Chamber and committees

Could there be improvements from delivery agencies? Local authorities are playing that role, but in other parts of the country, especially in regeneration projects, we have seen other types of delivery agency. Could bringing in additional private investment help? Pension funds have been mentioned. Would that turbocharge projects and move them forward?

My question is about access to help and support, and early intervention. From the witnesses’ experiences, what scope is there to identify people earlier and provide them with a referral? That might not necessarily be in a mental health context; it might relate to other organisations that might be in contact with individuals who are financially vulnerable.

I will ask a few questions about debt and suicide. In relation to the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s research in 2018, what reassessment has taken place of the scale of the problem of suicide and debt? I will bring in Rebecca Stacey first, then anyone else can comment if they want to.

You touched on this in your responses, but what have you learned during the pandemic about new models? When I visited the citizens advice bureau in Leith, we talked about how partnerships are being developed with banks to look at early intervention to help support people. What have you learned that you have carried on doing? You said that access to support is different, such as through a phone line service. Is there anything else that we may need to know about early intervention schemes specifically?

To link into that point, we heard in the earlier evidence session about the ask around training and advice referrals in mental health services. Do current mental health and suicide prevention strategies adequately consider the role that financial difficulties can play, and how would you like to see that change?

I will start with Rebecca Stacey, because I can see her on the screen.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for joining us. I will continue the line of questioning on access to services. How has the delivery of your services changed between the start of the pandemic and now? Were you able to continue face-to-face meetings with clients? Perhaps Sarah-Jayne Dunn can answer first.

In the time that I have for my comments, I want to concentrate on part 4 of the bill.

The wide-ranging powers that were brought in during the pandemic, including on the removal of eviction grounds, were supported as an emergency response to the pandemic. We all want to see good and responsible landlords, and I believe that the vast majority of landlords across Scotland are indeed responsible. It is obviously in the interests of all parties that they work to secure tenancies, but also that tenants are supported and sustained when they face financial difficulties.

If there is one thing that we know—this is important and I hope that ministers will listen to it—it is that changes in policy and interventions in the property market can often result in changes in behaviour by property owners, such as decisions being taken to remove properties from the rental market. I think that Michelle Thomson pointed to the key concern, which is that the proposals in part 4 of the bill do not take into account the wider private rented sector and that they pre-empt and prejudge the outcomes of the Scottish Government’s proposed housing bill—and, indeed, as has been highlighted, the consultation on the draft strategy “A New Deal for Tenants”.

Housing policy in Scotland and across the developed world is littered with unintended consequences, as the convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee highlighted. I very much share the concerns about the possible loss from the rental market of affordable homes that the bill could drive.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Scottish Government began carrying out free single building assessments only in August 2021. We know that, by then, many home owners had already paid for safety assessments out of their own pockets. I will ask a couple of questions with regard to home owners who have been so desperately affected during this time.

What plans do ministers have to cover the costs that have already been incurred for work such as that which the cabinet secretary has announced the Government will cover?

Secondly, home owners who are being prevented from moving or obtaining mortgages due to their flats being covered in potentially combustible cladding are seeing their properties being valued at zero. What discussions has the Government had with the banks, with regard to mortgages, and with the insurance industry, with regard to affordable insurance, for home owners who are in those properties? None of those issues were covered in the cabinet secretary’s statement, but they are really important for property owners.

Maybe the minister needs to consider all the organisations and individuals who will be affected by the changes and who have put forward their concerns. The Government’s response—the Deputy First Minister’s response—to our committee report stretched to just 23 words, basically admitting that the Government acknowledged those concerns. However, we have heard nothing about that today. Consideration of proposals on individual aspects of the private rented sector in complete isolation from the wider market does not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, as a committee, we have not been able to do that proper scrutiny.

Rural Scotland is perhaps most vulnerable to the housing crisis. The potential impact of the bill on the supply of and demand for rented properties in rural Scotland should be of concern to us all, including SNP and Green ministers, who do not seem to be taking those concerns as seriously as they should.

The concerns are being expressed across the rural sector. Key stakeholders include Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Association of Landlords, the Scottish Property Federation, NFU Scotland and the Church of Scotland—which has already been mentioned—as well as individual landlords. As stated in their letter to the Deputy First Minister, Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Association of Landlords and NFU Scotland believe that the Scottish Government is misusing Covid legislation to push through housing elements of the agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Green Party.

A key component of the solution to the housing crisis in Scotland is the supply and improvement of homes for rent. Ministers have undertaken no work to consult on or assess the impact on those issues, and the sector wants a pause so that we can understand the potential situations that tenants will face, and the unintended consequences. Given the increases in interest rates and the cost of living crisis, rental properties are essential, and any measures that could be detrimental to their provision need to be fully understood and considered. Sadly, the bill has not achieved that to date.

The real and concerning impact that part 4 could have on the supply of rental properties and their potential removal from the market appears not to have been fully considered by the Scottish Government. I hope that ministers will pause and consider the real impact of the bill, as they have suggested they will do at stage 2. The Scottish Conservatives will lodge amendments to part 4 at stage 2. I hope that there will be engagement from across the chamber on the issue. It is important that we consider those unintended consequences for the property market in Scotland.