Seòmar agus comataidhean

Very good.

I am not planning to move amendment 444, given the cabinet secretary’s positive comments about working ahead of stage 3. Emma Roddick will have heard what I think should happen—which is that a group of MSPs should get together to explore those issues. Would she be interested in taking part in that?

That is good. I am encouraged to hear that.

Finally, my amendment 446 would just apply the affirmative procedure to the regulations that are proposed in amendment 444.

I shall leave it there, because I, too, have spoken at some length. I feel very strongly about this area, but I can see from looking around that everybody feels strongly about it, so I will end my remarks there.

Going back to an earlier point, the cabinet secretary’s argument is that we already have existing laws to tackle the issue in the private sector, but those are not being used, which means that there is an issue. If she accepts that there is an issue, we need to do something about it. This is an opportunity to do something about it: to send a message in law—in legislation, which is what we are here to do—that such behaviour is unacceptable and that we will deal with it.

Yes, I do, and I would be interested to hear what those other hazards are—I do not know, but they will be listed somewhere. My focus is on the damp and mould issues, which, as I said, the committee looked at on 18 March. We heard then from Sean Clerkin from the Scottish Tenants Organisation, who called for “proper statutory intervention” that would require accurate information about housing stock, annual inspections and training, so that all employees of private and social landlords can identify damp and mould. He said:

“For too long, the housing sector has lacked the knowledge and has been totally inadequate in dealing effectively with damp and mould.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 18 March 2025; c 9.]

That was a good point. Statutory intervention is required to help to protect tenants against the problems of damp and mould.

I think that it was you, convener, who said earlier that most of us will have had to deal with such problems at some point in our parliamentary careers, or if we have been councillors, as I was previously. When you said that, I reflected on an experience early in my time as an MSP when I had to deal with a case in Motherwell and saw the worst conditions that I have ever seen, in a block of flats that was riddled with damp and mould. The walls were absolutely black, but nothing was being done and those flats were not fit for habitation, but people were living there. The law was not adequate then and it is not adequate now, so we must do something about it, because people should not be living in those conditions in modern Scotland.

I have been listening very carefully, as I always do, to the arguments that have been put forward by Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman. Emma Roddick suggests increasing from 21 days to 42 days the period during which a tenant can appeal a rent increase. The cabinet secretary is suggesting increasing the period from 21 days to 30 days. If, for example, someone were on holiday for two or three weeks, that would eat up the 21 days and not give them much time to do anything, even in the proposed 30-day period. Will the cabinet secretary reflect on that ahead of stage 3 and accept what other members are attempting to achieve?

You would think that a group entitled “Reviews and reports” would not be too controversial. I am sure—really sure—that it will not be, although the cabinet secretary might have different ideas. We will wait and see.

Amendment 70 would require ministers to review and report every five years on the provisions in part 1 of the bill that relate to rent control. The Minister for Housing has already felt the need to review and consult on the rent control aspects of the bill at stage 1, and that created some uncertainty. There are also some concerns that data collection restrictions might impede councils from the effective use of the powers that are contained in the bill. Robin Blacklock from Dowbrae told the committee:

“I have a real fear that we will be reviewing and amending the bill in five years’ time, because we do not have the data.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 18 June 2024; c 24.]

Given those concerns, proper progress, monitoring and reporting will be required.

In amendment 70, therefore, I am putting a five-yearly deadline on the Scottish Government. Better monitoring and reporting would maintain transparency and accountability for all stakeholders and investors. We might not think that that is awfully complicated or controversial, but we will wait to see what the cabinet secretary has to say.

I will move on to amendment 71, which I call the “Graham Simpson taking leave of his senses amendment”, because it would give ministers the power to

“make any provision they consider appropriate for the purposes of delivering an effective rent control framework”,

including modifying this or any other act. Members can look as horrified as they wish at that one. I do not know what I was thinking of, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary does not either. I will leave it at that.

Amendment 72 would set out the procedures for ministers to modify the act. The pre-laying procedure includes laying

“a copy of the proposed regulations”,

before the Parliament with

“a statement setting out their reasons for proposing”

them and specifying a period for representations on the proposed regulations.

Amendment 76 would attach the affirmative procedure to the regulations that are laid under amendment 71, which would give ministers the power to make any provisions, as I outlined earlier. You can probably ignore that one as well.

I shall leave it at that—it is a nice short group.

I move amendment 70.

I have heard that very clearly. I will say that the tone of the cabinet secretary is slightly more positive than what we have heard before, even during the process of this bill. She is offering to work with people. Members might want to consider cancelling any plans that they have for the summer. The cabinet secretary has offered to have a good number of discussions, so we might want to check our calendars—and check with our other halves to see whether that is appropriate—because we will be extremely busy.

That goes back to something that I predicted last week, which I suspect is about to come true: that stage 3 will be after the summer. Given what has been said, I think that it will have to be, because a number of discussions must be held. Maggie Chapman made the very good point that we ought to work together ahead of stage 3, as I think we will have to do on the various student issues that have been raised previously, so that we get this right.

I will come to my amendments in the group, but my reflection on pretty much all the amendments in it is that the intent behind them is well meaning. People want the quality of accommodation to be driven up, particularly in the rented sector. The cabinet secretary has repeatedly said that the laws are in place and we already have the powers. However, she accepts that something is failing or is not working. During the process of this bill, we need to work to achieve a system that actually works. We need to all pull together on that, and we really have a lot of work to do.

My amendments in the group deal with Awaab’s law, which the committee has already looked at—Ms Gallacher could not make it that week, and I was lucky enough to stand in on her behalf in that session. I remind people that Awaab Ishaq died in Rochdale in 2020 and that that highlighted the issue of damp and mould in houses. The death of a child brought that issue to the fore. There is legislation in England but not yet here, and we need to get that right. We are here to protect people—that is what this is about. We need to drive up standards.

I think I will get out while the going is good. The cabinet secretary has called my amendment 70 “sensible”: I will take that, and I will certainly work with her on the matter ahead of stage 3—and that is not for the first time.

Amendment 70, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 71 and 72 not moved.

Amendment 451 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

The cabinet secretary was not kidding when she said that she was going to speak for some time—she did. I imagine that all the members who have lodged very well-meaning amendments in the group will be slightly disappointed. I counted 31 amendments that were not in the minister’s name, and the cabinet secretary has essentially said that she does not support any of them. That is disappointing.