Seòmar agus comataidhean

This goes to the heart of what was said by those who gave evidence to the committee and those who are angry that we have not seen any real progress in Scotland on the issue. They have faced an information vacuum. That is not fair and needs to be addressed. That is why I have lodged amendment 2, which seeks to introduce a duty to inform by calling on the Scottish Government to inform occupiers of buildings of the results of the single building assessment and give residents on-going information that they will want to be made aware of.

We do not have a timescale for when all the assessments and works that may be needed will take place, but it is important that those who live in those buildings are put at the heart of that. That is why I want amendment 2 to be passed and for it to be put in the bill that the people who live in those buildings should know what is going on and should be given the information that they are entitled to. That has not happened to date.

I hope that the Government will accept amendment 2 today or take it forward as a working amendment at stage 3, because those who are affected need to be put at the heart of the bill. That is what I tried to achieve through my work on the committee and through the stage 1 debate, when all that was highlighted.

Amendment 5, in the name of Graham Simpson, could provide a lot of good additional information. Properly collating the information on residents who own their property or who rent it would add value. As communications are taken forward, those who rent—they are not owners but are occupiers—should be given the same information. I see no reason for any difference.

The bill gives ministers substantial powers, so my two amendments in the group are about ministers acting reasonably. We need to look towards how ministers will exercise their powers and look at potential grounds for legal challenge that overreach might bring forward. My amendments would set it out in the bill that ministers should act reasonably in exercising their powers under section 8.

I move amendment 63.

I take on board what the minister has said so far in relation to a care home or hospital setting. Student accommodation, however, has increasingly been built for multiple occupancy, with four to eight students in what would otherwise be a mixed development and mixed tenancy. I am concerned that such buildings have not been included to date. What work has the Government undertaken around student accommodation in Scotland to look at the number of buildings that are potentially over 11m high and would fall within the scope of the bill?

There are three key amendments on reviews. The first, amendment 1, is on other buildings. I raised this issue with many people who gave evidence at stage 1, specifically in relation to buildings that are currently not going to be subject to single building assessment but where people sleep, such as hotels, care homes and student accommodation. Although such buildings have been included in other schemes and in other potential reviews, there is not a timescale for what that will look like in Scotland. Work is already on-going with regard to some student accommodation, but will ministers also review other buildings in that category, and will those that are higher than 11m be captured? It is important that we look at how that part of the scheme is managed by ministers.

Amendment 4 is on undertaking a review of the ways in which the act will impact on the construction industry. In my previous set of amendments, I expressed concern about the SME sector. Completions are at an all-time low, and that will potentially have an impact on our construction and home-building industries. Ministers must be mindful of what that will mean for the housing crisis and delivering homes for people across Scotland. Amendment 4 calls on ministers to undertake a review of the act and how it will impact on the construction industry.

Finally, amendment 80 asks ministers to undertake an annual review of the act. I suggest an annual review, but I am happy to discuss that with ministers. There is a lot in the act; the only thing that is not in the act is how long it will take for us to be able to say that we have addressed all of the cladding concerns in Scotland. That could be a decade away. Also not included is whether the act is effective or ineffective in helping home owners to ensure that their homes are properly reported on and made safe through remediation or management, as might be the case for those that are seen as being below a tolerable standard. We are at the start of that journey. Amendment 80 provides for a review of the act and its actions.

I move amendment 1.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. One of the commission’s recommendations is about the prioritisation of recurring savings. Will you outline examples of good practice in that area as you see it? To what extent are recurring savings now becoming more difficult to identify and achieve?

Thank you for that. I note that overall net debt increased by £1 billion. Has the commission managed to find any explanation for that? Specifically—we touched on this earlier—do some specific councils have more exposure to that debt than others? Are those councils at risk in the future?

That would be helpful. We have discussed empty homes at length. I know that a number of councils do not have the resources to invest in building maintenance. It is welcome that a lot of councils are employing housing officers specifically to look at empty properties, but we do not seem to be pushing down on the number of empty homes. We have heard this morning about all the problems with cladding and RAAC, and about what is creating even more housing need.

What is the Government’s plan for empty homes? Has the Government considered establishing a national empty homes fund, which councils could bid into? In Edinburgh, more than 3,000 council-owned properties are sitting empty. Can councils look at getting such properties back into use?

Thank you.

Many housing developers, especially housing associations, have highlighted the challenges in delivering affordable housing, particularly in the context of the recent budget and cuts to the affordable housing supply. Since 2022, there has been a 5 per cent decrease in the number of affordable housing approvals and a 20 per cent decrease in the number of affordable housing starts in Scotland. What are the Scottish Government and its partners doing about that decline? Based on the projected numbers, the Government will not meet its target in “Housing to 2040”. How is the Government responding to that?

I will come in with some separate questions afterwards that go beyond that issue.

Returning to homelessness services specifically, we are again seeing record numbers of rough sleepers being recorded. The Scottish Housing Regulator has been clear that there are systemic failures. What work is the Government doing with the councils that are involved, including the City of Edinburgh Council in my region? We all accept the need for and want to see the preventative work that is included in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, but that work will be done in the future. We are seeing the problems here and now, but we are not seeing an emergency response that asks councils what is happening.

A record number of people, including children, are living in temporary accommodation, but it does not feel as though the Government and councils are necessarily connected in an emergency response to that at present. There is not even recording of data on people sleeping in their cars, for example, and not declaring themselves homeless. I wonder where the Government is on that, because I think that the next set of statistics will be even worse. Where are we, as a country, in working with the councils that have the biggest pressures, the City of Edinburgh Council being at the top of that list?