Chamber and committees

I will continue that line of questioning from Miles Briggs. You said at the start of your opening statement that you wanted to give local authorities powers to address concerns. It is clear that there are concerns in some local authority areas, but we have not heard the same level of concern in other areas. Was any consideration given to devolving the powers completely to local authorities, giving them the discretion to decide whether to introduce a licensing scheme to address their local circumstances?

My questions follow on from the discussion that we have just had. One is about data; the other is about how we adapt any system locally.

My first question is for Andrew Mitchell, because he talked about a study that had taken place in Edinburgh in 2018. Do we know how many short-term lets there are in the country? Do we know the scale of the issue that we are regulating for? If not, and if we are doing this in the absence of data, how can we be sure that we are going to get it right? Has there been a refresh of the 2018 study to ensure that we know the scale of what we are trying to accomplish?

That brings me to my second question. Do you feel that a national system should be introduced or are there particular local authority areas that would rather not spend their resources on what they might not see as a pressing local issue? Perhaps we can kick off with Nicola Robison. Does Police Scotland have any data on antisocial behaviour issues in this respect? Is that sort of thing common across the country or is it much more localised? Moreover, if anyone wanted to talk about the issue of a national approach versus devolving powers to local authorities to run something locally, I would welcome it.

Thank you.

I have another question on a different subject. We have touched on the different community responses to short-term lets. Some communities in Edinburgh, parts of the Highlands and Fife have expressed concern about the number of short-term lets in the area. However, in areas such as the south of Scotland, communities have expressed real support for short-term lets, because of the economic benefits to the area, and they would like the number of short-term lets to grow. I know that witnesses have spoken about wanting to avoid a situation in which there are varying regulations across the country, but I ask for the witnesses’ views on the potential for a pilot project that could be done in an area in which communities are looking to see regulations introduced or are looking for the powers to be devolved wholesale to local authorities so that they can choose how best to respond to the needs of their communities, rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach across the country.

Good morning. A lot of the discussions that I had over the summer, before we came to consider the regulations, involved the definition of short-term let. I have concerns about what our starting point is for the regulations if we do not understand the volume of short-term lets in the country.

The Government has used the figure of 32,000 properties, based on data that was gathered from Airbnb, but the non-domestic rates roll shows only 18,000 properties in the sector. Will the witnesses say what their view is of how many short-term lets there are in Scotland and how that compares with the Government’s figure? If the figure of 32,000 is out of step with the actual situation, how could that affect the starting point for the regulations and the impact that they could have?

Good morning. If the project was rolled out nationally and scaled up, we would expect unit costs to come down. As we move to mixed tenure models that involve owner-occupiers, or in relation to the example that has just been given, would you expect the burden of the initial cost of the project to fall on tenants through increased rents or on owner-occupiers? Would it be reasonable to expect the social landlord or the owner-occupier to pick up all the costs? Would that be feasible or would there need to be greater incentives through Government grants to cover the costs? Would that hold back a national roll-out?

If the order were not to pass and coronavirus-related MCC appeals were to continue, what would be the implications for processing existing appeals and future appeals, and would that have an impact on preparation for the next valuation?

I am glad to hear that your inboxes are so full, although I am sorry for your staff who are dealing with that. It shows the strength of feeling in support of the proposals.

Ms Duncan-Glancy is right that the proposal will not, in itself, change any of that, but it is the first step on the road. The current entitlement is fit for the 20th century, not the 21st century. An employment advisory council would have the expertise of people with lived experience of 21st century workplaces. There would be expertise from epidemiologists and other experts in the field. There would be a gender balance on the council to ensure that illnesses and injuries in workplaces that are predominantly female were reflected. As I said in my opening statement, only 6.5 per cent of applications currently come from women. If an equality impact assessment was done of the benefit today, it would immediately say that that was entirely inappropriate.

For me, all those aims and objectives are the end point, but the starting point is to establish the council, with its expertise and its ability to commission research, to start to address those challenges.

The minister has set out that he intends to introduce legislation to establish employment injury assistance. That is obviously something that the Government has to do as a result of the Scotland Act 2016 and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. What the minister has not mentioned, and what the Government has not committed to, is establishing an advisory council to scrutinise the regulations on the new entitlement that the minister would lay. I believe that it is crucial that research is carried out in advance of that entitlement being established.

We can either lift and replicate what I feel is a failed and completely out-of-date UK system or we can get the expertise on board early, set up the council, advise the Government and scrutinise the regulations. All the parties in the Parliament and the Government have accepted that it is right to have an independent statutory body to scrutinise social security legislation—indeed, that is why we have the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I am just asking us to go a step further and create another body that has the expertise to look in depth at the range of injuries and illnesses in Scottish workplaces, with the aim of updating the benefit in question to ensure that it best serves the people of Scotland.