Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will follow up my colleague Gordon MacDonald’s line of questioning. Let me start at a fairly high level, as that is where you were. You are all enthusiastic about the benefits of community wealth building, and you all make a persuasive case in selling those to us.

Setting that aside, however, the committee is considering the bill, which effectively requires public bodies to produce action plans. As Neil McInroy hinted earlier, there is concern that people in local authorities are stressed, their budgets are squeezed and they have 101 other things to do. An officer gets the job of drafting the action plan, even though they might not be dedicated to doing the job. They prepare the action plan, it goes to a committee of councillors, they nod it through, it gets put on a shelf and nothing happens. Is there a danger that you are overselling the bill to us regarding what it will actually deliver? If that is the case, what do we need to do to the bill to ensure that it actually delivers?

Is there anything that the bill could do that would help with that process? For example, it has been suggested that the procurement threshold of £50,000 could be raised. Do you have a view on that or on anything else?

Councillor Forson, I will ask you a specific question about procurement, which Gordon MacDonald touched on. Clackmannanshire Council has done very well in opening up procurement to local companies; it has a very good track record in that regard. How have you been able to deliver that? Is there anything that prevents other local councils from doing what you have been able to do?

I will ask you the question that I started with, about international comparisons. Are there other countries—Singapore or anywhere else—from which we could learn some lessons?

Good morning. The productivity puzzle, which Lorna Slater mentioned, is not just having an impact in the UK and in Scotland; it is a much broader issue across western economies. Are there examples from other countries that are doing better than we are?

I might start with you, Simon Pittaway, as you referred to some of the international studies that you have done. Recently, Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland’s leading business figures and entrepreneurs, said that Scotland needed to be more like Singapore. Is Singapore doing any better than we are, or are there examples from elsewhere in the world that we can learn from so that we can implement some of what they have done in order to tackle the productivity puzzle that we have here?

Thank you for that very helpful response. However, what you have just said about Glasgow could surely also be said about other major industrial cities in the UK, such as Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester. How does Glasgow compare to them, and is there any explanation for any difference in outcomes?

Thank you. Maybe I can ask Professor Wessels the same question. To open it up a bit, the Productivity Institute published a report in January on comparisons within Scotland. In that report, you suggested that Glasgow underperforms on productivity compared with comparable cities. Perhaps you could answer the question about international comparisons but also talk about why bits of Scotland are not doing as well as other bits.

Maybe we should drink more wine and eat more cheese—is that what you are saying? [Laughter.] Great—thank you.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and for that clarification.

Amendment 23 is consequential to amendment 21. Amendment 22 deals with a separate issue, which is the resolution of disputes. Again, I have had a great deal of correspondence on the issue from park home owners. At the present time, the only way that they can resolve a dispute with the owner of the park is by resort to the sheriff court, which is extremely unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The cost of going to the sheriff court is substantial. Legal advice is absolutely essential. It is extremely difficult to find any lawyer anywhere in Scotland with the required degree of expertise in the law around park homes. As I am sure that members of the committee are aware from work elsewhere, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain civil legal aid to pursue such cases. Therefore, although the remedy might be to go to the sheriff court, in practice that remedy is almost worthless because of the barriers that are put in the way.

Amendment 22 proposes, as an alternative route, to shift the resolution of disputes from the sheriff court to the First-tier Tribunal, bringing it into line with other issues that are dealt with in the housing arena, including the regulation of the private rented sector, which was moved to the housing tribunal in 2017, if I recall correctly. That would provide a much lower-cost and quicker resolution route, without the need to involve lawyers or apply for legal aid.

I listened with great interest to what the cabinet secretary had to say about the process of consultation. My concern is that that will take a substantial period. Even if the consultation proceeds by the end of this parliamentary session, we will need to look for a new legislative vehicle in the next session for it to be done. With the best will in the world, it would take a minimum of three years, whereas we have an alternative approach now.

I appreciate that there is more work to be done, but I hope that the committee will consider supporting my amendments, which would give the Government some opportunity to come back before stage 3, perhaps with amended wording. That would get the message across that time is of the essence. Many of the people about whom we are talking are elderly. A period of three years to try to reach a resolution might be more time than they have left on this planet. It is very unfair to leave them without effective remedies for the situation that they are in.

As this is the first time that I have spoken on the bill, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I own a private rented property in Edinburgh, from which I get some rental income, although that is not particularly relevant to this group of amendments. I am also a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising.

The cabinet secretary referred to the background in relation to park homes. In February, I hosted a members’ business debate on that issue, which I know is of interest to a wide range of members. Indeed, in a previous parliamentary session, Colin Beattie MSP chaired a cross-party group on park homes that identified some of the issues.

Park homes are a popular and growing segment of housing, in particular for retirees and people who are looking to downsize. However, it is clear that the legislative framework around park homes is not fit for purpose. We have too many examples, which I, and others, highlighted in the members’ business debate, of park home residents being at the mercy of unscrupulous owners of park home developments. Much more needs to be done to improve the legislative framework.

As the cabinet secretary said, I have had good engagement with the Minister for Housing on the issue. I am not seeking for my amendments to provide a comprehensive package of reform—that will take a lot longer—but to deal with some of the more egregious issues that have arisen that could be resolved a lot more quickly.

As the cabinet secretary said, amendment 21 deals with adaptations. Park home residents, many of whom might be elderly or disabled, are not eligible—or, in many cases, they are being told that they are not eligible—for grants for adaptations to put in such things as ramps for wheelchairs, wet rooms or to make other changes to their property that would normally be funded through local authority grants if they were living in what is deemed to be a permanent home. However, even though park homes might be permanent residences, because they do not meet the definition of a permanent structure, councils are telling people who live in them that they are not eligible for assistance.

I understand what the cabinet secretary said about the rights of councils; the issue is that, although that might be what the Government says, it is not what some councils are telling us. In fact, I can cite a very recent example. A segment on STV News at the beginning of this month highlighted concerns in the Perth and Kinross area around park homes, in response to which Perth and Kinross Council issued a statement that it was very sympathetic to the demand for the installation of ramps or wet rooms as adaptations; however, and this is a direct quote:

“under the terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 grants can only be awarded to permanent structures so, unfortunately, even when residents have permission to stay in a park home all year round they are not eligible for this funding. We appreciate how frustrating this situation is for homeowners but there is no scope for us to award discretionary grants under current legislation.”

The Government might be saying that local authorities can give that money, but that is not what local authorities are saying, so we have a problem.

My amendment 21 is not intended to be prescriptive in its form. It simply requires ministers to bring forward regulations that would require assistance to be offered to people living in park homes or similar properties in the same fashion as would be offered to someone living in a more permanent structure. It strikes me as a very reasonable amendment, given what the cabinet secretary has said.

I might be minded not to move it, if we could get some reassurance before stage 3 that local authorities are doing what the Government is telling them to do. Does the cabinet secretary want to intervene?