Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Has there been any consideration of running pilot projects in local authorities that have particular concerns?

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?

Thank you for inviting me to attend the committee to talk through the statement of reasons that accompanies my draft proposal.

The bill proposal was lodged in response to reports that thousands of people were suffering from long Covid that they had contracted at work—most likely, workers in health, social care, retail and public transport, whom we all depended on and applauded throughout the pandemic. In the absence of any action from the United Kingdom Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, a Scottish council could commission research and come up with recommendations on how to support people such as nurses, care workers and supermarket staff who caught Covid, now suffer with long Covid and are no longer fit for work.

When I looked further into the industrial injuries system, it became clear that it is completely out of date. It really only recognises injuries and illnesses of male workers in occupations that were common in the previous century, it does not recognise modern occupations and it completely fails female workers. Only 6.5 per cent of applications under the prescription route come from women.

The purpose of this evidence-taking session is for the committee to decide whether to accept the statement of reasons that I have provided on why I consider it unnecessary to carry out a further consultation, but I wanted to give a flavour of the motives behind the proposed bill.

I note that the committee has received a letter from the Scottish Government. I hope to work with the Minister for Social Security and Local Government to overcome any policy differences and timetable issues. However, as the committee knows, nothing in his letter is relevant to the statement of reasons.

It is less than a year since the draft proposal was lodged and consultation began. It is only six months since the consultation summary was lodged ahead of Parliament rising for the election recess. That consultation was undertaken with the non-Government bills unit’s support, my thanks for which I put on record.

The proposal is broadly similar to the one that I lodged last November

“to establish a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council”.

However, I have improved the wording to sharpen up the proposal and to reflect more precisely the purpose and role of the proposed council that was consulted on and the outcome of that consultation. There is nothing new that was not previously consulted on or on which views were not sought.

The additional terms in the proposal confirm that the council would be a statutory body, as was explicit throughout the consultation document and at question 1 in the consultation questions, and that it would have the ability to commission its own research, as was also made clear in the aims of the proposed bill and specifically consulted on at question 2. They also confirm that the bill would define the council’s membership, which was the focus of question 5.

The consultation on my previous proposal ran for 12 weeks and received responses from a range of individuals and organisations from relevant sectors. I wrote to a number of academics, civil society and third sector organisations, professional associations and business organisations, as well as occupational safety campaigns and, of course, trade unions. There is a breadth of responses across those sectors, which provides new, positive engagement in the social security space.

The consultation was publicised in comment pieces and blogs, notably in The Herald, in the Daily Record and on Reform Scotland’s Melting Pot blog. Media coverage in which I highlighted the issue raised in the consultation document—that Covid-19 should be prescribed as an industrial disease—was raised with the First Minster in December 2020. Close the Gap blogged about the gaps in provision for women under the existing benefit and about women’s health and safety more widely, and it also covered the issue of Covid-19 in the workplace. Two events, which were conducted on Facebook and via Zoom, were hosted by the GMB’s health and safety group. Separate focus groups were arranged with women members, who shared their experiences of health and safety in the workplace.

The consultation closed in February this year, and I do not believe that respondents’ views will have changed since then, or that there have been any material changes to the case for an advisory council. The UK advisory council has since refused to prescribe Covid-19, which perhaps strengthens the case for evolution of the benefit here, and the Scottish Government has not yet made any legislative commitment to establish a new council.

For a process that has been carried out so recently, repeating the consultation would seem to me to be an unnecessary duplication of work and effort, including for those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond to the previous consultation.

I hope that members will agree that further consultation is not necessary. I am more than happy to expand on any of the points that I have made, and to take questions.