���˿���

In his opening remarks, Willie Rennie mentioned that the private rented sector is part of the solution. I agree that it is an integral part of our housing system, and that goes all the way from some of the larger investors in the build-to-rent market to smaller landlords who might have only one or a few properties.

I turn to the basis of Mr Rennie’s amendments, and I welcome the discussions that I have had with him on them. I want to update him and the committee on discussions that have taken place at the housing to 2040 board. It met on 26 March to discuss the private rented sector and the need for a strategy, and only yesterday it looked at a paper that set out consideration of that new strategy, which was presented by the Chartered Institute of Housing.

The board agreed to return to the issue at its next meeting after the CIH had discussed how best to take forward the scope of and timescales for the strategy with other members of the board, along with Scottish Government officials. I look forward to that discussion happening at the next board meeting.

The board is best placed to support the consideration of the future strategic direction of the private rented sector and the timing of that work in the context of the on-going housing emergency. I am pleased to say that that work has begun.

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.

I absolutely share the sentiment that is behind the amendment to ensure that we are making the best use of land and making more property available. I also recognise the important role of self-build in dealing with the housing emergency.

However, as I have set out, I do not believe that the proposal is necessary or that it will achieve the outcome that we both wish to see. I have asked my officials to ensure that I am kept up to date with what is happening in the rest of the UK to see whether there are lessons to be learned. Following the work that will come to me, I would be happy to contact you, convener, to see whether we can take something more forward together. I assure you that I will endeavour to look at that in short order to see whether anything can be done in the area.

In conclusion, I ask for amendment 553 not to be moved.

We have had dialogue, but to say that would be to suggest a two-way conversation. We have had a number of meetings, but it would be fair to say that they have been exceptionally disappointing. We have not had as many meetings as we would like, and not as many meetings that allowed for a genuine conversation and exchange of views, and that has been deeply disappointing.

Given the UK Government’s prioritisation of child poverty, I hoped that we would have a different type of relationship. We had the reassurances between the First Minister and the Prime Minister that we would be working in different ways, but it would be fair to say that the UK Government’s child poverty task force has not been an example of a new and flourishing relationship on those issues. I remain disappointed by the level and depth of contact that Scottish ministers have had. Nonetheless, at official level, we are ensuring that the task force is furnished with all the available information on Scottish Government policies.

I stress the importance of the UK Government’s task force working with all devolved Administrations because of the impacts of one policy against another. For example, it is important that devolved and reserved employability schemes work well together and that we have a shared understanding of the types of policies that we might bring in, the types of policies that the UK Government might wish to change and the impact that that will have on Scotland.

I am deeply concerned about the delay, because the longer such things go on, the more children remain in poverty. I am also concerned that we do not have reassurance about the direction of travel of the task force report. I dearly hope that I am proved wrong and that a robust report comes out, but it is difficult to see that at this point, given the level of interaction that there has been, particularly at ministerial level.

The number of children who remain in persistent poverty is a concern. We are conscious that the statistics that we have do not yet capture the full roll-out and impact of measures such as the Scottish child payment and the expansion of funded early learning and childcare. We expect the levels to fall in future years.

The fact that persistent poverty data is refreshed annually, with rates and past years reviewed as new families enter the survey, makes it a volatile measure. However, as I am sure the committee expects, we are continuing to consider what steps can be taken to tackle deep and persistent poverty among families.

I point to the whole family holistic support work that is being done across Government to ensure that the services that are available are there for people when they need them, where they need them and to ensure that services work in a way that supports the whole family. Rather than looking at every single challenge or impact on a family, we are looking at how we assist a family in a much more holistic manner. I hope that those important policies, which involve systemic change, will assist in driving down persistent poverty statistics.

It is a sign of the fact that Scottish Government policies are having to work a lot harder to make an impact, given the social and economic context of continued austerity, particularly in relation to the welfare policies of successive UK Governments. Those findings are in line with the Scottish Government’s expectations, because a lot of the impacts of key policies such as the Scottish child payment took effect only from 2023-24. On that basis, we would not expect to see substantive reductions in long-term trends at this stage, but we anticipate that those will be more evident in future years.

The published statistics show that, although we have not met our interim child poverty targets, the proportion of children living in relative poverty reduced last year, with the rate being lower in 2023-24 than it has been since 2014-15. That demonstrates that one of Scotland’s Governments is working exceptionally hard against strong headwinds to eradicate child poverty, but our policies are having to work harder, given the context that we are in.

Aspects relating to the six priority families are very important. I will point to two areas of concern. I am particularly concerned about families with disabled children, given the impact of the changes that the UK Government plans to make—

We have a challenge, in that some of the levers are not under the Scottish Government’s direct control. However, before I turn to those, I will reflect on the wider economic context, which has an impact on everyone and means that our policies have to work a bit harder. I mentioned some of that briefly in my opening remarks.

If we look at Brexit alone, modelling by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research estimated a 2.5 per cent hit to gross domestic product because of Brexit in 2023, which increases to 5.7 per cent by 2035. For Scotland, that equates to a cut in public revenues across national, devolved and local governments of about £2.3 billion in 2023. That is one example. I could give many more on the impact that Brexit is having across society; I am sure that the member is already well aware of that.

We also have the on-going cost of living crisis. Inflation has disproportionately hit some of the most vulnerable people in our society. One of the major challenges that you referred to—you were right to do so—is that levers that could be used to assist in tackling child poverty are not being used.

The most concerning decision—it is not the only one—is the one that I mentioned in my opening remarks about cuts to disability benefits, which the UK Government’s own impact assessments estimate will put 50,000 children into poverty, and we still have no movement on eradicating the two-child cap. Those two policies alone—one that the UK Government is still refusing to get rid of and one that it is determined to bring in—will undoubtedly impact on the number of children in poverty, and the Scottish Government is determined to mitigate that impact.

With all those points, I would stress that it is modelling—that is, modelling that uses the best information that we have at the time. The Government has been clear that this is about keeping children out of poverty, so it is modelling on how to keep children out of poverty. The 40,000 figure is for the Scottish child payment, and the 70,000 figure is to do with the estimates for overall Scottish Government policies. That relates back to a question that Mr Doris raised earlier about estimating the differences that different policies will make.

The updated modelling reflects a number of new inputs, which are based on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and UK and Scottish Government policy announcements that were available prior to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement. In addition, the latest modelling, which was published in March, incorporated the family resources survey data for 2022-23 and refined methodology in relation to free school meals. Those all led to revisions in the estimates. When new information comes in, either from the OBR or through changes at fiscal events at the UK level, or when new data arrives through the family resources survey data—I understand that the committee has spoken about the importance of that in the past—and that new information or date is put into the modelling, the modelling will change. However, the modelling itself is robust.