Scottish Parliament, 13 September 2023

297 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands.

I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.

Members will be aware of the new time limits; as they will be rigorously applied, brevity in questions and responses will be welcome.

Rural Economy Measures (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

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

1. This is a test case.

To ask the Scottish Government how the measures in its programme for government 2023-24 will support the rural economy in the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale constituency. (S6O-02488)

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

All the Scotland-wide commitments in our ambitious PFG contribute to our rural economy, but there is a range of commitments within it that relates specifically to rural industries, supporting jobs and businesses in constituencies such as Christine Grahame’s. Those commitments include paying Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million of payments, beginning this month, and investing £1 million in skills development for woodland creation and in nature and peatland restoration.

Businesses and communities in the Midlothian, Tweeddale and Lauderdale area will also benefit from our PFG commitment to support the ambitions of the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region in developing and implementing its regional economic prosperity framework.

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

Yesterday’s debate highlighted the contribution of our farming sector to our economy. Given that many farmers are not as young as they used to be, what support is being given to encourage young people into the sector?

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

First of all, I am delighted to update Parliament that, as promised in this year’s programme for government, we have now started making our payments to farmers and crofters, two weeks ahead of schedule. Initial payments worth approximately £288 million are now being paid to more than 13,000 businesses all across Scotland, including in Christine Grahame’s constituency. Unlike in England, we are ensuring stability by maintaining direct payments. In the coming year, we will pay Scottish farmers and crofters £550 million to support actions to produce food.

Christine Grahame also—rightly and importantly—mentioned new entrants to the industry. Another commitment in our programme for government commits us to working with them to develop new support for new entrants.

Crofting Law Reform

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

2. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to both crofting and the fact that I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates.

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason its programme for government 2023-24 did not include a commitment to a crofting bill. (S6O-02489)

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

The programme for government 2023-24 commits the Scottish Government to developing and consulting on proposals for reform of crofting law. That is a key and necessary part of the process of developing and then introducing a bill, which we remain committed to doing in this parliamentary term.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that crofting reform of some sort has been pledged by this Government in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2022 and now in 2023. However, in that time, there has been little movement, despite calls for reform from crofting communities. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give those communities that the most recent pledge will not end up in the long grass, like the many pledges that have gone before it?

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

I disagree with the member. We committed to introducing a crofting bill this parliamentary term, and that is exactly what we have set out to do.

In order to do that and to consider the proposals that were brought forward previously, we reintroduced and re-established the crofting bill group. It has met 11 times so far, with further meetings planned so that we can develop those proposals further.

As I set out in my initial response, there is a process that we go through in developing legislation. That is why we have committed to introducing a consultation on the measures that we will be bringing forward for a bill.

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

I look forward to seeing the bill that the cabinet secretary has confirmed. Does she agree, however, that it is quite difficult for Opposition parties to cast themselves as champions for crofting while they are content, by their silence, to allow their colleagues at Westminster to leave crofters totally in the dark over the future of less favoured area support scheme funding?

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

Yes, I agree. The imposed Brexit that we have had forced on us in Scotland means that rural Scotland, in particular, has been badly let down. LFASS, or funding to support those who need it most—that is, those who farm and croft in Scotland’s most marginal areas—might not matter to the UK Government; after all, in the last common agricultural policy, it chose not to provide that funding in England. However, as more than 80 per cent of all land in Scotland is in less favoured areas, it really does matter to us, and in particular to our crofters.

Multiyear certainty has been replaced with absolutely no commitment for funding beyond 2025. That is a result of the choices that were made by the United Kingdom Government and its refusal to deliver on its own public commitment to engage meaningfully on future budgets.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that a crofting bill was promised in the previous session of Parliament. The problems with crofting were caused by the bill that became the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and we desperately need a bill to put right what was done wrong in that legislation. Will the cabinet secretary either repeal the previous legislation or bring forward a new bill immediately? The current legislation is a dead hand on crofting.

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

All of the issues that the member has highlighted, and which have been raised previously, are being considered by the crofting bill group. Again, it is our intention to provide that clarity in law, to tidy up the current legislation and to better regulate crofting.

As I said in my previous responses, the crofting bill group was formally re-established in May last year, and right now it is considering at least 50 different issues to determine which will feature in the bill that we bring forward. Of course, there will be wider engagement and consultation on that in due course, and I look forward to engaging with members on all sides of the chamber as we develop the legislation.

Proposed Land Reform Bill

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of its proposed land reform bill. (S6O-02490)

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

As set out in the programme for government, we are committed to introducing a land reform bill to further improve transparency of land ownership; to help ensure that large-scale land holdings deliver in the public interest; and to empower communities by providing more opportunities for them to own land and to have more say in how land in their area is used. The bill will also include measures to modernise agricultural holdings.

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

My constituents on the island of Great Bernera have for a number of years been fighting to buy their land from an unco-operative and entirely absent landowner, who often leaves correspondence unanswered for months on end or ignores it altogether.

Can the cabinet secretary outline whether there will be any provisions in the upcoming bill to prevent absentee landowners from delaying matters in that way?

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

I am aware of the issues that Alasdair Allan has raised in his question, and I am also aware that he has supported his constituents for a number of years and, indeed, led a members’ business debate on the issue and on the situation with the community group. I absolutely understand and appreciate the frustration that I know both he and the people on Great Bernera must feel at the situation in which they find themselves.

I know that in Scotland we have landowners who are focused on making a positive impact in their local communities and who work with those communities to do so. However, that is not universal, and I accept that there is more that the Government can do in this area. That is why our land reform bill proposals will seek to strengthen the obligations on landowners to comply with the “Scottish Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement 2022” as well as looking to introduce compulsory land management plans.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Trump International golf links in Aberdeenshire has long faced opposition from local residents who are concerned about the social and environmental impact of the development. Under the Government’s current land reform proposals, a 560-hectare holding such as Trump International would not be considered “large” and so would not be subject to a public interest test. Does the cabinet secretary agree that land of that size should be accountable to local communities and the wider public?

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

I know that Mercedes Villalba is looking to bring forward proposals in that area and that the consultation on her draft member’s bill has just closed. I look forward to considering the detail of her proposals.

We are not proposing to put a cap on land ownership, because we are not persuaded that a cap is supported by adequate evidence. In addition, such a cap is unlikely to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. It is vital that we take cognisance of such considerations.

That is why our proposals seek to empower communities by providing them with more opportunities to own land through enabling them to receive prior notification of impending sales or transfers, as well as giving them more say on how land in their area is used. Our proposals will, of course, be fully compliant with ECHR and the terms of the devolved settlement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 was withdrawn.

Farm-to-fork Food Production

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the greater use of farm-to-fork methods to encourage domestic food production. (S6O-02492)

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

The Scottish Government is, of course, hugely supportive of greater use of farm-to-fork methods to encourage domestic food production and consumption. As an example, £490,000-worth of funding is being provided through the food for life programme over the course of this financial year so that more locally sourced, healthier food is provided in schools. We are also funding a Glasgow-based pilot on expanding the principles of the food for life programme into the wider public sector.

It was

important that we were able to talk about some of those issues in yesterday’s food and drink debate, and it is fantastic to be able to discuss food and drink in Scotland and to celebrate our superb natural larder during the current food and drink fortnight.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I agree that the issue is an important one. Given that the European Commission has softened its approach to gene-editing technology over the summer, will the cabinet secretary not recognise, as the Scottish Conservatives do, that the use of gene-editing technology would provide the best security for domestic food production in Scotland?

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

I know from yesterday’s food and drink debate that the Tories seem to think that gene editing will solve all the problems in relation to food production and food security. However, the Scottish Government is not in a rush to legislate on such matters in the way that the United Kingdom Government was, simply to prove a point about being different from the European Union. We must fully consider all the relevant factors. That means having a discussion about gene editing with our farmers, scientists and, importantly, our consumers before we decide how to move forward. Of course, we will look at developments in the EU as they progress, too.

Unlike the UK Government, we would like to take the time to consider the gene-editing proposals fully and to understand what the implications of the use of such technology would be for Scotland.

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

Given that the free trade agreements threaten to harm domestic production and flood our market with imported goods of lesser quality, I find it ironic that Meghan Gallacher has asked such a question. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to active farming and food production, does the cabinet secretary agree that the best thing that the Tories could do to help to ensure the future of domestic food production is lobby their colleagues in the UK Government to provide funding clarity for the agriculture sector post-2025?

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

Absolutely, because right now we have absolutely no clarity on long-term funding and what that will look like beyond 2025. So far, the Treasury has provided only yearly allocations—no commitment has been made beyond those. Whoever is in power at Westminster, we need to know how much funding we will have to support farming and other rural priorities.

I absolutely share the frustration that our farmers and food producers have expressed about the lack of future budget clarity.

We also need to have a fair funding settlement that will not be cut arbitrarily from year to year by Westminster, so that we can create a multi-annual framework. We would, of course, get all of that if Scotland was independent and back in the EU.

Grain Harvest

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has made in response to the protracted start to the 2023 grain harvest. (S6O-02493)

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

The Scottish Government supports farmers in preparing for and responding and adapting to challenging conditions over the course of the season by ensuring that timely and effective advice and support are available to inform decision making.

That support includes Scotland’s Rural College’s crop protection report, which offers online, free-of-charge regular analysis by region of current issues for a range of crops. That includes the provision of fortnightly local reports on the progress of the grain harvest over the season, which aids farmers in making informed decisions for their crops. The Government’s support also includes the Farm Advisory Service, which facilitates largely free access to high-quality generic and bespoke advice for the agriculture sector.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will know that that information shows that it has not been an easy start to the 2023 grain harvest, not just because of the delays but because of poor quality in some crops. That is particularly true of barley in my area, which is causing concern not to farmers but to the Scottish whisky industry.

In the light of the fact that we do not have any clarity about the agriculture bill, can the cabinet secretary reassure grain farmers that they will be supported?

