Scottish Parliament, 5 October 2022

491 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Rural Affairs and Islands

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The first item of business is portfolio question time. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question. To get in as many members as possible, I would appreciate succinct questions and answers to match.

Energy Price Cap (Impact on Farmers)

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has carried out of the impact on farmers in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s energy price cap. (S6O-01412)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

We welcome any intervention that can help in this crisis, but the UK Government’s energy bill relief scheme is too little, too late. From my on-going engagement with farmers, I am aware that they face a range of increasing costs, including those for animal feed, fertiliser and fuel. The general increases in costs that businesses are facing across the board are all having an impact, and the scheme comes too late for many agriculture businesses that are struggling to pay bills. The scheme is also only in place for six months. I have written to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request a meeting, and we will continue to press the UK Government to do more to ease the pressures that farmers and the wider food supply chain are facing.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

NFU Scotland is working with its members to gauge how the energy price cap will benefit hard-pressed food and farming businesses. I understand that farmers who were paying under 20p per kilowatt hour are now being quoted 83p per kilowatt hour, which is a 315 per cent increase.

Scotland’s farmers are crucial to ensuring that we have access to nutritious food, and local farmers have told me that they are being hammered by rising production costs. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Government needs to go further than the six-month cap and provide more financial certainty and stability to our farmers? Otherwise, food security will continue to be undermined and the prices on shop shelves will continue to climb.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I absolutely agree. As I said in my initial response, I have written to the new secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ranil Jayawardena, to request a meeting to highlight my concerns about food security. I will also continue to press the UK Government to do more to ease the pressures that we know that farmers and the wider food supply chain are facing.

We are seeking clarity from the UK Government on what plans for protections, such as the energy bill relief scheme, will look like after 31 March 2023, to ensure that businesses have the certainty and security that they need to operate with confidence. The work that we did with the food security and supply task force produced some recommendations that only the UK Government can act on and deliver. We will continue to press it to act and respond to the task force asks.

Rural Visa Pilot

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposals for the rural visa pilot. (S6O-01413)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Last week, the Scottish Government’s rural visa pilot proposal gained cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament. The proposal has been issued to the United Kingdom Government and we await its response.

We call on the UK Government to accept the recommendation of its own Migration Advisory Committee to deliver a migration pilot for rural areas. The proposal that was endorsed by this Parliament was co-developed by the Scottish Government, local authorities, rural employers, academic experts and partners. Our ask of the UK Government is clear—for it to work with the Scottish Government, local authorities and employers to establish migration pilots to meet the needs of Scotland’s rural and island communities.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

In August, the National Farmers Union estimated that more than £60 million-worth of food had been wasted because of workforce shortages. Farmers are doubly feeling the effect of Tory policy through not having the workforce available to help them, and now farmers, like most in the country, are suffering from inflationary pressures that have been exacerbated by Brexit, which the Tories forced on Scotland.

Does the minister share my view that, unless the UK Government considers Scotland to be beneath its contempt, the very least that it can do is urgently agree to proposals for a rural visa pilot?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes—I do. It is notable that the chief executive and the president of NFU Scotland have publicly called for the rural visa pilot proposal to be implemented. Scott Walker stated that it must be delivered

“in tandem with UK Govt expanding number of seasonal workers visas & a review of shortage occupation list.”

The Conservatives are the only party in this Parliament yet to support the proposal. Donald Cameron asked for more time to consider it in detail, and I know that he and his colleagues will look to engage constructively. I hope that they can do that and that the Parliament can speak with one voice on this critical issue that our rural and island communities face.

Food Security (Brexit)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its latest engagement has been with the United Kingdom Government on the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s food security. (S6O-01414)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government takes food security in Scotland seriously. Along with my fellow Scottish ministers, I have repeatedly highlighted to the UK Government our concerns about the effects of its bad Brexit deal.

On 26 August, I wrote to the UK Government to highlight the cumulative impact on the food and drink sector of labour and skills shortages and of rising costs. I have yet to receive a response. The Scottish Government will continue to use all the devolved powers that are available to it to support the sector, but the UK Government needs to do more now to protect our food and drink businesses.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I agree that the UK Government should be doing more as soon as possible. The Green Alliance’s recent letter to Kemi Badenoch noted that

“The recent lifting of tariffs and quotas without any equivalence on animal welfare or environmental standards for Australian producers means that UK farmers will now compete with imported food produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK”.

Does the minister share my view that Brexit continues to be a monstrous betrayal of farmers, growers, food producers and the sector in general, for which the Tories should be beyond ashamed?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I do not think that there is any doubt that food and drink businesses and the sector in Scotland have borne the brunt of the hard Brexit that the UK Government has pursued. We have seen the UK Government sign up to trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that, as the UK Government’s own modelling shows, will be damaging to Scotland’s farmers and crofters.

We have worse deals with those countries than those that the European Union negotiated with them. It is really important to highlight an example of that. Although the UK Government has agreed to allow unlimited quantities of tariff-free beef into the UK after 15 years, the EU-New Zealand free trade agreement will maintain quotas permanently and apply a 7.5 per cent tariff. In addition, the quotas that New Zealand has secured in its FTA with the UK are much higher than those in its agreement with the EU. In the first year of the FTA, the UK will allow 12,000 tonnes of New Zealand beef into the UK, while the EU will allow only 3,333 tonnes into the entire EU27. I really look forward to a time when the Scottish Government can work with the EU and others to develop and deliver a trade policy that works in the economic and other interests of the people in Scotland.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is no surprise that, on Wednesday 2 November, from Shetland to Stranraer and from Kirkwall to Kelso, and here at Holyrood, farmers and crofters will send a message to the Scottish National Party Government that they need clarity and that food production needs farmers. That rally will not be a celebration, as the civil servant accompanying the cabinet secretary described it at the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee this morning.

It has taken six years for the SNP to launch a consultation on agricultural policy. Now farmers are being asked to discuss massive issues in an information vacuum. Despite numerous requests, the cabinet secretary’s department has failed to give clarity on how the new powers in the proposed agriculture bill would put food production at the heart of delivering the Government’s expectations.

The rally will take place in four weeks’ time. The Scottish Conservatives will be there to support farmers and crofters. Will the cabinet secretary be there to apologise for her lack of clarity? Will she commit to fully addressing farmers’ concerns?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

One thing that I will not be apologising for is continuing to support food production in this country, unlike other parts of the UK. That is one of the central pillars of our vision for agriculture, which we published earlier this year, in which we committed to supporting food production, while looking to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. They are the three key pillars of our support. That is also why we have committed to maintaining direct payments, to recognise the importance of food production. That is now more important than ever, given the increasing food security risks that we face.

Crofting (Absenteeism)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the issue of absenteeism in crofting. (S6O-01415)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

In 2022-23, the Crofting Commission received an increase in budget that enabled it to expand its residency and land-use team in order to increase its work in addressing absenteeism and bringing crofts back into productive use. Through the Crofting Commission’s development officers, work is under way to implement actions that are contained in the Scottish Government’s national development plan for crofting, including bringing more crofts back into active use. As crofting landlords, the Scottish ministers are considering what action can be taken on their crofting estates to increase the active use and occupancy of crofts and to look at opportunities for new entrants.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The cabinet secretary is aware of the importance of crofting to the Highlands and Islands. Crofts falling into disuse as a result of absenteeism represents a barrier to young people acquiring a tenancy to use the land and thereby remain in their communities. Will she say more about how the Government’s legislative ambitions will create more active crofts and ensure that people who wish to productively use a croft can access land?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to modernising crofting laws, as we set out in our programme for government this year. The crofting bill group was reinstated in May to consider crofting legislation, including provisions pertaining to the enforcement of the duties of crofters on owner-occupier crofts, such as the residency duty and the duty to cultivate the croft or put the croft to another purposeful use. A number of meetings took place between June and September, and more are scheduled. I look forward to the further development of that work, so that we can really tackle the important issues that Alasdair Allan raised.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (Food Safety and Quality)

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with the public health minister regarding how it will ensure the safety and quality of food sold in Scotland in the event that the United Kingdom Government proceeds with its Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill proposals. (S6O-01416)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

That is an area that causes us significant concern. Scottish ministers are advised on food safety and standards matters by Food Standards Scotland. The Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport and I meet regularly with the chief executive officer of FSS to discuss a range of issues. The bill will, of course, feature in our on-going discussions with FSS.

The Scottish Government considers the bill to be reckless. I cannot emphasise enough the impact that it will have on the areas that the member has mentioned, as well as more broadly across my portfolio and others.

Independent of the Scottish Government, the FSS considers that the bill will undermine our ability to ensure the safety and quality of food that is sold in Scotland, because unless existing legal protections that are set out in retained European Union law are preserved, they will be removed from the statute book by the end of 2023. The sheer volume of food and feed legislation is significant, the timescales that are proposed by the UK Government are ridiculous and the current protections for consumers are put at risk by the bill.

