Chamber and committees

As the minister said, the use of e-scooters is illegal. However, they are being sold and used here, and in quite big numbers in some parts of the country. The minister will be aware that there have been some trials in parts of England; the nearest one to Scotland is, I think, in Newcastle. Would she be minded to consider trialling a scheme somewhere in Scotland?

This has been a good debate, and I am glad that we have had it. When the Housing (Scotland) Bill was introduced, we had not declared a housing emergency, but we were certainly in the throes of one, and the bill has made things worse. To be fair, we had rent controls before we saw the bill, and it has led to rents going up and investment drying up—a more ruinous policy we could not imagine. So, what does the Government do? It includes more rent controls in the bill, with the minister sticking with the policy in his announcement on stage 2 when we were not even at stage 1 yet. He really should know better.

The minister has a housing investment task force that does not include Homes for Scotland. Goodness knows what it talks about, because the money is not coming here any time soon—he has scared investors off.

You might not believe this, Presiding Officer, but the minister and I go way back. He might not remember this, but when we were both councillors, we sat on the commission on school reform. [Interruption.] He does remember that. I genuinely want the best for him, so I must advise him, as a friend, to go back to the drawing board on the bill, because landlords are leaving the sector in their thousands. That might please those who think that all private landlords are evil money-grabbers, but those with any sense will know that it is not a good situation to be in.

We are calling for the bill to be redrafted. If only the cabinet secretary could be patient—she knows that I am a positive guy—because I have some nice things to say that will please her. The Scottish Property Federation estimates that £3.2 billion in direct housing investment is under threat from the proposals in the bill. A survey by Propertymark suggests that 59 per cent of landlords are selling their properties or leaving the market completely.

The one part of the bill with any promise—this will please the cabinet secretary—is the section that deals with homelessness, and we should concentrate on getting that right. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is muttering that she is pleased, but she is muttering something.

More than 15,000 children are homeless, and the number of applications from households that have been assessed as homeless is at its highest since 2011-12. Shelter Scotland has condemned the Scottish Government for its record on homelessness. It says that the housing system is “broken” and is in need of “urgent and drastic change”.

Part 5 of the bill deals with homelessness prevention. Of course, the best way to end homelessness is to stop it happening in the first place, which is why the housing first model ought to be commonplace. The bill introduces an ask and act duty—a duty to ask a person whether they are homeless or threatened with homelessness and to act if they are—on relevant public bodies such as health boards and the police.

That part of the bill has the potential to make some important changes to how homelessness is dealt with in this country, by shifting the approach from a crisis response to an early-action prevention response. That is good, but it is just a legislative framework, and much more work will need to be done. A delivery plan should be built into the bill, and there must be cross-departmental support for homelessness prevention across the Government and public bodies. Prevention is about dealing with the root causes of homelessness.

There have been a number of very good contributions to the debate, but Maggie Chapman’s was perhaps not one of them, because she seemed to be rather in denial about the impact of rent controls and the costs that landlords face. Willie Rennie spoke about the impact of homelessness on people. Miles Briggs talked about the situation in Edinburgh, as did Gordon MacDonald, to be fair. I was pleased that, although Paul Sweeney did not mention the tenement maintenance working group, he mentioned the group’s recommendations for dealing with the problems of tenements.

I was delighted that Jackson Carlaw mentioned students because, in September, the cross-party group on housing published a report that examined housing options for students in Scotland and their experiences of homelessness. Our report found that there is insufficient suitable and affordable accommodation for students here, and that thousands are at risk of homelessness. We came up with a set of clear and challenging recommendations for the Government, such as the recommendations that student housing be integrated into local housing strategies and that more robust data be gathered on student accommodation.

The Scottish Government must take more action to address student homelessness and answer the concerns that will undoubtedly be expressed at the rally outside Parliament tomorrow, which I will attend.

Frankly, the bill is a mess. The minister inherited some of the bad stuff in it, but he has stuck with it. That is why, as Meghan Gallacher rightly said—

That was not my question.

The problem is that council planning departments have been hollowed out for many years. It is a question of funding, but I do not see anything in the statement that addresses that. The minister seems to be pinning his hopes on a rather vague planning hub, but that will work only if it has the ability to deliver. Will it have any powers to do that, and will it have a budget?

I just found it fascinating.

In session 1, a number of MSPs were also members of the House of Lords: James Douglas-Hamilton, David Steel and Mike Watson. As you would expect, quite a lot of MSPs were also MPs in session 1. The list is as follows: Malcolm Chisholm, Roseanna Cunningham, Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing, Sam Galbraith, Donald Gorrie, John Home Robertson, John McAllion, Henry McLeish, Alasdair Morgan, Alex Salmond, John Swinney, Jim Wallace and Andrew Welsh.

In session 2, a couple of MSPs were members of the House of Lords—James Douglas-Hamilton and Mike Watson. I do not see any who were also MPs during that session, but we start to see councillors coming through. Those who were MSPs and councillors were Andrew Arbuckle, Charlie Gordon and Mike Pringle.

In session 3, a number of MSPs were members of the House of Lords: George Foulkes, Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen. Some MSPs were MPs: Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and Alex Salmond. The ones who were councillors in session 3 were Willie Coffey, Jim Hume, Bill Kidd, John Wilson, Nigel Don and—apologies, as I cannot pronounce the name—Stefan Tymkewycz.

