Scottish Parliament, 23 September 2025

445 contributions from 42 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19021, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 23 September 2025—

after

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

insert

followed by Appointment of Junior Scottish Minister

delete

10.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

9.00 pm Decision Time

(b) Wednesday 24 September 2025—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government

insert

followed by Ministerial Statement: Improving Provision and Access to Residential Outdoor Education for Children and Young People in Scotland

delete

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Improving Literacy in Scotland’s Schools

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

and insert

8.00 pm Decision Time

(c) Thursday 25 September 2025—

after

followed by Financial Resolution: Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill

insert

followed by Appointment of Commissioners to the Scottish Fiscal Commission.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Junior Minister

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19015, in the name of John Swinney, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister. I remind members that, under rule 11.3.1 of standing orders, the question on the motion will be put immediately after the debate.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The ministerial changes that I am making today arise from the resignation on Friday of Jamie Hepburn as Minister for Parliamentary Business. Jamie Hepburn did not behave as he believed he should have done in the Parliament last Wednesday, so he tendered his resignation to me. A few moments ago, he offered an apology to the Parliament, which, along with his decision to resign, demonstrates the strength of character that he brings to his parliamentary service. I thank him for his service as a member of the Government in a number of different portfolios, and especially for the way in which he has worked with other parties in taking forward the parliamentary business programme in a collaborative and consultative way throughout his time as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

I am pleased that Graeme Dey, who is widely respected across the Parliament, will now take up the role of Minister for Parliamentary Business. His formidable experience in working with others to create common ground will be invaluable to us all as we complete the business of this parliamentary session. I have also asked him to continue his excellent work as Minister for Veterans.

I am pleased to welcome Ben Macpherson to the role of Minister for Higher and Further Education, subject to the Parliament’s approval this afternoon, to build on Graeme Dey’s work. Ben Macpherson was a valued minister between 2018 and 2023, when he served under my predecessors in a variety of positions, including as Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development, Minister for Public Finance and Migration, and Minister for Social Security and Local Government. To each role, he brought a constructive approach, building coalitions to deliver the Government’s ambitious and shared agenda.

As a back bencher, Ben Macpherson has brought a collaborative approach to the Parliament. Most recently, he served as a member of the Criminal Justice Committee—indeed, he took my place on that committee—and as convener of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, which included leading the committee debate on the review last week.

The role of Minister for Higher and Further Education is crucial in ensuring that our education institutions can play a full part in delivering an agenda of dynamic economic growth that will benefit all the people of Scotland, and in ensuring that individuals in Scotland—especially our young people—have access to higher and further education opportunities that will meet their needs and provide the foundations for their later life. I know that Ben Macpherson will give energetic commitment to advancing that important work and to taking forward the Government’s skills agenda, through which we must ensure that we have all the skills and talent in our economy to support the developments that the Government wishes to see in place.

With pleasure, I move,

That the Parliament agrees that Ben Macpherson be appointed as a junior Scottish Minister.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives about the appointment of Ben Macpherson as Minister for Higher and Further Education. For many people in Edinburgh, Ben first came to our attention in the summer of 2004, when he walked from Edinburgh to London to raise awareness of the annual international day of peace. After the events of the past week, perhaps the Government could, indeed, do with the qualities of spreading peace and love, which I know Mr Macpherson will bring to the role.

Those who follow politics will know that two notable ministers decided to leave the Scottish Government under Humza Yousaf in March 2023—Ben Macpherson and the First Minister—so it is not surprising that both have returned to the Government.

In 2016, I was elected alongside Ben Macpherson to represent constituents in Edinburgh. I know that members across the chamber have always recognised him as a good friend, and he is an MSP who is both respected and rated by all in the chamber.

I am sure that Ben, as a proud George Heriot’s boy, will be at the forefront of making the case in the Scottish Government for continued support for our independent schools in Edinburgh.

Ben Macpherson is a keen supporter of apprentices. Members might not know this, but he served his own apprenticeship in his youth, when he was involved in the Edinburgh Labour Party and did work experience with the local MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, Malcolm Chisholm. Like all good apprentices, he decided to do what many do and went on to take his job in 2016.

As the First Minister has stated, Ben Macpherson returns to the Government with significant ministerial experience. On a personal note, I hope that this will, indeed, be his last junior ministerial apprenticeship. The Conservatives wish him well in his role in the Government.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I warmly congratulate Ben Macpherson on his appointment as Minister for Higher and Further Education and welcome him to that vital role. I look forward to working with him again and to enjoying lively discussion, as we did previously when he and I were serving in the social security briefs.

I also put on the record my thanks to his predecessor, Graeme Dey, for his service and engagement and, in particular, for meeting disabled people recently to discuss access to apprenticeships. I hope that Mr Macpherson will continue to pursue that endeavour.

This ministerial role is crucial to Scotland’s future. It needs focus and leadership, and I hope that the new minister will rise to that challenge. When he does so, and when he does the right thing for students, staff and institutions, I assure him that he will find constructive common ground and partners on the Labour benches.

The challenges that are faced are urgent. Colleges saw real-terms funding reductions of 17 per cent between 2021 and 2025, with some closing campuses and student and staff numbers reducing. According to Universities Scotland, universities face a perfect storm, as they are receiving 19 per cent less per Scottish student than they received a decade ago, and they are shedding staff while students are faced with fewer options and, in some cases, less support. The pressures on institutional sustainability are unprecedented. On that, I ask for the new minister’s early commitment to on-going discussions with Universities Scotland and the sector, working to develop a more sustainable long-term financial model and to involve institutions, trade unions, staff and students for the greater good of Scotland and a brighter and more prosperous future for the sector.

We in the Labour Party look forward to engaging with Mr Macpherson in good faith, because Scotland’s learners and education providers deserve no less. I congratulate him again on his appointment, and I look forward to working with him in due course.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

On behalf of the Scottish Green Party, I welcome Ben Macpherson’s appointment as Minister for Higher and Further Education. It is a critical appointment at a time when Scotland’s tertiary education system stands on the cusp of significant reform. I also recognise Graeme Dey’s power of work and leadership in that area, which has gotten us to this point.

The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill presents an opportunity to reshape how we support learners, educators and institutions. We welcome the bill’s intention to simplify the funding landscape and strengthen the role of the Scottish Funding Council. The proposed statutory framework for apprenticeships and work-based learning is a step forward, but it must be matched by a commitment to fair work, inclusive access and climate-conscious skills development. We are particularly focused on ensuring that the bill delivers for learners who have been historically underserved, such as those in rural communities, disabled students and those from low-income backgrounds.

The Scottish Green Party will continue to advocate for robust student support mechanisms and for a system that prioritises public good over market forces. We note the bill’s provisions on governance reform, including the creation of an apprenticeship committee and new expectations for council membership. Those changes must embed transparency and ensure that learners, staff and communities have a meaningful voice in decision making.

Ben Macpherson brings experience and a thoughtful approach to the role. We look forward to working constructively with him to ensure that the legislation delivers a tertiary education system that is fairer, greener and more resilient.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I start by acknowledging the apology that Jamie Hepburn made to the chamber earlier, which I thank him for. I also join other members in congratulating Ben Macpherson on his appointment. I have known him for his entire time in the Parliament, and he has always been committed to working across parties. He took that approach into Government during his previous time as a minister, and I am sure that he will continue that in this role. As other members have observed, the college and university sector is not without significant—some might say existential—challenges, and such an approach will be all the more important to the work. Again, I congratulate Ben Macpherson and wish him well in this crucial role.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the debate on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister.

The question is, that motion S6M-19015, in the name of John Swinney, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that Ben Macpherson be appointed as a junior Scottish Minister.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19014, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak to the motion to press their request-to-speak button.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 2 hours

Groups 4 to 6: 3 hours 30 minutes

Groups 7 to 9: 5 hours

Groups 10 to 11: 6 hours 30 minutes

Groups 12 to 14: 7 hours 50 minutes

Groups 15 to 17: 8 hours 45 minutes

Groups 18 to 20: 10 hours 35 minutes

Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours

Groups 25 to 27: 13 hours 45 minutes.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 45A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter “RTS” in the chat as soon as possible after the group has been called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Periodic assessment of rent conditions

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on student tenancies and accommodation. Amendment 123, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, is grouped with amendments 124, 137, 150, 179 to 191, 220 to 222, 105, 239, 370 to 374, 258, 116 and 388 to 390.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am pleased to begin our stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill with group 1. Amendment 105, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to provide for tenants in student residential tenancies to be able to give notice to quit their tenancy in specified circumstances to be laid out in regulation. Amendment 372, in the name of Ross Greer, also seeks to provide for tenants to be able to quit their student residential tenancy, but with the category of tenant to be specified by regulations.

I agree that there will be very good reasons for students to seek to give notice to leave their tenancies, but I am also aware that allowing that in all circumstances could have a significant impact on the management of, investment in and supply of student accommodation in Scotland. Specifying the circumstances in which a student may end their tenancy, as we would under amendment 105, would ensure that that could occur only where it was appropriate for them to do so.

Vacancies in purpose-built student accommodation can be filled only by students, and that is difficult in the middle of the academic year. Enabling the termination of all student residential tenancies mid-year could have a substantial impact on the operation of student accommodation, with potential risks of higher costs and a worsening in affordability. We can imagine how the situation could quickly become completely unmanageable.

Although amendment 372 and its consequential amendment 388 also provide for students to end their tenancy, they do not provide for specific circumstances; rather, they would allow ministers to specify the category of tenant.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will finish this point, and then I will be glad to do so.

It is not appropriate to specify that certain groups of students can end a tenancy whereas others who may be in similar circumstances are unable to do so. I therefore cannot support Ross Greer’s amendments 372 and 388. However, I will certainly take his intervention.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

For the sake of time, I clarify to the cabinet secretary that, given that we all agree on the outcome, I am happy not to move my amendments 372 and 388 and for the Green group to support amendment 105.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I, too, believe that amendment 105 and its consequential amendment 116, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, present the best, most balanced approach to the issue of ending student tenancies, which includes a duty to consult. I therefore support amendments 105 and 116.

