Chamber and committees

The debate has been interesting; I use that word to be generous, because the debate has not really told us anything that we did not know already. We already knew that there are parties in the Parliament that are anti-motorist, and that includes the governing party.

Sue Webber’s motion covers all bases, as did Miss Webber, but there is a lot to say. We have billed the debate as “ending the ‘war’ against Scotland’s motorists”—it can feel that way sometimes.

Before I get to the various points that have been raised, I start by praising the cabinet secretary. At last week’s Public Audit Committee meeting, she was honest enough to admit to me that the target to cut car miles by a fifth by 2030 is dead in the water. In fact, it was never possible, because to do so would mean taking even more punitive measures against motorists than we already have, and it would require an improvement in public transport provision, which is the carrot that we need to encourage people to use their cars less. According to Transport Scotland, public transport use would have needed to increase by 222 per cent. Given that the Government has reintroduced peak fares on trains and is not off the starting line with integrated ticketing, that is not going to happen.

As the Auditor General said of the now-axed car reduction target, there never was a delivery plan. He did not say that the reason for that is that the actions that would be needed to achieve the target would be unpalatable. Our motion calls on the Government to incentivise people to use their cars less, which is entirely right. I do not want to drive everywhere, but most of my journeys are by car, as I have no viable alternative. If I need to get about in Edinburgh, I often use the excellent public transport system, or I walk or cycle. In East Kilbride, where I live, and in the rest of Central Scotland, the public transport system is not so great, as Meghan Gallacher and other members from the region know very well.

I am about to mention Mr Stewart, as he gave an unusually amusing speech and revealed my colleague Douglas Lumsden to be a cheerleader for LEZs. Mr Lumsden is back from his tour of LEZs—that is good.

Members would think that the nonsense would stop there, but they would be wrong. We now know, thanks to evidence supplied by COSLA and Transport Scotland to the Public Audit Committee last week, that Scotland’s largest councils—Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council—want to continue to wage war on their citizens, with plans to introduce road pricing. The Glasgow transport strategy commits Glasgow City Council to lobbying the Scottish Government to introduce national road user charging, which would allow for regional schemes. Edinburgh wants to go down the same route, if necessary—and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will consider it necessary. However, that can happen only if we give those councils the power to do so, and we should not.

Scotland is a diverse and very rural country. People need to drive. We should not treat motorists as the enemy, as some in the chamber want to. Cars and other vehicles are essential—let us treat them as such.

Although it is true that transport is the biggest-emitting sector, it is also true that the economy cannot function without it. People and goods need to get about and we should be making it easier, not harder, to do that. That is why it is essential that roads such as the A9 and A96 are fully dualled, and that the M8 is improved, as frustrated driver Meghan Gallacher called for. It is why the SNP’s move to cut the national speed limit on single carriageway roads to 50mph is wrong—the right approach is a local approach. There are some such roads on which driving at 60mph is crazy. The SNP should change those speed limits, but not everything else.

Measures have already been put in place to make life difficult for people. Low-emission zones, which penalise those who cannot afford newer vehicles, are an example. Glasgow went first, started its enforcement in June 2023 and botched it. It was followed by Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Liam Kerr has told us in no uncertain terms about the impact of the LEZ in Aberdeen.

As Sarah Boyack has outlined, section 41 would place a duty on relevant bodies, such as councils, health boards and the police, to ask whether an individual is homeless or at risk of homelessness and to take action if they are. Members, including me, are seeking to add to that list.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, and they deal with students alone. The reason for that is that students have raised with me and other MSPs how they are often overlooked in the housing system. I will quote Lawrence Williams from the group Slurp: Students for Action on Homelessness and which is based in Edinburgh:

“From hidden homelessness to unaffordable rents, students in Scotland face a range of housing issues that have long been overlooked by policy-makers and universities.”

Last September, the cross-party group on housing, which I convene, published a report on student housing and homelessness—the committee might be aware of it. We found that thousands of students across Scotland are at risk of homelessness and are unable to access the right housing in some of our biggest cities. Our research identified a shortfall of 13,800 bed spaces in Edinburgh, 6,093 in Glasgow and 6,084 in Dundee.

We also found that there is ambiguity surrounding who is responsible for addressing student homelessness and that there is a lack of co-ordination between universities, councils and other providers regarding student housing. We came up with a set of quite challenging recommendations that we sent to the Government. My amendments seek to give effect to some of those recommendations.

Amendment 1001 seeks to include higher education institutions, which are defined under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 as “a university” or “a designated institution”, within the list of relevant bodies that will have a duty to deal with homelessness. Members know what that list already includes.

Several weeks ago—you may have forgotten about it—the committee received a letter about this from Universities Scotland. I encourage Universities Scotland to speak to me directly if it has any concerns about my other amendments on students, not just for this committee but for the other committee that is dealing with the bill. With regard to amendment 1001, the letter does not say that universities should not be relevant bodies; rather, it calls for the adoption of the Government’s time-honoured and favoured approach of consulting. That can, of course, often be a delaying tactic, and students cannot afford that delay. The minister will, no doubt, say that we should consult, but we will hear from him.