The list for session 4 is quite long. The list of MSPs who were also in the Lords consisted of Annabel Goldie. The list of MSPs who were councillors was as follows: George Adam, Clare Adamson, Jayne Baxter, Colin Beattie, Lesley Brennan, Neil Bibby, Willie Coffey, Mary Fee, Neil Findlay, John Finnie, Mark Griffin, Cara Hilton, Jim Hume, Alison Johnstone, Colin Keir, Richard Lyle, Angus MacDonald, Derek Mackay, Hanzala Malik, Mark McDonald, Margaret McDougall, Anne McTaggart, John Pentland, Alex Rowley, Kevin Stewart, David Torrance Jean Urquhart and Bill Walker.

In session 5, the MSPs who were also MPs at some point were Douglas Ross and Ross Thomson. The list of MSPs who were also councillors is actually a very long list, so I will not go through it, but I think—

Over the parliamentary sessions, the number of MSPs who are MPs has tailed off, so we have a small number, and the number of MSPs who are also councillors has increased. I was a councillor, so that included me. In every election, quite a large number of the people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament are councillors at the time of election. Therefore, the minister’s point, namely that to do anything about councillors now would be wrong, is well made, so I do not intend to move amendment 3.

I heard what the minister said, I have seen his letter and I have reflected on what he said. I have also reflected on what he has said today, which is that he wants to launch a consultation in this parliamentary session. That is very useful. I am of the clear view that that is the right thing to do. To ban dual mandates for MSPs sitting as MPs—and in the House of Lords, although I will come on to talk about that—is the right thing to do. I think that it is what the public would expect us to do. I think that they expect people to behave in the right way, which means that, if you are elected to two places, you should make the choice between Westminster and here. Bringing that into law would bring us in line with Wales and Northern Ireland. Why should Scotland be an outrider?

I do not think that it is that complicated—it is quite an easy issue—but I accept that there ought to be some consultation. I think that I have the public pulse on the issue, but this bill might not be the place to do that. On that basis, I do not intend to move these amendments. I had intended to move them but, having heard from the minister earlier, I feel that, if he is going to move at pace with that consultation, I am happy not to do so. Unfortunately, that will take us into the next parliamentary session, which means that, if people who are MPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2026, they will not have to resign. I am sure that we can all think of potential candidates. I will not name anyone, but I am sure that we have got people in mind. That would be unfortunate, but I accept what the minister is saying.

On the amendments that relate to the House of Lords, my amendment 2 would make provision that a member of the House of Lords could stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and that, if they were elected, they could either resign or take a leave of absence. That is what Katy Clark has done, and I think that she has done the right thing. My proposal would put that option in law. Because Ross Greer’s amendment goes further than that, I have to say that I disagree with him on this one. I think that we should allow the Katy Clark position to become a matter of law.

I leave it there, convener.

Auditor General, I apologise for being away for most of the meeting. As has probably been explained, I was moving some amendments to a bill at stage 2. Anyway, I am here now.

I want to ask about sponsorship arrangements. In your report, you note that the Government has

“implemented the recommendations set out in the independent review of its relationships with public bodies.”

We on the committee are all aware of the work that you have done on the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. Have you seen any evidence of the implementation of the recommendations following the independent review of the Government’s relationship with public bodies? Are those recommendations leading to any changes?

Can you name any of those bodies?

Over the parliamentary sessions, the number of MSPs who are MPs has tailed off, so we have a small number, and the number of MSPs who are also councillors has increased. I was a councillor, so that included me. In every election, quite a large number of the people who are elected to the Scottish Parliament are councillors at the time of election. Therefore, the minister’s point, namely that to do anything about councillors now would be wrong, is well made, so I do not intend to move amendment 3.

I heard what the minister said, I have seen his letter and I have reflected on what he said. I have also reflected on what he has said today, which is that he wants to launch a consultation in this parliamentary session. That is very useful. I am of the clear view that that is the right thing to do. To ban dual mandates for MSPs sitting as MPs—and in the House of Lords, although I will come on to talk about that—is the right thing to do. I think that it is what the public would expect us to do. I think that they expect people to behave in the right way, which means that, if you are elected to two places, you should make the choice between Westminster and here. Bringing that into law would bring us in line with Wales and Northern Ireland. Why should Scotland be an outrider?

I do not think that it is that complicated—it is quite an easy issue—but I accept that there ought to be some consultation. I think that I have the public pulse on the issue, but this bill might not be the place to do that. On that basis, I do not intend to move these amendments. I had intended to move them but, having heard from the minister earlier, I feel that, if he is going to move at pace with that consultation, I am happy not to do so. Unfortunately, that will take us into the next parliamentary session, which means that, if people who are MPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2026, they will not have to resign. I am sure that we can all think of potential candidates. I will not name anyone, but I am sure that we have got people in mind. That would be unfortunate, but I accept what the minister is saying.

On the amendments that relate to the House of Lords, my amendment 2 would make provision that a member of the House of Lords could stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and that, if they were elected, they could either resign or take a leave of absence. That is what Katy Clark has done, and I think that she has done the right thing. My proposal would put that option in law. Because Ross Greer’s amendment goes further than that, I have to say that I disagree with him on this one. I think that we should allow the Katy Clark position to become a matter of law.

I leave it there, convener.