Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2143 was lodged by Sean Clerkin, who was the architect of another petition that we considered earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to require all private and registered social landlords to investigate and remediate damp and mould within specified timeframes and to high-quality standards. As the SPICe briefing on the petition reminds us, the problem of damp and mould has gained more public attention following the death in 2020 of two-year-old Awaab Ishak from a severe respiratory condition that was due to prolonged exposure to mould in his home. That led to the UK Government introducing Awaab’s law for England, which aims to put an obligation on social landlords to investigate and fix dangerous damp and mould within a set amount of time as well as to repair all emergency hazards within 24 hours.

In a written submission to the committee, the petitioner advocates for a Scottish version of Awaab’s law for social and private landlords. In addition to the requirement for a set timeframe for repairs, the petitioner believes that any statutory intervention must also specify that all work in relation to damp and mould has to be done to defined high standards and must focus on removing all mould from tenants’ homes.

In the Scottish Government’s response to the petition, the Minister for Housing indicates that one of the amendments that he has lodged to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Parliament, aims to transplant the provisions of Awaab’s law into Scottish legislation. The amendment would create a new power for the Scottish ministers to set out timescales for investigating and commencing repairs in the social rented sector. In the response, the Scottish Government also states its commitment to implementing Awaab’s law for private tenants, using existing powers, after engagement with housing professionals, private landlords and tenants across the private rented sector.

In support of the petition, the committee received a submission from our colleague Mark Griffin, who also advocates for replicating the provisions of Awaab’s law for social and private rented housing in Scotland. Mr Griffin indicates that he will work with the Government during the bill process and that he is keen to ensure that his proposals are reflected in amendments to the bill at stage 3. This is an important issue.

Yes. This is all fairly fresh, because the UK Government’s announcement was at the beginning of February and the Scottish Government’s announcement was in the middle of March. Given that the bill is going through the Parliament just now, we would, as suggested, want to see the provisions of the petition incorporated into the bill.

I think that we are all agreed. We will keep the petition open and we will progress on the basis that has been suggested. We thank Mr Clerkin for lodging the petition; it remains open, and we hope to advance its aims. Thank you for joining us in the gallery for the discussion of both your petitions, Mr Clerkin.

That brings us to the end of our formal business. We will next convene on Wednesday 18 June. We will now move into private session.

Okay, but we do not have a lot of time. Professor Masterton absorbed some of the time that we had with his lengthy remarks.

Thank you. That was all very enlightening and academic, so let me now be pejorative. You referred to Kenneth Clark’s television series “Civilisation”, which was all very high-falutin’. At the end, you talked about developers who might have ulterior motives. I would say that I have never met a developer who does not have an ulterior motive. And when has a developer ever had a motive in the national interest? I can see that there are architects and others who aspire to create something wonderful, but the developers that I have met are looking for bang for their buck, which is why they are in business.

The impression that many people have is that, although the United States might ring out the old, ring in the new and have a complete lack of sentiment about absolutely anything—one only has to look at New York City to see all the buildings that have been ripped down and replaced with whatever could make the most money—people in this country have an attachment to a number of buildings.

For the sake of argument—I will bring in the other witnesses, too—let me say that there is a sense that developers’ interests come first and that, sometimes, our local authorities are inclined to set aside the love of buildings that might have a future purpose within a development because they are keen for the development to proceed, which it does, regardless of the building’s worth. Sometimes, it seems that the demolition has happened before anybody has had time to blink. Examples of that come up all the time, depending on which part of the country you live in. If you are in Glasgow and drive up Sauchiehall Street, you see the old ABC cinema, with its art deco frontage, being hacked to pieces. There are other examples of buildings that were not knocked down. As a boy, I remember looking at the Odeon cinema, with its art deco frontage, on Renfield Street. It is all still there, with all the office buildings and everything built on to the back.

It seems to many people that the safeguards around the assessment of the need for demolition are mysteriously bent in such a way as to make it the quick option for developers to pursue. That is what underpins the petition’s aims and the representations of our colleague Paul Sweeney, who has now joined us online. Good morning, Mr Sweeney; I am sure that we will bring you into play in due course.

I do not know how the other witnesses want to respond, but before we get to a detailed question, how would you respond to my pejorative opening gambit?

We are a little short of time, so I ask that you try to be concise in responding.

Are members content? For the Scottish Government to have said that it expected to produce a report before the summer recess last year but to then say that it has taken a bit of time to drive some consensus as we head into the summer recess of 2025 does not inspire one to the view that there is any pressing urgency being given to producing the required information to help the issue to progress.

Oh, I am sorry, Mr Choudhury—I do apologise.

That is an option that we could perhaps explore but, as you know, Mr Choudhury, there are fewer weeks left in the parliamentary session than there are items of business to deal with. Therefore, maybe we could write in the first instance and see what the quality of the response is, before we commit to further action.