Universities have a duty of care to their students, thousands of whom come to Scotland to study and many of whom move within Scotland. That is why this is important.

Amendment 1002 would deal with private providers of purpose-built student accommodation and would include them in the list of relevant bodies. Research from the National Union of Students Scotland, which was cited in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s stage 1 report, found that the average rent for PBSA increased by 34 per cent between 2018 and 2021. That has created a “large disparity” between PBSA and the private rented sector. PBSA is not sufficiently regulated at the moment, and those who live in PBSA will not be covered by the Housing (Scotland) Bill in its current form. Amendment 1002 would add

“a private provider of purpose-built student accommodation”

to the list of relevant bodies.

I think—I would say this—that amendments 1001 and 1002 are both sensible. They deal with people, groups, organisations and bodies that ought to have a responsibility for the students whom they serve and that ought to take homelessness seriously. That is why I lodged those amendments.

As Sarah Boyack has outlined, section 41 would place a duty on relevant bodies, such as councils, health boards and the police, to ask whether an individual is homeless or at risk of homelessness and to take action if they are. Members, including me, are seeking to add to that list.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, and they deal with students alone. The reason for that is that students have raised with me and other MSPs how they are often overlooked in the housing system. I will quote Lawrence Williams from the group Slurp: Students for Action on Homelessness, which is based in Edinburgh:

“From hidden homelessness to unaffordable rents, students in Scotland face a range of housing issues that have long been overlooked by policy-makers and universities.”

Last September, the cross-party group on housing, which I convene, published a report on student housing and homelessness—the committee might be aware of it. We found that thousands of students across Scotland are at risk of homelessness and are unable to access the right housing in some of our biggest cities. Our research identified a shortfall of 13,800 bed spaces in Edinburgh, 6,093 in Glasgow and 6,084 in Dundee.

We also found that there is ambiguity surrounding who is responsible for addressing student homelessness and that there is a lack of co-ordination between universities, councils and other providers regarding student housing. We came up with a set of quite challenging recommendations that we sent to the Government. My amendments seek to give effect to some of those recommendations.

Amendment 1001 seeks to include higher education institutions, which are defined under the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 as “a university” or “a designated institution”, within the list of relevant bodies that will have a duty to deal with homelessness. Members know what that list already includes.

Several weeks ago—you may have forgotten about it—the committee received a letter about this from Universities Scotland. I encourage Universities Scotland to speak to me directly if it has any concerns about my other amendments on students, not just for this committee but for the other committee that is dealing with the bill. With regard to amendment 1001, the letter does not say that universities should not be relevant bodies; rather, it calls for the adoption of the Government’s time-honoured and favoured approach of consulting. That can, of course, often be a delaying tactic, and students cannot afford that delay. The minister will, no doubt, say that we should consult, but we will hear from him.

Universities have a duty of care to their students, thousands of whom come to Scotland to study and many of whom move within Scotland. That is why this is important.

Amendment 1002 would deal with private providers of purpose-built student accommodation and would include them in the list of relevant bodies. Research from the National Union of Students Scotland, which was cited in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s stage 1 report, found that the average rent for PBSA increased by 34 per cent between 2018 and 2021. That has created a “large disparity” between PBSA and the private rented sector. PBSA is not sufficiently regulated at the moment, and those who live in PBSA will not be covered by the Housing (Scotland) Bill in its current form. Amendment 1002 would add

“a private provider of purpose-built student accommodation”

to the list of relevant bodies.

I think—I would say this—that amendments 1001 and 1002 are both sensible. They deal with people, groups, organisations and bodies that ought to have a responsibility for the students whom they serve and that ought to take homelessness seriously. That is why I lodged those amendments.

I would like some clarity. The minister says that he supports an amendment from Bob Doris, which is not being considered by this committee, so it will not be voted on today. He also mentioned amendment 1012, which was lodged by Alexander Stewart. To be clear, is the minister saying that he thinks that, if Mr Doris’s amendment is agreed to, Mr Stewart’s amendment is not necessary? We cannot know whether Mr Doris’s amendment will be agreed to, because it is not being considered today, and it is being considered by a different committee. If it is not agreed to—I am sure that it will be, but if it is not—will the minister be minded to support Mr Stewart’s amendment?

I am listening carefully to what the minister is saying. I do not think that Jamie Halcro Johnston is at all suggesting that somebody who goes out in the wilds for a walk and maybe takes a tent with them, with the intention of going home the next day, is rough sleeping. Surely the minister is not suggesting that.

I would like to ask for some clarity. Sarah Boyack talked about creating a national register. What level of detail would that go into? I presume that that would not be a register that names individuals as being homeless but would, rather, be a register that collects the numbers of homeless people. Have I got that right?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I know that the minister loves to have meetings and talks, and they are often very valued, but can he give me a straight answer to this question: subject to those talks or consultations, is he prepared to consider an amendment for stage 3?