It goes much further than food safety, because the bill also dismantles our environmental and biosecurity protections, as well as affecting many other areas of devolved competence. We will do everything within the powers that are available to us to prevent the progress of the bill in its current form.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. As she is well aware, Food Standards Scotland has already warned about the risks to consumers here. The UK bill will result in removal of consumer protections related to food that have applied in Scotland under the protection of this Parliament for years. Does she agree with me that the bill is another example of the UK Government interfering with and grabbing the powers of this Parliament? What can the Scottish Government do to prevent a race to the bottom in food quality standards and to uphold the high safety and quality of food that we have enjoyed in Scotland for many years?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

As I have outlined, the bill carries an unacceptably high risk that vital law will simply drop off the UK statute book towards the end of next year. My colleague Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, is pressing the UK Government to reconsider the bill in the light of its implications for the devolved Governments. Unless it is changed, and unless current standards remain on the statute book, Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink is very much at risk.

It is also worth bearing in mind some of the comments from Food Standards Scotland that highlight the significance of what the bill will mean. FSS has advised of

“major risks and impacts to Scottish consumers in relation to food safety and standards if the ... Bill is progressed in its current form.”

It added that

“Even if high legal standards continued to apply in Scotland, the Internal Market Act ... means that there would be no way of stopping goods from elsewhere in the UK being sold in Scotland produced under lower legal standards.”

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The Scottish National Party-Green Government has already shackled Scotland’s farmers to European Union law—for example, on the issue of gene editing—and it is not interested in building a farming policy that is aligned to Scotland’s need. The UK Government offered to extend powers in the UK Agriculture Act 2020 to help the devolved Administrations to create their own farming support systems. Although Wales and Northern Ireland accepted that offer, the SNP Government declined. NFU Scotland president Martin Kennedy says that he remains frustrated that

“despite several requests from NFU Scotland and other stakeholders”,

they have yet to receive clarity on the new agriculture bill. When will the cabinet secretary start prioritising farmers ahead of constitutional grievance?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

That is a completely nonsensical comment from Finlay Carson with which I completely disagree. We are, of course, putting our farmers and crofters at the forefront of our policy, and we are co-developing it with them, to ensure that we have a policy that works.

Rural Economy (Population Decline)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to support the rural economy in areas impacted by long-term population decline. (S6O-01417)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are investing £8.3 million this year to deliver the national islands plan, and we are developing an addressing depopulation action plan to provide the policy framework to support population retention across rural communities.

We are also investing £11.6 million through our rural community-led fund; developing a remote, rural and islands housing action plan; and investing in digital infrastructure, despite the fact that responsibility for broadband is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Additionally, Parliament has recently endorsed a bespoke rural visa pilot scheme. That employer-based migration proposal has been developed with representatives from employers across island and rural communities.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Can the minister confirm that the £5 million for the now-abandoned islands bond is still ring fenced for tackling depopulation? Can he advise whether plans for utilising that resource will be set out in future financial plans?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Obviously, we are working with our island communities to develop proposals to ensure that we address depopulation. At the moment, all financial issues are going through the lens of the emergency budget review—details of which will be published as soon as possible.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Depopulation is often a multifaceted problem that requires a range of levers to address it. Many of those levers, such as on matters pertaining to immigration, are reserved. The Scottish Government has clearly set out a case for charting a different course from that of UK immigration policies, which, frankly, do not take into account Scotland’s unique circumstances and are therefore harmful to our communities. What does the minister think is the basis for the UK Government’s opposition to initiatives that are essential to Scotland’s wellbeing, to supporting economic growth, to delivery of public services and to enhancing and sustaining our communities?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The basis is lack of understanding of Scotland’s rural needs. Depopulation is a complex issue, so there are no simple solutions. Therefore, it is essential that we work with regional, local and community partners to develop a sustainable approach to enhancing and sustaining our communities. In Scotland, we are proud to have legislation such as the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which ensures that we take into account the unique nature of communities and that we develop solutions in a collaborative manner. Without that close working relationship, I struggle to see how the UK Government can understand the needs of our communities and profess to know what is best for them.

Island Communities (Resilience)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve the resilience of island communities. (S6O-01418)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

By considering population levels, promoting sustainable island economies, supporting wellbeing and health and focusing on reducing fuel poverty, the national islands plan is critical to improving outcomes for island communities and, ultimately, resilience.

I frequently engage with my colleagues across all portfolios to ensure that we respond in real time to issues as they arise, and to ensure that reporting on island resilience matters is timely and effective. That provides me with the assurance that I need on concurrent risk and allows us to explore potential mitigations. My islands officials also correspond with island communities to provide on-the-ground information regarding any major issues.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the work that is on-going, but it appears that ministers, having abandoned—for which I am thankful—the ill-conceived and overly simplistic proposal for islands bonds, now intend to spend the money, which is £300,000 this year, on practical policy tests to inform a future action plan. That is unlikely to have people dancing in the isles. It will also do nothing to improve transport links, broadband provision or the availability of affordable housing.

Will the cabinet secretary agree to ditch the tests and focus the limited resources on, for example, expanding inter-isles air services in Orkney or providing additional support to students who wish to come to our islands to study? In the past, such students have often stayed on the islands to build lives and careers.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The detail of any proposals is still to come forward; it is not right for the member to encourage me to ditch something before he has seen the detail. What we propose will be based on feedback from island communities that we received through the extensive consultation that we undertook. I am more than happy to have more discussion with Liam McArthur about what such projects might look like. Any work that we take forward will be based on the needs of our island communities.

I draw attention to the fact that help for our island communities does not come only from the rural affairs and islands portfolio. We should consider all the funding that is being channelled through our housing and transport programmes. A number of interventions that are either planned or under way will help with the overall resilience of island communities.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Island and rural communities are among the most vibrant, but the cost of living crisis poses a threat to many of them. It has been reported that households in Argyll and Bute will need to earn more than £72,000 per year to avoid fuel poverty this winter.

The key levers to address the crisis rest with the United Kingdom Government. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that the best way to ensure the resilience of island and rural communities is for them to be rid of the chaos of Westminster and the callous politics of the Tories?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I agree with the points that the member made on both counts. Time and again, we have seen that decisions that are taken in reserved areas simply do not take into account the unique circumstances that rural and island communities face.

I will give one example of that, which relates to the shared prosperity fund, but there are many more. We discussed that when I appeared at the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee this morning. The Highlands and Islands were recognised as one of the highest-priority areas that were earmarked for European structural funds, but the opposite is the case in relation to the UK Government’s levelling up agenda. Every year, £183 million is required to replace European Union funding. That equates to £549 million over the three years that the shared prosperity fund covers. However, instead of receiving £549 million, Scotland will receive just £212 million over the three-year period. That equates to a 60 per cent real-terms reduction in funding. As a result of that lack of regard by the Tories, the Scottish Government continues to press them to take further action to support our households through the cost of living crisis.

Proposed Agriculture Bill (Stakeholder Meeting)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the emergency stakeholder meeting on 12 September regarding its proposed new agricultural bill. (S6O-01419)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Our public consultation—“Delivering our Vision for Scottish Agriculture: Proposals for a new Agriculture Bill”—is open until 21 November this year. It will inform the next steps in our commitment to co-design via the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, so I encourage everyone to engage in the consultation to ensure that their views are captured.

It is important that stakeholders, the Government and wider society come together to discuss issues and work towards shared outcomes as part of the Scottish Government’s co-development approach. I trust that the new industry group will feed back to enable discussion with stakeholders representing the wider rural economy in the agriculture and rural development stakeholder group.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I think that co-design refers only to the relationship between the Government and the minority party that is propping it up, because senior NFU Scotland figures describe the proposed agriculture bill as reading more like a Green Party manifesto than a true agriculture bill. There is very little mention of food security and food production, which should surely lie at the heart of any such bill. Relationships between the farming community and the Scottish Government are at an all-time low, in the eyes of many people in the industry. Given that the Scottish National Party Government has had years to come up with a plan for the future of Scottish farming, why does the cabinet secretary think that so many farmers are being so vocal in their disappointment and anger about the Government’s proposals for their future?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I do not know whether Jamie Greene has been through the detail of the consultation. It sets out the framework that we are looking to establish and the enabling powers that we will need in any future legislation in which we discuss the importance of our food production and food security. As I have said, that is an area that we identified and highlighted in our vision for agriculture, which we are intent on delivering.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will know that, even when the proposed agriculture framework bill is passed, it will not provide the detail that farmers are looking for on agriculture support. Does she accept their need to see the detail, even before the bill is passed, to allow them to plan the future of their business?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I absolutely accept that, and I will be working to deliver that. More information on that will be available in due course.

Health and Social Care

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind members that questions 3 and 4 are grouped together and that I will take any supplementaries on those questions once they have both been answered. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question or indicate as such in the chat function by pressing the letter R. I press members for succinct questions and answers to match, in order to get in as many questions as possible.

Waiting Lists (NHS Boards)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its advice is for patients who move from one regional national health service board to another while on a waiting list for essential surgery. (S6O-01420)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Patients who move to another health board area will join the waiting list of the receiving health board. Although waiting times vary across health boards and specialities, I would not expect that to have a negative impact on the length of time that a person should expect to wait.

Clinicians in the new board might wish to reassess the patient to ensure that it is safe to go ahead with the procedure, especially where there has been no prior assessment or some time has elapsed since an assessment was carried out. Again, I would not expect that to be done routinely without good clinical reasons.

