Seòmar agus comataidhean

We expect that the case transfers that relate to the major agency agreements on benefits will complete on timetable. The agency agreements relating to benefits will end in March 2026 and we have a timetable of ending the case transfers by the end of this calendar year. I think that the case transfer process is one of the great successes of the devolution of social security. It has gone exceptionally smoothly when we look at what can perhaps go wrong when we are undertaking such large changes to benefits. We anticipate that to continue and that would bring to an end the agency agreements for carer benefits, for example, that we have in place currently.

As this bill is exceptionally technical and complicated, it is fair to say that I remain concerned that we may have to come back on other issues. My officials are in detailed discussions with the UK Government on different amendments as they come up. Continuing to do that is proving challenging and it is a further challenge where we have legislation that the DWP and the UK Government may think is only to do with the reserved system but has implications, unintended in many instances, for Scotland. We have been able to clear those up with the DWP in writing, but this is perhaps one of the first significant bills where we are having to tease out how we deal with the fact that while the DWP may think that the legislation is only to do with what happens in the rest of the UK, it has implications for up here.

Certainly. Mr Doris will be aware from his long involvement in these issues that the decision was taken right at the very start not to devolve SDA because it was a closed benefit with an exceptionally small case load, even at that time, and is becoming smaller year on year. At that point, there seemed to be no benefit to the devolution of severe disablement allowance, either to the clients or to the costs that it would take to develop a devolved alternative up here.

We have recently undertaken a consultation on employment injury assistance. I appreciate that people wish to see changes on that but, because those changes are quite significant, we consulted on whether it would be better to extend the agency agreement and allow more extensive consultations to happen. Given that that was the outcome of the consultation, I am still very much minded to move forward on that basis and the work has now begun on looking at employment injury assistance in detail.

I hope that that will demonstrate that the work is on-going, but I think that it is important to carry on with those timescales, given the detailed consideration that is required, particularly on employment injury assistance.

The challenge that we have is in attempting to keep pace with the amendments that are coming in. Obviously, other members of Parliament will table amendments as they see fit. In the past we have had a better ability to adapt to UK Government amendments and to have discussions before they are tabled. We are not in that space with this bill, unfortunately. There are some lessons that I hope that we can learn, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, both from when the bill was introduced and the fact that we did not see it before that, particularly given that it is such a complex piece of legislation, and also in the work on the UK Government’s amendments. I will turn to my officials. Do we have a particular timetable that has been estimated for the bill?

Good morning again, convener. Amendments 445 and 447 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on co-housing within 24 months of the bill receiving royal assent. The Scottish ministers would require to define co-housing via regulations and to consult on the preparation of the guidance.

There is no need for a statutory obligation to publish guidance to be put on the Scottish ministers. They could publish guidance on the issue without having a statutory duty to do so, and I commit to doing so. I therefore ask the convener not to press amendment 445 and to work with me with a view to producing Scottish Government guidance on co-housing.

Amendments 554 and 562 would give the Scottish ministers the power to designate a public body to carry out a range of functions that would support those who want to progress a co-operative housing approach. Housing co-operatives are already a valued part of the social housing sector in Scotland, alongside other community-based social landlords and local authority landlords.

Although I understand the desire to support the development of the housing co-operative model as part of the creation of a diverse housing sector in Scotland, I have concerns about the way in which the amendments are set out. It would not be appropriate to oblige a public body to provide financial, tax or litigation advice, and a housing co-operative that acted on the advice of the designated body could seek redress against that body if the advice caused the co-operative to suffer a loss.

In addition, acting as a guarantor against demutualisation could open up the designating body to significant financial and legal risks. It is not clear how the designated body could—or, indeed, whether it should be able to—prevent demutualisation if the co-operative members vote for it.

On promoting co-operative housing, the co-operative model itself, along with—

Certainly.

I support amendment 230 in the name of Bob Doris. It provides a three-year backstop for the commencement of the homelessness prevention provisions in part 5 of the bill. The amendment allows us to maintain progress towards those important new duties while allowing time to develop the appropriate regulations, guidance and training, in partnership with stakeholders and people with lived experience, so as to support successful implementation. Crucially, the amendment also allows us to implement the learning from the Scottish Government’s homelessness prevention pilots, as welcomed by Crisis, Homeless Network Scotland and other stakeholders. Our £4 million investment in the pilots will demonstrate how the bill’s new ask and act duties will work in reality.

