s homes, in relation to how they heat their homes. I appreciate that it has been a long time coming, but, at the same time, I cannot apologise for the Government taking the time to get it right for people in Scotland.

The other reason for the delay is how closely linked we are to policy in the UK. I mentioned the warm homes plan. I could introduce a heat in buildings bill and have the content of the plan render some of it inoperable or not ideal. As I was saying to the convener, gas and electricity costs will make a massive difference to the fuel poverty aspects of all that. Forgive me, but, as I am leading the bill, I am determined to ensure that we go into it with the greatest possible understanding of what will happen in the rest of the UK and what the impact will be for the people of Scotland. That is ultimately what we are trying to do.

I understand that it has been a long process. Equally, I completely understand the concern about the time that remains for scrutiny in this parliamentary session. However, I still intend to introduce a bill and that it will be finished by the time Parliament dissolves.

Yes, that is still my intention.

We have discussed Awaab’s law. We will also bring forward regulations to implement the housing aspects of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, which is a significant priority for me. If my memory serves me correctly, I committed in the chamber to doing that around Christmas time, so that will be done in advance of the Awaab’s law work.

The other major piece of secondary legislative work that we will need to do is on the exemptions from rent control. There is quite complex work to do there, not least in relation to defining what, for example, build-to-rent is in law. Again, that work is under way.

Would that be the third of three, Matt?

As with other negotiations, I and my officials will be doing everything that we can to make sure that it is signed by 31 October. As you can imagine, we are dealing with a number of different developers, all of which have their own legal teams. One way that we have tried to overcome that is by regular communication, which I stress has been positive. Nothing right now would indicate to me that we are going to have trouble.

Equally, we work with Homes for Scotland as the representative body, and it agreed the terms in principle, subject to an exchange of legal views, some time ago. I would not say that I would be happy if it is not signed by 31 October—I would not be happy, and it needs to be done—but nothing right now indicates to me that that will be a problem. Ultimately, we are all moving in the same direction, and it is just about a bookend, which I think is much needed.

I will just add a general point. We have both top-down and bottom-up approaches to the programme. The single open call, which has gone live following the passage of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and its coming into force at the start of this year, creates a programme into which any building owner can now bid for a statutory bespoke single building assessment of their property. We have made available funding for single building assessments, which funding was doubled over the summer. We made more money available for immediate mitigation measures where those are required. The call is broad and open; it says, “Come forward and have your building assessed to this bespoke standard.”

Alongside that, we are doing a massive sweep-up exercise, which is not only about asking people to come forward and take advantage of the offer but about proactively asking building owners about the status of their building, what work might already have been done, and whether it is planned for demolition or has been demolished. In that regard, we are working with the high-rise inventory and starting, in particular, with those buildings within the HRI that have high-pressure laminate or aluminium composite material cladding and are above 18 metres. That is about prioritising risk.

I understand that you are concerned about that. We have not had the opportunity to properly discuss it, so I undertake to do so with you. I know that you made an attempt to use the Housing (Scotland) Bill to extend the ban. I considered your amendment, which we were unable to accept for a number of reasons. I propose to discuss the issue with you offline, and I will speak to some of my Government colleagues who are dealing with other building types and come back to you.

In another part of my portfolio that relates to building standards, I am working with official colleagues to respond to the Cameron House inquiry’s recommendations, which refer to hotels and fire safety. A suite of work is on-going, which I want to update you on. I will also come back to you on the cladding question.

We have been discussing the cladding issue, which arose following a tragic event in relation to which dishonesty and so on have been uncovered. As we have just discussed with Meghan Gallacher, the programme for addressing that will be a significant programme with a significant price tag. Over the summer, the Government put tens of millions of pounds more into resolving the cladding issue across Scotland.

Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete is a building standards issue. RAAC is a product that, when maintained properly, can remain usable and safe. It is still used in countries throughout the world. Therefore, it occupies a different realm from the cladding question. Given that the Government fulsomely backs spending on the remediation of cladding issues across Scotland, it is apparent, I hope, that the use of public money on the same scale simply cannot stretch to other potential issues.

The position on funding in respect of RAAC is that it is an issue for home owners. Essentially, it is a matter of building maintenance, which is always, in principle, the responsibility of the home owner. In some cases, the home owner will be an individual, and, in some cases, the home owner will be a local authority or a registered social landlord. I have made it clear that there will be no pot of money from the Scottish Government for dealing with RAAC. We simply do not have the flexibility to provide that.

There is only one Government across the United Kingdom that has the flexibility to respond to such unforeseen expenditure, and that is the UK Government. That is why I have pressed the UK Government to create a national RAAC fund. RAAC is present throughout the UK, and the homes in question were sold under the right to buy, which far predates the devolution era. I will continue to press the UK Government on that.

In the meantime, I have said that I will consider applications for the existing funding that we make available to councils to be used flexibly. Last week, as colleagues might have seen, we were able to come to an agreement with Aberdeen City Council in respect of the delivery of affordable homes.

There will be no Scottish Government RAAC fund, but I will work with home owners—whether individuals or councils and RSLs—to provide support, best practice and shared learning, and to consider the flexible use of existing funds.

I am sorry—that was a rather long answer.