Patients with an urgent clinical need will always be prioritised. In all cases, I expect health boards to make every effort to ensure equity of care and to minimise any disruptions to the patient’s journey.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

A constituent of mine, who was first referred in October 2019, has been waiting—all the while in pain—for surgery since March 2020. They recently had to move—fortunately, still in the north-east region—which required a transfer from NHS Grampian to NHS Tayside. To get on to the Tayside waiting list, they have to undergo a fresh assessment. Will the cabinet secretary outline how patients can ensure that they do not have to redo assessments, at the cost of time, energy and resources to both themselves and the NHS, in order to get on to their new health board’s waiting list? What guidance can we give patients who might be willing and able to travel to another health board that has available capacity so as to expedite their surgery or other treatment?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

My thoughts are with Maggie Chapman’s constituent at what is a difficult time for them.

There should not be any detriment to patients who move to a new health board area. Obviously I do not know the full details of Maggie Chapman’s constituent’s case but I am happy to receive them. As I said in my answer to the first question, reassessments are not done routinely or necessarily, but there might be a good clinical reason in this case—I do not know because I do not know the details. However, I would expect there to be no undue impact on the time that her constituent has to wait for the procedure, and I will ask my officials to liaise with the two boards.

On Maggie Chapman’s second question, a review of NHS waiting times guidance will be undertaken. The working group has been established, and I am happy to keep her and other members updated.

On the final point about whether there is the possibility of moving to another board for a procedure to take place, that can be a board-to-board discussion. In certain cases, financial help is available for travel and accommodation.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the minister guarantee that any patient who moves from one regional NHS board to another while waiting for any out-patient or in-patient services will have their current length-of-wait time taken into account in their new board’s scheduled treatment, and that such patients will not simply be moved to the foot of a waiting list?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That would not routinely happen—the clock would not routinely be reset to zero. However, as I said in my answer to Maggie Chapman, an assessment may be necessary, particularly if time has elapsed since the original, or most recent, assessment.

Patients would not routinely have their clock reset to zero. I would be concerned if that was happening routinely in any health board.

Access to Care at Home (Hospital Patients)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what work it is undertaking to ensure that patients have access to care packages to help aid recovery at home as soon as possible after a hospital stay. (S6O-01421)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people receive the right care, in the right place, at the right time, avoiding delays in discharge wherever possible. To support that work in 2022-23, we have issued a range of funding packages, including £124 million to enhance care at home; £200 million to increase the hourly rate of pay to £10.50; £20 million to support interim care arrangements; and £40 million to enhance multidisciplinary teams.

We are also investing a further £3.6 million in the development of hospital at home, which can provide acute hospital-level care at home, thereby avoiding the need for an acute admission and a length of stay in hospital. That funding is in addition to the £4.5 million that has already been invested, which takes our total investment to more than £8 million.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I have recently written to NHS Tayside, the integration joint board and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf, about a constituent of mine, whom I will not name, who has been waiting an excessively long time for his wife to be returned home after having a stroke. She has all the equipment in place, but it does not seem to be possible to put a care package in place for her. The challenge appears to centre on staffing capacity, which has clearly been impacted by Brexit.

Will the minister set out what action the Scottish Government is taking within its powers to support health boards and IJBs to recruit the staff they need?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank Mr Fairlie for raising that distressing case. I understand that he has written to the cabinet secretary, who will respond shortly. I will ask my officials to investigate the situation, if Mr Fairlie could provide us with more detail.

It is absolutely vital that we continue to make every effort to maximise the capacity of the social care system. In addition to the financial investment of £528 million that I outlined, we have, as part of our winter planning preparedness, been working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to develop our joint plan for winter.

The Government has a long-standing commitment to implementing the principles of fair work for the social care sector. We are fully committed to improving the experience of the social care workforce, including by increasing levels of pay and delivering consistent fair work conditions to staff who work with the more than 1,200 employers that deliver social care in Scotland.

On that basis, we have just extended the staff support fund, to ensure that social care staff who are required to isolate if they test positive for Covid receive their full pay over the winter months. We will continue to work in partnership with local government and health and social care partners to do all that we can to support them to ensure that we recruit and retain staff, so that we do not have situations such as the one that Mr Fairlie identified.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Cases such as the one that Jim Fairlie has highlighted are replicated across the country. As of 26 September, 90 people in North East Fife were waiting for a care package, either stuck in hospital or stuck at home. That needs to change.

The trouble is that the minister has been saying what he just said for years, ever since Shona Robison promised that she would get rid of delayed discharge altogether. Why are the plans that he set out making absolutely no difference?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I think that the work that I have laid out is making a difference. Willie Rennie fails to understand the huge impact that the pandemic has had on our health and social care systems. Some folks forget that we are still in the midst of that pandemic and that there will be situations in which staff are off ill with Covid or for other reasons.

Of course, as Mr Fairlie rightly pointed out, our health and social care system has faced a Brexit shock, with one care organisation that I have spoken to losing 40 per cent of its staff because of Brexit.

We will continue to put in place our winter planning. We will co-operate with local authorities and health and social care partnerships. The cabinet secretary and I are in a constant round of discussions with service providers across the country, so that we can help them as best we can. What we cannot do, unfortunately, is bring back all of the folks who we lost because of the Brexit situation.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

New research by YouGov has revealed that only 28 per cent of Scots have considered a career in the care sector, with about 40 per cent citing low pay, stress and a perception that the sector is physically demanding. More shockingly, nine out of 10 care workers describe their place of work as understaffed.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said in his statement about winter planning yesterday. However, the headline that we heard on social care was a repeat of the announcement of the £10.50 per hour wage, which equates to a derisory pay rise of 48p. When will the Government get serious, engage with staff and unions on the ground, and respond to the call for £15 an hour?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr O’Kane fails to say that if we were to raise pay to £15 an hour at this moment, that would cost £1.75 billion. Mr O’Kane knows that we are already in a stressed situation when it comes to budgets, because of the continued cuts of the Tory Government. We will continue to do all that we can—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not want all this shouting from sedentary positions. Minister, please resume.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We will continue to raise pay and support our social care staff. We have raised pay twice in a year. We keep pay under constant review and will continue to do so.

On the point about career progression and attracting people to the profession, that is one of the key planks of our national care service proposal. We want to ensure not only that we get pay and conditions right, but that there are career pathways for folks who enter the profession. That is what young people want to see, and those are the folks who we need to enter care. We need to grow our own workforce, thanks to the fact that we have lost so many folks because of the Brexit situation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I point out to members that we are now 13 minutes into this question time session and I have another six questions to take. I think that everybody can do the maths on that.

Out-patient Appointments (Waiting Lists)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its target to eliminate two-year waits for out-patient appointments in NHS Scotland. (S6O-01422)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The first of those targets, which were set in July to address the impact of the pandemic on planned care, was to eliminate two-year waits for out-patients in most specialities by the end of August. Public Health Scotland data shows that, by 31 August, a majority of specialities had no patients waiting more than two years. In fact, 76 per cent of specialities had fewer than 10 patients waiting more than two years, and 71 per cent of territorial health boards had five patients or fewer waiting more than two years.

Boards are working hard to reduce the number of out-patients waiting more than two years as quickly as possible. I am grateful to our national health service staff who have helped in that effort.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Back in June, the health secretary set a series of targets on long waits for NHS Scotland. He pledged to eradicate two-year out-patient waits only in most specialities, rather than altogether. The fact is that we now find that more than 2,000 Scots have been languishing on out-patient waiting lists for more than two years. That means that the long out-patient waiting lists are seriously far from being eliminated.

Does the cabinet secretary concede that the original targets have failed? When can we expect to see two-year out-patient waits eliminated for good?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not sure how Alexander Stewart can stand there and repeat what the target was, which was to eradicate two-year out-patient waits in most specialities, agree with me that that has happened in most specialities, and then ask me whether the target has failed. That does not make any sense to me.

I am surprised that, when those statistics were published, neither Alexander Stewart nor any member of the Opposition uttered a word—or even a syllable—of thanks to NHS staff who have worked so hard to reduce those two-year outpatient waits in the majority of health boards.

Two health boards account for 90 per cent of the two-year outpatient waits—NHS Ayrshire and Arran and NHS Grampian—and I assure the member that we will work intensively with both those health boards to ensure that they get extra support. That does not take away from the fact that we have seen remarkable progress across health boards in the 60 days after those targets were announced, and I hope that the member will join me in thanking NHS staff for their incredible efforts in that regard.

Waiting Lists

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what new steps it has taken to tackle national health service waiting lists. (S6O-01423)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will not repeat what I said in my previous answer.

We are working intensively with the national centre for sustainable delivery, which Pauline McNeill will know. We are working with boards to accelerate the implementation of high-impact changes, including active clinical referral triage and patient-initiated review. Those improvement programmes will support the delivery of the targets that I mentioned and provide sustainable solutions for the future.

We are also working with the national centre for sustainable delivery and boards to embed regional and national working, to ensure that long-waiting patients can access treatment quicker, even if that means that they have to travel to do so.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I want to ask about internal waiting times. Last week, an NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde oncologist raised with my office concerns that cancer-related scans now take up to eight weeks to be returned, when they should normally be returned within one week. The fact that oncologists are waiting for the results of important scans will clearly have a knock-on effect on patients in a priority area of treatment.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of that situation and is he acting on it? What assurances can he give oncologists in Glasgow and the health board area that the scans of worried patients will be returned in a much-reduced timescale?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We are aware of that issue, and the member is right to raise it. I have spoken in the chamber previously about our challenges around the medical oncology workforce. I am happy to give Pauline McNeill more

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I welcome the latest statistics, which show an increase in the number of patients who are seen within target times. What work is going on to ensure that that upward trajectory continues?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We know that we are entering a really challenging period—we already are in a challenging period, but the winter months will present significant challenges on top of those that we currently face. The work that we are doing with boards is to try to ensure that we can protect some of the capacity for elective care as much as possible. We know that elective care has taken a real hit because of the pandemic over the past two and a half years, so we are maximising theatre productivity and considering how we can ring fence that capacity.