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

I would not agree with the member’s statement that there is no clarity on the agriculture bill. We have previously made a commitment, which I maintain, to introduce this year an agriculture bill in which we will continue to support our farmers and crofters as we have done in the past. We will continue to support our food producers with direct payments, which is another commitment that we previously made and which I stand by.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Over decades, precision crop breeding has led to modern varieties of cereal crops delivering higher yields and more resistance to a wide range of environmental stresses. However, the development of those new varieties takes time. With clear signs that the European Union will change its position on gene editing, when will the Scottish Government commit to a policy that will allow our world-leading institutions such as the James Hutton Institute to adopt GE as a crop-breeding tool, which would bring huge benefits to our farming communities? Can the cabinet secretary set out the timescale for that discussion to take place?

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

Again, we fully support innovation when it comes to our agriculture sector. As Finlay Carson is aware, we have world-leading institutes—he named one of them—doing world-leading work and science in that area.

I have outlined in a previous response where we stand on gene editing at the moment. Of course, we are carefully considering what happens elsewhere in the EU, but we also have to understand and fully consider the wider ramifications before taking any steps forward where that could affect future trade. Again, we will make sure that we engage everyone in the conversation when we do that.

Scottish Land Commission (Compulsory Sales Orders and Land Value Capture)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of the Scottish Land Commission’s work on compulsory sales orders and land value capture. (S6O-02494)

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

The programme for government, which was published last week, reiterates our commitment to consider the justification for, and practical operation of, compulsory sales orders and implement new infrastructure levy regulations by spring 2026. The levy would provide local authorities with an additional mechanism for securing developer contributions, alongside planning obligations.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I welcome the commitment in the programme for government and that progress. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the housing crisis that we have here, in Edinburgh, which is partly due to the extremely high cost of land. I would therefore encourage the cabinet secretary to continue to work with her Government colleagues, including the housing minister, on the low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme and to continue to engage the City of Edinburgh Council and parliamentarians in Edinburgh to work together to unlock and reduce the price of unused land in the capital.

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

The member raises some really important points in his question.

I would like to outline that, since 2020-21, the City of Edinburgh Council has received three awards from the low-carbon

vacant and derelict land investment programme, totalling just under £3.5 million, to support affordable housing in the public realm in Granton and Greendykes. The low-carbon vacant and derelict land investment programme tries to support ambitious local proposals to tackle persistently vacant and derelict land, place-based regeneration and our 20-minute neighbourhood aspirations as part of our just transition to net zero.

My Government colleagues and I will be happy to engage with the member and others who represent the city region, as well as the council, to see how we can take forward those issues and take action on them.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Land value capture and compulsory sales orders are obviously complex issues, and any policy in this area will have to be both detailed and flexible to recognise the vast range of circumstances in which such powers might be considered. If the Scottish Government is going to take the measures forward, can the minister assure us that compulsory sales will be a last resort and that a sale will be permitted only to buyers who have a fully developed and funded plan for land use?

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

We are obviously not yet at the stage of taking such decisions. As the member rightly touches on, this is a complex area, which is why we need to take forward the work on it and why we set it out in our programme for government. I am aware that I have an upcoming meeting with the member, at which I would be happy to discuss the issues and how we intend to take them forward.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Seventeen per cent of Scotland’s population is made up of people living in rural areas, yet, last week, the First Minister announced that he will be allocating just 10 per cent of new funding for building affordable homes to rural areas. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that is an outrageous disparity, and will she push back on his plan to underfund rural housing?

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

This Government is committed to building more houses than any previous Scottish Government or any Government anywhere else across these isles. I recognise that the member raises an important point on the availability of housing. When I travel to rural parts of Scotland, including our islands, housing is a key issue, and the need for more housing is mentioned. That is why the Minister for Housing has been working on developing a remote, rural and islands housing action plan to look at how we can tackle those issues by working with the third sector, other enterprises and business. Good work is happening across the country at the moment, but the issue is how we focus that and drive house building forward.

Interisland Connectivity (Tunnels)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what cross-government consideration there has been regarding the use of tunnels to improve connectivity between the islands. (S6O-02495)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Transport Scotland regularly engages with colleagues across the Scottish Government in the islands, planning, housing, population and infrastructure teams in the context of improving transport connectivity to and from Scotland’s many islands.

I recently visited Shetland, Orkney and Mull, during which time I had several discussions on the matter of tunnels and fixed links replacing existing ferry services. Although transport is a devolved matter, this week I had a discussion on the replacement of the Fair Isle ferry with United Kingdom Government minister Richard Holden. That discussion did not extend to fixed links to our islands.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I

n July, Shetland Islands Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister, asking to meet about tunnels and other matters. A date has been arranged for the council leader to meet Alister Jack in London. Has the First Minister responded? If not, why not?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I was very pleased to meet Shetland Islands Council in August to discuss these matters. As far as the First Minister and I are aware, in September, Shetland Islands Council committed to spending £700,000 considering the business case for four potential new fixed links in the Shetland Islands. It has direct responsibility for the matter.

On the invitation to the First Minister, I understand that it was for later in September, but I may be wrong about that. I am not responsible for his diary, but I understand that an invitation is being actively considered. I am sure that there will be a response, as the member might expect, in due course.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

With the growing space, salmon and renewable energy sectors in Shetland and the reported growing interest of the UK Government in meeting Shetland Islands Council about short subsea tunnels, will the Scottish Government commit to a date to meet Shetland Islands Council specifically to discuss tunnels?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I thank the member for hosting my meeting with the Unst and Yell tunnel action groups when I visited. I also met Shetland Islands Council and ZetTrans on the issue of fixed links, precisely for the reasons that were set out. The growing economic links were part of that agenda item back in August, and those discussions will continue.

I have indicated to the members whom I met in Shetland that Transport Scotland stands ready to assist with any of the business cases that they are currently putting together.

NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is national health service recovery, health and social care. I advise members that questions 6 and 8 have been grouped together. Supplementaries on those questions will be taken after both questions have been asked and answered. As ever, I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Neurodivergent Children (Pathways to Diagnosis)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the First Minister's commitment in the programme for government 2023-24 to publish a new delivery plan for mental health and wellbeing, what it is doing to improve pathways to diagnosis for neurodivergent children. (S6O-02496)

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

Following publication of the mental health and wellbeing strategy in June 2023, we will publish a delivery plan later this autumn that will set out the steps that we will take to improve support for children with neurodevelopmental support needs.

As set out in the strategy, we are committed to working in partnership to strengthen support and care pathways for people who require neurodevelopmental support. To do that, we will build on work to implement the neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people, including five tests of change across Scotland, working closely with partners to share learning and improve services and support.

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

I have had personal experience and received constituent feedback often highlighting gatekeeping at what should be access points to a diagnostic pathway. How is the Scottish Government ensuring unimpeded access to and support for neurodivergent individuals at key points, such as education and community health, so that they can uphold their dignity and prevent additional mental health issues?

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

It is important for me to say in response that a diagnosis is not required for children and young people to receive support. The neurodevelopmental specification makes it clear that support should be in place to meet the child or young person’s requirements at the earliest opportunity rather than being dependent on a formal diagnosis. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and it should be quickly and easily accessible.

We will continue to work with key partners from local authorities, education and health to implement the neurodevelopmental specification right across Scotland.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Lowit unit in the Royal Aberdeen children’s hospital provided day care and out-patient support to children and young people with autism spectrum disorders, but it closed almost a decade ago. Families in the north-east are crying out for dedicated post-diagnostic support such as that given by the Lowit unit. What action is Scottish Government taking with health boards and local authorities to ensure that such support is in place?

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

The member will be aware that, when we approach this issue, we aim to help children and families to access support and services that meet their needs using the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—approach. For many children and young people, such support is likely to be community-based and it should be quickly and easily accessible. There are a number of different models around the country, and, as I said, we are exploring five tests of change around the country. At the end of October—I think—we will come together to share the learning from those tests of change and to make sure that we can implement and roll them out all over the country.

Alcohol-specific Deaths

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the number of alcohol-specific deaths in 2022. (S6O-02497)

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

In Parliament on 7 September, I outlined the Government’s plan to reduce alcohol harms and deaths in response to the alcohol-specific deaths in 2022 and committed to a debate on the plan in more detail. It includes evaluating minimum unit pricing and alcohol marketing consultation responses. We will publish the recommendations of Public Health Scotland’s review on alcohol brief interventions and we have asked PHS to investigate reductions in the number of referrals to services.

Approximately £113 million is available to support initiatives responding to local needs, underpinned by the forthcoming treatment standards and workforce action plan to improve quality and capacity.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

In April, it was revealed to me in a written answer to a question from the minister that the Scottish Government had cut alcohol and drug recovery services by £19 million in 2022-23. Now that we have seen a 14-year high in the number of alcohol-related deaths, and Scotland remains the drug death capital of Europe, does the minister accept that those cuts have had a devastating effect on people’s suffering with drug and alcohol misuse, and will she commit to restoring funding to those services in 2023-24?

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

It is important to point out that, in my response to the member’s question, I outlined that there has been no reduction in the funding that has been made available to alcohol and drug partnerships. Indeed, the funding that has been made available to them has increased year on year. Last year, £106.8 million was available to alcohol and drug partnerships, and this year £113 million was made available to them. We asked them to use their reserves appropriately and then draw on the funding. However, that funding is then moved forward and used in other ways in the alcohol and drug partnerships themselves, so there has been no overall reduction in funding.

I will bring back to the chamber a debate to discuss a cohesive plan, because I recognise that members across the chamber are looking to understand what the Government is doing to tackle alcohol-specific deaths and alcohol harm.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The Scottish Government’s world-leading minimum unit pricing policy has been shown to have a welcome impact on tackling alcohol-related harm. Can the minister provide any update on work to review the price level?

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

Work on renewing the level of the minimum unit pricing is under way, as the impact of MUP is connected to the unit price. It is important that we have a robust evidence base to support any decision on the change of the level of the MUP. As outlined in the programme for government, we will publish our final report on the operation and the effect of MUP later this month in Parliament, alongside a consultation on the MUP’s future around both its price and the continuation of the scheme.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 3 was not lodged.

