Chamber and committees

Thanks very much. We hear you loud and clear, Dr Witcher.

I apologise to colleagues and witnesses for my late arrival, which was because my usual method of transport, train, was not available, and I was battling with Royal Highland Show traffic to get in.

I would like to ask about targeting of communications, because the committee has heard from previous witnesses that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to public health messaging that meets everyone’s needs. We segment the population—there are various minority groups, including older people, those in ethnic minorities and those in higher risk groups, for whom the messaging might need to be different from the messaging for the general population.

I will start with Adam Stachura. Do you think that Covid public health messaging has been adequately targeted at different groups? If not, what more needs to be done to try to fix that?

I listened with great interest to the comments that the cabinet secretary made and I will respond briefly.

I do not regard asking someone simply to sign a declaration—to say that they understand the role and responsibilities of being a named person—as a major bureaucratic burden. I go back to the fact that we took evidence on that from stakeholders, who were clear in their view that it would be a positive step to incorporate that particular measure. It was a unanimous recommendation of the committee in its stage 1 report and, on that basis, I press amendment 3.

I will not rehearse all the arguments that have been put forward by Edward Mountain. I have a lot of sympathy for the points that he made, and the submission to the committee from Scottish Land & Estates, NFU Scotland, the Scottish Association of Landlords and the National Trust for Scotland makes strong points about the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation.

Scotland needs to have a vibrant private rented sector. People depend on the provision of private rented accommodation—often, they are young; often, they are in transient employment and want to move from place to place. There is a concern about a reduction in the supply of private rented properties, and that is likely to be exacerbated if we continue down the route that is proposed in the bill. Mr Mountain is correct to bring some of those issues to the committee.

Amendment 147 is similar to Mr Mountain’s amendment 146, but it is narrower in scope and intended to deal with a specific issue in relation to rural communities. We know that housing in rural communities is often in short supply, and it is important that rural businesses have access to suitable accommodation for those whom they employ.

The purpose of amendment 147 is to make sure that there is a mandatory eviction ground for a landlord who owns property in a rural business, such as a farming or forestry business, who wishes to recover possession of that property to provide accommodation for an employee who might struggle to find somewhere to stay. If accommodation is not offered with employment in rural areas, particularly remote rural areas, it is simply not practical for people to take up the offer because they cannot find anywhere to stay. Amendment 147 would therefore protect a rural business or employer who wants to create employment and provide accommodation to go along with it.

My concern is that, if we do not put such a provision in the bill, the unintended consequences will be that rural landlords, who are looking ahead and might be in a position in which they can take on a new employee, might just decide to leave a property empty rather than offering it up for a long-term let, or they might decide to let it in the short term rather than make it a residential let, and that is probably not in the interests of wider public policy.

Amendment 147 is supported by the NFUS and Scottish Land & Estates. It provides a sensible balance in protecting the interests of rural communities.

On a point of order, convener. I have an interest to declare. I should have put on the record that I am a member of the Church of Scotland.

I thank Mercedes Villalba for lodging her amendments, because she raises some important issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with the case studies that she identified. However, what she proposes would potentially have unintended consequences.

We heard earlier about concerns that the supply of private rented property is already in decline. There is a danger that, by bringing in such a measure at this point, we would constrain further the supply of private rented property. That would not be in the interests of people who are seeking accommodation in the private rented sector. Such accommodation might suit young people or those who move around often with their jobs, for whom being in the private rented sector is very helpful.

There is a broader debate to be had around the issue, but the correct context for that would be a housing bill, which I understand the Scottish Government is considering, rather than this bill. Although I have some sympathy with the point that Mercedes Villalba makes, I do not think that the bill is the appropriate avenue for bringing in the particular measure that she proposes.

We have legislative competence here; it is simply a matter of whether we decide to legislate now, putting the power in the hands of ministers to produce regulations that Parliament can only say yes or no to, or to retain power in the hands of Parliament, whose members can then lodge amendments to what has been proposed. There is simply a fundamental difference of view between me and Mr Fairlie on that particular issue.

I read Mr Mason’s amendment with interest. I was a member of two committees that dealt with bankruptcy legislation in previous sessions of Parliament, so I am well aware of the issues around diligence and arrestment, and how difficult it is to balance the rights of creditors and debtors. When such issues have been raised in the past, creditors such as credit unions have expressed concerns about their inability to recover funds and the position that that might put them in.

My concern about amendment 69 is that the issue that it addresses is not one that we have taken any evidence on. The representation that I have seen from the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers expresses concern about the proposed increase in the level to what appears to be the arbitrary figure of £1,000. I find it difficult to agree to amendment 69 given the absence of substantial evidence in support of it.

As this is my first contribution, I should refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and I derive some income from rental properties.

I will speak to four amendments in the group—amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9—and I will comment briefly on the Government’s amendments and those of other members.

My amendment 7 seeks to remove section 1 of the bill in its entirety, which goes to the heart of our objections to the bill and asks whether it is necessary at all to legislate at the present time to make permanent what were emergency and extraordinary powers that were given to the Scottish ministers to deal with the public health crisis.

We explored those issues in detail during the stage 1 debate, so I will not rehearse all those arguments today. However, I believe that we still have to hear a credible justification as to why those public health measures need to be in the bill and why such matters cannot be dealt with in another way. The committee has heard from a range of stakeholders who share that view, and our public engagement showed, among those people who responded, a 90 per cent opposition to those measures being in the bill as proposed.

I thank Mr Mason for that intervention, but, as I set out in the stage 1 debate, there is an alternative approach, which was laid out to the committee by Professor Fiona de Londras, who said that it would be quite possible for all parties to agree draft legislation that could sit on the shelf, ready to be introduced as and when required—