The centre for sustainable delivery is moving forward with its national elective co-ordination unit, which will help to ensure that we make the best use of theatre capacity across boards, where possible. We are also funding boards to the tune of around £8 million over the course of the winter to help to recruit 750 additional nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, which I hope will boost our workforce over the winter.

NHS Borders (Meetings)

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Borders. (S6O-01424)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I last met with NHS Borders on 22 September and discussed matters of public health that concern the local population.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating all staff at NHS Borders on the recent announcement that 100 per cent of patients who were diagnosed with cancer were treated within the Scottish Government target of 31 days, and almost 97 per cent of eligible patients who were given an urgent suspicion of cancer referral received their first treatment within the Scottish Government’s 62-day target? That is excellent work on the part of the staff at NHS Borders.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I agree whole-heartedly with Christine Grahame, and it is right that we congratulate and pay tribute to our NHS staff, who have had the most difficult and challenging two and a half years of their professional careers. It is right that we congratulate NHS staff when we see progress.

Notwithstanding that excellent progress in NHS Borders, I am not satisfied with our current levels in relation to our 62-day target across the board. I have asked officials to explore closely whether other boards can learn from the boards that are doing well and accelerating, such as NHS Borders, and implement what they are doing.

Maternity Services

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the provision of maternity services. (S6O-01425)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government continues to improve provision of maternity and neonatal services through implementation of “The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”.

Following a pause due to Covid, we have now received implementation plans from all boards, which show an on-track trajectory for completion by the revised end date of 2024 for the majority of the recommendations and 2026 for continuity of carer.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

In a recent letter to the Galloway community hospital action group, the minister wrote:

“We expect all boards to provide maternity services that are delivered as close to home as possible.”

People in my constituency have waited for four long years, with mothers giving birth on the roadside, but there is still no serious discussion from NHS Dumfries and Galloway on the return of maternity services in Wigtownshire. What reassurance can the minister give expectant mothers in that part of my constituency, Galloway and West Dumfries? I know that she is very aware that there is an undeniable need for a midwife-led maternity service at the Galloway community hospital in Stranraer, to prevent a 150-mile and three-hour round trip. Will the minister outline what the Government can do as a matter of urgency to reinstate such a service?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The member is aware that Scottish Government officials and professional leads, including the chief midwifery officer, are in regular contact with the head of midwifery at NHS Dumfries and Galloway to discuss those issues and explore what support the Government might provide.

The member is also aware that Dumfries and Galloway integration joint board, which is responsible for the planning and delivery of the vast majority of health and adult social care services in the region, has asked the health board to consider options for the delivery of maternity services in Galloway and to report to the IJB. I understand that the matter is to be discussed next week, on 13 October, and I have asked to be kept informed of progress and the outcome of that process.

I plan to visit Galloway community hospital towards the end of the month, on Monday 31 October; I will meet the Galloway community hospital action group at that time and I hope to discuss the issues with it.

Alcohol-related Cancers

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address the reported prevalence of alcohol-related cancers in Scotland. (S6O-01426)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The recently published Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems guidance for health professionals highlights that the risk of developing a range of cancers increases as alcohol consumption increases. We are working with SHAAP to promote the guidance.

We are investing £10 million to improve how cancer, including alcohol-attributed cancer, is treated in Scotland, and we will launch a new 10-year strategy in April that will take a comprehensive approach to improving patient pathways. We are taking action to reduce alcohol consumption across the population, including consulting on potential alcohol marketing restrictions in autumn and continuing our evaluation of minimum unit pricing.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The SHAAP guidance highlights that one in four alcohol-attributed deaths in Scotland is due to cancer, so it is important that we do everything that we can to highlight that to the public. The report that the minister mentioned makes a number of recommendations for intervention; can the minister say more about what the Scottish Government plans to do to make health professionals and the public more aware of the risks? I welcome the comments that the minister made on advertising.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government works closely with SHAAP, and health professionals across Scotland have been issued with SHAAP’s guidance, which highlights the link between alcohol and cancer and suggests that professionals can reduce alcohol-related cancer risks by helping patients to reduce their intake.

We are developing a new, 10-year cancer strategy, to launch in spring 2023, which will take a comprehensive approach to improving patient pathways, from prevention and diagnosis right through to treatment and post-treatment care. That will include alcohol-related cancers.

I welcome the member’s focus on the issue. As all members in the chamber will know, this year, deaths that were directly attributable to alcohol rose to 24 a week in Scotland. That is an absolute tragedy and it is the tip of the iceberg, because that number does not include the people who die from cardiac-related illnesses and cancer, in relation to both of which alcohol is a major contributory factor.

Universal Free Prescriptions

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its commitment to universal free prescriptions on the national health service. (S6O-01427)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government has no plans whatever for the reintroduction of prescription charges. We have been absolutely clear that prescription charges are a tax on ill health and that any medication prescribed to a patient should be dispensed free of charge, unlike the situation in England, where charges apply and patients pay £9.35 per item—not per prescription but per item.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The minister agrees with me that free prescriptions are a significant investment in improving health, especially when prescriptions cost £9.35 in England, during a cost of living crisis. People should not be deterred from accessing the vital treatment and medicine that they need. Does the minister share my astonishment that the leader of the Scottish Labour Party refused to back the suggestion that the abolition of prescription charges should be Labour Party policy when he was invited to do so by the First Minister in Parliament last week?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I absolutely share the member’s astonishment. Let me be clear: prescription charges are a tax on ill health and a barrier to better health for many people. Charging for prescriptions would mean that many people who have chronic conditions—even people receiving treatment for cancer—could be liable to pay an enormous charge. Having to choose between food shopping or vital medicines is not a position

that people in Scotland are faced with, unlike in England, where patients are charged £9.35 per item.

We continue to demonstrate our commitment to the provision of free healthcare advice and treatment when needed, with the introduction of the NHS pharmacy first service, which is available at all community pharmacies. The service is available to everyone who is registered with a general practitioner and who is ordinarily resident in Scotland.

I have to say, in relation to Labour policy, that even the Scottish Conservatives dropped their opposition to free prescriptions in 2017 because they recognised the popular support for the policy, which was introduced by the Scottish National Party Administration in 2011.

Scottish Covid-19 Inquiry

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry might be delayed due to the resignation of the Chair and senior counsel.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government wants the inquiry to be delivered at speed and to address the range of questions that people have—the bereaved, in particular—so that we can learn and benefit from those lessons as early as possible. That is why arrangements for appointing a new judicial chair for the inquiry have been taken forward urgently to ensure a successful transition.

The Scottish Government remains committed to the vital work of the inquiry, as does the independent inquiry team, and Lady Poole will continue as chair during her notice period of up to three months. A further update will be provided to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response, but I am curious as to why he never mentioned the resignation of four senior and junior counsel when he hosted a cross-party briefing meeting on Monday 3 October. Not a word passed his lips. That is a material consideration, which should have been disclosed, and I regret the lack of transparency from the Government on such an important issue. Some people more cynical than I might say that there is a pattern of secrecy with the Government; I hope that that does not spill over into the inquiry itself.

The Scottish Government seconded senior staff from the civil service to work on the inquiry, so there was no excuse for not knowing what was going on. When was the Scottish Government told about the concerns and problems that preceded those resignations?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The first point to make is that the Inquiries Act 2005 requires that the inquiry is independent of the Government. That is the law; I must obey the law and I am following the law. Under the 2005 act, ministers have the power to establish an independent public inquiry, to set its terms of reference, and to appoint a chair and a panel. Section 17 of the 2005 act gives an inquiry chair alone, rather than ministers, responsibility for deciding how an inquiry should operate. That includes the approach to taking evidence and engaging with stakeholders. That is the legal position that I must follow.

I considered carefully what information I should share with members of Parliament when I telephoned them on Monday evening, because I was mindful of my legal obligation to respect the independence of the inquiry. The staffing matters of the inquiry are exclusively a matter for the chair of the inquiry. At no stage have I tried to conceal information; I have simply respected the legal framework under which I must operate.

In relation to the sequence of events, Lady Poole emailed my office on Friday morning. I spoke to her within minutes of the email being received and Lady Poole intimated to me her decision to step down for personal reasons. In the course of that call, she indicated to me that four members of counsel had resigned from the inquiry the previous day. That was news to me, as were the circumstances that led to Lady Poole’s resignation, when I heard it on Friday morning.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will agree that this will be a huge disappointment for the families who are grieving the loss of a loved one to Covid

. They deserve answers and they have been patient in waiting for the inquiry to start. Lady Poole was appointed in December 2021, the day before Baroness Hallett was appointed to lead the UK-wide inquiry. The UK-wide inquiry has started and has made it clear that the people affected are at the heart of its considerations.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to ensure that the inquiry system works and is adequately resourced? Can he tell me when the inquiry will start? When will it hear from the families in person? When will the inquiry report and what is the revised cost? Above all, how will he ensure that whoever replaces Lady Poole ensures that the families affected are at the very heart of the inquiry’s work?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Presiding Officer, Jackie Baillie invites me, by asking those questions, to break the law, because she invites me to interfere in the running of the inquiry. I simply will not do it, because I have no intention of breaking section 17 of the 2005 act. If I were to do that, the first person to complain about it would be Jackie Baillie.