Amendments 123, 124 and 137, in my name, seek to reverse amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 in relation to rent control and student tenancies. I believe that it was a significant error to have agreed to those amendments in the first place. We have always been clear that student tenancies are not part of the mainstream private rented sector and should not be included in rent controls in the bill. The fact that the stage 2 amendments that were agreed to have caused significant confusion and concern in the sector has been reflected clearly in our engagement with student housing providers since stage 2.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary understand that introducing rent controls in the way that the Scottish National Party Government has done in recent years has left the purpose-built student accommodation sector as the only fruitful market for investment? That is why the SNP Government should be extremely cautious in how it proceeds with rent control legislation.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

My amendments seek to remove an erroneous Conservative amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which immediately caused considerable upset and concern in the sector. A little humility would therefore go a long way.

In addition, the rent controls that we seek to pass in the bill are evidence led and locally led, and will give sufficient protection to tenants; however, I have also been clear on exemptions, which I know are critical for investment. The amendments in my name will remove reference to student tenancies from part 1 of the bill, and I urge members to support them.

Amendment 150, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is very similar to Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendment 59, in that it seeks to allow for student tenancies to be covered by rent control. I reiterate that I do not consider that to be appropriate. Student tenancies should not be covered by rent control, and I cannot support amendment 150.

Amendments 179 to 191 and amendment 258, in the name of Edward Mountain, are similar to his amendments that were lodged at stage 2. They seek to replicate the regulatory requirements in relation to rent increases in the private rented sector for student tenancies. Ultimately, they appear to create a rent increase process and a means by which rent increase could be challenged.

As I have said, the student accommodation sector operates very differently from the mainstream private rented sector, and rent increases in student tenancies do not generally take place mid-tenancy; instead, they are for a fixed-term duration, which is aligned with the academic year. Edward Mountain’s amendments seek to treat student tenancies the same as tenancies in the PRS when it comes to restrictions on in-tenancy rent increases, and they do not take account of the inherent differences. In addition, as far as I understand it, there has been no consultation with the sector. I therefore cannot support those amendments.

Amendment 220, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is identical to an amendment that was considered and disagreed to at stage 2. It seeks to gather additional information on non-United Kingdom students and tenancy deposits, which I understand would support the use of a proposed regulatory power that is also provided for in the amendment.

As we set out previously, there are significant practical issues with obtaining that data in the way that is proposed, which lacks a clear remit or purpose. The tenancy deposit schemes do not currently collect information from tenants that would enable them to establish whether a tenancy deposit was for a non-UK domiciled student. Placing a requirement on the schemes to do that would be a significant change, which would have resource and cost implications. I therefore cannot support amendment 220.

Amendment 221, in the name of Edward Mountain, would increase the maximum limit for tenancy deposits from two months to three months for international students, where they are not required to provide a guarantor. I understand that, for international students, there can be barriers to accessing the private rented sector, such as difficulty with providing a United Kingdom-based guarantor. However, I do not think that the introduction of an increased deposit amount in place of the guarantor requirement would be sufficient to address some of the concerns of landlords. Indeed, we can envisage a scenario in which that could arguably make matters worse for international students, by requiring them to provide even larger deposits to satisfy landlords.

In addition, I must flag up the fact that treating different groups of people differently on account of their national origin could amount to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and article 14 of the European convention on human rights. I am absolutely committed to further work on guarantor support, but I cannot support the formulation of amendment 221.

Amendment 222, in the name of Maggie Chapman, was also lodged at stage 2 and was not agreed to. It would require ministers to establish a public body, through regulations, to act as guarantor for non-UK domiciled students. I cannot support the amendment, given the on-going financial implications that it would necessarily have.

We committed to considering how existing avenues of support could be strengthened as a more cost-effective alternative, and I would like to update members on that. My officials are carrying out a mapping exercise to increase our understanding of guarantor support, which will help us to identify gaps in provision, barriers to access and any possible solutions. Once completed, I would like the exercise to form the basis of more detailed work with local authorities, student housing providers in particular and members on how we can formulate a more consistent approach, whether that is a national framework or guidance. For that reason, I ask Maggie Chapman not to move amendment 222 but to work with me on a comprehensive and detailed piece of work.

Amendment 239, in the name of Graham Simpson, and amendment 370, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seek to amend current legislation in respect of local housing strategies by making specific reference to students when local authorities are assessing housing provision and related services in their area. Amendment 370 would also require ministers to produce specific guidance on purpose-built student accommodation and local authorities to have regard to that.

I understand the intention behind the amendments, but I do not believe that there is a need to specify that in primary legislation, because the existing legislative requirements on authorities are clear that they relate to the housing needs of all people in the area. I cannot support the introduction of legislation that would target support for one specific group over another, recognising that, in meeting local housing needs, local authorities will require to balance the needs of a much fuller range of priority groups, as informed by their housing need and demand assessment. Therefore, although I understand the intention, I cannot support the amendments.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I appreciate the minister’s point. However, on that basis, can she comment on the fact that, for example, since 2015, 28 per cent of approvals for accommodation in Glasgow have been for purpose-built student accommodation when only 18.5 per cent of the city’s population are students?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely take note of the point and the statistics that Pam Duncan-Glancy puts to me, and I do not doubt for a second that there are pressures to be worked through, but I remain committed to ensuring that all groups, including students, are appropriately reflected in local housing strategy guidance and to supporting local authorities to consider their demographics and how they change on an on-going and flexible basis. The work that is under way allows us to do that.

Amendment 371, in the name of Ms Duncan-Glancy, would require the publication of a purpose-built student accommodation charter. Again, I understand the intention, but I cannot support the amendment. The charter would cover matters, including complaints, that are already included in the Unipol codes, which the majority of PBSA providers are members of. The codes are regularly reviewed, enjoy the support of the sector, including the National Union of Students, and will cover issues such as standards, the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, and the process for dispute resolution.

Along with Unipol and review group members, the Scottish Government has reviewed the codes to ensure that they apply equally to Scotland and can be further amended as required. Our PBSA recommendations are being progressed by the Scottish Government and review group members. Therefore, given that that work is under way and is well progressed, I ask Ms Duncan-Glancy not to move her amendments but to work with me, officials and review group members to finalise that work, which has been a number of years in the making.

I am trying to move as swiftly as I can through the amendments, Presiding Officer—I do not have long to go.

Amendments 373 and 374 and the consequential amendments 389 and 390, in the name of Ross Greer, would require the Scottish Government to publish model terms and conditions for students and a model complaints procedure. Again, I appreciate the intention behind the amendments—I want to ensure that students have full information on the terms and conditions of their accommodation contracts and details of how to make a complaint—but I cannot support them.

In respect of amendment 373, work on terms and conditions to ensure consistency between providers is on-going. Guidance on tenancy agreements that is similar to the guidance that is provided in the private rented sector has been drafted and is currently with all stakeholders for comment by the end of October. Following that, an information pack, including information relating to tenancy agreements and tenants’ rights, will be drafted. Student representatives are involved in that process.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned that much of the work on drafting model terms and conditions is already under way. That is why amendment 373 is clear that the on-going work can form the model terms and conditions that the amendment would put a compulsion on ministers to produce. The key thing is that it would give ministers the power, if they so choose at a later date, to put those model terms and conditions—and the model complaints procedure in the subsequent amendment—on a statutory footing.

Given that the work is already under way to produce those documents, why would ministers not want to have the power to put them on a statutory footing in the future, given that, as the minister has already acknowledged, only a majority of—not all—PBSA providers are signed up to the Unipol standards as they currently stand?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

First, it is not necessary to do so. The work is well under way—it is well progressed. A range of experts have been involved in its formulation and the work will progress to its conclusion without statutory underpinning. A secondary reason is that there is a degree of flexibility that comes with guidance and a degree of rigidity that comes with primary legislation. Therefore, as it is not necessary, it would not be right to go down that road.

I will just cover some of the concerns that have been raised about affordability. This is a complex issue; affordability is very difficult to define. It will arise very differently for different students across the board. Moreover, rental costs in PBSA include more than just rent. As I made clear previously, I am open to working with members, representatives of the sector and students to look at long-term solutions on affordability. In particular, I commit to work on that with Ross Greer and Pam Duncan-Glancy, who have raised such matters with me.

I will move to the final amendments in the group, before allowing others to come in. Amendment 374 relates to complaints procedures for student tenants. As far as I can see, having looked at the provision, robust processes are already in place. However, I accept, as the review group did, that those processes can be complicated to navigate, particularly given that different processes are in place for private PBSA and university halls of residence. Detailed guidance is being developed on which process to follow, who to contact and what to expect if a complaint is made, and the guidance will be included in the information that is provided to students. Given the collaborative and well-developed work that is on-going with the sector and with students, I ask Ross Greer not to move those amendments.

For those reasons, in respect of this group of amendments as a whole, I urge members to support my amendments 123, 124 and 137 and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 105 and 116, and to reject the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 123.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I point out to members that if amendment 136, in the group on rent conditions and designation of rent control areas, is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 137, as a result of a pre-emption.

I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 150 and other amendments in the group.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I will just take a wee moment to thank everyone on the legislation team for all their meticulous work, over many, many months, on this bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her predecessors for their engagement on various issues. Most of all, I thank the organisations, the campaigners and activists who have got us to this point.

At various points over the past four years, it has felt like this day would never come. However, we are here discussing the final amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by Patrick Harvie as part of the Scottish Greens’ commitment to a new deal for tenants.

That is the point of the legislation: to shift the balance of power away from a system that is rigged against renters to one that sees homes as places for living in, not for profiteering from. We have the chance to make living more affordable, healthier and happier for renters; to make renting safe and secure for those who choose to rent as well as those who have to rent; and to ensure that renting is a viable, non-stigmatising and genuinely valued part of our housing system.

It is for those renters that the bill exists. It aims to tackle the unchecked soaring rents to which they have been subjected for far too long; to give them the rights that will make their home really feel like their home; to provide protections against homelessness; and to give specific groups of tenants protections against rip-off rents and make housing fairer for them.