NHS Fife (Meetings)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Fife and what was discussed. (S6O-02499)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Fife, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

A current NHS Fife issue concerns the new medical centre for Lochgelly. Further to his most welcome visit last week, does the cabinet secretary recognise that Lochgelly has waited an awful long time and that its new medical centre deserves to be treated as a priority?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Annabelle Ewing for her question and for her invitation to visit the health centre in Lochgelly last week. I put on record my thanks to those people in the local community and the staff in the health centre for their time and the engagement that I had with them during my visit.

In my view, the health centre needs to be replaced. However, as I outlined to Annabelle Ewing and the local community, the health centre was not in the infrastructure investment plan for 2021 to 2026; alongside that, we have to undertake a review of our capital expenditure due to a cut in our capital budget by the United Kingdom Government; and construction inflation has had an impact , too, because it has significantly pushed up the cost of existing projects.

I assure the member that we will continue to look at what can be done, because I recognise the need for the health centre in Lochgelly to be replaced.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I was alarmed that NHS Fife reported a £7.9 million revenue overspend over the summer, only two months into the fiscal year. I would be concerned if attempts to bring that overspend back under control resulted in the loss of staffing, especially when the waiting lists are enormous. What steps is the Government taking to protect services in Fife?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

One of the actions that we are taking to protect and improve services in Fife is the construction of our new national treatment centre there, which is delivering additional capacity to the kingdom of Fife and for patients in that area. That is a significant investment that will improve services.

I assure the member that we will provide boards that are projecting overspends with tailored support and that we will engage with them to try to manage the financial pressures that they face. I hope that the member recognises that the creation of the NTC in Fife is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to improving services there.

General Practitioner Practices (Maintenance Backlog)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to urgently address the reported maintenance backlog in general practitioner practices. (S6O-02500)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Over the next four years, we will invest £73 billion in health and care services and a further £1.3 billion in capital funding, doubling our investment in maintenance and equipment replacement to support their recovery, sustainability and reform. That investment is in addition to the annual primary medical services allocation, which includes £68 million for the provision and maintenance of the general practice estate. The Scottish Government will continue to work with boards to address financial pressures across the system.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The cabinet secretary will know that the current maintenance backlog in GP surgeries stands at £78.5 million, which is already over the budget that he has set out.

He knows that there is a shortage of GPs, that primary care budgets have been cut and that a recent British Medical Association survey found that only 5 per cent of doctors thought that their practice was sustainable. With services already stretched, what more can the cabinet secretary do to set aside capital funding during the next three years in order to repair GP practices?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am not entirely sure that the figure that Jackie Baillie quoted is correct. Within the data that she is using, I suspect that there is a range of additional lifetime recurring costs, which is normal for capital projects.

As I have already outlined, we are in a situation in which the Scottish Government’s capital budget has been cut by the United Kingdom Government, which has a direct impact on how much we can invest in our capital estate. Alongside that, we are also having to deal with a significant increase in capital project costs as a result of construction inflation. We will continue to do everything we can to invest in capital projects, but there are significant challenges. A capital review is being taken forward by the Deputy First Minister in order to look at what further action we will have to take in order to address the financial pressures that we are facing in our capital budgets.

Community Link Workers (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

6. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a practising national health service general practitioner.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported plans by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to reduce the number of community link workers embedded in GP practices in deprived areas of Glasgow by one third, due to Scottish Government funding cuts. (S6O-02501)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am very concerned about the risk to link workers in Glasgow from April 2024, as they provide a vital service in disadvantaged areas. My officials are engaging with the health and social care partnership on its plans for primary care in 2024-25, and are exploring all options to avoid a reduction in posts.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I have received several letters from deep-end practices in Glasgow telling me how invaluable community link workers are. I also met with one of those practices. Those cuts are a direct threat to the stability of the practices, and the loss of community link workers will have a severe impact on the most vulnerable patients in our communities.

The Scottish National Party made a manifesto commitment to increase community link workers in GP surgeries and promised to invest in practices in disadvantaged areas. Why are we seeing the opposite? Will the Scottish Government ensure that those cuts are reversed?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Unfortunately, Mr Gulhane is incorrect. This is not a result of Scottish Government budget cuts. The funding for community link workers comes from the primary care improvement fund, which still stands at £190 million. Glasgow’s health and social care partnership has gone beyond the funding that was provided to it for the delivery of community link workers, which it is no longer able to sustain. The member may be aware that this year we stepped in and provided an extra £1.3 million in order to protect posts in this financial year. We are continuing to engage with the health and social care partnership in order to make sure that it has a sustainable position and that it supports those invaluable workers who are working in some of the most challenging GP practices in the country.

Community Link Workers

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the 2021 Scottish National Party manifesto commitment to expand on the community link worker programme. (S6O-02503)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Due to difficult decisions during the emergency budget review, recruitment to additional roles to support community mental health resilience and ensure that every general practice has access to a dedicated mental health and wellbeing service has not yet commenced. However, we have already prioritised significant investment to build primary care mental health capacity through action 15 and the primary care improvement fund. More than 540 whole-time equivalent primary care mental health workers have been recruited through those funds. We remain committed to improving mental health service provision in primary care settings.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

As Dr Gulhane mentioned, the proposed reduction in community link worker posts in Glasgow will be felt most acutely by the deprived communities in the city. Last week’s programme for government committed to ensuring that services such as the community link worker programme can respond to local needs in the year ahead. However, link workers and GP practices are facing uncertainty in the here and now. It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary to simply pass the buck. Will he commit to getting around the table with the Glasgow city health and social care partnership and the GMB trade union in order to ensure that link worker provision is maintained at its current level and that it can be funded more sustainably in the longer term?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I mentioned in response to Mr Gulhane’s question, we are already engaging with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand its plans for the primary care improvement fund, and we will continue to engage with it in order to try to address the issues that it faces in relation to community link workers.

I recognise the important value of those workers, and we want to ensure that they are maintained in order to support GP practices in some of our most deprived communities.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

This week I met with general practitioners in Easterhouse in my Glasgow Provan constituency. They expressed deep concern about proposed reductions to the hugely valuable community link worker programme and highlighted reductions in GP workload and in prescriptions issued as a consequence of the work that is undertaken by the link workers. They also highlighted a carbon cost to the proposed reductions, as prescriptions are one of the health service’s biggest sources of carbon emissions.

The reductions are a false economy at a time when we should be moving towards preventative medicine. Has the Scottish Government done any assessment of the additional costs in terms of GP time, additional prescriptions and, indeed, our carbon footprint that would arise from the proposal?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have not carried out such an assessment on general practices or the wider system. However, we recognise the important value that community link workers have as part of the multidisciplinary team in primary care settings, which is why we take seriously the issues that are being highlighted by members around the potential impact on community link workers in Glasgow and why we have already started the process of engagement with the health and social care partnership in Glasgow to understand how it plans to use the investment that we are providing it with around the primary care improvement fund.

However, I also underline the point that we have already stepped in to provide financial support to the health and social care partnership to allow it to continue those posts in this financial year. It is important that the partnership has a sustainable financial pathway to supporting those posts.

Community Midwifery Services

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to invest in community midwifery services to ensure that they are consistently delivered in areas of need rather than in centralised, and often hard-to-access, locations. (S6O-02502)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We remain committed to ensuring that maternity services continue to be developed in a flexible and innovative way, recognising local population needs and geographic challenges. Over the past five years, the Scottish Government has invested more than £25 million to support implementation of the best start programme, which includes recommendations for continuity of carer and the delivery of community hubs. We also published the “Continuity of carer and local delivery of care: implementation framework”, which is designed to assist national health service board implementation. That will be based on a local assessment of the viability, scope and potential impact of hubs. Community midwives also deliver care in women’s homes, as necessary.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I have met midwives across the South Scotland region and what is clear to me is that there is now significant pressure on midwifery professionals’ ability to deliver regular high-quality community-based services to those most in need. It is the Government’s lack of a proper education and workforce strategy for midwives and its inability to support rural health boards with high numbers of vacancies that are contributing to those pressures. Will the Government accept that fact and set out in full the action that it can take that will ensure that midwives are supported to provide community-based services in areas that are most in need?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

A couple of weeks ago, I met a number of midwives from across Scotland at their conference, and it was heartening to hear the progress that the best start programme has brought about within midwifery. We also work closely with the national midwifery task force.

I know that the member has written to me on other subjects and I am happy to meet her to discuss those issues and the issue that she has raised today.

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

Continuity of carer was a key recommendation of the Scottish Government’s best start plan to reshape maternity and neonatal services with a vision of relationship-based continuity of carer, tailored to the individual’s needs and delivered as close to home as possible. Can the minister provide any update on the Scottish Government’s work to progress that recommendation?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

All boards continue to work towards implementation of continuity of carer following a pause during the Covid-19 period. We have reconvened the best start leads group and have held learning events and deep-dive sessions to support boards with the implementation of continuity of carer, the most recent being on 30 August. In addition, we have written to boards asking them to continue to prioritise the roll-out of continuity of carer, with a particular focus on socially complex women and families and on women with poorer maternity outcomes, and boards will report back to us on how they are progressing with that work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions.

Short-term Lets Licensing Scheme

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-10411, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on pausing the short-term lets licensing scheme. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The tourism sector is vitally important for Scotland. It is the largest part of our economy in terms of employment and is particularly important in remote and rural areas where other job opportunities might be limited. It is made up of thousands of small operators right across the country who, often, are self-employed.

However, this vital sector is today under an existential threat due to the botched introduction of a licensing scheme for short-term lets, the unintended consequences of which are already causing huge concern and could see the shedding of thousands of jobs. It is a direct result of the actions of the Scottish Government, and it is entirely in the Government’s gift to resolve the issue.

That is why the Scottish Conservatives have secured the debate for the chamber, asking the Scottish Government even at this late hour to pause for one year the introduction of the licensing scheme to allow for a full review and consideration of the unintended consequences. I appeal to ministers to listen to what we and other members say in the debate and to what industry bodies and the wider business sector are saying outside the chamber, and to take a commonsense approach and agree to a halt. Otherwise, the consequences for the wider Scottish economy could be devastating.