I have listened with enormous care to the bereaved families on a number of occasions during the establishment of the inquiry. I have taken all the time that they have asked me to take to engage with them. I will be seeing bereaved families next week. I offered to speak to the three bereaved families groups that made representations to me on Monday. I have spoken to one group, I am in correspondence with another and I will see another group next week. Their concerns must be at the heart of the inquiry.

Jackie Baillie asks me what I will do to ensure that their voices are at the heart of the inquiry and that is something that I can do. I can insist, when I secure the appointment of judicial leadership for the inquiry, that the point that Jackie Baillie has put to me will be taken on board. It will be a condition of appointment for the judicial leadership that is put in place that bereaved families must be at the heart of the inquiry. Their issues and concerns must be properly aired and properly addressed. They must have answers. That will be at the heart of the appointment process of the next judicial leadership.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I will take a few supplementaries. The first is from Murdo Fraser.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was contacted today by a constituent who lost his wife due to Covid. Like many other of the members of the bereaved families, he has serious concerns about what has been reported in the media and about the potential delays in the inquiry starting to take evidence.

Will the Deputy First Minister tell us whether Lady Poole’s resignation was prompted by the resignation of the four senior counsel members or was unrelated? Will he assure us that none of the resignations has come about because of any political interference in the direction or operation of the inquiry?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I hope that it was clear from my last answer to Jackie Baillie that the consideration of the bereaved families is absolutely central to the inquiry. If there is any group of people in our country who must secure answers in the Covid inquiry, it must be the bereaved families. I hope that that provides reassurance for Mr Fraser to share with his constituent.

In relation to the reasons for Lady Poole’s resignation, she indicated to me that, for personal reasons, she wished to step down from the inquiry. Those were her words to me and it is not incumbent on me to explore or examine the rationale for her statements to me.

Murdo Fraser’s final point is, to be frank, one to which I take the greatest of exception because I have judiciously followed the contents of the Inquiries Act 2005, particularly section 17, which guarantees the independence of the inquiry. For the record, there has been absolutely no political interference in the inquiry.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

There is not a member in the chamber who does not know somebody to whom the outcome of the inquiry will make a material, life-changing difference and for whom it will answer vital questions about the loss of their loved ones.

I am concerned about some of the confusion that exists around Lady Poole’s departure. Twice now, the cabinet secretary has been asked why other Opposition spokespeople were not told of the departure of senior and junior counsel at the same time as that of Lady Poole. Given that the narrative around Lady Poole’s departure is that it was for personal reasons, what confidence can we have about the narrative around the status of the rest of the inquiry, as it is all starting to fall apart?

I am very concerned and press the cabinet secretary again on the matter.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not know where to start with that question, to be honest, because I simply stood up in Parliament and made it clear that I am following the law, which requires me to respect the independence of the inquiry. If I was to go around nit-picking about the inquiry, which is what Mr Cole-Hamilton invites me to do, Mr Fraser would be on his feet accusing me of interference. Can we please respect the fact that it is an independent inquiry?

The Government has done its bit, which was to appoint a chair and to consult on and agree terms of reference. As far as I am aware from any of the representations that I have had from across the chamber, those terms of reference are judged to be absolutely appropriate. Everybody across the chamber also took the view that Lady Poole was an appropriate appointment.

The two things that the Government is allowed by law to do—to appoint a chair to the inquiry and to establish terms of reference—have been broadly supported across the chamber. Lady Poole has decided to resign and it is not for me to interfere in the running of the inquiry.

My job now is to ask the Lord President to provide me with nominees for replacement judicial leadership, which I have done. I will resolve the leadership of the inquiry as quickly as I possibly can. I want to minimise any disruption and any interruption to the proceedings. There are many staff already in the inquiry. Lady Poole will manage the transition and we will continue to advance, to ensure that the bereaved families and others are able to air the issues that they wish to have aired in the public inquiry.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

It is vital that the families and relatives involved have the utmost confidence in the public inquiry and that the process allows for credible answers to be reached. Can the Deputy First Minister provide further assurances that the important progress that has been made so far by the inquiry is continued and that it will be done in a transparent manner that operates independently of ministers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I stress the point that the inquiry is established on the basis that it is independent of Government, and it will continue to operate independently of Government.

I want to ensure—I think that this was broadly understood from the terms of reference—that members of the public who lost loved ones in the Covid pandemic had the opportunity to address their concerns and issues as part of the inquiry. That will be central to the way in which the inquiry proceeds in the days, weeks and months to come.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the urgent question.

Before we move to the next item of business, which is a committee of the whole Parliament, I suspend this meeting of Parliament.

15:05 Meeting suspended.

Committee of the Whole Parliament

The Convener (Alison Johnstone)

I open this Committee of the Whole Parliament.

Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

The Convener (Alison Johnstone)

We will consider of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. For the duration of the proceedings, I am the convener of the committee.

In dealing with amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or press R as soon as possible after I call the group.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order. I seek your guidance, convener. I attempted to lodge amendments to section 2 of the bill, but Parliament officials said that I was not allowed to lodge them. Is it the policy of Parliament that amendments that would take out certain parts of a bill are not acceptable once it has been passed at stage 1, which means that whatever Parliament thinks of a certain section of a bill it will always remain, even if we vote against it?

The Convener

I thank Mr Balfour for his point of order. Rule 9.10.5(c) states that an amendment is not admissible if

“it is inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill as agreed by the Parliament”.

If a bill is introduced with only one or two principal purposes, and the amendment would reverse, substantially alter or render ineffective a principal purpose of the bill, an amendment to leave out or substantially alter one of the purposes would not normally be admissible.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I seek further clarification. How would Parliament remove sections of the bill?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

We would vote against it.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

We cannot.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Not in committee.

The Convener

Mr Balfour, for clarity, I point out that you can lodge an amendment to remove a section, unless it would be a wrecking amendment.

The first group of amendments is on operation of the rent cap. Amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 17, 22, 27 and 32.

If amendment 21—in the group that is entitled “application of the rent cap”—is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 22 and 27, due to pre-emption.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

We had a very helpful debate yesterday afternoon at stage 1. A lot of evidence was given that supports the idea that the way to control the rights of tenants is not necessarily to control the rents that landlords can charge. We all understand that financial hardship faces many people in Scotland and that landlords and tenants face difficult times. However, in my view and in the opinion of most housing associations and experts, simply saying that we are going to freeze rents and have a controlled sector, as the bill does, will cause greater damage and bring less benefit.

During the speeches yesterday, my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Stephen Kerr gave examples of what has happened in other countries, including in the cities of Dublin, Berlin and Stockholm. In those three cities, more people have become homeless, less housing is available and the situation has grown worse. That is why amendments 1 and 32 are at the heart of what this Parliament should be trying to do.

We agree that action needs to be taken, and we are disappointed that the Scottish Government has taken so long to do anything. Surely, to do a wrong thing is not the answer. Just a few months ago, the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government were making exactly the same argument as I am making today: they were saying that the proposal is not the way forward and that we need action from Government.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the member accept that it is a temporary freeze or rent cap? It will last until the end of March and will not affect housing associations, although I accept that they are interested in what happens after April.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

First, the point that I was making was that ministers, cabinet secretaries and the Government have changed their minds. If the bill is passed unamended today and tomorrow, 18 months will not seem like a long time. I know that the Scottish National Party likes to talk about generations being a few weeks, but for most of us 18 months is not a long time. In my opinion, and in the opinion of housing associations and experts—if John Mason had listened to them in emails that he has received—a rent cap will force people to give up their properties, and more people will be homeless across our country. That is why I ask members to support amendments 1 and 32 in my name.

I move amendment 1.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will start with amendment 1, which is in the name of Jeremy Balfour. I agree with him that the Government changed its mind on the issue, and we welcome that change of mind. We called for a rent freeze in the summer, so I am absolutely delighted to see the Government following where Labour has led. Therefore, I oppose amendment 1.

The amendments in my name in this group—all the amendments in the group apart from 1 and 32—are my attempt to be helpful to the Government, in particular to the First Minister. In her programme for government statement in early September, the First Minister said that rents would be frozen from that day. However, the bill does not propose to freeze rents from that day—for tenants who live in the private rented sector, rents can increase today, tomorrow, the day after that and for weeks and weeks up until 5 December.

My amendments are an attempt to be helpful to the First Minister to ensure that the statement that she made in Parliament remains accurate. My amendments would change the date in the bill from 6 September to 6 June, which would mean that any notice that is issued by a private landlord, which has three months to take effect, after 6 June would be ruled ineligible. That would mean that the First Minister’s statement that all rents were frozen from the day on which she made her statement on the programme for government would remain valid. On that basis, I ask members to support amendments 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 27.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

At the outset, I once again thank colleagues from political parties, stakeholders and, in particular, officials from the Government and the Parliament for the incredible pace at which they have worked in bringing us to this point.

