Seòmar agus comataidhean

There will be changes to BBC and Channel 4 production costs and production quotas as a result of the Media Act 2024, which will have an impact on how things are managed. How will Ofcom ensure that PSBs continue to work with producers in Scotland under the new regime?

Do the changes in approach to BBC commissioning for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland confirm that the BBC has not always played with a straight bat in this process and that the corporation has failed to act in accordance with the spirit of Ofcom’s rules?

Thank you.

I want to go back to a question that we have already touched on. Why should an appellant who receives planning permission on appeal pay for the appeal, given that they will already have paid the planning authority for the original application, which might have been rejected because the authority imposed unreasonable conditions on the awarding of planning permission? The appellant will already have stumped up money, so why should they contribute more to the process?

Do we have a rough idea of the numbers of students who are having that difficulty? You spoke about foreign students, but you also indicated that some UK students might have a similar issue. Do you have any statistics on the size or depth of the problem?

Do you think that the fees will cover the running of the process?

We have discussed the difficulties with security that aid agencies and staff on the ground have to face. How do we make progress on that? You have said that international organisations require to have pressure put on them but, for the people on the ground who are living with and dealing with the situation daily, what hope and what support can you give them in relation to how they can manage the situation?

I thank the witnesses for their frank and full updates so far. Many of our questions have already been answered. What I am hearing from you and from others is that the horrific and harrowing situation is now at a tipping point. The UN humanitarian office has said that partners are warning that, without immediate fuel deliveries, a full shutdown of water and sanitation will possibly happen by the end of this week. That takes us to a different level.

You have talked about the number of trucks that have been going in. I believe that about 80 trucks went in on Monday and Tuesday of this week. You have touched on the potential for malnutrition as a result of that reduced supply of food and the difficulties with medication, and there is now the potential issue with the supply of water and sanitation. Where do you see the situation going, given the stark warning that we have had from the UN about what could happen this week?

Maybe Saleh Saeed wants to answer that.

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.

Amendment 218 is consequential to amendment 219. Amendment 219 introduces flexibility to adjust rent mid-tenancy in response to significant changes in circumstances. That is particularly relevant in cases in which an employee leaves their job but remains within the property as the tenant or when a successor takes over the tenancy after a death, moving to a market rent from a nominal rent that is linked to employment.

When rent needs to be raised because of circumstances that are considered by ministers to be an emergency, amendment 219 would enable that to be done in an incremental manner, removing the limit on the number of times that rent can be increased.

Amendment 220 is consequential to amendment 214, which was debated previously. It amends proposed new section 43J of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to the same effect, but for tenancies that are situated in a rent control area.

In relation to amendments 138, 161, 162, 201, 202, 294 and 495, rent increase appeal processes must be fair, proportionate, time limited and bound to ensure timely resolutions that provide certainty for landlords and tenants. An open-ended system with no cost to tenants might inadvertently encourage speculative appeals, and that would put strain on adjudication bodies.

On amendments 139 and 140, rent setting is inherently subjective and it reflects the market and what tenants are willing to pay. Therefore, rent officers or tribunals should not be allowed to vary rent determination.

On amendments 496 and 499, the repairing standard clearly establishes that, under the enforcement baseline for property conditions, it is a criminal offence to let a property that fails to meet the standards. The amendments are not only unnecessary but would introduce subjectivity to a well-defined framework.

On amendments 238 and 240, the existing costs of dealing with appeals are already seen as a deterrent against misuse by landlords. Penalties will only have a negative impact on the supply of small landlords by discouraging them from the sector.

I move amendment 218.