Seòmar agus comataidhean

When an owner-occupier finds RAAC, the value of their home drops. How does that affect the prices that are being offered by a local authority when it comes to compulsory purchase?

My last question is about properties that can be remediated. I am thinking about properties that I have visited in terraced rows, where RAAC panels cross over property boundaries. Some are local authority properties and some are owner-occupied properties, and the local authority is proposing to remediate its stock. How can it remediate its stock where a panel crosses into an owner-occupier’s property, potentially leaving that property at risk of collapse, while not giving the owner-occupier the opportunity to participate in the remediation scheme or, seemingly, any involvement at all in the works?

My last question is about an issue that I touched on with the previous panel. There are flats or terraced rows or semi-detached properties where one person is an owner-occupier and one is the tenant of a social landlord. The RAAC panels cross the ownership boundary. It is impossible to remediate one side without impacting the other. How can the Government give guidance to local authorities or social landlords to get around that legal minefield, so that we are not in a position where nothing happens because we cannot agree on how to manage the difference in and the legal complexities of ownership?

Another area that I want to cover is the guidance that is out there, which is more focused on non-domestic buildings. What is the Government’s role in producing guidance when it comes to RAAC in domestic properties? I am talking about guidance on surveying, remediation and potentially demolition that applies to both owner-occupiers and tenants. Is that a space that the Scottish Government should be entering?

Yvette, are owner-occupiers being given any support at all if they have to decant from a property that has been certified as unsafe?

Good morning. We have touched on some of the protected characteristics and accessibility challenges that people face, but I want to raise specifically the issues that are faced by people who have sight or hearing loss—in particular, those who are profoundly deaf or are deafblind and people who use British Sign Language. We heard a bit from Miriam Craven about the Social Security Scotland perspective, but I would like to know how the broader public sector caters to those who have the particular accessibility challenges that I highlight.

Jillian Matthew talked about equality impact assessments and how they ensure that people with accessibility challenges can access services. Is there any work to see whether assessments are fit for purpose and are not just box-ticking exercises, so that they can make a difference to accessibility in the public sphere?

I make a voluntary declaration of an interest as a member of Unite the union and of the GMB union.

Although the petition confines itself to the issue of sport and cultural venues, it highlights broader issues in respect of public services that are provided by local government. To the public, sport and cultural services are probably the most obvious example, but a range of services that have changed significantly, including planning, regeneration and economic development, are not so obvious and do not have the same public profile.

Although it is probably right to close the petition, I think that we should consider taking a broader look, possibly in a wider piece of work, at the changing nature of local government over the past 10 or 20 years, or perhaps since the Parliament was re-established in 1999, and the change in local services since devolution. The petition highlights the need for us to do that broader work, which I hope that we can cover in the future.

The petition raises a few issues, but the real motivation behind it is a situation in which a rent increase was referred to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, which then raised tenants’ rents beyond the increase that had been requested by the landlord. That situation flagged up an issue that members of the Parliament should look at closely when considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is the appropriate place to deal with it. It is good that the petitioners have raised the issue, but I would be happy to see the petition closed.

Do you have anything to add, Councillor Hagmann?

You are absolutely right: as we heard at the committee last week, engagement with the public is vital. The message needs to be clear on what we are engaging on, what the proposed outcome will be and what change we are offering the public.

You have probably encapsulated most people’s feelings on the issue, cabinet secretary. Almost everybody has run out of patience with talking about council tax reform and the “unfair council tax” rhetoric. Everybody is fed up hearing about it; we just want to do something about it. Is there a risk that we might go out for another round of engagement and—again—nothing happens? We could face a real risk of reaching a point where everybody is totally fed up with the talk about council tax reform. We are getting to the last chance saloon for reform, and it could end up in a basket marked “too difficult to do”.