Seòmar agus comataidhean

I believe that there is something in amendment 130 and was grateful to hear that the cabinet secretary is willing to work with me ahead of stage 3, because there are potential benefits for tenants and landlords. There will be benefits for tenants because of the reasons that Graham Simpson has outlined, and the administrative burdens on landlords would also be reduced. Does Mr Simpson believe that that is the right way forward and that the amendment would benefit both tenants and landlords?

I care really deeply about this issue. The cabinet secretary and I have had many a conversation about it, and I think that we stand in the same place on succession to secure tenancies. The families of terminally ill people are often their full-time carers and live in the same property to enable them to fulfil their caring duties.

I am in two minds about moving my amendments 520 and 521. I know that I seek to do the right thing. I know, too, that Marie Curie really wants to see this issue resolved in the bill, and that is what we need to move towards. Given the cabinet secretary’s comment that amendment 521 could bring about a reduction in rights, I am concerned that my moving it might lead to potential tenants not being afforded the opportunity to access the relevant support networks.

However, my question for the cabinet secretary would be, why have those rights not been exercised to their full potential? That has perhaps led to the situation in which we find ourselves, where stakeholders do not feel that the right support networks are in place and therefore have to work alongside MSPs to put legislation in place. We have discussed that problem throughout the bill process. I know that the cabinet secretary is keen to work on that aspect, but in my view we must address why that is not already common practice for people who need help and support.

I turn to the social rented sector issues covered in my amendment 520. I might be able to pre-empt members’ concerns, given my experience as a councillor who sat on housing committees in North Lanarkshire. I will not apologise for highlighting that families need adequate time to get themselves together after they lose a loved one. The general point that I seek to make through these amendments is that, although social landlords might be within their rights to reuse properties and allocate them to other tenants, that is usually not done in the right way, and it often happens within a short period of time. I have certainly had casework where tenants have been expected to move out of a property a matter of weeks after the death of their loved one, a period in which not only must they start to move through the grieving period but they must box up the deceased person’s possessions and ensure that they themselves have somewhere to go. That is the reason for my lodging these amendments.

I do not plan to move amendment 119.

If I might speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments—

Is the Government still reaching out to people who will be impacted by the consultation and actively engaging with all stakeholders to ensure that they respond to the consultation and are aware of it?

I understand the cabinet secretary’s point about the existing powers, but can we have a little more explanation of why those powers have not been used up until this point? The issue that we are discussing is really important. It involves damp and mould but also the other hazards that the cabinet secretary referenced. When are we likely to see Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sectors?

I thank Graham Simpson for filling in for me the week that I was not able to attend the committee. He raises an excellent point that the proposals are, of course, on the back of really tragic circumstances. I am keen to hear more about the other hazards that have been identified in the legislation that has been introduced in England and Wales. Does Graham Simpson want those hazards to be brought into the legislation that we are trying to pass to ensure that we protect people from not only damp and mould but other hazards that could be life-threatening, as we have heard about this morning?

My amendment 516 deals with cladding issues. On 1 June 2022, Parliament introduced legislation to ban combustible façade materials from being used on the outside of residential and high-risk buildings of 11m or more in height. However, the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2022 omitted certain key buildings, namely hotels and office buildings. That contrasts with legislation in England, where the ban on combustible materials was extended in December 2022 to include hotels, hostels, boarding houses, care homes and other buildings of that nature.

High-risk buildings under 11m in height sit outside the ban—including schools and hospitals, which means that such buildings can still be constructed or retrofitted with combustible cladding and insulation. We know that there are issues with the standard for testing—BS 8414—which has been widely criticised as being not fit for purpose. However, that is still the test standard that we use in Scotland with regard to buildings that could have combustible façade materials.