It is with those renters in mind that I speak to the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3. My amendments 150, 220 and 222 in this group are all about enabling better support for students. Amendment 150 would give ministers the power to subject student residential accommodation to rent controls. It does not mandate such controls, nor does it define their terms or constrain the Government in terms of timescale; it simply sets out the important principle that students deserve the same protections as anyone else who is renting a roof over their heads. That is important, because we know that the purpose-built student accommodation sector is getting out of control. Students in Vita Fountainbridge in Edinburgh, for example, are being charged £554—not per month, but per week. That just lines the pockets of private developers and property owners at the expense of students, at a time when we know that student homelessness is on the rise.

My amendments 220 and 222 are both the result of direct asks from the National Union of Students Scotland and others, and address a different set of issues. International students who come to Scotland to study are crucial to our higher education sector, and are important and valued members of our communities, yet they are often the targets of unfair practices. Those may include the demand for a deposit of several months’ rent in advance or the requirement for a guarantor, which, given that many international students will not have a network of support or family in Scotland, places many suitable properties way beyond their reach.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

What would the member say to my constituent, who wrote to me this week to say that she has one flat with a tenant who has not paid rent for six months, with arrears of £3,150, and she has incurred mortgage maintenance payments of nearly £2,000? She has proceeded to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland and, due to there being a backlog of more than three months, the arrears are likely to be £4,800 by the time that the matter is settled.

That person is not rich; she is an ordinary person. What advice would the Green Party give to people like that? How can they be expected to continue to rent out properties if that is the treatment that they must suffer in Scotland?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the member for that intervention—maybe. Later in the bill process—probably not today, but tomorrow or next week—we will come to comment specifically on how to deal with such situations. However, today, I am talking about international student renters. The fact that the member seeks to derail my comments on international students, who are—to be frank—left to the wolves of the private rented sector, speaks to his concern, or lack thereof, for their wellbeing and welfare.

My amendment 220 simply asks for a review of the deposits for which international students are asked—nothing more. I would have liked to go further—as I did in my proposed amendments at stage 2—and restrict the level of the deposit demand possible. However, I think that this amendment would represent a middle ground, and I hope that the Scottish Government will recognise the value of having the information that such a review would provide.

Amendment 222 would require the establishment of a guarantor body for international students. We know that the vast majority of students pay their rents on time, and it is not fair that a section of the student population has limited access to guarantors simply because they are not from this country. We can, and should, be doing better to support our international students in Scotland.

I will let Ross Greer and others speak to their amendments in this group. Finally, I state that we will not support amendments that would remove students from the bill.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Every time that we discuss the bill, I will remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. To be perfectly clear, and so that there is no dubiety, I state that I let houses under private residential tenancy agreements—those are long-term lets—and I give houses to employees as part of their employment contract. I have been in the house-letting industry for more than 30 years, and have let houses under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1998 and the subsequent housing acts that were passed in 2006, 2010 and 2014. I am a qualified surveyor and I let houses on behalf of clients prior to my time as a member of the Scottish Parliament. Given all that, I believe that I come here with some experience.

My amendments 179 to 191, and amendment 258, which is a technical amendment, seek to enable students to query their rents. We all know, particularly those of us who have had children go through university, that the rent that they pay is a huge burden on them and one that they will take through to later life.

The purpose of my amendments, which I lodged on the back of requests from various student bodies that approached me, is to place checks and controls on the rents that are set for student accommodation.

The cabinet secretary was right to say that I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which were pushed on my behalf. I wanted to bring them back, because I want to ensure that students understand that this Parliament understands the pressure that they face with the rents that they are charged as a result of being at university. The amendments attempt to do that—they are probing amendments, maybe—and I have the support of the students in seeking to make those changes.

I would also like to talk about amendment 221, which is about deposits for non-UK domiciled students. I do not take the point that the cabinet secretary made that it is discriminatory. The fact that such students are charged greater fees than anyone else might be viewed as discriminatory. The amendment is a way to help those students to get accommodation for the simple reason that being a guarantor for somebody is a very difficult and onerous condition to take on. It is very difficult for landlords to accept guarantors if they are outwith the country.

My aim with the amendment is to make it easier for non-UK domiciled students to get a flat by paying more of the rent up front. That would give the landlord more confidence, and it would mean that students would not have to rely on trying to find a guarantor. I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider that carefully, because the amendment is meant to work in the favour of students, not work against them.

On Maggie Chapman’s amendment, having been in the industry for 30 years, I take grave exception to the general characterisation that she makes of landlords. That is not my view of landlords. Maybe it is just that I work in the Highlands and in more rural areas, but landlords are not out to make life difficult for tenants. In fact, long-term tenants are much better for landlords than short-term tenants.

Maggie Chapman’s characterisation does the industry a vast injustice. I point out to her that there are 300,000 let properties in Scotland. If we demonise all landlords and get rid of all that accommodation, it will just exacerbate the housing crisis that we face.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

What does Edward Mountain think happens if a landlord sells a property because they no longer wish to continue being a landlord? Does he not accept that that property is then available for other people to live in?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is a wonderful idea, Ms Chapman—just come up to the Highlands and have a look round. I am sure that other members in this chamber, such as Ms Forbes, will tell you that what happens to a lot of the houses that become available is that they are bought up as second homes, which does not help anyone in the local community to find housing. I do not accept that argument.

Moving on, I am not sure that amendment 222, which sets up a public body to act as a guarantor, will be helpful. I think that it might saddle that public body with a huge amount of debt.

Without going through all the amendments, I can say that, bizarrely, I find myself in the position of agreeing with much of what Ross Greer suggests regarding the power to bring tenancies to an end, model terms and regulations for landlords to apply when it comes to student lets. I look forward to Ross Greer talking about those amendments. I think that we are both, in different ways, trying to protect students and make sure that they find it easier to get accommodation in Scotland.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her indication that the Government will support my amendments 105 and 116, which will provide for the creation of regulations to set out the circumstances in which students in residential tenancies can terminate their lease.

Amendment 105 will add a new section to the bill that gives a power to Scottish ministers to set out in regulations a process for tenants in student residential tenancies to terminate their tenancy, in specific circumstances and subject to specific requirements. It will require ministers to consult stakeholders before laying draft regulations and require those regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I lodged those two amendments because students have spoken of having significant challenges with notice periods in certain circumstances and, in some cases, they encounter substantial barriers to ending their tenancy early. For example, students who are on an interruption of study do not have the choice to end their lease without incurring costs or being required to find a replacement student tenant. The same is the case for students who withdraw from their studies. For those reasons, I would welcome Parliament’s support for amendment 105.

Amendment 116 is consequential to amendment 105. It will amend section 52 to provide that regulations on termination of student tenancies that are laid under the power that is conferred by amendment 105 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I would welcome Parliament’s support for both those amendments.

I turn to my amendment on a strategy for purpose-built student accommodation. Amendment 370 would require local authorities to take account of the needs of students when preparing their local housing strategies. It would also place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on the development of strategies for purpose-built student accommodation—a call that was supported by NUS Scotland in a motion to its conference as far back as 2021.

The guidance may include

“aims for the ratio of student residential tenancies to other types of tenancy”,

views

“on the role of purpose-built student accommodation within the available housing stock”,

approaches

“to engaging with landlords and tenants of student residential tenancies in decision making”,

and

“advice on how to collect data on student residential tenancies to support decision making.”

The amendment would require ministers, in preparing the guidance, to consult

“higher education institutions ... local authorities,”

those who

“represent the interests of residents who are not students, and ... students’ associations”.

I said earlier to the cabinet secretary that, since 2015, purpose-built student accommodation has made up 28 per cent of the approvals for accommodation in Glasgow alone, despite the fact that students make up only 18.5 per cent of the city’s population. Students and residents across all areas, cities and regions in Scotland need accommodation. However, not all students want purpose-built student accommodation, and residents need a wide range of affordable housing options available to them. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a more strategic approach is taken to the provision of different housing tenures in local authority areas.

I am disappointed to hear that the cabinet secretary does not think that intervention is necessary in this space. The NUS believes that a strategy is needed, and local residents believe that it is necessary. Without a strategy, and without taking a strategic approach at the local level, students and others in our communities could be done out of appropriate housing, which the Government must provide to meet the needs of all Scotland’s people.

Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 370 and I ask the Government to kindly reconsider its position when it comes to making a decision on it.

My final amendment in the group, amendment 371, would require the Scottish ministers to prepare a purpose-built student accommodation charter within 12 months of the act coming into force. The charter would set out a summary of

“(a) the purpose of purpose-built student accommodation,

(b) the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy,

(c) the process for dispute resolution between landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy.”

The amendment states:

“The Charter may also include standards and outcomes which landlords should aim to achieve”.

In preparing the charter, the Scottish ministers would have to consult higher education institutions, local authorities, those who represent the interests of residents who are not students and, of course, student associations.

The need for the amendment has been made clear to me and others across the chamber by students and NUS Scotland, who argue—and I agree—that students can find it difficult at times to address damage, mould, pests and so on, and to get support when they need to address those issues. Many students find it difficult to individually challenge them.

It is crucial that the Government recognises the importance of all students having access to the best level of support to ensure that they have somewhere safe, comfortable, affordable and accessible to live while they study. That is why I lodged the amendments. At stage 2, the minister said that the purpose-built student accommodation review group made a specific recommendation on the development of model terms and conditions for the sector to support improvements in the consistency of the rights that students can expect from all providers, and that work is under way in the sector to implement that recommendation by developing tenancy agreements alongside a model complaints procedure.

I welcome all that work, and I would be grateful if the Government could involve us in that development as it goes forward, as the cabinet secretary has set out. I also welcome the work on the code that the cabinet secretary has set out, which NUS Scotland and others support. However, I have to say that I disagree with the comments that action is not needed. Not all accommodation providers adhere to the code. That alone implies that action is in fact needed. I have often wondered about the approach that is taken when ministers say that something is already happening so we do not need to legislate. Surely that simply means that the thing is implementable and that putting it on a statutory footing can do nothing other than reassure.