I do not know of anyone in this debate who thinks that some level of regulation for self-catering is unnecessary. There is a well-documented problem with what are known as party flats, particularly in city centre locations, which cause disruption for permanent residents. The actual numbers might be small in relation to the overall size of the industry, but it is nevertheless an issue that needs to be addressed, and we have never argued otherwise.

Moreover, councils already have powers to grant or withhold planning consent for the operation of short-term lets. In addition, we now have short-term let control areas, which councils have the power to introduce and operate.

A well-regulated short-term lets sector is a social good. It is important to not just tourists—although it is very important to the tourism economy—but many other sectors of society, including commercial travellers; people whose work regularly takes them to different parts of the country; people who need somewhere to stay on a temporary basis while between houses or while having renovation works done to their property; or even victims of domestic abuse who need to find temporary accommodation. Such people need access to short-term lets. Not everyone wants to stay in a hotel, and the privacy, affordability and convenience of a short-term let makes sense for many people.

One of the problems with the Scottish Government’s licensing scheme is that it affects not just stand-alone self-catering units, which apparently are the source of the issues that we are hearing about. It also affects individuals who let out their spare rooms, which is, as we have just seen, an issue in Edinburgh during the festival, when many performers and visitors come here and stay in people’s houses. It is no wonder that, among Edinburgh festival organisers, there is a real concern as to whether the city will be able to provide sufficient accommodation in future years to allow our successful festivals, which are such an important part of the city’s economy, to continue.

The licensing scheme also impacts traditional bed and breakfasts and guest houses. They are already well-regulated sectors of the market, which have to comply with a whole host of regulations, yet an additional set of burdens and costs is being put on them. The scheme even applies to people who are swapping houses with others in a different country. There is no evidence whatsoever that the categories of people to whom I have referred are generating complaints about antisocial behaviour, but they are all caught up in the new rules.

There is already evidence that operators are simply not applying for a licence; therefore, many are potentially intending to leave the market. Because of the costs and bureaucracy involved, those who run a small operation, such as letting out one bedroom in a bed and breakfast, are asking themselves whether it is worth their while to go to the expense of applying for a licence. The consequence will be a shrinkage in the provision of accommodation for visitors and an impact on the very tourist sector on which we, as a country, rely so heavily.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I think that the member is right about those who might be making that choice, but many operators simply do not know that the regulation applies to them. When I knocked on doors in my constituency, I found that B and B operators thought that, because they had not received any correspondence, they simply did not need to apply. They thought that the regulation did not apply to them, but it does. Is that not a very big problem?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Johnson is absolutely correct to raise that issue. As of August, 84 per cent of short-term lets had not applied for a licence. That suggests that there is a major issue with people not being aware of the requirement. I have heard anecdotally—I am sure that others in the chamber have, too—of operators, including people who operate bed and breakfasts, simply not being aware of it. They are simply not aware that the regulations are coming in and that they are required to comply with them. After 1 October, they will potentially be committing an offence if they have not applied.

There was never any need for a one-size-fits-all approach to legislation. It would have been perfectly possible for the Scottish Government to have devolved to local councils the right to draw up rules for their own areas. Those with a history of complaints about the operation of self-catering lets would then have had the opportunity to take a different approach from those in other, perhaps more rural, areas, where self-catering lets have been operating as part of the tourist sector for decades more without any problems appearing. It is a source of regret that the Scottish Government decided to introduce a national scheme instead of letting councils have the discretion whether to introduce it locally.

Those who support the legislation would argue that a proliferation of short-term lets drives up housing costs, reduces affordability and contributes to a cost of housing crisis. I point them to the analysis done by the Fraser of Allander Institute of the legislation’s business and regulatory impact assessment; it reveals that the Scottish Government has made no attempt to quantify the number of properties that might be released from secondary letting and then made available as permanent homes as a result of the licensing scheme. In the words of the Fraser of Allander Institute, section E of the BRIA is

“notable for the absence of

any

quantification of impacts.”

The headline figures quoted for the numbers involved in short-term lets include those who rent out their spare rooms, and surely it must be highly unlikely that, should they cease that activity, they will be selling up and thus providing additional accommodation for those who are currently seeking it.

Such anecdotal information as we have to date supports the view that there will be no boom in affordable properties as a consequence of the legislation. In

The Herald

just last week, Mark Tate, chief executive of the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce, stated that, of the 16 properties in his area that he was aware of that had so far withdrawn from the market as a result of the new rules, 12 had become second homes. Those properties have gone from being economically active for 35 to 40 weeks of the year, occupied by people who are coming to visit and who put money into the economy, to being occupied for no more than two to three weeks in the year. It is the worst possible outcome.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does the member agree that the Government is wilfully ignoring the very real fears of those operating in the short-term lets sector? Is he aware of the case of my constituent Linda, who went to discuss her plight with Paul McLennan, her constituency MSP and the minister responsible for the policy? When Linda told him that she stood to lose her source of income, her entire business and possibly the roof over her head as a result of his short-term lets policy, Mr McLennan’s response was that she ought to start “looking for another job”.

Does the member agree that that shows utter and complete contempt on the part of this minister and this Government towards those who live and work in our short-term let and bed-and-breakfast sectors? Given the chaos and harm that the policy will inflict, should it not be Mr McLennan, rather than Linda, who is looking for another job?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

That—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me. The minister would be intervening on the member, not on me.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I should say to the minister—I will give way to him in a second—that I met Linda last week and the story that she told me was actually even worse than the one that Mr Hoy has recounted, because not only did Mr McLennan tell her that she should look for another job but a member of staff subsequently said that she could go on benefits, should she not be able to get a job. Mr McLennan owes Linda an apology. Will he give her one now?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I met the constituent who was mentioned and agreed to try to help them. I asked for additional information, which was never received. That is noted. That is all that I want to say on that matter.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Well, there was no apology there from the minister to Linda for his member of staff

telling her that she can go on benefits because this Government is going to take away her business.

I go back to the point that I was making: there is no evidence that we will see more availability of property. Colleagues will be familiar with a pattern in many rural areas, including the Highlands and Islands, where individuals inherit a rural property, such as a croft house, to which they have a strong family and nostalgic attachment. Those houses are retained by families and are perhaps used for a few weeks a year by family members but are also rented out to visitors on a short-term basis when they are not in use. If the consequence of this legislation is that people decide that they will not let those homes out as self-catering lets, all that will happen is that they will lie empty for much of the year, with a loss of spending by visitors in those communities.

It is also a fact that, in many rural areas, the properties that are available for short-term lets are often large multi-roomed lodges, often in remote locations, which by no stretch of the imagination would be affordable accommodation for local families. Therefore, there is very little prospect of this legislation helping to address the housing crisis that exists in many parts of Scotland. The answer to that is simple: we must build more houses and ensure that they are affordable.

Today, we learned that the construction of affordable housing in Scotland is at a 10-year low under this Government—[

Interruption

.] There is no point in Mr Lochhead waving at us—he has been in government for 16 years. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members—

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr McLennan, please take your seat. I was just reminding members—[

Interruption

.] Minister, please resume your seat.

I remind members that they should be listening to the person who has the floor, not making sedentary interventions. Murdo Fraser, you have the floor, but you should be thinking of concluding.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will happily take another intervention if I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that you do not have time to take another intervention, but you have a bit of latitude as you have already taken three interventions. You are over your time, but I will allow you sufficient time to conclude your remarks.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you. I apologise to the minister as I am not permitted to take his further intervention, but we will hear from him in a moment.

No one in this debate is opposed to sensible and proportionate regulation, but what is being introduced by the Scottish Government is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even at this late hour, we call on the Scottish Government to think again.

This is the Government that claims that it wants to reset its relationship with Scottish business. It has established a new deal for business group; today is the first test of whether that approach amounts to anything more than empty words. If this Scottish Government is serious about listening to business and avoiding the damage to the vital tourist sector, it needs to agree to pause the legislation to allow for a proper review. That is what our motion says, and I am pleased to move it.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the widespread concern in the tourist sector at the introduction of the licensing scheme for short-term lets, which is effective from 1 October 2023; understands that this will apply not just to stand-alone self-catering units, but also to home sharing, B&Bs, guest houses and home swaps; is concerned that the unintended consequences of the scheme will have a seriously negative impact on Scotland’s tourism offer, and calls on the Scottish Government to pause the introduction of the scheme for 12 months to allow for modifications based on a detailed, evidence-based review of its impact.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Fraser. I advise that we have some time in hand at the moment. Therefore, where interventions are taken, I have a bit more latitude to give time back to the member making the contribution.

I call the minister Paul McLennan to move and speak to amendment S6M-10411.3. You have up to nine minutes, minister.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The point that I wanted to make in a further intervention was that Mr Fraser did not mention the 23-year high in completions that the Scottish Government has brought forward. If we are going to talk about impacts on house building, all that we need to look at are the interest rates and construction inflation that the Conservative Government has brought about. I wanted to touch on that and put it on the record.

I want to put on the record, as my colleagues have previously done in the chamber, my unwavering support for the many excellent businesses that provide short-term let accommodation in Scotland. In recent years, the industry has grown significantly, which has brought about an increased range of choice for visitors and a boost for regional economies—the ripple effect of good business supporting good business.

However, for well over five years, all parties across the chamber have urged us to take action to regulate the growth of short-term lets, noting that growth and good quality do not always go hand in hand. There has also been increasing concern among members and in wider society about the impact on communities, which I am sure we will hear about later.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the minister give way?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I will once I have made some progress.

The introduction of licensing safeguards the role that short-term lets play in our economy by providing assurance to guests on safety and quality, and it brings the sector into line with other accommodation such as hotels, levelling the playing field to protect the reputation of well-managed businesses.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I want to make some progress first. I will take an intervention in a second.

