Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question follows on from what you have just said, Eilidh. On the mechanism of applying the rent increases, as I understand it, if the proposed rent is less than the open market rent, the proposed rent will be, by and large, fine; if the proposed rent is more than the open market rate, the open market rate would apply. If the variation is 6 per cent or greater, a tapering process will apply. Is that too complicated? Will tenants understand that? Should we leave it to rent service Scotland to explain that, or is it the case that the basic principle is fair and effective and that the process represents a balanced approach?

Good morning. I want to pick up on the issue of employers that habitually do not apply the Scottish tax code for their employees. In the NAO paper, we read that there were more than 37,000 such cases. We ask this question every year: why is there a recurring issue with employers failing to apply the correct tax code for their employees in Scotland?

Is the money recoverable in relation to companies that should have applied the Scottish code? Is the tax ultimately recoverable when they correct the code for previous years?

I was going to ask whether the same employers are involved. For the fifth year, there seems to be the same number of cases—about 30,000. A member of the public would ask why that is the case. Is it the same employers making the mistakes? How many employers are we talking about? Is it a small number, or is it in the hundreds? Can you give the committee any further information to help us to understand the issue?

At a previous committee meeting, we asked for more information about the number of employers that habitually make such mistakes—we might even have asked for their names. Is it possible for the committee to get sight of that information?

Can you give the public some reassurance on the matter? Is the balance different each year, or are we dealing with the same offenders every year?

Despite some of the challenging messages from witnesses today, it is important to remember that, since 2007, Scotland has consistently built more social and affordable homes than any other part of the UK, and that it continues to do so. As an elected member for more years than I care to remember, I do not forget that we have lost 500,000 social rented homes in Scotland since 1979. You could argue about whether that has a legacy impact on our discussion today; I certainly think that its impact has been substantial. We reap what we sow, from those years to this day.

I want to ask colleagues about the impact on homelessness services, a matter that has been raised a couple of times. I will ask Michael Cameron and Councillor Chalmers about this, in particular. What more do we need to do to—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Councillor Chalmers: I will speak closer to my microphone. I am asking you for your views on the impact and potential rise of homelessness. I think that you mentioned that a report is due from Heriot-Watt University suggesting that homelessness could increase by a third.

However, I will first ask Michael Cameron for his views, as the regulator has been giving us stark warnings about the impact of homelessness in the years to come, and about how we should try to build further protections into the housing to 2040 strategy.

Could you offer a perspective, Councillor Chalmers?

Maureen, to come back on that—

In the past few weeks, the question of the numbers of landlord registrations has been asked and answered in the chamber. The figures that we have to date suggest that the numbers actually increased between August 2022 and November 2023. I know that that contradicts what John Mills said a moment ago, but once we see the figures, we will know the full picture.

However, we should not forget that the reason for the proposed measures is to try to prevent a situation in which people fall off a cliff edge into unaffordability, thereby creating more homelessness. The question is simple. Are the proposed limits—a lower limit of 6 per cent and an upper limit of 12 per cent—fair and reasonable? Do colleagues have a view as to whether those figures are fair and adequate?

Perhaps John Mills can go first.