Chamber and committees

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have previously touched on the impact on industrial relations in the local government workforce. COSLA has said:

“the timing of the response and related messaging has contributed to conflation between the SLARC recommendations and on-going pay negotiations for our workforce”.

What is your response to that? Have negotiations over local government staff pay been made any more difficult because this discussion has been going on at the same time?

I think that most people would accept that the rent control elements are the flagship part of the bill. Given that this is our last evidence session, and that we will be producing a stage 1 report, with recommendations, in the dark, without any knowledge of what the final proposals for the flagship element of this housing bill will be, has the Government given any consideration to withdrawing the bill and committing to reconsulting on whatever the final proposals are? Will it give the committee the chance to consult on that and to make substantive recommendations and conclusions in a relevant stage 1 report? We are otherwise going to be debating in the dark.

I want to ask about the provision on rent increases between tenancies. Does the Government have any concerns about whether that might inhibit investment in improving property standards? I am thinking in particular of net zero and the need to improve energy efficiency. Is there any way to enable landlords who make significant investment in improving their property to be able to have a rent that reflects the increased standard of their property?

I want to come back to MMR. It is good to hear that the Government recognises the importance of mid-market rent properties, which make up a crucial part of the affordable housing supply programme. We have heard evidence from witnesses who are concerned that any legislative application of rent control to the MMR sector could impact on supply, which neither of us would want. Given the commitments that have been made in the programme for government and today, has the Government given any consideration to exempting mid-market rent properties from the rent control proposals?

I want to come back to the issue of deposits, but from a different angle. The CIH has submitted evidence suggesting that we could do more to ensure that tenancy deposits are returned, and flagging the issue of how deposits are held potentially impacting on people’s ability to move. Do you want to expand on any of that and give us pointers on where we should be going in the bill to suggest changes that would allow deposits to be returned and would support people who want to move?

I have another area of questions.

We have touched briefly on the rights of both tenants and landlords, the lack of awareness of those rights, the power imbalance between landlord and tenant, and tenants’ inability—even just the feeling of being unable—to pursue and enforce those rights. This question is probably for Tony and Mike. Thinking about the role that councils could have in maximising that awareness and the ability to enforce tenants’ rights, do you feel that there should be more powers for local authorities to enforce landlord registration and other things that could improve awareness and enforcement of tenants’ rights? I will come to Mike Callaghan first.

Thanks. Are there any other comments on how the tenancy deposit scheme is operating?

In previous exchanges, you have talked about the Government taking forward these changes as they are felt to be the most urgent changes that need to be made. You have also said that there is a difference of opinion in the sector about what is the most urgent and pressing issue. Do you have a timescale for when the Government plans to address the other issues that are being raised that you perhaps do not see as being as urgent?

How do you respond to the concerns that have been expressed by short-term let operators that the proposed changes in the amendment order are not sufficient to deal with the challenges that they see in the sector as a result of the licensing scheme?

I will not be voting against the order. I am happy to see it proceed, but I cannot vote positively for it.

The minister mentioned the Scottish Tourism Alliance. Its submission to the committee said that the order was

“a positive first step in addressing some of the issues that have emerged since the introduction of the STLs scheme.”

That was not the full extent of what it said, though. It continued:

“However, it remains the case that a far more significant review of how the Short-Term Lets ... Licensing Scheme is operating in practice is needed if we are to safeguard these businesses and to protect and enhance the visitor accommodation offer”.

It is, therefore, clear that there is disappointment in the sector that the order does not go far enough.

I would not wish to block the small improvements that the scheme has made, but it has wide-ranging impacts that still need to be addressed. The Government has convened its own industry advisory group, which has made recommendations that have not been fully listened to or implemented. I am not quite clear why we need to approach the issue in such a piecemeal fashion, and I am not sure why all the recommendations could not have been implemented.

When the committee made its initial decision on approval of the scheme, it was very finely balanced. I would have much preferred to see the Government taking an approach similar to that employed on the tourism visitor levy. It encouraged local democratic control, in that councils could choose not only how they would implement the scheme but whether they would implement it at all. I feel that some areas of the country do not need a short-term lets licensing scheme at all. I would have preferred there to be much more local say in how such a scheme should be run.

Although the bill makes small steps towards addressing some of the issues that the industry has raised, we should have been conducting a far more comprehensive review and a much more wide-ranging implementation plan. I do not see why we could not have come to that point today.