I therefore ask the Government to rethink its position on amendment 371 in order to reassure students as well as developers and providers, most of whom are doing the right thing, that the Government is on their side. My amendment would build on that on-going work and provide in legislation a statutory responsibility to produce a charter to reaffirm the protections that good practice providers already have in place and that students who are not lucky enough to live in those places need. I hope that members can support my amendment.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I have just one amendment in the group, which is amendment 239. At the moment, councils do not have to factor in the needs of students when producing local housing strategies; they do not have to mention student housing at all, which is a rather bizarre situation. At stage 2, I proposed that we rectify that, but I agreed to hold off from pressing an amendment, as the cabinet secretary at the time said that she would work with me on the issue. I have discussed it with the current cabinet secretary, and she sympathises, but that has not translated into out-and-out support. She sympathises with a number of my other amendments but cannot quite bring herself to back them. The amendment is an easy fix that would mean that councils could not overlook the needs of students when writing their housing strategies. I intend to press it.

As we have heard, Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 370 builds on that, with a call for guidance on the strategies. She has my support on that, as she often does, and I will also support her other amendments in the group.

I turn to some of the other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman raised the issue of deposits for foreign students and called for a review, which does not seem unreasonable. We debated the issue at some length at stage 2, and it definitely needs to be tackled.

Maggie Chapman also calls for the Scottish Government to set up a guarantor scheme. I wonder about the cost of that. I sympathised with the proposal, but one of the advantages of being in my current position is that I can change my mind during debates, as I have done already, so I will probably not support that proposal.

I was struck by the comments of Edward Mountain, who also raised the issue of guarantors and has proposed a scheme in which landlords could increase the level of deposit. That seems to me to be a neat solution that should not be dismissed out of hand, so I will support it, too.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The issues that are raised by amendments 372 and 388 have been covered, so I will not move those amendments.

Amendment 373 and the consequential amendment 389 would simply mandate that ministers must publish a model terms and conditions document for student tenancies that covers private and institutional providers. They would also empower ministers to make the model Ts and Cs binding at a later date via regulation if they think that it is necessary to do so. Let us be honest: there is little point in producing a document of very good quality if it then disappears on to gov.scot/publications, because it is not enforceable, and those who want to forget it will simply decide to do so.

Voluntary guidance will be followed by providers that already provide a good service. The cabinet secretary referred to Unipol guidance, which is a voluntary accreditation scheme for PBSA providers. By definition, if a provider is uninterested in good practice, it will not get accreditation and will not be bound by the guidance. The providers that do not get accreditation will need to be compelled to meet the standards that we expect of them, so ministers should retain the option of being able to compel them. Amendment 373 does not require ministers to do that; it simply gives them a regulation-making power. It does so for no other reason than that the threat of potential regulation would be an incentive for providers to comply now voluntarily.

The cabinet secretary has not given the Parliament a reason to vote against amendment 373. She has argued that work is already under way, which I am glad about. The amendment would ensure that that work has its desired effect. It would do three things: ensure that the work must be completed and that the document must be published, specify that the terms and conditions should address affordability, and give ministers the power to put the model on a statutory basis in the future, if they believe that to be necessary. It would make the model comparable to the existing model tenancy agreement that the Parliament agreed for the private rental sector years ago. If nothing else, retaining that option, as I said, should push providers to accept the standards voluntarily.

The cabinet secretary has not yet explained why the Government believes that a voluntary code is sufficient. Indeed, she acknowledged that many PBSA providers do not sign up to the existing voluntary standards—most do, but far from all of them. Writing guidance for those that already provide high-standard accommodation seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise. Some of the biggest providers—Vita, Student Roost and IQ—are not signed up to Unipol, at least according to its website. Why does a Vita tenant deserve less protection than a Unite Students tenant?

The biggest issue that student tenants face is cost, as evidenced by the campaigning on it by the NUS and student unions across Scotland. As I said, amendment 373 would mandate that affordability must be reflected in the model terms and conditions. It does not specify how, because doing so in primary legislation would be too restrictive. The exercise is on-going, so the amendment simply sets out that that is one point that needs to be covered.

We can all acknowledge that the likely outcome of the stage 3 proceedings is that PBSA will not be covered by the general rent control provisions. Amendment 373 is an alternative way to tackle the issue of extortionate costs in the sector, which all parties have acknowledged. It comes from a frustration about the pace of delivery on student tenancy reform. Crucially, it would also deliver on a PBSA review group recommendation.

Amendment 373 offers the best of both approaches: it would let the Government’s on-going work continue while allowing the Government to retain the power to go further if it is required in the future. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary is opposing it without specifying why. She believes that voluntary guidance is sufficient, but we already have voluntary guidance that has proven insufficient, which is why we are engaged in the exercise.

I urge the Parliament to support amendment 373. It would not mandate anything beyond what is already happening, but it would give us the option to return to the matter and enforce the guidance that will be produced anyway if providers do not voluntarily adhere to it.

Amendment 374 and consequential amendment 390 deliver on another PBSA review group recommendation. They recognise that a lot of student tenants feel unable to have their concerns and issues reliably addressed by their providers. They are often simply ignored or left in limbo for months on end, and they have little option for redress or resolution.

Similar to the approach to the model terms and conditions, amendment 374 would require ministers to publish a model complaints procedure—that is, the one that is already being progressed, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged—and would give ministers the optional power to make compliance binding at a later date.

All that my amendments would require ministers to do is what they have already committed to. The amendments would simply give them the option to take further action, if it is necessary, at a later point. A model terms and conditions document and a model complaints procedure are being produced, so let us give ourselves the option of ensuring that they are enforced in future. That is why I will move amendments 373, 374, 389 and 390.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I want to discuss drawing purpose-built student accommodation into the rent control measures. I attended the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee when that issue was being discussed. It was an important example of clear communications from Government ministers being essential in giving the committee confidence and avoiding frustration that leads to decisions that have a knock-on effect on not only the purpose-built student accommodation sector but the wider housing sector. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has given absolute clarity, as her predecessor did, on the Government’s policy on purpose-built student accommodation. Trust in the Government on housing was slowly being restored after quite a few rocky years, but lack of clarity in the direction of travel of not only the Government but the Parliament knocked the confidence of the PBSA sector and the wider housing sector.

Having clarity from, and trust in, the Government is essential if people who are planning to invest are to follow through on investment decisions. Overnight, investors decided to put projects on hold as a result of one vote in the committee that day. Therefore, I am pleased that we have clarity that purpose-built student accommodation should not be subject to rent controls, because that sector is very different. It is institutionally managed, and the accommodation is purpose built, with wraparound services and enhanced safety and security.

Throughout discussion on the bill, I have been clear that we can have the best standards in the world but, if we do not have people to build the houses, we will not have houses for people to live in. We can cast our minds back a couple of years ago, when there was a crisis in student accommodation. People at the University of St Andrews were living in Dundee, and people at the University of Glasgow were unable to get a home near that institution. We cannot afford to go back to that position, but we cannot do this by ourselves. We must have the support of the private sector, as well as the state providers of accommodation, if we are to deal with the housing emergency. That is why I am in favour of having a regime that builds confidence among investors and that sets good standards for tenants, whether they are students or private tenants.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

As I have acknowledged, it is clear that Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendment will be undone, by majority, today. However, given what Mr Rennie has said, how do the Liberal Democrats believe that we can address affordability in the PBSA sector? Does he believe, as the cabinet secretary seems to believe, that we can do that on a voluntary basis, despite the fact that we have been taking that approach up until now, which has led us to this point of unaffordability?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I do not think that the voluntary scheme has been scrutinised effectively. Graham Simpson’s amendment has brought greater Government focus on trying to get the sector into a better position. However, we must increase supply in order to deal with the price of accommodation. Fundamentally, we have seen the adverse effect that rent controls can have on the supply of housing across the wider sector, not just that for students. I am not in favour of a rent control regime for purpose-built student accommodation, because of the side effects that I have set out.

We will support the Government’s amendments and Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 105 and 116, but we are not in favour of the other amendments in the group.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In the interest of time, I will be brief. I associate myself with Willie Rennie’s contribution, particularly in relation to the balance that he is seeking to strike between investment and actions to support tenants and address affordability. I agree with him entirely on that.

I am pleased to hear that members across the chamber will support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, which represent a big step forward in facilitating opportunities to end tenancies in certain circumstances.

Edward Mountain asked me to comment on his amendment 221. I am afraid that extending or increasing the maximum deposit could make it more difficult for those who are seeking to satisfy a landlord’s deposit requirements, despite the fact that his intention is to make it easier.

In respect of Ross Greer’s comments, I have spoken to the fact that expert-led work is well advanced and I do not require the rigidity of primary legislation to make this work. I invite Ross Greer and other members to work with me on it.

I therefore urge members to support my amendments, which are absolutely essential to removing a flawed stage 2 amendment from the bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. There will be a five-minute suspension to allow members to log into the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the vote on amendment 123, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Gilruth. I will make sure that that is recorded.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would just like to check: I voted yes, but my app does not seem to be recording that.

It is okay now—sorry.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can confirm that your vote was recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 101, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 123 agreed to.

Section 2—Report to Scottish Ministers following periodic assessment

Amendment 124 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not refresh. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Baillie. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 124 agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 2 is on rent conditions and designation of rent control areas. Amendment 125, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 126 to 135, 60, 61, 136, 62 to 64 and 270. I note that, if amendment 136 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 62 or amendment 137, which is in the group on student tenancies and accommodation, as a result of a pre-emption. If amendment 64 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 270, as a result of a pre-emption.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendment 125, in my name, addresses concerns about amendments agreed to at stage 2 that require that, where a local authority recommends that an area be designated as a rent control area, that area must be specified by reference to the street or ward, in addition to the existing requirement to delineate the boundary of the area on a plan. I note the committee’s support for that amendment at stage 2, and I recognise the importance of the intention behind it, which is to ensure that rent control areas are clearly defined. However, I am concerned that the current wording limits local authorities’ flexibility to set boundaries in a way that best reflects local circumstances.