I have been clear that we do not need to wait for the new duties to be formally commenced before we have improved co-operation and earlier intervention to prevent homelessness, but I am happy to support amendment 230.

I recognise your point that certain co-operatives struggle to receive advice or support, whether from public agencies or elsewhere. There is a discussion to be had, of the kind that I have had with you and, indeed, with Paul Sweeney, about the importance of housing co-operatives and the need to encourage them.

I would therefore be more than happy to discuss what else could be done to ensure that we not only protect, support and encourage existing housing co-operatives, but encourage further development of the housing co-operative model. However, I am afraid that I will still ask members not to vote for the amendments in this group.

Amendment 568, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require the Scottish ministers to review, within two years of the bill receiving royal assent,

“the assessment and classification of properties which could be used as housing, for the purpose of liability for non-domestic rates.”

It would prescribe the factors to be considered in carrying out the review, and would require that ministers publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes a statement of what action, if any, is to be taken.

Although the amendment might be intended to target in particular the assessment and classification of self-catering holiday accommodation, which in many—but not all—cases could be used as housing, other types of property would also be subject to review. For instance, hotels, aparthotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts, caravans, timeshares and show homes are all potentially suitable for providing housing. The valuation of all non-domestic property, including the classification of properties on the valuation roll, is a matter for Scottish assessors, who are independent of central and local Government.

Assessors carry out regular revaluations of non-domestic properties, and the next revaluation is on 1 April 2026, when the values of all non-domestic properties on the valuation roll will be updated to reflect current market conditions. Assessors are currently collecting relevant information to help to inform that revaluation.

Self-catering accommodation properties are also subject to an annual audit to ensure that they meet the requirements that classify them as self-catering holiday accommodation that is liable for non-domestic rates rather than for council tax. The requirement that owners or occupiers of self-catering properties prove an intention to let for 140 days in the year and evidence of actual letting for 70 days was introduced in 2022, in response to a recommendation of the independent Barclay review, to prevent the owners of second homes or empty homes seeking to have their accommodation classed as non-domestic in order to avoid paying council tax.

Where a property is not determined to be self-catering holiday accommodation for the purposes of non-domestic rates, it will be removed from the valuation roll, and liability to pay council tax will arise.

The independence of assessors and valuation is critical for the credibility of the non-domestic rates system. The Scottish Government keeps all non-domestic rates policies under review. Therefore, I ask the member not to press amendment 568.

Amendment 223, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, seeks to remove current restrictions that relate to the number and size of units that can be developed through permitted development rights, which allow certain developments to go ahead without the need for a planning application.

The rights are specified in secondary legislation, so a new or amended PDR can and should be introduced via a statutory instrument following a public consultation period. In 2021, the Scottish Government introduced a new PDR for the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings, subject to certain restrictions, which included a limit of up to five dwellings per farm and a maximum unit size of 150m².

The Minister for Public Finance has confirmed that we will carry out a public consultation this summer on the potential role of PDR in delivering more high-quality homes in the right places, including in rural areas. That consultation exercise will provide an opportunity for all parties to make their views known ahead of any PDR being introduced via a statutory instrument. Given that permitted development rights can already be amended through secondary legislation, and in view of the forthcoming consultation, the housing bill is not an appropriate vehicle for the changes that are being sought.

Amendments 270 and 277, in the name of Mark Griffin, seek to place a duty on Scottish ministers to define conditions that would constitute a housing emergency or an exit from an emergency. In the event that such conditions are met, those amendments would compel ministers to declare a housing emergency, publish a strategy to end the emergency and report on the progress of that strategy.

It is extremely difficult to work on an overall definition of what constitutes a housing emergency. As we have already seen, the reasons for doing so are varied and depend on the pressures that face national and local housing markets, as well as international, UK and Scottish economic contexts. Therefore, one size does not fit all. Responding to the housing emergency is also not the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government; it requires a collaborative and flexible approach from all spheres of Government—UK Government, Scottish Government and local government—and partnership working with the housing sector.

Mr Griffin’s amendment 270 would keep the reasons for declaring a housing emergency limited to those that are set out in regulations. That could potentially give rise to a situation whereby a unique set of localised circumstances, which could not have been foreseen but which impact on a local housing market, are not covered in regulations. Although ministers would be able to amend the regulations, this perhaps demonstrates that inflexible statutory provisions are not suitable to define a scenario that could vary considerably depending on the circumstances that are prevailing at any given time.

