Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is saying. I do not want to pre-empt what my colleague Edward Mountain would say, but I am certain that he would like to bring these or similar amendments back at stage 3 so that he can speak to them himself, as he been unable to attend committee for the reasons that I gave at an earlier committee meeting on the bill. I can certainly take the conversation that we have just had back to him. As the amendments are his, I do not think that it would be right for me to come to any conclusion on that.

Amendment 180 seeks to put a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision about the consent condition for keeping a pet and what makes that reasonable. Again, that is about seeking more clarity.

Amendment 182 is, as Maggie Chapman and I have just discussed, in relation to carpeted floors and soft furnishings being professionally cleaned by an independent company at the end of a tenancy. Again, that is about responsibility in pet ownership. It is probably what you would do in your own home should furnishings need to be cleaned for any pet-related reasons.

I turn to other amendments in the group, because these are issues that I care about. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right that about my entering a Dogs Trust dog in the Holyrood dog of the year competition. I have done so every year bar one, when I was on maternity leave, and that is because I believe in what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is trying to make it easier for people to own a pet and, of course, ensure that animals do not end up in rescue homes, when they can have forever homes. I think that most committee members would support that.

I have an issue with amendments 24 and 28. Actually, it is not an issue as such; I have a view on the timeframes that are acceptable or reasonable. Will the timeframe be 14 days, 28 days or something else? I do not think that we can necessarily determine that at today’s committee meeting. We might need to have another discussion about it—I know that we will be having a lot of discussions—to work out what would be fair and reasonable. I can come up with scenarios, such as a landlord being on holiday or ill, or there could be other personal circumstances that might mean that they do not have sufficient time to respond within the 14 day period. I understand that there could be workarounds to allow for those circumstances, but I wonder whether 28 days would be more reasonable than 14 days—I have already discussed that with the Dogs Trust—or whether there should be another timeframe. We can all have a good debate about the timeframe as we approach stage 3, because it is important.

On amendment 25, on whether a request would be automatically approved, we need to determine what timeframe would be appropriate before we consider the amendment. However, I understand the reasoning and I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the points that have been raised about people having the right to own a pet, which I think that many members would support in principle. We also need to consider the type of pet, which has been mentioned briefly but not at length. There is a massive difference between a Border terrier and a Siberian husky, for example. I am not trying to say which breed of dog is my favourite, because I have friends who own each of those breeds, but we need to consider that and be mindful of whether a small rental property would be an appropriate place to keep a large dog.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendments on assistance animals, I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the Equality Act 2010, but I would be interested in understanding whether that would cover additional animals such as therapy pets. I am not entirely sure that it does, which is why I am throwing out the issue for discussion. We also need to look at that as we approach stage 3. Assistance dogs could be guide dogs to assist people with their sight or hearing loss, or it could refer to other therapy pets.

I will leave my comments there. I think that I have addressed all Edward Mountain’s amendments in group 26, and, certainly, the amendment that I have an interest in.

With amendment 173, Edward Mountain seeks to ensure that, at the end of the tenancy, a tenant who makes any category 1 or category 2 changes must return the property to its original state. Edward Mountain seeks to provide clarity and ensure that landlords do not have additional expenses at the end of a tenancy should a tenant wish to make personalised category 1 or category 2 changes to a property.

In relation to category 1 changes, I am referring to adjustments such as putting up posters and pictures. Category 2 changes would include things such as painting walls. That can vary a lot according to personal taste in colour, for example, so amendment 173 is about providing clarity for landlords and giving them reassurance that, should any of those changes be made, the tenant will be expected to return things to their original state.

It is interesting that the bill has little to say about tenants of social rented properties. That contrasts with the provisions that relate to the private sector. It makes you think that social tenants have perhaps been overlooked. There are slight differences between the new provisions for private rented properties and the existing provisions for social rented properties. However, we must ensure that, should tenants be allowed to make changes—I do not think that anyone is necessarily arguing against that—there will be a degree of reasonableness and proportionality in relation to what would be expected and the costs that the landlord would have to incur to change things back once a tenancy ended.

Amendment 174 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to specify changes to a let property that may be made by the tenant. That is really important. Again, this relates to category 1 and category 2 changes. I have already referred to the definitions of those, but it must be made clear in guidance that, should changes be allowed, landlords must know exactly what the changes look like and what category they fall under. If that is not the case, there might be a lot of discrepancy between what landlords and tenants think is reasonable. It would not be helpful if there were disagreements about that because it has not been properly legislated for in the bill.

Amendment 175 would specify that structural changes to a property must not be categorised as category 1 changes. Again, I believe that the amendment comes on the back of conversations that Edward Mountain had with people in the private rented sector. The Government should clarify category 1 and category 2 changes. Amendment 175 would provide more clarity by specifying that structural changes would not be categorised as category 1 changes.

Amendment 177 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision in relation to when it is reasonable to refuse consent for a category 2 change, which, of course, is a step above a category 1 change. Again, this is about what it is fair, measured and reasonable for tenants to seek to do to a property. It would not be about painting walls a certain colour, but clarity on provisions on refusing consent would be helpful.

Amendment 178 would amend “may” to “must” in relation to the provision for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to the making of a new category 2 change to a let property. That is similar to amendment 177.

Amendment 179 would add that regulations must provide that it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to any structural changes to the property. This is to ensure that we have seamless directions on what is expected and allowed and on what guidance landlords can follow. I do not believe that the bill currently provides that.

There are only two other amendments in the group, so it seems appropriate to allow the member who lodged those to speak first, and I can summarise at the end.

I move amendment 173.

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.

I agree with the comments that have been made already. We are in a housing emergency, which has been acknowledged not only by councils up and down the country but in the Scottish Parliament.

I agree with Mark Griffin’s comments about SMEs in particular. We do not want them to be priced out of development. We need to ensure that developments can happen across the country in suitable and appropriate areas. Based on that, I believe that we should have the minister in to discuss that matter further and so that we can ask questions.

I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is attempting to do with amendments 273 and 274, but I do not think that requiring the landlord to provide the tenant with information on the ability to join a tenants union is as clear-cut as it might look on paper. There might be issues in relation to how that information is conveyed. We are living in a digital world, so would it need to be done by email or physically? All of those things need to be worked out before we even begin to discuss the issue. I am a little concerned about discussing the proposal without understanding exactly what the landlord would be required to do and how they would be required to do it. How the tenant would be able to join the union is another issue that would need to be resolved. A lot more information is required than is contained in the amendment.

The reason for my lodging amendment 516, to which I will speak in due course, was frustration at the slow pace at which we are beginning to deal with buildings with that particular facade and the safety and wellbeing of people who reside in such buildings and are therefore impacted.

As I have said, I will be able to speak to my amendment in a little while, but I will just say that I did want to extend its scope—although I do recognise that that would have made it fall outwith the competency of the bill. We might be talking about housing, but there is clearly an issue with other buildings that have cladding such as hotels, hostels, boarding houses and care homes, to name just a few. Will that issue be part of the consultation? Will we look at the test standard, which has been declared not fit for purpose?