Chamber and committees

Good morning, and thanks for joining us. I want to return to the letter sent by COSLA after the Scottish Government had responded, which mentioned the Moorhead review in the Republic of Ireland. What have you as a committee looked at with regard to the funding of the recommendations? How did the Irish Government respond to the Moorhead recommendations and take forward a framework for funding them? Finally, has any research been done on this, given that the main sticking point, that I think we are all now clear on, is how this will be funded or whether the funding will be shared?

As I mentioned your letter, Jane, can I bring you in for a response?

Did you want to come in, Jane?

This is a question that I put to the previous panel. The total cost that is being outlined is £4.6 million, with that for ordinary councillors being the £2 million that has been brought forward. Cabinet secretary, if you are splitting what is a £2.6 million additional cost for senior leaders, what is your priority? I do not think that we like the use of the word “ordinary”, but what is your thinking on that for any future sharing of costs or negotiations?

A significant part of the bill relates to home adaptations. Currently, the bill will require tenants to wait six months before they apply to make modifications to their home. Concerns have been raised about what that could mean for older citizens and people with disabilities. Will you clarify whether their needs will be considered when you are looking at that?

We have also heard concerns relating to other portfolios with regard to people getting home from hospital and whether the timescale can be sped up in such cases. Have those concerns been taken into account? Often, people are stuck in hospital, and the need to make modifications at home is one of the reasons that we have heard for delayed discharge.

Thank you, minister.

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 I met a number of developers during the summer that have withdrawn from pretty large-scale developments in Edinburgh, which are desperately needed.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?

Significant research has been done by the University of Glasgow and Marie Curie on terminally ill people having to move. Statistics show that 27,600 people in Scotland had to move home as a result of experience with dying, death and bereavement. How is that dealt with in the bill? Marie Curie’s evidence to the committee suggested giving terminally ill people full exemption from eviction. Where is the Government with regard to drafting potential amendments on that?