Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our absolute priority should be to end the housing emergency by increasing supply across all tenures. Therefore, the debate and discussion around exemptions is particularly crucial, and anything that we do in the bill should be with the aim of not impacting on the supply of new houses. In including mid-market rental homes, there is a risk that efforts to regulate rent prices will have the effect of cutting off affordable housing supply and exacerbating the causes of the housing emergency.

I am satisfied that the Scottish Housing Regulator monitors and regulates rent in mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries to ensure affordability and fairness, so I do not believe that subjecting them to the rent control measures under the bill will do anything to further deal with the symptoms of the housing emergency. Deterring investors could well exacerbate the cause. I am also satisfied that, through the lengthy rounds of consultation and evidence, and through the housing minister’s desire to meet and talk to housing providers, the organisations have successfully argued the point about the exemption of mid-market rent.

When we discussed the emergency legislation, there was acknowledgement that mid-market rent should not be caught up with that and that the issue would be addressed when it came to the permanent rent controls. Social and affordable housing, including mid-market rental properties and their subsidiaries, should not be caught by rent control provisions. Similarly, where Government grants require rents to be aligned with local affordable rents as overseen by the Scottish Housing Regulator, current affordability controls are more than adequate, so those types of properties should be exempt from additional rent control measures. That is what I have to say on amendment 411 on mid-market rent.

On amendment 416, which is in my name, the Government has already, in effect, conceded that the types of properties in the amendment should be subject to exemptions. In its consultation, it proposes exemptions for build-to-rent property, including single-family rental and mid-market rent schemes, alongside sensible carve-outs for properties that are let below market value or that are significantly upgraded or improved. The consultation document recognises that investment will not flow into a market that is limited by rent controls. Including build-to-rent properties in rent control measures is likely to exacerbate the symptoms of the housing emergency, rather than increasing the much-needed supply of houses across all tenures. That can be seen by the sharp decline in the number of properties, which is evident in figures that have been released today.

The arguments have already been fully rehearsed. There is no need to continue with the uncertainty surrounding this aspect of the bill. My amendment 416 seeks to define build-to-rent properties and to ensure that the sector is protected in as many tenures as possible. I appreciate that the Government is not opposed to the principle of the amendments but has expressed concerns that they could give rise to a legal challenge and that the issues are best addressed through the consultation process. I am happy not to move my amendments, with the expectation that the sector is provided with clarity on the issues before the final stage 3 vote.

I want to speak on Ross Greer’s tax proposals. I do not necessarily disagree with them—in fact, I agree with a lot of what he said about the ridiculous nature of having a 1991 valuation system and with a lot of his other points. I applaud him for his efforts. However, I simply say that what he is seeking to do with his amendments is to put a bill within a bill. The provisions could be included in a stand-alone domestic property tax bill, which would benefit from the level of scrutiny and engagement that such proposals need and deserve. Although I support the principle of what Ross Greer is trying to do, I think that the provisions need a legislative vehicle of their own, to get the proper scrutiny that they deserve.

Whether or not the Government introduces a bill in the remainder of this session is a moot point. You have lodged amendments to this bill, but you could have introduced your own member’s bill in the absence of Government action over the past 34 years. As I said, I support a number of the proposed changes in principle, but given the nature of the changes that we are talking about, they need to be debated and scrutinised in a bill of their own. It is purely for those reasons that I cannot support them as amendments to the bill. However, I applaud the work that Ross Greer has done to try to get the provisions into the bill.

With regard to amendment 1075, funding was identified as the top priority by the homelessness prevention task and finish group, which recognised that, during the shift to a focus on prevention, resources will continue to be required to support the existing system.

The committee’s report highlighted concerns that the level of funding in the financial memorandum to the bill was inadequate in terms of both the amount assigned to local authorities to implement their duties and the lack of any consideration of resources for relevant bodies. In October 2024, the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee to highlight serious concerns with the estimate of resources to fund the bill. It highlighted that the financial memorandum did

“not recognise the potential for increased workload not only for homelessness services, but also for other agencies which will receive referrals, such as Community Advice Services and Tenancy Support.”

As that letter set out, the City of Edinburgh Council has estimated that, if there were to be a 25 per cent increase in the number of presentations, an additional 42 employees would be required at a cost of £1.9 million per year for internal staffing. When we compare that with the figure stated in the financial memorandum of £1.6 million per year for all 32 local authorities, it only serves to highlight the underestimate of the financial cost to implement this part of the bill.