As Jeremy Balfour set out, amendments 1 and 32 are very clearly intended to take away one of the principal functions of the bill. He said that we had a powerful debate at stage 1—indeed we did, and Parliament agreed to the general principles of the bill. Even if his amendments are admissible, it seems to me that, at a political level, they would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the bill. The Conservatives have the right to disagree, but there is no ambiguity about the amendments: they fundamentally oppose the reasons why we are introducing the bill. In the context of a cost of living crisis, we believe that an emergency response is necessary. Tenants are particularly exposed to that cost of living crisis, which justifies a rent freeze.

We absolutely did not, as Jeremy Balfour suggests, argue the case that he is arguing a few months ago. We opposed an amendment that we were convinced would not have been legally competent. The provisions in the bill are legally competent and will be effective at protecting tenants.

The remaining amendments in the group, as Mr Griffin said, would have the effect of retrospectively applying, to 6 June rather than to 6 September, the rent control measures that are contained in section 1. The purpose of backdating the measures to 6 September is, as I think the First Minister has made clear, to avoid the programme for government announcement resulting in landlords seeking to avoid the effect of the measures by acting before we had time to bring the legislation before Parliament. We are seeking to avoid rent increase notices being issued in response to the announcement. Ensuring that that protection is given will be accomplished by the bill. It is a necessary part of the package that will deliver protections for tenants, and it gives a level of clarity to landlords and tenants.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment to backdate the freeze to June. That would run contrary to the need for the law to be fair and certain, because it would change the effect of landlords having been unaware of the intention to change the law months before the programme for government announcement was made. To do so would inevitably open up the legislation to challenge and cause significant uncertainty.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The uncertainty was caused by the First Minister announcing in her programme for Government statement that rents would be frozen from that day. That created uncertainty for tenants, who would rightly expect that rents would be frozen from the time when the First Minster made her announcement, not from well into December. If the minister will not accept my amendments, does he accept that the First Minister should change the record?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The First Minister was clear, and I regret that the member is choosing to misinterpret what she said in that way. It is very clear that the intention is to prevent rent increase notices as a response to the programme for government announcement. The bill as it stands will achieve that.

Although I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this group of amendments, I must ask Parliament to vote against all the amendments in it.

The Convener

I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up, and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 1.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I have nothing to add, convener. I am happy to move.

The Convener

Will you confirm that you are pressing amendment 1, Mr Balfour?

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I am, convener.

The Convener

Thank you very much. The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes. That will enable members to access the digital voting system.

15:21 Meeting suspended.

15:27 On resuming—

We proceed with the division on amendment 1.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, convener. Can I check that my vote was recorded?

The Convener

I can confirm that it was recorded.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

On a point of order, convener.—[

Inaudible

.]—I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

On a point of order, convener. The page would not load. I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Schedule 1—Rent Cap

Amendment 2 moved—[Mark Griffin].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 20, Against 95, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 not moved.

We move to the group entitled “Application of the rent cap”. Amendment 4, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 21, 23 to 26 and 31. If amendment 21 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 22 and 27, which were in the group entitled “Operation of the rent cap”, or amendments 23 to 26 in this group, due to pre-emption.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Amendment 4, in my name, would remove the social rented sector from the bill and exempt it from regulations. The social housing sector is already highly regulated and has taken important steps in keeping rent increases as low as possible. Furthermore, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has warned of unintended consequences from the bill for social housing and the development of affordable housing, as well as potential consequences for construction costs, which have increased, and for meeting net zero targets. We therefore ask members to support my amendment 4 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 5.

Amendment 23, in my name, looks towards mid-market rent properties, which are an affordable housing tenure that housing associations offer. They are homes that are for rent to households that are on low to middle incomes.

Rents for MMR homes are generally set lower than private rents but higher than housing association rents for social housing. The tenure is an important part of the housing mix to support those who may not be eligible for or who cannot access social rented homes but who struggle to afford higher rents in the private rented sector. The issue is that the tenancy type is a private residency, so it is the same as homes that are rented from private landlords. We therefore hope that members will support my amendment 23.

My amendment 26 relates to rent increase notices that are sent to tenants before the legislation expires. The bill states that any rent increase notice that is served while the rent cap is in force will have no effect. That means in effect that no rent increase notice can be served on any tenant prior to 1 April 2023, if we assume that the rent freeze expires the day before that, so the rent freeze would remain in place until the end of April—not the end of March, as ministers have outlined—given the requirement to give 28 days’ notice of any rent change in the social sector. We therefore believe that landlords should be able to provide such notices before 1 April.

I move amendment 4.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will speak to amendments 5, 21 and 25. My amendments focus on the social sector and on mid-market rental properties in the charity sector. In short, I want to remove them from the bill’s provisions. My rationale is that their inclusion will not help. The majority of tenants in the social sector will not benefit from the cap, as their rent is paid through universal credit. There are targeted funds to help people who are struggling and finding it difficult to pay their rent, and rents in the social sector are about half of those in the private sector, so the cap will not really help people with the cost of living, but the damage could be significant.

It is the uncertainty that is most damaging. Although the rent cap might never have an effect on rents in the social sector, uncertainty about whether it might will have a massive impact on planning for the future. That will mean a cut to house building and maintenance programmes. Even though they support the universal cap, several charities and organisations have highlighted that issue in their lobbying today.

The minister recognises that there is a problem. To his credit, he has been working to reassure the sector. He has committed to working in partnership with it. He has indicated that the social and private sectors might be decoupled after March, but I suggest that it would be much easier to decouple them now by removing the social sector from the scope of the bill. Tenants would continue to be protected by the sector, the uncertainty would be removed, planning could restart, new houses that were in doubt could go ahead, and existing homes could have new bathrooms, kitchens, windows and roofs fitted.

Yesterday, we heard wise contributions from Bob Doris and John Mason, who relayed the concerns of housing associations.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Although I will not support his amendments, does Willie Rennie agree that the statutory rent consultation process that all housing associations must conduct would be a useful tool in deciding whether to use the powers from next April onwards? I state again that, in principle, we are introducing a cap, not a freeze, so the powers could—in theory—be used sparingly, although my preference would be that the powers were not used at all. Does Willie Rennie agree that the rent consultation process could inform whether the powers are ever used?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Bob Doris is right. One benefit of the social sector is that such consultations have been in place for many years, which has resulted in very low rents—half of those in the private sector. My argument is that we should use those processes now, not just after March, but I accept Bob Doris’s point that they might be a mechanism that could be used in the future.

I think that the social sector should be treated differently. Let us not fix what is not broken. My three amendments have three purposes. Amendment 21 would remove social housing from the scope of the bill. Amendment 25 would provide a longer notice period for rent cap changes, to allow the sector to consult on and prepare for any changes. I also support Miles Briggs’s amendment 4.

Amendment 23 is about mid-market rents. I support removing such rents in the charity sector from the scope of the bill. Many organisations, such as the Gannochy Trust in Perth, provide excellent housing that is of a high standard. In fact, recently, I saw its new houses, which have very high energy efficiency and mid-market rents. Such rents are, in effect, controlled now, so the bill is trying to control what is already controlled. The trust’s future planning could be interrupted, so I suggest that we remove mid-market rents in the charity sector, as well as social housing, from the scope of the bill.

I urge members to support amendments 4, 5, 21, 23 and 25.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

My first set of amendments in the group—amendments 6, 16 and 24—address the matter of landlords not raising rents between tenancies. Up to 31 March 2023, the amendments would prevent a landlord from raising the rent of a property between tenancies and would apply to private rented sector short assured tenancies and Scottish secure tenancies. I want to test a couple of issues from my Fair Rents (Scotland) Bill of the previous parliamentary session in relation to this bill, and this is one of them.

I have a concern that, unless the issue is addressed, we might see a surge in illegal evictions or illegal rent increases. Third sector organisations have raised that in their briefings for members this week. Citizens Advice Scotland, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Poverty Alliance and Shelter Scotland are concerned about unintended consequences of the bill for tenants and landlords; with low public awareness of the issue, they are concerned that there runs the risk of an increased number of evictions and unlawful rent increases, with unclear options for redress.

I ask ministers to consider their response to the concern that, although the framework of the legislation is clear on how things will work if landlords operate within the law, a small minority of landlords might not operate within the law. I ask them to also consider the fact that being “between tenancies” means that the tenant has already been evicted and the landlord can impose a new rent, which is not subject to a rent freeze. The joint briefing from the organisations that I named expresses sincere and widespread concerns about illegal evictions, which I ask ministers to address.

My amendments 9 and 10 relate to the statement that, under the framework of the bill, landlords will make in relation to their application to increase rents. The amendments would ensure that landlords cannot insist that their proposed increase is applied until after the rent officer or First-tier Tribunal of Scotland has approved it. Further to that, the landlord would have to make it clear in their communication to the tenant that the new rent was not payable until it had been approved.

I am exploring that because I do not believe that we have the right balance between landlords and tenants in the legislative framework beyond the bill—Richard Leonard made that point yesterday in the stage 1 debate, as did other members. Where possible, we must seek to balance the situation for what might be fearful tenants who think that, because their landlord has applied for an increase, it will automatically be approved. I would like landlords to have to explain to their tenants that they are applying for an increase and want that to be included in the statement, because the tribunal might not be satisfied that the hardship test has been met.

I do not want to comment much on the amendments from Willie Rennie and Miles Briggs in the group. However, I have one point to make to Willie Rennie.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Pauline McNeill for taking an intervention. As I noted yesterday, my entry in the register of members’ interests shows that I own private rental housing.