To address that, I have lodged amendment 125, which will enable a local authority, where it considers it to be appropriate, to specify the area by reference to a street, ward or appropriate boundary. I believe that that approach retains the intent of stage 2 while providing essential flexibility to councils.

Amendments 126 and 127, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require local authorities to submit a report when they voluntarily undertake an interim assessment under section 3(2), and they would have to do so within three months. Where the Scottish ministers have directed a local authority to carry out an interim assessment, the amendments would require it to be submitted as soon as reasonably practicable, but no later than three months after the direction. Carrying out an assessment under section 3(2) is entirely at the discretion of the local authority, and there is no timescale provided for completion. For an interim assessment being carried out after one has been directed by ministers, it would be very unhelpful to add such a restricted timeframe to local authorities, as that is likely to severely hinder their ability to carry out a thorough and robust process, which I think we would all agree is essential to the proper functioning of the rent control process. As such, I cannot support amendments 126 and 127, because they would undermine robust assessment and reporting.

Likewise, amendment 128, in Edward Mountain’s name, would require ministers to consider a report from local authorities within three months of receipt. Although I agree with the need to avoid unnecessary delays in reporting, it is likely that reporting by local authorities, which will happen on a cyclical basis, will result in the bulk of reports being received simultaneously. It is essential that each report is scrutinised carefully to ensure that any decision to implement rent controls is clearly evidenced as being necessary and based on local data. Imposing a time limit of three months, particularly if all reports are received at the same time, is not a measured approach or one that I would wish to see. As such, I cannot support amendment 128.

Amendments 129 and 130, in Edward Mountain’s name, would remove the ability of ministers to specify the timing for an assessment report when directing a local authority to carry out further assessment. Instead, local authorities would have to submit the report within three months, which would create an unnecessary restriction. If assessment reports contain insufficient detail for ministers to make an informed decision about the need for rent controls, or if we are given insufficient time to scrutinise reports, that could impact on our ability to conduct rent controls and to conduct them well. Therefore, I do not support the amendments.

Amendment 131, in my name, addresses concerns around amendments that were agreed at stage 2 that modified the requirement on ministers to consult before issuing guidance to local authorities on carrying out assessments of rental conditions in their area. That amendment to the bill at stage 2 requires ministers to

“consult ... persons who appear to them to understand the impact of rent increases on rural areas.”

As a rural MSP, I recognise that circumstances in rural areas are often very different from those in other parts of Scotland. However, I have concerns about the wording, because, as currently drafted, the provision would be interpreted as requiring ministers to consult every person who understands the impact of rent increases on rural interests, which is clearly completely impractical. It is also not clear how those persons would be identified. Such consultation would be more extensive than, for example, the consultation that is required with other groups, such as landlords and tenants, where the requirement is to consult those whom we consider to represent the interests of the group. I have therefore lodged amendment 131, which makes it clear that consultation is required with those who represent the interests of rural stakeholders.

Amendment 132, in my name, relates to an amendment that we supported in principle at stage 2, which required ministers to issue guidance to local authorities about reports to be prepared after their assessment of local rent conditions. That support in principle was given on the basis that, at stage 3, we would seek to amend the duty to allow time for consultation before any such guidance is issued. Amendment 132 sets a deadline of nine months to issue that guidance, beginning on the date on which the relevant provision comes into force. I am content that that meets the intention of the stage 2 amendment while allowing that crucial time for consultation and engagement with local authorities.

Amendment 133, in my name, addresses concerns about amendments agreed at stage 2 that would require the Scottish ministers to include in guidance to local authorities eligible reasons for recommending rent control when reporting on rent conditions.

I agree that there is a need for clear guidance for local authorities to make their assessments and recommendations—not least, to ensure a consistent approach across Scotland. I recognise why the committee voted in support of that at stage 2. However, local authorities may be reluctant to recommend rent control when their reasons for doing so do not align with the eligible reasons that, under that stage 2 amendment, we would have to set out in guidance. There is a risk that that could inadvertently impact on the ability to impose rent control well, when it is needed to protect tenants. It would unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the local authority, which, ultimately, is best placed to determine such matters. As we set out at stage 2, an exhaustive list

“would be restrictive and might not support consideration of local factors.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 6 May 2025; c 9.]

For that reason, I lodged amendment 133.

Amendment 134 provides that guidance that is issued under section 7(1) may include provision about the reasons for recommending the designation of an area for rent control. Again, that is different from requiring alignment with the eligible criteria, which could be restrictive.

Amendment 135, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require reports by ministers on proposals for rent control to include detailed reasons for their decision, rather than just reasons. That does not create any meaningful duty on the ministers beyond what is already in the bill—[ Interruption .]

Apologies, Presiding Officer—I thought that Mr Mountain was making an intervention.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Yes—I am sorry, I thought that that was what was happening before.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you. “In detail” does mean something, actually—it certainly means something to people outside the Parliament. I am not sure why the Government would object to having the word “detailed” instead of having nothing in there at all. Maybe if I put in the word “flimsy”, you would object to that as well.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Certainly, I would reject “flimsy” as well as “detailed”. It does not have any legal application. All reasons specified in law have to be detailed. Amendment 135 must be rejected on that basis.

My amendments 60 to 62 address concerns about amendments agreed to at stage 2 that removed ministers’ discretion to designate rent control areas, instead requiring designation where that is recommended by a local authority. That change could lead to unintended consequences because it would oblige ministers to lay regulations to designate rent control areas, even where evidence does not support the need for that or where it may be disproportionate.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will, in a second.

I do not think that that fits well with the evidence-led approach in the bill as introduced. I believe that amendments 60 to 62 are necessary to ensure that rent control is introduced only where it is necessary and proportionate.

I will take Ms Chapman’s intervention.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The changes that were made at stage 2 do not require ministers to make regulations for rent control without any other checks. It is clearly stipulated in section 9(1A) that there can be checks to allow ministers to say, “Actually, no—these are not proportionate or appropriate.” Given that the protections are there to give ministers that power, I do not understand why the cabinet secretary is trying to overrule the will of the committee at stage 2 in this way.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I assure Ms Chapman that in no way am I trying to overrule the committee’s intentions. All that I am trying to do is reinstate ministerial discretion, as it applies in the normal way in such circumstances. The formulation of the subsection as it stands would oblige ministers to implement the recommendations of local authorities, rather than requiring them to receive the recommendation from local authorities and to apply their discretion on its application. It is for those reasons that I lodged amendments 60 to 62, which will reinstate that discretion and simply bring us into line with the normal approach and the appropriate checks and balances that normally operate.

Maggie Chapman’s amendment 136 would remove the provision that a rent control area may be designated only where it is necessary and proportionate. I am clear that we really must designate an area for rent control only if the evidence shows that it is necessary and proportionate in the local circumstances. I am not sure on what other basis we could make such a decision. I cannot therefore support amendment 136.

My amendment 63 addresses concerns about an amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which provides that the amount that is specified under regulations in section 9(1), which is related to the setting of the rent cap, must be calculated by reference to the quality, state of repair and energy efficiency of the property. I acknowledge the concerns around those factors, which were raised by a number of members during that discussion.

I want to be clear that we are committed to tackling disrepair in housing and we are continuing to drive a culture in which good maintenance is non-negotiable. A number of measures to tackle poor-quality properties in the private rented sector, including through the requirements that are set out in the repairing standard, are already in place under separate legislation.

However, I strongly believe that tenants in the private rented sector should be afforded the protection of Awaab’s law. That is why I committed to bringing Awaab’s law into force across the whole of the rented sector from March next year, starting with damp and mould, subject of course to Parliament’s agreement.

In relation to the powers in section 9, the committee agreed to our suite of stage 2 amendments that set out a uniform, fixed rent cap to apply to all rent control areas. That was brought forward in response to calls for greater certainty on how rent controls will be implemented. As part of that suite of amendments, the references to an “amount specified” in regulations were removed from section 9. To avoid confusion, I lodged amendment 63 to remove that obsolete reference, which resulted from the stage 2 process.

I am getting there, Presiding Officer.

I turn to Mark Griffin’s amendment 270. An amendment was agreed to at stage 2 that provides a definition of “rent payable” that excludes utility charges from being considered as part of the rent in relation to some of the rent control provisions in the bill. Amendment 270 would expand the list of exclusions in that definition to include amounts payable for broadband or district heating.

I appreciate the concerns that were raised at stage 2 about the collection of accurate data regarding what may be included as part of the rent for a property in order to facilitate a fair comparisons of rents across the private rented sector. I think that that is what led members to supporting that amendment at stage 2.

However, the committee agreed to our stage 2 amendments to section 15, which, as amended, now allows local authorities or the Scottish ministers to collect specific information on whether the rent payable for a property includes any costs associated with the property and what those costs are, as part of their data gathering on rents.

In addition—I expect that this point will resonate with Mark Griffin, because I am sure that this was not his intention—excluding utilities from the definition in this part of the bill has potential to create confusion in the sector, because the definition that was inserted at stage 2 would create a distinction between, on the one hand, the definition of “rent payable” for the purposes of designating rent control and, on the other, the definition of that term for the operation of rent control. That would allow any unscrupulous landlord to increase costs for such utilities at any time and to any level outwith the protections that would otherwise be afforded if it was part of the definition of rent.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In many rural properties, landlords supply those services via private infrastructure and there is no alternative provider in the area. Utility costs are, therefore, often included as part of the rental change. There needs to be fairness in relation to geography. Does the cabinet secretary understand that not every area will be the same and that these issues have been brought to Parliament in order to create fairness in the sector?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely understand the point that Meghan Gallacher puts to me, and it is something that I discussed with Scottish Land & Estates before stage 3. Despite agreeing and understanding the different nature of the situations in rural and urban Scotland, I cannot have a situation where we have different definitions of “rent payable” for the designation of rent control and for the operation of rent control, and I cannot have a situation where utilities are taken outwith the definition of “rent payable” and can therefore be increased outwith the protections that would otherwise be afforded to the tenant. However, I commit to continuing to work with Scottish Land & Estates on the nuances there.

For all the reasons that I have set out, I have lodged amendment 64 to remove the confusing definition that was added at stage 2, so that the operation is seamless and there is continuity between definitions.