Rightly, the Scottish Government acknowledged the limitations of the system testing when it introduced the initial ban. However, given what we have seen in minutes from the building and fire safety ministerial working group, such testing appears to continue to underpin the Scottish Government’s approach on external wall products. We need clarification on the Government’s position on the matter and whether it accepts the serious risk that is associated with the use of combustible façade materials that pass a systems test, because it seems evident that we should not necessarily have confidence in that testing system or continue to use it. We should be working UK-wide to find a solution that we can bring forward in Scotland.

I note that my amendment relates to dwellings; I wanted to extend the margins of the amendment to include other buildings that are at high risk with regard to the use of combustible façade materials but was advised that that was outwith the scope of the bill. However, I believe that everything is interlinked, and I will explain why.

Hotels primarily provide members of the public with a place to sleep. They therefore serve a purpose like that of residential and domestic properties. Office buildings have also been excluded from the ban, despite high occupancy and a growing interest in converting such buildings for residential use.

I understand what you are saying and what you are trying to do, but I believe that the onus should be on both sides, not just on one side. For a number of reasons, people will be aware that unions exist; therefore, they could be looked into by the tenant themselves. Saying that the tenant can join a union does not give them much scope in terms of which ones they might want to join. The argument that I am probably reaching is that that information could be better sourced elsewhere. However, I understand the exchange and what you are trying to achieve with the amendments. That is the point that I was looking for more clarity on. I will leave my remarks there.

Does Maggie Chapman agree that the EPC system is completely out of date? It should have been reviewed long before now. Given the current EPC system, it is difficult for landlords in the private rented sector to get homes, particularly rural ones, up to standard in certain circumstances. We need that review to come forward as quickly as possible, in order to have a new EPC system that will give landlords in the social or private rented sector or otherwise more opportunities and options to decarbonise their homes, so that they can choose how best to do that for their tenants.

I accept that. We have had the Minister for Housing at committee on that exact issue. My concern is that we are moving significantly more slowly than our UK counterparts. That needs to be reflected on. In particular, England, as I referenced, has included as part of the ban the buildings that I referenced. We should move towards that at pace.

I understand that there is a consultation, that the responses are being analysed and that we will probably have an update in due course. However, as things stand, any such building being retrofitted, renovated or built can still have that particular building material placed on it. We need to recognise that, particularly if a ban is to be put in place and we have to look at those buildings again.

I believe that there is an issue with schools and hospitals. Although I am not talking about dwellings in terms of housing, all is encompassed in the overall cladding strategy that we need to move forward on and deal with. I do not intend to move amendment 516 today—the cabinet secretary will probably be pleased to hear that—but I have put those issues on the record. The reason for lodging the amendment was to raise the issue of cladding and the urgency of dealing with issues of combustible façade materials.

I will pick up on a couple of the other amendments in the group, convener—I understand that you want to wrap up fairly quickly, but I need to raise concerns about amendments 249, 385, 538 and 539. A number of amendments in the group involve potentially heavy penalties if a landlord fails to maintain a property to what is perceived to be an acceptable standard. I believe that that plays into a wider issue.

Scottish Land & Estates has raised concerns with the minister about a key flaw in the bill, which is that who the relevant landlord is when it comes to the provision of information is not clearly defined. Although the minister’s amendments 303, 304 and 313 sought to address that, they have not resolved the ambiguity around who the person responsible is when a tenant is also a landlord and the head landlord is at arm’s length from the tenancy agreement. It is clear how quickly the complexities can expand. That confusion affects compliance with wider housing regulation, including that on landlord registration and repairing standards.

I understand that SLE has proposed a fix via a clearer definition in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which would bring consistency across housing regulations, provide clarity in relation to compliance, reduce the likelihood of disputes and delays to repairs, and provide clarity on who is responsible for enforcement.

We need to be careful about the amendments in this group. Although they are well intentioned, it is wrongly assumed that the necessary clarity already exists. Given that failing to meet the repairing standard can, ultimately, lead to a criminal offence, surely it is only right that landlords are given clear guidance on what they must comply with. Will the cabinet secretary and the minister commit to lodging further amendments at stage 3 that would deliver that clarity? I would be more than happy to work with the cabinet secretary on that.