I also want to make it clear that, although there are thousands of good-quality operators, basic standards are not always being met. We are a Government that believes in fair regulation, and we do not believe that asking short-term let operators to comply with mandatory conditions and to complete a licence application is too much to ask. Quality and safety are at the heart of our scheme, whether accommodation is offered as a traditional bed and breakfast, another home-sharing arrangement or stand-alone, self-catering accommodation. That aspect of the scheme was well tested through three public consultations and the development of the legislation in this Parliament. The safety component is mandatory for all types of visitor accommodation in Scotland.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I

t is important that we have clarity in the terms of the debate. At the beginning of his speech, the minister talked about tackling the growth in short-term lets. Let us be clear that it is the planning process that controls growth. Does the minister agree that licensing cannot control the number of lets but can simply control standards?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Of course. There are short-term let control areas, which I will touch on later. That is part of the much broader debate, but we are talking about licensing, which I think is incredibly important. There are quotes from various members in the debate going back to that time about the need for us to monitor the safety standards around short-term lets. I will touch on that later in today’s debate. However, I say to Mr Johnson that standards have to meet that growth as well.

As we approach the 1 October deadline, it is important that colleagues across the chamber do the right thing to encourage and support operators to apply to the scheme. I wrote to all MSPs yesterday setting out some key information on the scheme, which I hope they will find helpful to share with their constituents.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

At this point, I ask the member to let me make some progress.

Local authorities stand ready to support applicants, having already accommodated a six-month delay to their original implementation plans. I recognise their role as statutory licensing bodies that have already processed thousands of applications. I have met the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland on a number of occasions and spoken to it about that role. One comment that came through was that applicants had stated that the process was much simpler that they had been told it would be previously.

The City of Edinburgh Council applied to us for a short-term let control area, as Mr Johnson knows. At that time—in summer 2022—Cammy Day, the Labour deputy council leader, said:

“This is the news we have been waiting for ... I am delighted that Ministers have now, finally, answered our calls.”

“Go faster,” they said.

It is interesting to see how Labour has changed its tune since then. Just last month, Cammy Day unilaterally called for a delay to the application date for another six months. He was shot down—

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It was about growth.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I ask the member to let me complete the point. He was shot down by his Labour councillor colleagues. Every single Labour colleague had a go at him in that regard.

They also came out, as late as February, with every party saying that they regretted the delay from February to October. Edinburgh councillors support licensing. Why do Edinburgh’s Labour Party parliamentarians not support it? They obviously do not talk to one other in that regard.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The minister talks about colleagues. His Scottish National Party colleague Tommy Sheppard has said:

“This isn’t about home sharing—where people let out their spare room in their own home for the festival—and there’s still some work to be done there.”

Well, I am sorry, but that is exactly what this legislation is about. That group of people is being captured. I think that the minister understood that when he was on the committee, but now that he is a minister, he has not done anything to change it. Why not? What is this work that his colleagues say needs to be done?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Briggs. You will remember, as you were part of that committee at the same time, that I had spoken to the festivals about that issue before I became a minister. I understand the issues and I will continue to speak to the festivals in that regard. However, you will also remember that you voted for the motion in the committee. You had an opportunity—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister,

you need to speak through the chair. Otherwise, you are referring to me, and I had nothing to do with it.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Mr Briggs voted for the motion that was brought to the committee at that time. He had a chance to raise issues and vote against the proposals that were discussed at that time.

Scotland’s scheme is open to applications and it has been since October last year. There are no caps, there is no cliff edge and there have been no licence refusals to date. By submitting applications, hosts are demonstrating their commitment not only to quality and safety but to being responsible members of their local communities. Visitors to our beautiful country will know that their accommodation is licensed and will completely trust their booking, which is another feather in the cap of Scotland’s quality tourism offer.

Of course, Scotland is not alone in considering the issue. The regulation of short-term lets has become the focus of policy makers worldwide. Scotland does not stand alone in this. Other countries have sought to place entire bans on allowing residents to rent out their homes or, where the use of a residential property has changed to a commercial enterprise, to require hosts to pay huge amounts of compensation. Scotland’s scheme aims to strike a balance by granting powers to councils to make decisions that are appropriate to local areas.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on Scotland’s scheme?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I will take one more intervention.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The recent court ruling involving the City of Edinburgh Council raises questions about the legality of some aspects of the legislation. Can the SNP Government guarantee that it is legally robust and will not be struck down further in the courts?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

When the scheme was first proposed, one of the key issues was about getting a balance when it came to deciding whether it would be controlled fully by the Scottish Government or whether powers would be given to local authorities. The powers were given to local authorities, based on feedback that we got from local authorities at that time—they asked for that. The ruling is a matter for the City of Edinburgh Council. It got the judgment and it has changed its scheme on that basis. That will continue to be discussed. However, the feedback from the consultation that we had previously was that the councils wanted that particular power.

The scheme strikes a balance. It grants powers to councils to make decisions that are appropriate to local areas, but with core mandatory safety conditions. That is what they asked for. Our Government firmly believes in balancing the impact of the growth of the short-term let sector, which grew threefold in the three years from 2016 to 2019, with promoting thriving communities.

The role of the scheme with regard to housing is often misreported, so let me put on the record that, although the scheme does not cap activity, there is an important interaction with our statutory planning system, which needs to be fully understood as part of the debate. The Conservative motion glosses over that point.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I said that I was going to take only three interventions, so let me continue, please.

Put simply, if someone chooses to change a residential property from being used as a home for living in to being used entirely to host visitors, that may well be a material change of use. It has always been the case that material changes of use require planning permission, and a pause to the licensing scheme will not change that long-standing requirement. As Minister for Housing, I am committed to increasing the availability of affordable housing but, if we are losing homes under the radar, the efforts that the Government makes and that taxpayers fund to build more affordable housing will always be hampered.

I want to talk about our willingness to change and what we have done in the period since the scheme was proposed in the 2018 programme for government. It has been 20 months since legislation was passed to give effect to the scheme. People know that. Local authority schemes have been open to applications since October 2022, and there was a six-month extension to the application deadline for existing hosts.

Since starting in my post in March, I have met the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, the Scottish Tourism Alliance, residents groups, community groups and SOLAR. As recently as yesterday, I met booking platforms to discuss their perspectives. They were very constructive in those discussions, and one of the key messages that came through was that they are encouraging or asking their members to sign up to the scheme. We agreed to meet again very soon. There is always a willingness to change and a willingness to discuss as the scheme goes on.

At various points in the process, we have made changes in response to feedback. We reduced liability insurance requirements, removed overprovision powers, amended conditions to facilitate home sharing and created a means of facilitating temporary exemptions to allow councils to provide for Scotland’s flagship festivals and events. Last year, we also listened and granted a six-month extension for existing hosts to apply to the scheme. I therefore find the Conservative Party’s calls for a “detailed, evidence-based review” out of touch with where things are.

Some members in the chamber may have missed the past five years of development of the legislation, so I will remind them. There were three separate public consultations; detailed independent research was carried out; and there were six impact assessments, including a business regulatory impact assessment of more than 100 pages. A stakeholder working group met throughout the development of the legislation, and an industry advisory group chaired by VisitScotland has convened regularly and continues to meet.

Of course, we are open to continuing to improve implementation, and we committed to updating that early in the next year—that was always the case. Murdo Fraser asks us to pause the introduction of the scheme, which has been open since October 2022. It is a scheme in which 7,763 applications have been received—that number is growing—and in which 4,708 licences have been issued. A really important point is that, as long as existing hosts submit a licence application by 1 October, there is nothing to fear. Let me say loud and clear to operators out there that their local authority will work with them to process their application.

On next steps—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, will you start to bring your remarks to a close, please?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I will conclude.

I strongly reject the Opposition’s claim that the scheme should be paused while we wait for a further review. Our Government has taken more than sufficient time to develop an approach to an issue that has been raised by all parties, and we have prioritised the short-term let sector’s voice during the scheme’s development. The scheme has been in place since 2022 and it represents fair regulation.

We have listened to the concerns of the sector. We are making sure that, as long as people have their application in by 1 October, they will be allowed to continue, and local authorities have 12 months to come back to that. We are actively engaging on the next steps to plan sensible updates to the scheme, and we will continue to work with the sector and partners to progress it.

I move amendment S6M-10411.3, to leave out “notes” to end and insert:

“recognises the success of Scotland’s growing tourism sector and that well-managed, short-term lets are a significant part of that economy; welcomes the reassurance and safeguards for visitors, hosts and communities that the short-term lets licensing scheme provides; acknowledges the work that local authorities have done to date in processing applications, and also those hosts who have submitted applications so far; highlights the six-month extension to the application deadline, giving nearly two years for hosts to comply with licensing conditions and a year to prepare and submit an application; notes the ongoing Scottish Government engagement with local authorities and the short-term lets sector across Scotland; calls on all MSPs to focus on supporting and encouraging any outstanding applications to be submitted to local authorities before 1 October 2023; confirms the Scottish Government's ongoing work to listen to and engage with the sector, and reaffirms the Scottish Government's commitment to an implementation review update in early 2024.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call

Mark Griffin, who joins us remotely, to speak to and move amendment S6M-10411.2.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Although I have not operated in the short-term let sector, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I ceased to be the owner of a private rental property this summer.

The licensing regime for short-term lets is, in its current form, completely unnecessary for large parts of the country. Scottish Labour voted against the regulations when they came to the Parliament in 2021 and we still think that they need to be reformed. We support a delay to the scheme. We believe that there should be a detailed review of the impact of the licensing regulations and that changes should then be made. With a housing bill finally coming in this parliamentary year, we think that that will provide the right vehicle for changes to be made.

The regulations were badly drafted—[

[Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that we have a technical hitch. I propose that we give it a minute to see whether we can get Mr Griffin back.

I call Willie Rennie. We will come back to Mr Griffin.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We will support the Conservative motion. We support a delay to the licensing scheme, because the burden is too high for many. The signs are that the scheme could lead to a major hole in our tourism offer and threaten jobs and our offer to visitors.