For all those reasons, I urge members to support my amendments in the group and to reject the amendments in the names of Edward Mountain, Maggie Chapman and Mark Griffin.

I move amendment 125.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

At the outset, I state for the record—I am sure that it will not surprise anyone—that I do not like rent control areas. They are a blunt instrument to achieve the aim.

The purpose of my amendments 126 to 130 is to make people get a move on when they detail out and make reports. I do not believe that three months is too tight a timescale. In the real world, people provide reports much more quickly. It is therefore unfair to give the reason that “three months is too quick” and to excuse councils and the Government from making decisions in that period. For every month in which there is some dubiety, problems are caused in the rented sector—for tenants and landlords—and disagreement could be caused. That is why I want the process to be done in three months.

I will also draw to the attention of the cabinet secretary the fact that, although there may be no legal definition of “detailed” that she is prepared to accept, the “Oxford English Dictionary”—always a good place to start—says:

“having many details or facts”

and

“showing attention to detail”.

That is what I was asking for in the report. It is not a big ask. I am slightly disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not think that that is a useful addition to the points that she has made.

Amendments 60, 61 and 62, in the name of the cabinet secretary, are of concern to me because they take power from local authorities and invest it in the Government. I am not sure that that is democracy at local level.

I am disappointed with the cabinet secretary’s amendment 63, which, let us be clear, would remove an amendment that I moved at stage 2 and that was accepted by the Government when it was discussed at committee, which was to take into account the quality, state of repair and energy efficiency of a property. There is no doubt in my mind that properties that have high standards of insulation and the highest-quality furnishings demand a different rent to that of properties that do not have those things. It seems entirely appropriate that that was agreed to by the committee, which considered it in great detail. It is disappointing that the Government now thinks that it is appropriate to wade in.

Again, I am disappointed with the cabinet secretary’s amendment 64, which would remove the definition of “rent”. Meghan Gallacher made the point about district heating and heating infrastructure; however, it is not just about that. A lot of private rental properties in rural communities have private water supplies, which are incredibly onerous to check and maintain each year. Such properties might also have private sewerage supplies, which, as the cabinet secretary will know, do not appear on council tax bills. It therefore seems right and proper that the landlord should, if they choose, charge the equivalent amount to Scottish Water for maintaining adequate and wholesome supplies that we all want them to provide. I am disappointed that removing what is defined as “rent” could mean that the rent for a property that included those was considered to be too high. That would be a mistake, and I urge the cabinet secretary to reflect.

For the same reason, I have looked carefully at Mark Griffin’s amendment 270, which would extend the charges that are excluded from the rent that is payable to include broadband and district heating. That is a sensible amendment for a lot of reasons that I have just given, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will support it, leave in the effect of my previous stage 2 amendment and not move her amendment 64, which seeks to squash the committee’s considered decision at stage 2.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Mountain. I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 136 and other amendments in the group.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Edward Mountain will be surprised to hear that I agree with virtually everything—not quite all but nearly everything—that he said and that we will be supporting his amendments in this group. At stage 2, I was very pleased to get the committee’s support to strengthen local democratic decision making on rent controls. As a result, section 9 obliges the Scottish Government to introduce rent controls, where a local authority has submitted a valid application for a rent control area. Before, it could simply refuse to produce the secondary legislation to introduce a rent control area.

My amendment 136 would do some tidying up after that welcome change. It would remove the ability of the Scottish Government to veto a rent control area application on the grounds that it is neither necessary nor proportionate. However, let me be clear: that does not prevent an inappropriate rent control area application from being stopped. If the Parliament is not convinced that an application is necessary or proportionate or feels that it is inappropriate for any other reason, subsection (1A), which I introduced into the bill at stage 2, allows it to refuse. Crucially, however, that takes the decision out of the hands of a minister and respects the rights of local authorities and of the Scottish Parliament to oversee crucial policy decisions.

The Scottish Government’s amendments 60 to 62 to remove my amendments that were made at stage 2 are deeply troubling. First, they go back on a fairly well-established principle that the Scottish Government accepts the will of committees and the Parliament. That new approach was voted through at stage 2. The legislation team has certified that the amendment was then, and remains, technically competent. There is absolutely no reason to reverse that, other than that the Scottish Government does not want to give that power to local authorities.

Secondly, an absolute right of veto violates the Verity house agreement to which the Scottish Government is a signatory. The agreement says:

“The powers held by local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional, authority”.

Why should local authorities think that the agreement is worth the paper that it is written on if the Scottish Government wishes to give itself a veto over one of the most important new powers for local government in many years? I urge the cabinet secretary to reconsider and I ask her to reflect on the words that she used in her remarks on group 1 earlier, when she talked about rent control areas needing to be “locally led”. Let local authorities lead.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 270 and other amendments in the group.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Amendment 270, in my name, would allow broadband and district heating schemes to be included in the list of services that may be supplied privately, where there is no publicly available infrastructure. I recognise that including those essential services in the legislation will encourage the development of more district heating networks, supporting our energy efficiency and decarbonisation goals; future proof the legislation for a time when heat networks become commonplace, ensuring that any charges are clearly identified and kept separate from rent; bring clarity and consistency to how privately provided essential services are treated, especially and crucially in rural and off-grid areas, where public provision is often lacking; and provide greater transparency for tenants in relation to service provision and costs.

I support the principle of rent control, especially given the background of ever-increasing rents and the urgent need to protect tenants. However, for those rent controls to be effective and workable, it is absolutely vital that rent is clearly defined as rent only, with the central utilities and services, such as broadband and district heating, identified and charged for separately, where appropriate. That approach ensures that tenants are not paying for hidden or bundled costs and that the system is transparent and fair for everyone. Attempts to remove the amendment that clarified that definition risk undermining the clarity and fairness that tenants deserve. We also cannot afford to lose much-needed homes from the sector, particularly in rural Scotland, at this time of housing emergency. I have therefore lodged amendment 270 to ensure that the amendment that was passed at stage 2 is future proofed to include the wider definitions of district heating and broadband. I ask members to support the amendment.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Similar to my colleague Edward Mountain, I am concerned about amendments 60 and 61, in the name of the cabinet secretary. That concern is around the need for scrutiny, given the unpredictable nature of rent controls and what we have seen happen across the country in relation to the loss of investment when rent controls have been placed in certain areas.

I absolutely understand the point that Maggie Chapman is trying to make about local authorities and localism—about local authorities being able to make decisions about what is right in their own area—but this decision will impact whether more homes are built across the country, which is something that we, as MSPs, should be kept up to date on and be able to scrutinise. However, it seems that the Government will attempt to remove that from the bill this afternoon. I was reassured to hear that the cabinet secretary would not support amendment 136, in the name of Maggie Chapman. Again, I think that it is appropriate that the provision about the requirement for rent controls includes the point about it being “necessary and proportionate”. I believe that that is the right terminology when we are looking at this particular area of the bill.

We need to look at the full picture when it comes to rent controls and make sure that decisions are fully evidence based so that there are no unintended consequences for the rental market. I believe that, if Maggie Chapman’s amendment was passed, what would be implemented would be the opposite of the aims that she is trying to achieve on the back of this amendment. We need to look at everything as a whole.

On amendment 63, in the name of Màiri McAllan, again, I have raised the issue of fairness in terms of rent controls and the need to make sure that the bill is proportionate. Parliament has been waiting for the heat in buildings bill. Should extensive costs be associated with the current bill, I believe that landlords will find it harder to keep pace with rising costs, as rent increases would no longer be directly linked to improvements or specific features of their property.

I have raised with the cabinet secretary, when we have met, the need to incentivise landlords to keep them in the housing market to ensure that we have homes available for people to live in. I believe that landlords have faced significant financial losses and many, as we know, have left the market due to temporary rent controls. Increased regulation and hostility towards landlords will not result in ensuring that the supply of homes meets demand. For example, a Scottish Association of Landlords report revealed concerns that increasing regulation has led to a loss of more than 50,000 homes in the private rented sector. The decisions that we make on this bill will have a direct impact on our housing market in the private rented sector.

On amendment 64, the cabinet secretary took an intervention on this from me moments ago, but I go back to our argument in relation to rural properties and the comments that Edward Mountain made. I believe that if we do not back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, we will be creating a huge disparity between urban areas and rural areas when we look at the differences in how rent is collated. That would show that the Government is not standing up for rural areas. I therefore urge members to back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, and not to support amendment 64, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Despite the time constraints, I will take a bit of time to wind up, because there are some really important provisions in this section. I appeal to members to think very carefully about them, as I know they will. In the past, decisions have been taken on this bill that have proven to be the wrong decisions, so I ask members to think carefully, first, about amendments 60, 61 and 62, in respect of rent control. This is an absolutely critical provision about when rent control will or will not come into play in Scotland.

The application of rent control is not a power for local authorities; it is a power for Scottish ministers, with parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, Maggie Chapman’s formulation of ministers having a veto over local authorities’ powers is completely wrong. The effect of Ms Chapman’s amendment would be that ministers would be forced to designate a rent control area—which is not a small action—even where we considered it to be disproportionate. We would be in that position because a very unusual constitutional approach had been taken in the formulation of the power that was passed in Maggie Chapman’s amendment at stage 2. I ask Maggie Chapman to consider a situation in which a local authority is ideologically or politically against rent controls. That would prevent ministers from having any say on whether rent controls were put in place in that local authority.

Similarly, I ask those members who are more sceptical about rent controls to consider the effect if a council was disproportionately seeking to apply a rent control. Members who do not vote for amendments 60, 61 and 62 would be completely taking out the Scottish Government’s role in assessing the proportionality in that regard, and I ask them to think extremely carefully about doing so.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does that not highlight the problems with rent controls in their entirety? The fact that we are arguing about whether the power should lie with the Scottish Government or with local councils, and about the political make-up and political ideologies, shows that rent controls are going to have an impact on the sector and that, regardless of which way members vote this evening, there are going to be problems with rent controls.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am afraid that there is no way of backing out of rent controls in Scotland, regardless of the way that members vote on this particular issue, but the decision will have a considerable impact on their operation. Rent controls are being taken forward—they are the right thing to do where the evidence suggests that that is the case in a local area, where the local authority has gathered that information and referred it to ministers, and where ministers have made our assessment that it is proportionate to accept the proposal. I stress again, therefore, the vital importance of members across the chamber considering amendments 60, 61 and 62 very carefully.