The problem with First-tier Tribunal arbitration is that the current wait time is eight to nine months. The financial memorandum for the bill says that there are sufficient funds for it, but obviously there are not. Will Pauline McNeill reflect on whether, to comply with her wish, the First-tier Tribunal would have to have more money so that it could sit more regularly and give satisfactory answers quickly to tenants?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

It is difficult to disagree with Edward Mountain on that. In anything that I have ever said in the Parliament on the issue, I have always tried to strike the right balance between landlords and tenants, and it does not help anyone to have an inefficient tribunal system. I have no difficulty in agreeing with his comment.

I do not want tenants thinking that, because a landlord has applied for an increase, it will be approved—notwithstanding Edward Mountain’s point that the process can take some time. I totally accept that that is not fair to the landlord, but it is also unfair to the tenant. Through my amendments, I seek fairness for tenants.

I have one point to make to Willie Rennie about universal credit. It is quite important to understand that, in the housing support sector, for people who are on low pay and who do not get universal credit or other support from the Government, it is incredibly hard to access hardship funds. I have argued that many times. I ask members not to discount poor families and children—particularly those in the private rented sector, which is where poverty mainly lies—and to do more to ensure that those families have the support that they need to maintain their tenancies. I have spoken for long enough and will allow Willie Rennie to intervene.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have no great disagreement with Pauline McNeill, especially on her point about the poverty of people who have tenancies in the private rented sector. My point about support mechanisms is simply that hardship grants are available through housing associations. Those grants are perhaps not worth as much as we would like them to be, but they are available and will help those who are struggling to pay their rent, on top of those who receive universal credit.

That is my central point, and I think that that outweighs the disadvantages of including the social rented sector in the scope of the bill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The member makes his point very well, but I hope that my point is not overlooked. If the provision of support is based on entitlement to hardship funds, by and large many people will not meet the test. Such provision is not universal. When we are in the middle of an acute cost of living crisis, the fact that those who do not receive Government support need better ways to support their tenancies is an issue that we must address further down the line. I make that wider point.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to speak to my amendment 31, because I feel that an opportunity has been missed to extend the proposed protections to a group that the bill has overlooked.

Care home residents are, in effect, tenants in the same manner as students are, yet while the bill offers students protection, care home residents are sidelined. Some care home charges fall under common-law tenancies in a similar manner to student residential tenancies and include, for example, accommodation, utilities, food and insurance. My amendment mirrors the wording of the provisions that relate to student residential tenancies and seeks to apply them to eligible care home charges.

Great effort has been put into ensuring that students are included in the bill’s provisions, despite the fact that more complex arrangements might be in place. The same concern has not been shown to care home residents. The Parliament’s bills team has advised that independently funded supported person contracts could be considered to be equivalent to those for student accommodation and could therefore fall within the scope of the bill.

When Mercedes Villalba lodged amendments to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill to freeze rents, the Deputy First Minister responded by saying what was wrong with those amendments and where the weaknesses lay. I intervened to ask him what the Government was going to do about the excessive rent rises that Mercedes Villalba had highlighted. I have lodged amendment 31 in order to raise the same issues. People who have to pay their own care home fees are having excessive costs piled on them.

I highlight the plight of self-funders in care homes and their families, who say to me that they are being fleeced, and no one seems to care. I have heard from care home residents who face monthly increases in the charges that they pay. Although safeguards are in place for many tenancies to stop rent increases taking place more than once a year, the same protection is not afforded to care home residents who are self-funders. People tell me that they are struggling to keep up with the continual rises in fees and that all their money is disappearing as they seek to meet those rises. Often, those people have worked hard and saved up throughout their lives. Now, that money is disappearing, as a result of ever-increasing care home fees.

It is worth restating that such people do not have major wealth; they have worked hard all their lives, saved a bit and bought their homes. They now need support and care, and they are told that they must pay for it. As costs go up but local authority fees remain stagnant, those people are the only source of additional income for private care home operators.

I say again that residents and their families feel as if they are being fleeced, and they want the same protections as all other renters have. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say, because the situation cannot continue. Those people cannot be ignored, and neither can the fact that charges are continually being put up. It seems to those people that there is nothing that they can do and nobody cares.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I speak in support of Willie Rennie’s amendment 5 and Miles Briggs’s amendment 23.

I do not think that anyone can argue that housing associations and charities have not worked extremely hard to meet the needs of their tenants. They have struggled in previous years with rent caps.

One of the big issues with the cost of living crisis is that houses are incorrectly insulated, which is why we need to invest in the insulation of houses. A survey that I carried out in Wick alone suggested that, of the 850 properties that the council owns, 530 are below energy performance certificate rating C. It would cost in excess of £21 million to get those properties up to the correct level.

We need to encourage landlords to invest in their properties, and I, along with many other Highland MSPs this morning, received a disturbing email from a housing association that is going to have to review its future investment in properties as a result of the bill. It has—rightly—agreed a rent freeze, and it was looking to have a rent increase in line with inflation next year. That seems to be sensible—it was helping its tenants this year in order to invest next year. Now, it is in the position where it has helped the tenants this year but it cannot help them next year by investing in the fabric of its buildings, because it will not be allowed to address the issue of rent.

We need to remove housing associations and charities from the bill so that they can address that issue and carry on with such investment. If we do not give them certainty into the future, the supplier industry is such that any work that might be allowed if the rent freeze did not continue would not be able to be programmed, because the materials would not have been requisitioned early enough.

That is why I support amendments 5 and 23, and I believe that the Parliament should too, because to do so will not only help tenants but address the problem of insulating properties, which Scotland should be trying to achieve.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to those last points on energy efficiency. The Government has given not just a clear indication but a clear commitment on investment in energy efficiency across our built environment and in social housing, in particular. Edward Mountain is quite right to draw attention to the critically important nature of that investment in reducing our emissions and tenants’ energy costs.

I would refer Edward Mountain to the recent comments of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, which, in giving advice to the UK Government, said that it should follow the Scottish Government’s lead on the support that we are giving in the area.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

If it is brief.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It will be very brief. I understand that the Scottish Government wishes to invest in housing, but insulating old housing costs a lot of money. I have been a surveyor and I have had properties that have had to be insulated, and it is my estimate that it costs £40,000 to £50,000 to get a property up even one level of the EPC ratings. That is nowhere near what the Government is promising for its social housing.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will turn to the amendments. In response to one of the last points that was made, I remind the members who are moving amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23 that, fundamentally, the commitment to a zero per cent rent cap for the first six months has reduced the income of no social landlord in Scotland and no decision has been made about the future. We are working constructively with the sector in order to inform those decisions. Amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23 would have the effect of removing registered social landlords, their wholly owned subsidiaries and local authorities from the rent cap.

As we discussed yesterday, we propose the application of the rent cap until 31 March in the first instance and having it separately variable between the private and social rented sectors in order to take account of the sectors’ distinct nature. That date was set with the social rented sector in mind, as we are aware that rents in that sector are not generally set until 1 April and will not increase before then. We set that date specifically to ensure that those emergency measures do not immediately impact on the finances of the social rented sector without full consideration of its perspective.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister is right about that point. Does he not accept, however, the broader point about the huge uncertainty that exists? I know that he has had good discussions with the sector and that a good partnership is in place, so the sector will probably be given a bit of foresight about what is happening. However, it will not be given a guarantee that the cap will not extend beyond March, and the uncertainty around that will have a long-term effect on the planning of the building of new homes, maintenance and the rest of the package. Does the minister not accept that point about uncertainty?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will come to some of the arguments around Mr Rennie’s amendments and some of the reasons why I do not think that his approach would give certainty in the way that he suggests.

We are firmly committed to working with the sector as well as supporting it to undertake meaningful consultations with tenants while that work continues. To drive that progress forward, we have established a short-life task and finish working group that brings together Government officials with leaders from across the sector to identify and consider the available options.

Every discussion in which I have taken part with the sector—I think that this is true of the cabinet secretary’s discussions with it as well—gives me great confidence that we can find a way to meet the needs of tenants in the sector, who would have the same expectation of security for themselves as other tenants, and the needs of the sector as well as the wider purposes of social housing. I am therefore not able to support amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23, and I ask the members not to press them.

Amendments 6, 16 and 24, in Pauline McNeill’s name, raise a substantive issue. The aim of the bill is to protect tenants, helping them to stay in their homes during the cost crisis by stabilising their housing costs. The average tenancy in Scotland lasts around 18 months, so the emergency measures will provide protection to the majority of tenants. The application of the rent freeze on that basis responds to the need to ensure proportionate measures.

Pauline McNeill has mentioned the risk of illegal evictions. The additional penalties that the bill will provide create a strong disincentive for landlords to pursue unlawful evictions. The member is quite right to raise the issue about raising awareness in the sector among tenants and landlords, and we will debate that point when we get to other parts of the bill.

Prospective tenants who enter into a new tenancy will do so on the basis of an agreed rent, and they will immediately have protection from any rent increase, as the provisions in the bill will apply while their tenancy is in effect.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister has perhaps clarified the matter with his last point, but I want to make sure. If a tenant’s lease is due to end within the six-month period of the bill, the landlord could just not renew the lease. Is the minister saying that the bill would protect tenants—that the rent would be frozen? If he is saying that, I am content; if he is not, my point that there should be a rent freeze between tenancies

is valid.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The majority of tenants have security of tenure. We might need to continue to discuss aspects of those provisions with Pauline McNeill over the course of the day. The enforcement of a rent freeze or rent controls—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, convener.