Upon declaring a national housing emergency last May, we accepted the need to move quickly and take action. We have done just that, making significant progress in reducing social housing voids, supporting the acquisition of new affordable housing and addressing levels of private sector empty homes in the areas that are suffering from the greatest temporary accommodation and homelessness pressures. We are accountable to the Scottish Parliament and must demonstrate the progress that we are making.

A broad span of ownership and co-operation is required to deliver comprehensive solutions. This is why, over the past year, we have built a strong collaboration with a range of partners, spanning national Government, local government, housing representative bodies, developers, investors, third sector organisations and tenants groups. The housing to 2040 board is central to driving that collaboration, providing external governance for our overall approach.

Although the situation remains difficult, we are determined to maintain our focus and, working with our partners, we will continue to rise to these challenges. As I mentioned earlier, the housing to 2040 board met only yesterday. That is the formula for moving Scotland through and past the current housing emergency.

Amendment 515, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to introduce a power for local authorities to order the compulsory sale or lease of property that has been “vacant or derelict” for a specified period. That would be to enable the property to be used for residential housing. An order would be made

“on the local authority’s own initiative or... on an application by a community body”

and ministers could make “further provision” for those orders in regulations.

I understand and recognise the aims of amendment 515. I reassure Maggie Chapman and the committee that we are committed to doing all that we can to support the best use of land and property in Scotland and to deliver high-quality homes. We have committed to considering the justification for and the practical operation of compulsory sale orders, and we recently asked the Scottish empty homes partnership to look at those powers in the context of long-term empty homes. The results of that work suggest that, although there may be some benefits to a compulsory sale process to complement existing compulsory purchase powers, that would not necessarily result in a simpler, cheaper or quicker tool than compulsory purchase.

We want to build on that work, and I confirm that we intend to consult on compulsory sale or lease orders before the end of this parliamentary session. That consultation could also consider this type of power for wider purposes than residential housing, recognising that there are calls for such powers for a range of purposes that are not just limited to housing.

These are significant powers and they require careful consideration to make sure that they are workable and effective. The compulsory sale or lease of land would be a significant intrusion on the rights of owners under the European Convention on Human Rights, so any legislative framework would need to balance the interests of owners with the interests of the wider community to ensure that measures are appropriate.

Consultation would help to ensure that any such powers will deliver what is needed and that they are appropriate and proportionate. Consultation will also enable us to understand the impact that a compulsory sale or lease order might have on a property owner. That will be vital in building safeguards into the system to protect the interests of property owners by, for example, creating an appeals process or rights to compensation.

There are additional and complex matters to consider in relation to compulsory leasing. A compulsory lease could force a property owner into a contractual relationship that they might have no desire to enter. We would need to be clear about the obligations that would apply to the landlord, and that could also be considered in the forthcoming consultation.

At the same time, compulsory purchase powers can already be used to acquire land and property in a wide range of circumstances, including bringing vacant and derelict land back into use for housing. In recognition of that, in 2025-26, we are funding a pilot to increase the number of local authorities that are systematically using compulsory purchase orders to tackle long-term empty homes.

We are also implementing a comprehensive programme of work to reform and modernise Scotland’s compulsory purchase system, with a view to making it simpler, more streamlined and fairer. A substantial consultation on the proposed changes is planned for September.

As I have already set out, amendment 515 would introduce significant and novel powers, and I am sure that committee members would agree that it is vital that they are workable and that they deliver practical benefits. We will consult on the powers before the end of the current parliamentary session, so, although I share the ambition to make sure that the powers are available to make the best use of our land and buildings, I am afraid that I view amendment 515 as premature at this point.

Amendment 553, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to repeal section 16E, “Publication of list of persons seeking land for self-build housing”, of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and insert seven new sections relating to registers of persons who are seeking to acquire land to build a home. Those provisions would put additional duties on local authorities and ministers to produce regulations and statutory guidance.

The changes that are proposed in amendment 553 are unnecessary and would add undue complexity. The amendment would replace a provision that was introduced in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which already meets the same objective and sits well in the development, planning, and decision-making structure of Scotland’s planning system. It would divert limited planning resources from supporting the priority of development delivery and impact on progress with local development plans and the wider work that is being done to tackle the housing emergency through actions within the planning and housing emergency delivery plan.