Chamber and committees

Good morning. Many of us are disappointed with what we have been presented with at this stage and think that the tweaks that the committee is looking at are not effective enough. It is worth reflecting that stakeholders have told the committee that this is

“by far the worst example of policy implementation that we have ever encountered.”

I have a couple of specific questions. First, how is the fact that a provisional licence is available for new-build properties but not buildings that are undergoing conversion compatible with the Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions, which involve encouraging the reuse and renewal of existing buildings?

Good morning and thanks for joining us today. I have a couple of specific questions.

I will start with the bill’s requirement that the courts and the tribunal consider whether to delay an eviction and the bill’s changes to the way that damages for illegal evictions will be calculated. What are your views on those provisions as they stand, in the bill? Do you think that they will give greater protection to tenants?

Thanks. Does anyone else want to comment?

Those were good points. Advocacy has come up during other sessions, and it is important, particularly for people living in supported accommodation who need additional support through those processes. I appreciate that.

The committee has also heard concerns that the amendment order could mean that two different short-term let licence schemes will be running simultaneously. What assurances can you give the committee that the amendment order will not create that situation?

This is not the first time that we have looked at the issue. I have been on the committee throughout the passage of the legislation and this partial review, if we can call it that, and the minister has outlined that there will potentially also be an expert group established. We know that the City of Edinburgh Council has already had a specific legal issue around the provision and we do not want to create more complex situations than we have already seen.

Thank you.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. A month ago, the Scottish Government declared a housing emergency, but what we have heard today does not sound or feel like a response to an emergency. We need to see more from the Government, and the fact that the minister mentioned children only twice in his statement tells us a lot. Every day, 45 children become homeless in Scotland. Under this Scottish National Party Government, 9,860 children are living in temporary accommodation and some have been in such accommodation for years. That is an increase of 138 per cent over the past decade, while the SNP and the Greens have been in power.

The minister mentioned the letter that has been sent to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I agree with the key ask in that letter about children living in temporary accommodation, which is an issue that I have consistently raised in this chamber during this session of Parliament. In the time remaining in this session, we have the opportunity to make a difference in line with the First Minister’s policy of eradicating child poverty, but we need a single-minded focus on reducing the harm that children living in temporary accommodation experience. How many children does the minister expect will be living in temporary accommodation in Scotland by the end of this parliamentary session?

I agree with Ash Regan. The Government needs to understand the facts of what people are experiencing. The minister mentioned a figure of 9 per cent, but in Edinburgh it is much higher. People are being mixed together in unacceptable situations: families, single men, and women who are experiencing homelessness. Often, those women have fled domestic abuse but are put into those situations, and they then leave them to become homeless, because they feel safer on the streets. Will the minister look at reviewing the situation, and get the third sector to be part of that? In so many options out there, we do not use the third sector, and it wants to be part of a solution.

Good morning and thank you for joining us here in the room and online.

I want to ask a question about some of the evidence that the committee has heard from tenant groups, which have said that the proposals place too great an onus on tenants to challenge rents in rent control areas. Do you agree with that? Should the onus be on landlords to comply with any rent control designation?

Also, what is your opinion on the number of rent reviews that are taking place now? We have spoken to a number of panels recently and it is quite clear from some of the evidence that we have received from more rural areas that rent reviews are taking place almost annually, whereas that was not the case previously. Is that another unintended consequence of the measure? Do you have any data on that?

If you consider that and the rent control areas, how would that work in practice in Edinburgh? There are different markets in different parts of the city, and I think that most people would accept that it is an overheated market. We have seen in different countries rent controls being suspended and different models being introduced. Let us face it: what we as a country have done to date is like a patchwork quilt. What model could work? The bill has included bits and pieces of previous things, but maybe there is an opportunity to open this up to get something that will work in the Scottish context, especially given what we have heard today about rural and urban communities. Edinburgh might be a specific case, given the increases that there have been.