Is the minister saying that, under the latest legislation—which he will know—tenancies will end? That is not true. If that is what he has just said, that is wrong. I would like the minister to clarify that point.

The Convener

I do not believe that that is a point of order; it is a debating point.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I

do not believe that it is a point of order, and I do not believe that that is what I said.

To return to the points raised by Pauline McNeill, end-tenancy rent increases generally do not take place in the social rented sector, and most rents have been set annually from 1 April.

There are very important longer-term arguments here about the operation of the rented sector, which we will continue to address in our longer-term work on permanent changes to legislation, but I am afraid that, in the context of this emergency bill, I am not able to support the amendment to extend the bill to inter-tenancy rent increases. I therefore ask the member not to move her amendments. If they are moved, I ask Parliament not to support them.

Turning to Pauline McNeill’s amendments 9 and 10, I again ask the member not to move the amendments. We all want to make sure that tenants are well informed, but the amendments are flawed in their references and would require to be mirrored in the provisions relating to tenancies in the Housing Act 1988. However, in considering those issues, we would be content to bring back an amendment at stage 3, tomorrow, with the correct references that addresses the points that Pauline McNeill seeks to address in amendments 9 and 10.

Willie Rennie says that amendment 25 seeks to achieve clarity, but I do not believe that it would do that. It would require a lengthy notice period to be provided by the Scottish ministers when laying regulations to modify the rent cap for social tenancies. As I said, the Scottish ministers will work closely with social landlords and tenants in social tenancies to discuss any changes to the rent cap, but amendment 25 would remove the ability of ministers to react to changing circumstances, in order to protect the interests of landlords when the cap must be increased.

Equally, any future decrease in the rent cap, if it had already been increased, could not be actioned quickly due to the amendment. There are existing procedural safeguards in the bill, as the rent cap can be increased only by regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure.

To ensure that Scottish ministers can react quickly to changing circumstances, I cannot support the amendment, and I invite Willie Rennie not to press it. If it is pressed, I urge members to reject it.

I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendment 26. We also cannot agree with that amendment in its current form, but it raises an important issue that we agree needs to be addressed. Therefore, we will lodge a stage 3 amendment to allow rent increase notices to be issued for the social sector if the cap is lifted one month before 1 April 2023, to allow social landlords to issue rent increase notices in time for them to take effect on 1 April. That is an important issue, and, as I say, we intend to address it tomorrow at stage 3. I hope that Miles Briggs will accept that position.

I am afraid that I also cannot accept amendment 31. There is an understandable desire, as we debate emergency legislation in relation to the cost of living, to widen the debate out beyond rented housing, but I am afraid that we are not able to do that. Amendment 31 clearly widens out the debate beyond the issue of rented housing.

There are key differences between living in rented housing and living in a care home that mean that it is not appropriate to address care homes in this bill, which relates to the protection of tenants. In a care home, the purpose of the accommodation is the provision of a service, so the charges are an amalgamation of charges for services and accommodation. Charges cover food, heating, care, support and workforce costs, among other elements.

Care homes do not offer tenancies; instead, residents have a residency agreement that sets out, among other things, the services that will be provided, the payment of fees and charges, and notice and termination periods for the residency agreement. The Government recognises that care home fees can be high for independently funded supported people, which is why free personal and nursing care rates have been increased by more than the inflationary measure for the past two years.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Is the minister aware that one reason why care home costs are so high is that they have ancillary costs attached, including rent, and that it is easy to subtract that from their usual bills?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am afraid that I do not think that the amendment offers a way to disambiguate those costs. We will continue to work with the UK Government to address the increasing energy costs that the sector faces, to mitigate any impact from that on increasing fees. Having said that, I am afraid that I must—

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The important point of lodging the amendment was to raise the plight of self-funders. One person who wrote to me said that their costs went up from £2,669 to £2,786, and then to £3,221, all within a six-month period. Is the Government aware of the massive pressures that are being put on self-funders and of the fact that they are the only people who seem to be being asked to pay the price? The Government and local authorities have not put up care home costs for people who receive state funding; they have put up costs only for self-funders.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Government is aware of the impact on people in care homes and of the issues that the member raises, but I am afraid that they go significantly beyond the issue of rented housing, which is what the bill seeks to address. I suggest that the member engage in dialogue with the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care to address those issues further. I entirely respect the intention with which he has raised them, but I am afraid that the amendment goes beyond the purpose of the bill. Therefore, I urge the member not to move amendment 31. If he does, I am afraid that I must ask the chamber not to support it.

The Convener

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 4.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

It is my intention to press amendment 4 and to ask members to support Willie Rennie’s amendment 5. This is our one opportunity to remove the social rented sector from the bill, and members across the Parliament need to take it, because the damage that including that sector and its not seeing the future investment that is vitally needed for all our communities is unacceptable. I hope that it will be removed.

I will also move amendment 23. However, given what the minister said about amendment 26 I am happy not to move that amendment and to have discussions before stage 3, tomorrow.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, convener. I could not connect to the voting app. I would have voted yes.

The Convener

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, convener. My app froze. I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4

disagreed

to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Willie Rennie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Convener

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

On a point of order, convener. I could not connect to the digital platform. I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

On a point of order, convener. I could not cast my vote. I would have voted no.

The Convener

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On a point of order, convener. My app was not connected to the system either. I would have voted yes.

The Convener

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5

disagreed

to.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Amendment 7, in the name of Mark Griffin, has already been debated with amendment 1. I call Mark Griffin to move or not move amendment 7.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I apologise to you, convener, and to other members in the chamber. I should have drawn members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as the owner of a rental property in North Lanarkshire. I apologise for not doing that at the start of the debate.

Amendment

7 not moved.

The Convener

Thank you, Mr Griffin.

The next group is on landlord protection. Amendment 8, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendments 11 to 13, 18 to 20, 28 to 30, and 72.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I will speak to amendments 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20. The amendments would allow the landlord to apply to a rent officer for a rent increase that would cover 100 per cent of any increased property cost. That would ensure that the tenancy remained financially viable for the landlord and that the increased costs associated with a property could be paid to ensure the on-going quality of a property. It would also have the positive effect of the tenant not having to leave a property.

As the bill stands, the Government has put in the figure of 50 per cent, but in my view, with the situation that we will have over the next few months, that will still cause problems.

That view was highlighted to me yesterday evening as I went home on the bus. I was a bit surprised that one of my constituents had engaged, listened to the debate and decided to discuss it with me on my way home. They have a property in Edinburgh that they had bought for a relation, with a mortgage. That relation has now died, so a tenant has gone into the property and is living there. However, the owner is not particularly well off and the rent covers their mortgage and other costs. Without that rent, they could not pay the mortgage and would have to take the property back and sell it. They expect that, over the next couple of months, their mortgage will go up. [

Interruption

.]

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I wonder whether, as a number of members are already commenting, Jeremy Balfour would reflect on and acknowledge the cause of the increases to which he refers and where political responsibility for those reckless choices lies.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I find that to be an interesting narrative coming from the Scottish Government. I was elected to the Parliament to represent my constituents and make decisions—

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Mortgage rises!

The Deputy Convener (Liam McArthur)

Mr Yousaf!

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary want to intervene or does he just want to shout?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to intervene to say that Jeremy Balfour’s constituents and mine are facing mortgage rises because of his party’s economic vandalism.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

No doubt the interest rate increases across western Europe are all to do with Westminster, as well. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Convener

Let us listen to Mr Balfour.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I come back to my constituent because, after all, we are here to represent our constituents—not to make cheap political points.

My constituent has informed me—[

Interruption

.] Obviously, the committee does not want to hear this. My constituent has informed me that any rise in their mortgage for whatever reason will mean that they will have to use the provision in the bill on financial hardship and evict the tenant to sell the property. Having had several other emails from constituents in Lothian as the debate has been going on, I suspect that that individual will not be the only one who does that.

If the Government wants to pursue the policy, which, as we have heard from other parties, might be challenged in court—let us be honest that the Scottish Government’s record on getting bills legally right is not good—let us at least protect landlords from having to sell property because of a financial situation that they have not created. We are not asking for profit. We are not asking that anyone benefit financially from the policy. We are simply talking about covering costs. If the Scottish Government cannot see that that is a fair and reasonable thing to do—

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Jeremy Balfour makes the point that a landlord should not face hardship because of costs that are outwith their control and that they should be allowed to sell the property to recover those costs. Why should a tenant be made homeless by a landlord selling the property because of costs and things that happen that are outwith their control?

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

With respect, I say that I do not think that Mark Griffin quite understands what we are trying to do. We are trying to stop that; we are trying to prevent the tenant from having to leave the property because the landlord simply cannot afford to pay his or her mortgage. That will happen because, if the landlord does not sell the property, the bank or building society will come and take it off them, my constituent on the bus will have a negative credit rating and the tenant will still be evicted.

It will be a lose-lose situation.

I believe that my amendment 8 is a reasonable one that will protect tenants and landlords for the next six to 18 months and will allow people to plan with the certainty that they will not lose their property. For that reason, I ask the committee to support amendment 8.

I move amendment 8.

The Deputy Convener

I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in this group.