Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 226 would introduce a full rural impact assessment of the provisions of the bill on rural and island communities.

It is too late to put a pre-legislative impact assessment into the bill, although it would have been welcome, given the Scottish Government’s track record. Rural and island communities face fundamentally different housing challenges, and a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. In those areas, housing delivery is already constrained by limited infrastructure, higher build costs and a lack of available land.

Policies that are designed for urban centres, however well intentioned, have a limited impact in rural settings, and they can stall development and make homes less viable to rent out or build.

As highlighted by Scottish Land & Estates:

“Applying a rural impact assessment to this Bill could ensure that it enhances the rural rented sector rather than inadvertently causing harm.”

Without a clear understanding of how the bill will affect rural and island areas, we risk deepening the urban-rural divide in housing access, affordability and opportunity.

Scottish Land & Estates has also rightly noted:

“It is particularly difficult to appreciate the full impact the Housing Bill may, or may not have, on rural and island areas of Scotland due to the lack of detail within. The private rented sector, homelessness and fuel poverty all exhibit different characteristics across the regions of Scotland and for the impact of the Housing Bill to be fully understood ... it is essential for legislation to be fully considered in a Rural Impact Assessment”.

A rural and island impact assessment would ensure that the bill supports, rather than hinders, housing delivery in those communities. It would also give policy makers the evidence that they need to tailor solutions that work, not just in cities but across Scotland.

It is not about special treatment; it is about fair treatment, and it is essential if we want a housing system that truly serves all of Scotland.

I have listened to the cabinet secretary’s comments, and I am sure that Rachael Hamilton will reflect on them, but I would still like to press amendment 218.

You are calling for the budget to be ring fenced in order to support and save drama production. How likely do you think that is from the communications that you have had with the BBC? We have had the BBC here and, as you have said, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it indicates what it is trying to achieve or what its proposals are. When you scrape below the surface, things are not quite as rosy or as pleasant as it is trying to portray. If you were to have that funding in some capacity, do you believe that that would give you opportunities to develop and progress?

Good morning. Thank you for your briefing note, and for your frankness and honesty so far in this session. You have already identified the crux of the matter: culture in Scotland is being eroded, or it appears to be being eroded, and this situation is another step in that process.

The broader picture is ensuring that BBC Scotland recognises that it has a public broadcasting duty to fulfil, as you have explained already. I think that most of us around the table get that and understand where you are coming from, but the issue is how to take that message further. You have identified the potential loss of opportunities for young people, including training and apprenticeships, in all parts of the process. The issue is how we ensure that we keep those opportunities—I think that that is where we are all coming from. That might be by showing how detrimental the loss of that would be to the sector.

My initial question is, how should we galvanise as a Parliament to provide support? We can bring people here, ask questions and probe—we can do all that—but, at the end of the day, if there is a campaign or a process to be carried out, where do we take that? How do we manage that to ensure that we achieve success? If we lose “River City”, what is next to be lost and what will be lost after that?

You have touched on the vitally important issue of consistency of data, but you have also highlighted some of the practicalities that some of the amendments that you are discussing would give rise to, and the issue of whether local authorities would be able to cope with some of the extra work that would be required to manage the process. I am encouraged by your comments, because I think that the extra burden that would be put on local authorities might mean that the information that was received would not be as consistent as one would expect.

You indicated in response to Mr Kerr’s question that the zones will be set up. We understand the situation around that. Is it Glasgow City Council that will have the power of enforcement and the obligation to ensure that it is acted on? You touched on what will happen to existing traders and any exemptions that they will be entitled to. How will those exemptions be managed and policed to ensure compliance?

You are making a very valid point about the necessity for local authorities to have flexibility and for rural areas, as you have already identified, to be given the opportunity to be flexible, because they will potentially be marginalised, as we have heard. The points that you make about ensuring that we have consistency and robust timescales are very valid.

Will the member take an intervention?

Good morning. Minister, in your answers to Mr Griffin, you touched on the guidance on RAAC in non-domestic buildings. The committee has heard that the Scottish Government should be developing RAAC surveys and remediation guidance that are focused on domestic properties. As I have indicated, the guidance that you already have is based largely on non-domestic buildings. Can you give a commitment that you will develop such guidance for buildings that are not classified as non-domestic buildings?

If that is the case, that will give more confidence to the sector, and I look forward to hearing what comes from that work.

The committee has heard concerns about the legislative gap that prevents local authorities from mandating repairs to shared elements of terraced homes and housing. The concerns relate to RAAC panels that extend across two or more homes in one terrace, when the homes are owned by different parties. Are you aware of that issue, and are you looking at any developments—or, indeed, solutions—that might require primary legislation? If any solution might require such legislation to be put in place, it would be good to get your views on that.