Chamber and committees

I am not sure that, when Scottish Labour envisaged rent control, it envisaged that the social rental sector would be such an integral part of the policy. Would Labour members therefore vote to remove it from the legislation, given the unintended consequences of the bill, which the sector’s representatives are raising with elected members?

Just a few months ago, Scottish National Party and Green ministers—including the minister and cabinet secretary who are sitting on the front bench—described Scottish Labour’s proposals around rent freeze schemes as “unworkable” and said that those schemes would

“heighten the risk of eviction”

for tenants. The bill will introduce opportunities that could lead to that situation, so that is where ministers need to be clear. Let us consider Ireland, where a similar policy has resulted in a 30 per cent increase in homelessness.

We have already seen, and continue to see, a record number of people living in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh and across Scotland. The bill has the potential to supercharge the housing crisis, with fewer private tenancies being made available, fewer new affordable homes being built and the ripping up of the very tenants rights framework that we are told ministers want to see protect tenants. For example, the circumventing of local authority rent-setting processes will override not only the statutory responsibilities of elected members but the local processes that are currently in place to allow tenants to have a constructive opportunity to have their say in rent setting and negotiations.

There is growing concern in the housing sector around the unintended consequences of the bill, and I hope that the minister heard it during this morning’s committee meeting. We have already seen the impacts on students, as members have outlined, with both the University of Glasgow and the University of Stirling telling students not to matriculate unless they have secured accommodation. One of the key aspects of the bill is its unintended consequences.

An important part of this, which you have outlined, concerns the projected lack of uptake of the benefits that are currently available. When it comes to this year’s in-year spend, where do other benefits—for example, the best start grant—sit, and are those also being earmarked as potential areas in which finance is currently allocated but may not be spent?

That is helpful. We are also waiting to see the bill and probably will not see it until an hour before the committee has to look at it.

Specifically with regard to rural homelessness, which we maybe do not talk enough about, supply and demand in those cases is often hugely limited. Do you know of any work that has been done about potential consequences for rural homelessness?

Finally, I want to ask about an issue that I have raised consistently. We are seeing a really depressing and worrying picture with regard to the number of children in temporary accommodation. I would say that, here in the capital, the situation is at crisis point. Where is the Scottish Government going wrong with the policy direction on that?

Thank you for that. It would be helpful if you could provide that information to the committee as well, so that we can see where things sit, because, for example, some of our work involves trying to encourage uptake.

I have a final question in this section. A lot of people are seeking clarity over how the change will trickle down to other services. Where are protections expected by ministers—for example, in schemes that support young carers—and what work is being undertaken on that?

In the two minutes that we have left, we probably cannot have a debate about the Barnett formula or budget negotiations between parties, so I want to ask about Social Security Scotland and the management of budgeting. Around £301 million of its budget is operational expenditure. What discussions is the Government having about projected future spend on running the organisation?

Thank you for that. I know that we have limited time, so, before I bring in Danny Boyle, my second question is about what engagement you have had with the Government in discussing those priorities. We, in the committee, have heard loud and clear your ask around people who have no recourse to public funds, but what sort of engagement have you had with the Government on that?

Good morning to you and your officials, Mr Swinney. Thank you for joining us.

I will carry further the line of questioning that Pam Duncan-Glancy started. Is cutting the EMA budget consistent with trying to improve uptake among those who move on from the Scottish child payment?

Thank you for joining us. Earlier, we heard the Deputy First Minister extolling the virtues of Ireland’s policy agendas. The impacts of the rent control policy in Ireland include a 30 per cent increase in homelessness, with a 38 per cent increase in Dublin alone. Do you think the Government has not looked at the unintended consequences of the rent freeze policy?