However, we have to admit that there is a problem with the growth of short-term lets—we should not deny that. In some areas, the problems are severe, but they are different in different parts of the country.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I ask this question in good faith. The Liberal Democrat group in the City of Edinburgh Council has supported applying the regulations to the greatest extent in the capital city. What dialogue has there been between Liberal Democrat parliamentarians and their city councillors in Edinburgh?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There has been dialogue, because we recognise that there are different issues in different parts of the country, which is the point that I was coming on to. In my part of Scotland, the east neuk of Fife, the number of short-term lets—and, importantly, the number of second homes, which is an issue that has been absent from the debate so far—is at such a level in some villages that there just is not a sufficient number of homes for locals. Those communities will not be sustainable for much longer without a substantial full-time, permanent population. Shops will not stay open, schools could shut and businesses could close—in part, because there are not enough workers, because they cannot find a home to live in.

We can consider the Balcomie housing development in Crail. Apart from the social housing section at the back of the new development, all the other properties, bar a few, are now used as short-term lets or second homes. That has happened within a few short years of the estate being built.

Ten miles away, in St Andrews, the situation is even more acute. There are large numbers of very welcome students and staff from the university, but the combination of the two makes it even harder to find a permanent home.

The problem in the east neuk is replicated in the Highlands, except that the distances are even larger, which makes the severity even sharper. In Edinburgh, where Mr Macpherson has an interest, the party flats, with all the anti-social behaviour that comes with that, add a different complexion again.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

There is a problem, but that does not mean that we should remove large numbers of perfectly good short-term lets from the market, because we need them for a thriving tourism industry. A certain number of short-term lets are essential if we want people to visit and spend their money here. The short-term lets employ cleaners, plumbers, joiners and more. The visitor attractions need the short-term lets, and those attractions employ more people, sometimes in parts of the country with few other employment opportunities.

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

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

Those workers need short-term lets for their wages, but this is the rub: if there are too many short-term lets and second homes, those workers will not have anywhere to live. It is all about balance, but you would not think that from this debate. [

Interruption

.] It is about making sure that we have both as sustainable.

Short-term lets can be a good thing, but too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. My concern is that we do not have balance. The licensing scheme is too heavy handed. It is nationwide and it has been a victim of mission creep.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

The reach has now caught yurts, house swaps, rooms in people’s homes and bed and breakfasts. Imposing controls on those properties will not tackle the problem of insufficient housing for locals, nor will it bring an end to the party flats. All those different problems will not be solved with a simplistic national measure such as a licensing scheme. The licensing scheme is one size fits all, with a requirement on every council to live with the strictest of arrangements, even though it has no local need for them. The legislative opportunity has been squandered by the Government, which is why it is so frustrating.

I will take an intervention from the minister.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I will make a few points.

The average costs for Fife are around £250 to £450 over a three-year period, so we are talking about a fiver a week.

The feedback that we have had directly from SOLAR—which is there to work with the sector and applicants, including in Fife—and other local authorities is that they have found the process much easier than they have been told.

The other key point is one that we have kind of lost, and it goes back to the original discussions in the previous Parliament. Local authorities asked for the powers to do this. It was not a national scheme. [

Interruption

.] It was a national scheme, but with local authorities having the power to do what they need to do in their own local areas. That is what the previous Parliament voted for and that is what we are enacting and doing.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not know who the minister is speaking to, because that is not the feedback that I am receiving. He said that local authorities have flexibility, but they do not have flexibility to take out the B and Bs, yurts or house swaps, or in relation to any of the other measures that we have talked about. There is no flexibility. It is a national and standardised programme that this Government has imposed on local authorities. He is wrong to say that local authorities have the power to do something different, because they simply do not.

We can contrast that—this is where I will give the Government credit—with the flexibility offered by control areas, which is sensible. If councils do not want to use the powers or wish to apply them only in a small part of their council area, they have the power to do exactly that. We support the use of the control areas to cap the number of short-term lets where numbers are already too high. I favour that action to control the numbers, because I am opposed to heavy-handed national control measures. That is necessary, and it is important to have something that is appropriate for every council area.

We need a package of measures that includes second homes. I am far from convinced that the measures that the Government has proposed in relation to council tax so far will provide sufficient deterrent for second homes. In parts of the east of Fife, the number of second homes is far greater than the number of short-term lets. We need a rounded policy.

However, to return to the central point of the motion, the licensing scheme is too heavy handed. As somebody who agrees with many of the arguments that the minister has put forward today—I agree with him on those measures—I plead with him, and I urge the Government, to pause, because I have a real fear of what he is going to do to the tourism industry. If he gets the balance wrong, we will see an economic hit that will damage our country. I think that the minister knows that that is exactly what is going to happen, so I urge him, even at this late stage, to pause, reflect and come up with something that is much more sensible and that empowers local councils to make the right decisions for their communities.

I move amendment S6M-10411.1, to insert at end:

“, and considers that this should re-examine the merits of a permissive approach, as opposed to a country-wide mandatory scheme, enabling local authorities to decide what the right policy and approach is for their areas.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Daniel Johnson.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I ask members’ slight forbearance, as I did not anticipate that I would be speaking at this point in the debate. Given the technical difficulties that Mark Griffin has experienced, however, I rise to speak to and move the amendment in his name.

In the debate so far, I think that we have already got to the nub of the issue. A great number of euphemisms have been used—the broad brush stroke rather than nuance that the legislation brings to bear, and the sledgehammer to crack a nut—but I think that it is probably best to put it like this. We had an issue with Airbnbs that we needed to tackle—what we did not need to do was tackle B and Bs, but that is precisely what the measures do.

It is important to deal with the nuance. In the debate so far, we have heard deliberate confusion between numbers and concentrations, which we absolutely need to tackle, and the standards issue, which is tackled by licensing. Let us be clear: the motion for debate talks about licensing, not planning applications. Licensing is not capable of tackling the number of properties—certainly, not explicitly. If the Government’s intention is to tackle the number through licensing, it needs to be much more explicit about that. Unfortunately, it is attempting to tackle the issue obliquely, and, as a result, it is doing so clumsily.

It is critical that we recognise that the licensing approach is tackling properties in every part of the country when we have specific issues in specific parts of Scotland. Quite simply, I believe that the Scottish Government is washing its hands of the consequences and the impact of that approach. We did not need to bear down on B and Bs, which are already a highly regulated part of the sector, with properties having to comply with a great number of regulations. We had no need to tackle house swaps or people letting individual rooms in their houses.

If Paul McLennan was to ask City of Edinburgh Council about the issues, it would say that it absolutely requires the ability to tackle the number of properties but it has issues with the exact points that I have just raised. It has no ability—

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I will take Ben Macpherson’s intervention in just a moment.

The City of Edinburgh Council has no ability to flex around those key points. It recognises the need to have room letting and house swaps, and it absolutely needs the ability to achieve a balance through the legislation. However, the legislation is essentially a broad brush stroke that does not allow the council to achieve the balance that is so badly needed in this city, which depends on the tourism industry.

I am happy to give way to Ben Macpherson.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank Daniel Johnson for taking an intervention, and I am glad that he agrees that, because of certain circumstances, it was right to include home letting and home sharing in the regulations. Does he agree, however, that continued constructive engagement between the Scottish Government and City of Edinburgh Council, which has made certain choices in applying the regulations, is required in order to ensure that the six-week exemption that is available works, and works practically?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Indeed—I agree with that. There are also other areas that the council could look at, such as the way in which the pricing structure works and the application process. I have encouraged Cammy Day and others on the council to meet representatives from the sector to go through those sorts of issues, and that is absolutely what we need to do.

Overall, however, there is a real issue with the way in which the Government has approached the legislation. It cannot treat small businesses as though they are large multinational corporations, because there is a very real human impact and consequence as a result of the legislation. I held a meeting with many members of the sector in the past few weeks, and it was harrowing—there were tears shed by people who have invested their life savings and whose pensions are the businesses that they run. That is the reality.

As someone who comes from a small-business background, I am aware that, all too often, not just in this debate, we treat all businesses the same, but small businesses are people. Regardless of whether we think there should be more or fewer such properties, we need to recognise that there are individuals standing behind many of these businesses and that the legislation has very real consequences.

Regulation was going to be a difficult decision and was going to have difficult consequences for many people, because we were saying that we needed less of a particular kind of business. Ultimately, however, the Government has created a cliff edge. It has not done the work that it needed to do. I do not think that it has provided the guidance that local authorities needed. If it had done, we would not be seeing the problems and complexities in the application process that we are seeing, the confusion about whether floor plans are needed or the vast variation in the fees that are being applied. If the Government had provided clear guidance, there would not be such a high level of variation and confusion.

Likewise, if the Government had done its job properly and communicated effectively, there would not be B and B owners who are unaware that they must apply for a licence in order to continue running their business. I am very concerned that there are businesses in this city who, after 1 October, will be operating illegally simply because they do not know about that requirement. The Government must think long and hard about that.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am in my final minute.

Ultimately, the Government has said that it wants to reset its relationship with business. That goes far beyond simply having more coffees or cocktails and canapés with big business; it involves having a different relationship with, and engagement with, small business. It must understand that small businesses are people. Frankly, the Government’s behaviour in relation to the policy area that we are discussing shows that it has simply not learned that lesson. For many small businesses up and down this country, that reset has yet to begin.

I move amendment S6M-10411.2, to insert at end:

“, and consideration of changes, which, as a minimum, must include the removal from the licensing scheme of any accommodation that owners use as their primary residence, B&B accommodation, house swaps, purpose-built accommodation and room lets, and agrees that the forthcoming Housing Bill should be used to deliver a system of regulation that works for both local communities and the sector, and a registration scheme.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open part of the debate.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In thinking about the role of short-term lets in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, it is clear to me that today’s debate could easily have been a celebration of the contribution that the industry makes to our rural economy. However, for a rural area such as the Borders, the Scottish Government’s short-term lets licensing scheme is a square peg for a round hole. It is misguided, its legality is questionable, it is anti-business and it is a Government wheeze to fix and solve issues that it has created over 16 years of mismanagement.

My colleagues will undoubtedly have more to say on the devastating impact of the Government’s plans in our cities and other parts of Scotland, but I am clear from the conversations that I have had with my constituents that the plans simply cannot be allowed to progress.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Rachael Hamilton made the comment that our proposed scheme is “anti-business”, so I would like to probe that with her. As a business minister, I go round the country, and one of the messages that I consistently get from businesses is that they cannot find accommodation for key workers. That is the case especially in our cities, but it is also the case in specific rural areas.