The committee recommended the publication of a revised financial memorandum before stage 1, but that has not happened. My amendment 1075 therefore attempts to rectify that by requiring ministers to publish a report assessing the financial costs to authorities before the bill comes into force, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

With regard to my amendment 1076, it is clear that part 5 of the bill will, in order for it to work effectively, involve a significant change in operation for a number of relevant bodies, including local authorities. The organisations will need time to prepare processes relating to training, co-operation and partnership arrangements, information sharing, information technology systems and a range of new ways of working.

Just now, there is very little understanding of the processes that are required to best ensure that those new duties work. It is therefore essential that we digest and implement the findings of the current homelessness prevention pilots if we want the lessons that are learned from those to be rolled out and included in an effective prevention system.

Preparation for commencement might take several years. COSLA and the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers have stated that they do not believe that there could be full implementation before 2028 at the earliest, in the context of the current national housing emergency.

There might be lessons to be learned from the gradual implementation of the end of the priority need test. By allowing time to prepare, amendment 1076 would ensure that the implementation of that work would benefit the roll-out in the years to come. The amendment would allow for learning from the on-going homelessness prevention pilots to be embedded in implementation, in a similar vein to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1031. That would include regulations and guidance as appropriate. Amendment 1076 would also allow for a process that is accountable to the Parliament through regular reports on progress, leading to the commencement of the legislation at an appropriate point.

I would be happy to hear the response of the minister and the Government to both my amendments in the group with regard to how we fund the system and ensure that the learning that takes place during the pilot projects is properly assessed, with time for it to be considered and rolled out to all local authorities and bodies.

Amendment 1066 seeks to ensure that GPs are covered by the ask and act duties that are set out in part 5 of the bill. A number of organisations have pointed out that GPs are an obvious omission from the list of relevant bodies that are subject to the ask and act duties. Aberdeen City Council pointed out the connections between health and housing and that people’s use of health services peaks just before they make their first homelessness application. However, setting out a distinct list of bodies that will have duties placed on them almost creates a lack of clarity regarding our expectations of those that are not listed.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has also said that it would be helpful if GPs were covered by the proposed homelessness prevention duty. It points out that they would be involved in considering the extent to which any particular medical condition could impact on an individual’s capacity to sustain a tenancy.

I accept that there are compelling arguments that GPs do not currently have the capacity to be covered by the bill and that there are potential legal obstacles to including them in the obligation, as they are essentially private providers. However, the evidence that people access health services, and particularly GP services, right before they make a homelessness application suggests that GPs are a glaring omission from the ask and act duties. That omission could mean that a lot of people who could be covered by the ask and act duty at a crisis point in their lives might fall through the cracks.

Although I do not plan to move my amendment 1066, I want to hear from the Government how it intends to cover that point of contact with a public service, so that people who are threatened with or at risk of homelessness are not missed out. It is a glaring omission from the ask and act duties, and I am really keen to hear from the minister and the Government how they intend to cover that gap.

Thank you, convener, and good morning minister. We have heard from previous witnesses that social housing tenants who have been decanted from properties that have been affected by RAAC have had a really challenging time. Some have been forced to accept unsuitable accommodation and some have had to spend money that they do not have to replace furniture because they could not get access to their previous properties. What support and guidance has the Government issued to registered social landlords in particular about supporting tenants who have been decanted?

The committee heard evidence from people who are affected by RAAC—owners and social tenants—so I am sure that we can forward the Official Report of that meeting.

You mentioned that you are planning to go to Aberdeen to meet some of the residents who are affected by RAAC, and you made the point that residents seem to fall into two categories: those who have been decanted—the likely outcome is demolition—and a separate category of residents who feel that there is a technical solution for repair and that they can carry on living in a property. Have you met specifically with any of the groups who have been talking about the technical challenges around repair, as well as the Aberdeen groups?

You mentioned the approaches taken by local authorities. In the previous evidence session that I mentioned earlier, the point was made that the response from local authorities is very variable, and that is putting it politely. In the Government’s discussions with local authorities, have you talked about a minimum level of service that you expect local authorities to provide to residents who are affected by RAAC? Has the variable response from local authorities been raised? If so, how have you responded to that?

Is there, as with the cladding remediation scheme, a legislative barrier to a RAAC remediation scheme?