Similarly, with regard to the definition of “rent payable”, I stress again to members that the effect of not voting for my amendment 64 would be that, in a rent control area, landlords would be able to raise utility payments—perhaps exorbitantly—outwith the controls that would otherwise apply to rent. Again, members have to think carefully about that.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I may have jumped the gun a bit, as the cabinet secretary may be about to tell me that she believes that things such as private water supplies and private drainage ought to be considered. Nevertheless, by taking that definition out of the bill, is she not creating more problems? Should she not have taken a sensible approach to the matter and defined what could be included in rent, rather than just saying what cannot be included?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The definitions of rent in the bill are clear, but they were separated at stage 2. I am saying that we need to undo that separation, because one of its effects is that, in a rent control area, a tenant will not be afforded protections for utilities that they would otherwise be afforded for rent. I simply ask members to think carefully about how they vote on that question, as well as on amendments 60, 61 and 62.

Amendment 125 agreed to.

Section 3—Interim assessment and reports by local authorities

Amendments 126 and 127 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Section 4—Scottish Ministers to review local authority report

Amendment 128 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Section 5—Further assessment of rent conditions and report by local authority

Amendments 129 and 130 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 126 to 130?

As no member objects, the question is, that amendments 126 to 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is now closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies—I could not connect to the voting app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 77, Abstentions 1.

Amendments 126 to 130 disagreed to.

Section 6—Ministerial guidance on assessments of rent conditions

Amendment 131 moved—[Màiri McAllan]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Ministerial guidance on reports following assessments of rent conditions

Amendments 132 to 134—[Màiri McAllan]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Scottish Ministers’ duty to report

Amendment 135 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not think that I was able to connect to the app. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Fraser. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 59, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 135 disagreed to.

Section 9—Power to designate rent control area

Amendment 60 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60 agreed to.

Amendment 61 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 77, Against 33, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members that, if amendment 136 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 62 and 137 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 136 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is now closed.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote no, but it went as a yes. I just want to check that my vote is recorded properly.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Boyack, what I can say is that the record will show how you voted.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Can I clarify? I initially voted yes, then I double-checked and did vote no, and it would not let me go from yes to no within the time of the vote. I think that it is important to log that. I did try to vote no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

All that I can say at this point, Ms Boyack, is that the vote is recorded as a yes. That is the process.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 101, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 136 disagreed to.

Amendment 62 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I refreshed the app, and it would not let me vote. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Boyack. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 62 agreed to.

Amendment 137 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

indicated agreement.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The Parliament is agreed—

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There was a late no there. I ask members to try to follow the process as we do it, or perhaps to speak more loudly, because I did not hear the member say that.

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 0, Abstentions 7.

Amendment 137 agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Clark. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 51, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members that, if amendment 64 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 270 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 64 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 59, Against 52, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 64 agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

As I indicated, because amendment 64 has been agreed to, I cannot call amendment 270 due to pre-emption.

Section 14—Properties exempt from or subject to modified restrictions

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 3 is on exempt properties. Amendment 138, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 65, 153, 154, 66, 156, 157, 67 to 69, 158 to 161, 278, 279, 162 to 164, 70, 172, 267, 268, 122 and 269.

I draw members’ attention to the procedural notes on the amendments in the group, which are set out in the groupings.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The Greens oppose exemptions to rent control. To work for renters and to work for landlords, the system needs to be simple and transparent. Adding various exemptions for different types of landlords or different types of properties will make the system excessively complicated.

Many renters are already unfamiliar with their rights. Bringing in a system of rent controls but taking it away again from significant numbers of tenants will only add to that problem and to their confusion. We do not believe that there should be such a wide-ranging scope for exemptions. Renters need clarity, and landlords should not be able to weasel their way out of rent controls. Therefore, my amendments in this group remove exemption provisions, and I want to say a little about two specific areas that are much talked about.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I regret some of the language that is being used in the debate about landlords and property investors. To say that they are able to “weasel” out of rent controls is unfortunate, because we cannot solve the housing crisis without everybody being involved, whether that is the state, councils, registered social landlords, charities or the private sector. To describe landlords as weaselling out sums up exactly the problem that we have got ourselves into: we are deterring investment. Please, let us tone down the language and respect everybody who has a role to play in investing in properties.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank Willie Rennie for his intervention, but he will not be surprised that I disagree with him. The hundreds of tenants, renters and activists who gathered outside the Parliament last night would echo the concern that rogue landlords have got away with really poor practice for far too long.

That is why we cannot support exemptions in two specific areas. First, we cannot support them for the build-to-rent sector. That is seen by many as a way to increase private investment in housing supply, and it is attractive to investors if they can be sure of high rental yields. However, because of the requirement for high rental yields, the accommodation tends to be high-end luxury housing or at least to be priced at the higher end of the private rented sector. Such developments do not sit well with the desire for mixed communities or for an affordable element of large-scale housing developments.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I suggest that Ms Chapman and other colleagues might wish to visit build-to-rent developments in the likes of Liverpool that have been built by very socially aware companies and that involve mixed housing, including semi-detached and detached homes. Again, we should not be painting everyone with the same brush. I would welcome such investment in Scotland.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank Kevin Stewart for that intervention, but, again, we disagree. Renters tell us that, in their experience, properties that have been supported by build-to-rent schemes are high end and expensive. They do not sit well with the desire for mixed community living.

From a Green point of view, there is no reason in principle why a build-to-rent landlord should be exempt from rent controls, and there is no reason in principle why a build-to-rent tenant should not have the same package of tenancy protections as any other tenant. We want consistency for tenants, regardless of the type of property that they live in. The argument for the exemption holds only if build-to-rent accommodation is seen as a positive form of housing development compared with other types. We contend that it is not viewed so positively across the board.

We also cannot support exemptions for the mid-market rent sector. Even so-called mid-market levels are unaffordable to many. The Scottish Government’s own housing strategy identifies inconsistency in how mid-market rents reflect affordability. We remain concerned that investment in the mid-market rent sector would cause it to grow at the expense of genuinely affordable homes, such as those in the social rented sector. Exempting the mid-market rent sector from rent controls will not help us to tackle the housing emergency or our homelessness crisis; it will only exacerbate the crises that we face.

Tenants and renters need clarity. A no-exemption principle would provide that clarity.

I move amendment 138.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

My amendments 65 to 70 and 122 will provide the Scottish ministers with the power to set a process by which a property is confirmed as an exempt property. The intention is to enable tenants to be notified about the exempt status of a property and to verify that a property is exempt from rent controls. That is important in ensuring that tenants are protected from attempts to circumvent any rent control measures in the bill, and it is also important for landlords to have absolute assurance on their status.

As part of our consultation, we asked questions about what the process might look like. My amendments will give ministers the power to set out the process in regulations once we have had the opportunity to fully consider the responses to our consultation from across the sector, and I ask members to support them.

Together, Maggie Chapman’s amendments 138, 153, 154, 156, 157, 163, 164, 172 and 267 to 269 would remove any possibility of properties being exempted from rent control measures in the bill. She has been quite clear that that is her intention—she does not support exemptions.

Amendment 157 would remove the power of the Scottish ministers to define by regulations properties that are exempt, and other amendments would variously remove references to “exempt properties”. The removal of that power would make it impossible to exempt any private rental property from rent control, which is key in ensuring that there can be a balanced regime of controls.

Removing the power would impact on the ability of the Scottish ministers to impose rent control at all. We must be able to demonstrate that that can be done in a necessary and proportionate manner that balances the property rights of landlords with protections for tenants.

Amendment 164 would remove references to exempt properties from modifications to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 that determine the application of rent controls to private residential tenancies. That would substantially alter the application of rent controls to capture every private residential tenancy in a rent control area without exception.

I fully acknowledge Maggie Chapman’s opposition to rent control exemptions, but I simply cannot support the amendments. It is crucial that we carefully define the scope of any exemptions so that they can serve their intended purpose of balancing the rights of landlords and tenants. We will continue to work with stakeholders to refine the definitions in the coming months, with a view to introducing regulations, subject to parliamentary approval, after royal assent.

As at stage 2, a number of amendments have been lodged that seek to stipulate that regulations should include specific exemptions from rent control. Before I turn to the other amendments in the group, I confirm that I have already set out that it is my intention that, where appropriate, mid-market rent properties and build-to-rent properties will be exempt from the rent control measures in the bill.

In light of the housing emergency, it is vital that we prioritise expanding housing stock in Scotland, and where exempting certain categories of property is appropriate, that will support supply in those areas. Our recent consultation included questions on how mid-market rent and new properties that are built for rent should be defined in any exemption. That is not straightforward, and we are still considering those issues and the responses that we have received from across the sector.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have quite a lot of mid-market rentals in my constituency, and my constituents are contacting me about the huge increases that they are facing. It is not just inflation; it is a lot more than that. How can the cabinet secretary deal with that?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I understand that, within the affordable sector, we have social rented homes and mid-market homes, and that mid-market rents might increase. However, we should remember that, to a large extent, it is about social landlords using rents to drive improvements and expansion in the existing stock. We need only look at the homelessness statistics and the strain on supply and demand in housing in Scotland to know that we cannot take action that will stifle investment in all tenures of housing.

Amendment 158, in the name of Graham Simpson, would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for build-to-rent property, as defined in the amendment. Amendment 159 would also require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for properties where the rent payable is less than half the open market rent, and where the landlord has incurred significant costs by improving and repairing the property. As it is drafted, amendment 159 would not provide the Scottish ministers with the power to define “open market rent” or “significant costs” for the purposes of the regulations, and it is not clear how the amendment would operate without those definitions being clearly set out.

Amendment 160 would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for property for which the landlord is a registered social landlord or a subsidiary of a registered social landlord.