Therefore, will not it help business if we address the housing situation in our cities and rural Scotland so that our businesses can be more productive and get the staff that they need?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thought that Richard Lochhead understood business; in fact, I was quite respectful of his knowledge of the experience of businesses. However, he has just shown that he has absolutely no idea of the consequences of what the Government is proposing.

Short-term lets form an increasingly important part of the tourism sector and directly support almost 10,000 jobs across the country, hundreds of which can be found in the Borders, but the impact of self-catering businesses goes much further than that. They provide a base for people to stay in and explore our towns, our villages and our remote rural areas, which brings benefits to local businesses—to butchers, bakers, artists and coffee shops on our challenged high streets. The short-term lets industry puts tourists right on the doorstep of the Borders’—and Scotland’s—biggest attractions. Whether they go walking in the Eildons, fishing on the Tweed or exploring the beautiful abbeys, the economic contribution of people visiting Scotland and staying in short-term lets is set to surpass £1 billion per year within the next decade. That is £1 billion of opportunity for local businesses and the people whose jobs they support.

When I visit businesses in the Borders that operate short-term lets, I am always struck by how conscious they are of the need to support their local economy. On a recent visit to Bairnkine farm cottages near Jedburgh, which is an agritourism enterprise—I welcome Caroline Millar to the public gallery—that has allowed local farmers to put their businesses on a more sustainable footing, I could see at first hand how businesses were able to work together to create local jobs for local people and boost their local economy. They were so proud of that.

Behind all those fantastic businesses are fantastic people, and in most cases—70 per cent of cases—those people are women. I want to take the opportunity to talk about their role. I was recently contacted by Ms Macdonald, a constituent who operates a short-term let business in the Borders. She described the Government’s licensing policy proposals as a “badly drafted postcode lottery” and went on to say that regulations vary wildly from council to council, often with very little logic as to why one council has one rule in place, while another does not.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will Rachael Hamilton take an intervention on that point?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes—if Ben Macpherson can tell me what is happening in councils.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

On many occasions, Conservative MSPs have argued that local authorities should have more discretion on certain matters. Is Rachael Hamilton arguing in this instance that the Government should prescribe to a greater extent what local authorities can and cannot do?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Ben Macpherson’s point is flawed, because local authorities have the option to use legislation on short-term let control areas if they want to. However, in this situation, every local authority is adopting a different approach, which is totally confusing. It adds to bureaucracy, red tape and expense.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

No—because I need to make progress.

I will give members an example. A local constituent is investing in three short-term let properties, because he lives in a rural area, and he has planning permission. One of the conditions of the planning permission is that he cannot bring in any income until he gets his licence, and that will take nine months. What does that look like for local employment? What does that look like for his bank-loan interest? The Government needs to reflect very carefully about what it is doing to the local economy.

Ms Macdonald went on to say that she has heard many home sharers and B and B operators in the Borders say that they no longer wish to continue to operate after 1 October. Her mother-in-law is one of them—another woman who is falling foul of the Government’s inability to support women in business.

Another Borderer has been in touch with me. Avril runs a fantastic countryside retreat near Melrose. She has expressed identical concerns about needless red tape and the cost of the plans that are affecting operators in the Borders, and is warning that the policy will lead to substantial job losses and the decline of businesses that rely on tourism. She is clear that the Government must pause the legislation.

We know that the Government does not know how to listen to businesses. We know that it cannot engage with coastal communities. We had the potential equivalent of the Highland clearances with the highly protected marine areas policy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Hamilton, will you please bring your remarks to a close? Thank you.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

All I will say is that, to make policy work, one has to listen to people. To create legislation, one has to engage with industry. Let us pause, reset and review.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

First and foremost, I recognise how important the tourism industry is to Scotland. Equally, I recognise that Scotland is called home by people and communities, and that many people have been adversely impacted by the enormous growth in short-term letting over the past decade. That is the case not just in the cities and it is not just about “party flats”, as Mr Fraser described them. I remember Christine Grahame talking on one occasion about a difficulty with a let in her area. I do not know whether that was in the Midlothian south part of her constituency or the Borders part, but I am sure that we will hear that.

This is not just a city difficulty. The difficulties are different in different areas, which is why we have taken the action that we have taken.

It is deeply disappointing that extreme language and misinformation around short-term lets licensing has been encouraged by public figures—Tory and Labour—and that a great amount of flip-flopping has gone on over the issue in recent times.

As a former housing minister, I have engaged with stakeholder bodies, community groups and many MSPs on the issue. My successors have done likewise, and the Government has spent a large amount of time listening to the various viewpoints and has done everything to strike the right balance. I am interested in hearing the speeches of some colleagues today to see how their views have changed over the piece. I think that many who were vociferous for change have now changed their minds for political expediency.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Kevin Stewart is absolutely right to talk about the need for accurate information. Given the need to be sure of the impact of the scheme on the ground, does he know how many people and businesses will be required to apply for a licence in his Aberdeen Central constituency?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I do not have those figures to hand, but all the work on that was done at the beginning, as part of the business and regulatory impact assessment, which is always the case when legislation is being developed.

I should also say that people other than politicians have changed their minds. As I am a former relevant minister, some people in the sector have told me that they were not in favour of a licensing scheme, but instead wanted a registration scheme. Some of those same folk now say that they want a licensing scheme, but not this scheme. I have heard folk say that they want something that is similar to the proposed Welsh scheme, but I have news for those folk—the Welsh scheme is based largely on the Scottish model and has been developed in the 22 months since the Scottish Parliament passed its licensing regulations.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Stewart, if your analysis is correct, why is there such a huge outcry from the hospitality and tourism sector telling you that the approach is wrong?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members need to speak through the chair.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Right across the period in which the process has taken place, many folk have wanted no regulation whatsoever. I go back to my previous comment: many folk wanted a registration scheme, but that would not have resolved some of the difficulties that we face.

I am concentrating on licensing today, so I will not cover the planning aspects to any great degree, but we made the right decision in bringing licensing and planning together in order to allow local authorities to make their own choices.

The Government allowed a six-month extension at the request of operators, but it now seems that members and some industry stakeholders want even more time. That would be another case of kicking the ball into the long grass. People and communities across the country who have been impacted by badly run short-term lets continue to feel ignored and not listened to. There is scant or no mention of them in the Conservative motion or the Labour and Lib Dem amendments that are before us. I am sure that some of the same Opposition members who urged the Scottish Government to take urgent action way back to alleviate the difficulties that their constituents and communities face will stand up and support further dither and delay, and will ignore the folks whom they cited previously as being in deep distress.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will take Daniel Johnson.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

As someone who argued for controls, does Kevin Stewart accept that many of us have difficulty supporting something that takes in home swaps and individual room letting? That scope is the problem for many people. Does he accept that that is a valid reason to oppose the scheme?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will come to that point.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stewart, you need to do so quite quickly, because you are running out of time.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will do so as quickly as possible. We recognise that different solutions are required in different areas of the country, which is why we have given flexibility to local government.

Let me turn to safety, because that is the part of the licensing scheme that applies to all. It puts Scotland’s tourism sector on a level and high-quality playing field. Guests in Scottish tourist destinations will have the confidence and assurance that their accommodation is safe and meets a high standard, whether they are staying in a hotel, a traditional bed and breakfast or a short-term let. The fit-and-proper-person test is designed to protect neighbours, guests and other people from harm and crime, and to assist law enforcement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stewart, you need to conclude.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Finally, ensuring that a property meets the mandatory conditions, such as the repairing standard and fire safety requirements, is only right.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stewart, please conclude.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Who could argue against that?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the short-term lets debate and bring significant concerns to the chamber from across the tourism industry and the rural economy.

If only this were an isolated instance of an SNP-Green policy having a devastating impact on our tourism industry and rural economy. Rural and tourism policies are too often developed by urban members of the Scottish Parliament who have neither understanding nor interest in the practical application and outcomes of their policies. From watching Patrick Harvie’s performance in the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee yesterday, it is obvious that he has a fundamental dislike of private landlords and he cares not a jot about the fallout for the industry, people and businesses across Scotland, as long as he gets to punish the private rental sector.

The STL legislation comes on top of the Scottish Government’s temporary rent control policy and cap on rent rises. I use the word “temporary” advisedly, because the policy was brought in during Covid restrictions but, once it was in place, Patrick Harvie has allowed the Greens and the SNP to keep it in place. The problem is that, as we know, the Greens and, increasingly, the SNP do not engage with reality, let alone with businesses, which results in legislation that has caused huge rent rises, a chronic shortage of rental properties especially for university students, a rise in homelessness and the number of children in temporary accommodation, and a delay in the building of affordable homes for rent, which is exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do.

Whether it is the seaside bed and breakfast owner in North Berwick or a farmer renting out holiday cottages in Ayrshire, people will now have to consider whether the added complication and costs that are associated with the scheme are worth the effort.

The ability to grant temporary exemptions for major events is, at least, a recognition that those events should be supported, but from the discussions that I have had with those behind major sporting events, the current approach is bringing little comfort. Let us take the open championship as a prime example. That major golf tournament regularly brings tens of millions of pounds to the local economy. Next year, it is due to be in Troon and it will bring tens of thousands of visitors to the area. Short-term lets are crucial to there being enough affordable accommodation in the area.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will take Mr Macpherson’s intervention when I finish my point.

Although South Ayrshire Council has stated that it will grant temporary licences for the period of the event, the added cost and regulatory burden that will be placed on home owners for something that they might do only once every decade might well make it not worth the effort. That means that fewer properties will be available for those who want to stay in the area, and higher prices for remaining accommodation. For events such as the open championship, the scheme risks making Scotland, which is the home of golf, a less attractive prospect to host its greatest championship, and it threatens the continued existence of events such as the Edinburgh international festival and the fringe, which are so uniquely tied into the city.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I agree with the member that making the temporary exemptions practical and workable is an important consideration. Does he agree with me that we should all be concerned about the very high charges that some property owners take to market during such events, whether it be the United Nations climate change conference of the parties or major sporting events? Is it not a challenge for us all to think about?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The other option is not to have any accommodation at all. That is the problem with what this legislation will do. Fewer properties will be made available so the actual cost of the accommodation will go up.

