Chamber and committees

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?

Thanks. Does anyone else want to comment?

Those were good points. Advocacy has come up during other sessions, and it is important, particularly for people living in supported accommodation who need additional support through those processes. I appreciate that.

The committee has also heard concerns that the amendment order could mean that two different short-term let licence schemes will be running simultaneously. What assurances can you give the committee that the amendment order will not create that situation?

This is not the first time that we have looked at the issue. I have been on the committee throughout the passage of the legislation and this partial review, if we can call it that, and the minister has outlined that there will potentially also be an expert group established. We know that the City of Edinburgh Council has already had a specific legal issue around the provision and we do not want to create more complex situations than we have already seen.

Thank you.

I agree with that, but I would just note that the regulations were put in place for health and safety reasons, not for planning and licensing purposes. You might be saying now that the decisions are about reducing the size of the festival—or about looking at that, even—but that is not where the regulations originally came from.

I am not sure about having the transitional phase four weeks before the festival starts and then looking at it afterwards, given the damage that it will potentially have caused. We know from many people—Jason Manford being one of them—that the scheme has seen prices rocket such that people on a budget who want to come and showcase their talents in the festival just cannot. Statistically, we will need to see, but the damage will be done. I have made those arguments to you already.

Good morning and thank you for joining us here in the room and online.

I want to ask a question about some of the evidence that the committee has heard from tenant groups, which have said that the proposals place too great an onus on tenants to challenge rents in rent control areas. Do you agree with that? Should the onus be on landlords to comply with any rent control designation?

Also, what is your opinion on the number of rent reviews that are taking place now? We have spoken to a number of panels recently and it is quite clear from some of the evidence that we have received from more rural areas that rent reviews are taking place almost annually, whereas that was not the case previously. Is that another unintended consequence of the measure? Do you have any data on that?