���˿���

Good morning to you, minister, and your officials. I express my frustration, as Mark Griffin has, that we are not able to look at the detail. I have being arguing for some time that the mid-market rent sector, especially in the social rented sector, should be removed from the bill. I hope that it is. The mystery is not useful for us when we are doing our work. I hope that, when we meet, we can get clarification on that. I met a number of developers during the summer that have withdrawn from pretty large-scale developments in Edinburgh, which are desperately needed.

Some evidence has suggested that landlords are leaving, or are planning to leave, the private rented sector. From what I have heard, there seems to have been a change in tone from the minister since the change in Government structure. What has been done to derisk the bill for landlords to ensure that we have a balance and that we do not see a loss of more private rented sector properties, especially in the capital, where that has been happening?

Thank you for that.

I have a few more questions with regard to evictions, convener.

That is helpful. I am sure that there will be cross-party amendments on that as the bill progresses, and it will be useful if the Government legal team can assist with those.

Thank you, convener.

Given that there is an opportunity to look at opening up the bill to more amendments, I wonder whether the minister has considered work around void properties and different models to bring them back into use. We have a conversation almost weekly about the homelessness situation in Edinburgh, given the 3,000 empty properties that the City of Edinburgh Council has. Is there an opportunity to look at that in a different way? I know that there are significant issues with regard to the performance of utility companies in bringing those properties back into use, and with the investment that the council is asking for to enable it to look at some of the modernisation needs that are involved.

Given that we are considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which has very little housing in it, could we look at a different model for void properties, or at work that could be included, at this stage?

I had a follow-up to that question on eviction about grounds for eviction. The University of Glasgow and Marie Curie’s “Dying in the Margins” research has evidenced people having to move home—on average I think that they pointed towards 27,000 people a year being evicted from their home—due to their experience of dying and also of bereavement, such as through the death of a partner. What better protections in the bill do you think there should be for terminally ill people in Scotland?

We had some additional questions from talking to our expert panels of tenants and landlords—the convener has touched on that. The landlords pointed towards what they saw as unique circumstances in rural areas, specifically with regards to the Government’s island communities impact assessment screening. Is there anything specific within the bill’s proposals that you think is not going to meet the needs of rural and island communities? A lot of our conversations were about how businesses can be encouraged to bring properties forward and where there might be an impact. Rent control has clearly had that effect as well.

Thanks for that. I have a question about the potential to reform housing first, specifically extra supported accommodation and homes, as part of the bill. Several charities that I met with over the summer would like to see that addressed in the bill, specifically in relation to people for whom the housing-first approach does not work and who need a sustainable tenancy with supported living in respect of finance and often medication, too.

In the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I asked the former cabinet secretary a question about how many people the housing-first approach does not work for and she picked a number of about 3,500 people in Scotland. What could be in the bill to establish a better framework or model to support the development of things such as live-in peer-support housing and other things that we need to see more of? In Edinburgh, for example, we have a waiting list of 50 people with alcohol-related brain damage who are looking to get into accommodation that does not exist. Those people often end up in our homeless sector. Is there a missed opportunity within the bill to do something bespoke around that?

We will abstain today, because we do not think that the Scottish Government has really listened and acted on many of the concerns that we have put forward. We have tried to work with the minister constructively on a lot of this, but it is clear from what we have heard today that the order is a dog’s breakfast. The warnings that I and others have given in the committee have come to fruition, and the legislation is impacting on people’s livelihoods. As much as we hear the minister saying that it has not made an impact, the sector is telling us that thousands of rental properties have been lost and have not necessarily moved into the longer-term rental market.

In addition, it is quite clear that the legislation was poorly drafted. We have had to look towards foster carers, for example, being taken out of the scheme. It is clear that councils have had almost 32 different versions of the legislation in operation, and that has presented legal challenges in Edinburgh specifically.

I hope that there are further opportunities to look at the issues as soon as possible—the minister highlighted the expert group—but I think that there needs to be a significant review of the scheme. Portugal, which seems to be a model that the Scottish Government has used for the legislation, has suspended its scheme because it has damaged the country’s tourism sector and not resulted in any of the policy outcomes that Portugal had said that it would have, and which the Scottish ministers also said there would be. We will, therefore, abstain.

I hope that, as soon as we return in September, there will be an opportunity not only for the committee to do more work on the issue but for the Scottish Government to examine the order’s impacts and introduce more provision. We are now getting to the stage where we are constantly looking at matters in this way. That is not how we should make legislation. This is another bad example of a framework bill.

Good morning. Many of us are disappointed with what we have been presented with at this stage and think that the tweaks that the committee is looking at are not effective enough. It is worth reflecting that stakeholders have told the committee that this is

“by far the worst example of policy implementation that we have ever encountered.”

I have a couple of specific questions. First, how is the fact that a provisional licence is available for new-build properties but not buildings that are undergoing conversion compatible with the Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions, which involve encouraging the reuse and renewal of existing buildings?

Good morning and thanks for joining us today. I have a couple of specific questions.

I will start with the bill’s requirement that the courts and the tribunal consider whether to delay an eviction and the bill’s changes to the way that damages for illegal evictions will be calculated. What are your views on those provisions as they stand, in the bill? Do you think that they will give greater protection to tenants?