There is simply no way that the Scottish Government can stand there and say that this scheme is the best one and the right one and that it is ready to go. As

Paul McLennan said in his opening statement, he wrote to members. In one paragraph, he encouraged hosts to sign up for the scheme, and in the next he told us that he was planning to make further changes. If a meal is ready, we generally do not need to change the recipe after it has been served.

The Scottish Government’s approach to policy is increasingly being driven by the so-called sunk-cost fallacy, meaning that it is unwilling to abandon a course of action in which it has invested heavily long after it has become clear that changing course would be far more beneficial.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his final 40 seconds, thank you.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government should be working with the sector to develop workable regulations, but the scheme that the Scottish Government is attempting to drive through risks driving countless numbers of small operators out of business, damaging the tourism sector, and penalising the many for the actions of the few. The Scottish Government needs to change course, pause the scheme and work with providers to create a system that properly recognises the diversity and range of short-term lets across Scotland. If it chooses not to do so, it will have no one but itself to blame for sinking Scotland’s tourism sector.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

It is excellent that we have this time to discuss this complex and important issue. I want to make clear that, as an Edinburgh MSP, I have for a long time heard about and seen first hand the impact that significant growth in the short-term let market can have on local communities. Similarly, I recognise the valuable contributions that tourism makes to my constituency, our capital city and Scotland’s economy more widely, which is why, in recent weeks and years, I have met a variety of stakeholders who represent different perspectives, from Living Rent on the one hand to short-term let operators and owners on the other.

Most of all, I have listened to my constituents.

I appreciate that highly respectable, effective managers and owners of short-term lets exist and that they produce employment in local economies. However, even before I was first elected in 2016, I was consistently hearing from many people—in Leith in particular—about how a large amount of poorly managed short-term lets in their tenements and streets were causing disruption, discomfort and the dilapidation of common property.

I heard concerns, too, about the increasing flow of properties—which first-time buyers, for example, or the private rented sector could have purchased—out of the market into the short-term let market to be repurposed as whole-property, otherwise known as secondary, short-term lets. I have heard from many people who feel that it has been unjust that private rented sector landlords and other visitor accommodation providers, such as local hotels, have until recently been held to a higher standard than short-term let properties, in particular those that are not primary residences.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Why should someone who is renting out a room in their house be affected by those regulations? They are still living in that property and helping somebody else out that way. Would the member accept that point in his argument?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I will come to the temporary exemption shortly. However, home letting and home sharing are rightly included because some successful business owners are renting out several rooms in their house, but they still live in it. It is right that those businesses are held to the same standard of regulation and safety for those rooms as other accommodation providers are.

In previous years, my and other members’ constituents with concerns felt that they were not being adequately considered by authorities and that little could be done to hold short-term let operators to account. That is why, for a long time, I pressed the Scottish Government to regulate short-term lets. I did so with Councillor Kate Campbell, Councillor Adam McVey, Tommy Sheppard MP, Deirdre Brock MP and others, such as Andy Wightman MSP, and even some of the members who will oppose the scheme today.

It has always been clear to me that the regulation of the short-term let sector is required to ensure that properties are safe and responsibly managed, which is long overdue. That regulation is becoming the norm internationally; we should be mindful that places such as Copenhagen, Paris, Barcelona and, most recently, New York—those are just a few examples—have already taken steps to regulate the short-term let sector in light of the same issues that we are discussing today. Scotland is an outlier, or had been until recently; arguably, we are playing catch up.

Almost six years on from raising concerns on behalf of my constituents, Parliament voted—quite some time ago, in January 2022—to introduce regulations that are proportionate and necessary to create the licensing scheme, which facilitates national standards and provides local flexibility for councils, too. The regulations create the licensing scheme to ensure safety, set appropriate quality standards and hold hosts accountable, in line with other providers of tourist accommodation and more in line with the private rented sector.

Together with the short-term let planning control areas where they are adopted, such as here in Edinburgh, the Scottish Government’s actions will help to ease the housing crisis, which is particularly acute in Edinburgh, as I have argued several times and will continue to do. It is right that the Scottish Government is being proactive in the policies that it has adopted to tackle the housing crisis; the short-term lets regulation is part of the balance. My constituency is a place where the housing crisis has been most acutely felt, with people not being able to find affordable homes in their local community, or close to their family, place of work or children’s school.

My constituency also happens to be home to a large share of Edinburgh’s holiday accommodation. Although I recognise that tackling the affordable housing crisis requires a multipronged approach—people are right to argue that—going forward, the local aspiration is that the licensing scheme and the control area will mean that more of our stock is lived in all year round. That is the right thing to do.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his last 30 seconds.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised by the culture sector in Edinburgh about accommodation capacity during the summer festival season and the resulting spike in demand. That is why I have engaged constructively with the Government and the council about making sure that the power to grant temporary exemptions for up to 6 weeks is able to be utilised in a reasonably simple, straightforward and inexpensive way. I look forward to continued engagement on that. Short-term lets are important in the wider considerations in our country about overtourism. Short-term lets have been part of that community concern. The Government is right to take action and to continue to consider how we get the balance right.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I draw attention to my entry in the members’ register of interests as a former employee of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

Since I returned to the Parliament, I have been engaging with the issue of short-term lets in great detail; I was on the committee that looked at the principle of the issue, and I was also involved in looking at the detail. Edinburgh has a long-standing housing crisis, which has been getting worse. It does not have enough homes; it has the lowest percentage of social housing in Scotland; and both private rented homes and homes to buy are increasingly getting much more expensive than the rest of Scotland. There is a huge lack of affordable accommodation for students, who make up 20 per cent of the city’s population. At the same time, we have a successful, growing city, in which tourism and culture are key parts of our identity and our economy.

However, the challenge is partly the lack of new housing being built in order to meet demand, as well as a massive shortage of accommodation during the summer when the festivals are on. Another key issue is that we have lost so many properties to short-term lets. In research published in 2019, it was estimated that around 13,500 homes had been lost to totally unregulated short-term lets; although there had been planning policies in the city since 2011, the planning guidance had not worked. That was why we urgently needed the new short-term let control area to be introduced—it allowed our council to have powers with regard to planning capacity.

Members can see the impact that unregulated and uncontrolled short-term lets have had, particularly in the city centre, where communities have been hollowed out and residents have suffered from the expansion of party flats. That has created pressures particularly in many of our tenements, where the residents do not know who owns those flats.

When the Scottish Government agreed to act to enable those local authorities that wanted to address local challenges to do so, I welcomed the move. I thought that a combined approach that would tackle our housing shortage and regulate for the use of planning powers in relation to short-term lets, while enabling members of the local community to rent out their flats during the summer when they were on holiday or still in their flats, was a win-win. However, as several colleagues have said, the problem was that the SNP’s proposals did not strike the right balance.

First, the party did not listen to the arguments about the difference between—

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We have been talking about having a debate—there has to be a balance here. I want to ask Sarah Boyack’s view of the statement with regard to communities supporting the new short-term let regulations, which has been issued by the Cockburn Association; the Protecting Liveable, Affordable Communities in Edinburgh—or PLACE Edinburgh—network; New Town and Broughton community council; Living Rent; and the Edinburgh Old Town Association. The member has obviously

seen that response, but what is her view of the points that those organisations have made?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

They are desperate to get action on short-term lets. The key issue is the loss of 13,500 properties, in respect of which the short-term let control area and the planning powers are critical.

On the other side is the fact that long-established—[

Interruption

.] If the minister would be courteous enough to listen to me, I will continue. Long-established bed and breakfast operators that have been in the city for decades and which have not contributed to any loss in housing are also going to be regulated and will have to be licensed. I do not see the point of that. It is not an either/or. There is an issue about the balance of the regulations, which the previous minister—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No—I brought up my views to the previous minister on many occasions, and they were not listened to.

We have a problem, in that unregulated short-term lets need to be acted on, but we also have the problem that the Government has reached out far more than people wanted it to. The fact that the SNP decided to roll out the requirement to register across the entire country was completely against the arguments that people in the key communities were making. We wanted our councils in places such as Edinburgh and the Highlands to have the powers to act, as those are the places where Airbnbs and short-term lets have had a major impact on our housing, causing shortages. Indeed, I say to the minister, who is interested in workers, that people are now having to leave Edinburgh, because there are no longer homes for them to live in. That is the impact of the misguided approach that has been taken.

We need a different approach in Edinburgh. Our housing crisis is not being addressed, and the council has been put in the position of trying to make progress on its short-term let control area across the city without the flexibility that was part of the ambition for that legislation in the first place.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thanks—I have already taken one.

That brings us back to the point that Ben Macpherson rightly made about people sharing their accommodation during the summer, when they are still there, or renting it out when they are on holiday for a couple of weeks during the festival.

Fundamentally, we need investment in new housing and effective short-term let controls. We need appropriate legislation to make sure that we are not indulging in over-legislation, which is the situation that is being experienced by traditional bed and breakfasts just now and which is leading to more expensive housing, either to rent or to buy. It is also increasing homelessness rates.

We have a major problem that needs to be addressed. All of my constituents are being let down. I have had something like 70 or 80 emails in the past few days against removing the powers to tackle short-term lets, but that is not what we are arguing for today; we are arguing about the impact on tourism, because of the way in which the regulations are being implemented. They are being nationally mandated and locally implemented, regardless of whether implementation is necessary and without the flexibility that different local authorities clearly want.

The minister said that he would make changes. I would like to hear in his closing remarks what those would be. We know that, if the minister’s plans go ahead, people who are not registered under the current regulations after 1 October might be fined £2,500. That has been made clear. However, there is a conflict between a licensing scheme that includes traditional bed and breakfasts and the pressure on councils that want to get going on their short-term let control areas in order to tackle the short-term let problem.