Amendment 161, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require any regulations to define an exempt property to include a specific exemption for any property where the tenant is an employee of the landlord and the rent is below the market rate. No definition is included of what is meant by “market rate” or how it would be determined what the “market rate” is, so it is unclear how such an exemption would operate. It is also not clear how or why a tenant who happens to be an employee ought not to be afforded protection.

I am keen to ensure that the circumstances of individual landlords are taken into account. As part of delivering a rent control system that is capable of balancing the interests of tenants with those of landlords, the bill includes regulation-making powers to allow for rent increases above the cap where that is necessary to achieve that balance.

However, as with other exemptions, it is essential that decisions in relation to such increases are informed by full and open consultation, allowing all of those who may be affected by rent control to have their say. For that reason, our recent consultation included specific questions about cases where the landlord has consistently charged a rent below the market rates or has made significant improvements to the let property, as well as other questions about cases where a rent increase above the cap may be appropriate.

Analysis of the consultation responses is still on-going. However, I am minded in principle to take forward the possibility of regulations that would allow for such increases where the rent has been consistently held below market rent, or where there has been investment in improvements to the quality of the rented property, where that is appropriate. Further work and engagement with stakeholders will be necessary to consider the detail of where, and in what circumstances, such exceptions may be appropriate and how they could be defined, and I look forward to working with stakeholders on that. As I have said, however, it is crucial that we consider the responses and always seek to take a balanced and informed approach.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 278 would require any regulations defining an exempt property to include specific exemptions for any property for as long as works are

“being undertaken by the landlord to eliminate or mitigate risks”

connected with building materials including cladding and reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC.

It is not clear from the amendment how the

“risks to human life that are (directly or indirectly) created”—

as the amendment puts it—are to be measured, and it is concerning that the amendment would allow rent increases to open market rates in buildings where there is a risk to the tenant’s life. It is also not clear that that would necessarily offer a benefit to landlords, as the exemption would appear to apply only for the duration of any works, which may not align with the point at which rent can be increased. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 278.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 279 would require any regulations defining an exempt property to include specific exemptions for the duration of time that the landlord is taking steps to improve the energy performance certificate—EPC—rating

“from less than C to C or above.”

That would exempt from rent control properties where the landlord is “taking action to improve” the EPC rating. The amendment does not specify what would constitute “action” to improve that rating, or why it would be reasonable to exempt the property from controls for the entire duration of that action—which does not appear to be limited in any way. It is not clear that that would necessarily offer a benefit to the tenant or to the landlord, and I cannot support the proposal.

As I have set out, I believe that any exemptions should be set out in regulations and should have been consulted on, and I cannot support anything that does not pursue that.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 162 would require the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations setting out properties that are exempt from rent control within six months of the act receiving royal assent. As I have said, I agree that it is vital to give certainty, and I intend to do that as soon as possible. I have already committed to bring forward secondary legislation on these matters at the earliest opportunity following royal assent. However, as I am sure all members would agree, it is critical that we get the provisions absolutely right and that those affected have a chance to have their say, so allowing time to consult on the regulations is necessary. I do not consider that setting a legislative timescale is the best way to achieve the aim.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that, as we are nearing the agreed time limit, under rule 9.8.4A(c), I consider it necessary to allow the debate on this group of amendments to continue beyond the limit, in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

We have already heard that, at stage 2, I moved an amendment that would have included purpose-built student accommodation in rent control arrangements. For anyone who was at that committee meeting or who was watching it, it would have been perfectly obvious that I did that merely as a tactic to get the Government to the table. To some degree, that has worked—although it caused quite a hullabaloo.

The cabinet secretary has successfully reversed the position. However, that leaves us in a position in which PBSA is exempt from rent controls but build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties are not, which was the Government’s original intention. If the situation stays like that, investment will go into student flats and not into the other sectors, which is a completely incoherent position.

The new Cabinet Secretary for Housing has said that she agrees that build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties should be exempt, which is good. My amendments 158 and 160 should, therefore, make her very happy. However, she has already argued that we do not, after all, need anything in primary legislation and she will consult instead. The Government loves to consult—who knows, there might be a pilot or a task force, if we are lucky. I cannot help thinking that, if she had lodged the amendments before I did, her thinking might have been different.

The sector is strongly in favour of amendment 160. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said:

“We have consistently called for mid-market rent homes to be excluded from private sector rent controls under the housing bill. We’re therefore pleased that the Scottish Government announced their intention to do so in the housing emergency action plan. This mirrors what the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have already called for, as well as the housing investment task force. However, to provide certainty as soon as practically possible, we would like to see an exemption for MMR on the face of the bill.”

“Certainty”—the cabinet secretary has used that word several times already today. The SFHA continued:

“We’re already seeing less MMR development among our members due to the uncertainty caused by the potential introduction of further regulation and its impact on investor confidence. MMR rents rise slower than typical PRS rents, and our sector does not raise rents above the levels required for business planning and viability. We are therefore strongly in favour of amendment 160.”

That position is backed by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which wants that amendment made to the bill, as it said,

“in case there is a change of approach (for example, from a new government next year).”

Amendment 160 has the backing of the people in the sector, who are the people on the ground. I know that nobody is listening to me, but they should listen to the people in the sector. Actually, I know that Mr Rennie will be listening to this, and I am sure that he will back these amendments.

Amendment 159 deals with another issue that I raised at stage 2, which is where a landlord has been charging below-market rent or where they have incurred significant costs to improve a property. In both those cases, they should be able to have exemption from rent controls. It is news to me that the cabinet secretary thinks that there is a drafting issue with the amendment. She has had time to raise that with me, yet this afternoon is the first that I have heard of it, which is a disappointment.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 278 on cladding and amendment 279 on meeting energy performance certificate regulations deal with broadly similar themes. She will have my support for those amendments.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to disprove something that Maggie Chapman said to members earlier about landlords weaselling out by exempting properties. I am not doing that. I am not doing it through cunning and deceit; I am doing it quite openly. Amendment 161 would mean that, where a tenant is an employee of the landlord and the property’s rent is below the market rent, the property would be exempt from rent controls.

The reason why I am making this point—I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to this—is that she will be aware of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order (No 72) 2025 and how much one can charge for properties that are supplied to people who are agricultural workers: it is a very low market rent. There might be times when, due to a shift in their employment, they move from one property to another and, therefore, it might be appropriate to increase the rent because they are no longer in one place—for example, they might have been given a reduced rent for working full-time on a farm.

That is one aim of amendment 161. The other relates to property given to people whose work requires them to be in the location—that is the only reason why there can be an exemption under the benefits in kind system. Should the position change, the property would probably end up having a very low market rent, and if it was within a rent control area, there would be restrictions on how much the rent could be increased. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that and perhaps to speak to it when she sums up.

I turn to amendment 162. Throughout the proceedings I have made the point that, when there is uncertainty in the market, the market will react to it. Through amendment 162, I aim to get the cabinet secretary to make draft regulations within six months of the bill being passed. The cabinet secretary is seeing the legislation through the Parliament, but it might not be the cabinet secretary herself who is in a position to lay those draft regulations. [ Interruption .] The cabinet secretary thinks that it will be her. Let us wait until the election, when the people of Scotland will decide.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

You are looking forward to that.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to Mr Dey if he wants say something, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I do not think that Mr Dey is seeking to intervene. I ask members to allow the member who has the floor to carry on.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What I am trying to do with amendment 162 is to get the draft regulations laid early. I agree with the aim of the cabinet secretary’s amendment 155 that when a property is advertised, it should be declared whether it is exempt.

Meghan Gallacher still has to speak to her amendments. I will be interested to hear her address the point that often, when properties are taken on for which substantial works are required, such as works for EPCs and the removal of RAAC, the rent will be at a reduced level. If they were in a rent control area, when that work had been completed and the property brought up to a much higher standard, there would be limits on how much the rent could be increased. That causes me concern, because it is this Government—and this Parliament—that is telling landlords across Scotland that they must improve the condition of their rental properties. Therefore, if the rent was low while such work was being undertaken, it would be self-defeating not to allow landlords to put it up when they had completed the work.

Those are my points. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary, and from Meghan Gallacher about her amendments.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Following on from where Edward Mountain left off, although my amendments 278 and 279 are probing amendments they raise incredibly important points. The amendments that I speak to today I also lodged earlier, at stage 2. However, many landlords up and down the country still face a great deal of uncertainty about properties that they own that contain combustible cladding or RAAC. As we have discussed previously, like many homeowners, a lot of those landlords are in limbo over whether the Government will be able to provide them with financial support or remuneration and about what they can do to remediate their properties.

Edward Mountain is correct to say that when works are being undertaken while a tenant is living in a property, the rent is usually lowered. If rent control is brought into an area, the ways in which the landlord could bring the rent back up to market value will be limited. My amendment 278 seeks to probe the Government on how it will address that issue, should it arise if the bill passes at stage 3.

On the point about energy efficiency of properties, we still await a heat in buildings bill—we do not know what it might contain. I am concerned that, for landlords, extra costs will be associated with bringing their properties up to the standard that I assume will be set out in that piece of legislation. The Government must understand such associated costs, including the fact that it is even more expensive for landlords in rural areas, and for those with more complex properties, to bring their properties up to EPC level C or above. That absolutely should be considered.

I will touch on Maggie Chapman’s amendments 156 and 157. Removing exemptions would be a disaster for the housing industry, and especially for future investment opportunities. We are in a housing emergency, and the whole Parliament is agreed on what we need to do to address it. The solution that will get us out of that emergency is to build more homes. If we vote through legislation that prevents investment opportunities from coming through and homes from being built, we will not address the problems that we have all agreed exist up and down the country. It is essential to have clarity about exemptions to rent controls to ensure that we protect the supply of rented housing, given the diverse nature of the private rented sector.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will give way when I have finished this point. Landlords are not always as they are often characterised. This afternoon, we have heard unfortunate language being used in relation to landlords. There are accidental landlords, landlords with a single property that they intend to let to self-employed individuals, and landlords who hold properties as part of pension arrangements. There is a whole landscape of landlords, which is why we need to look at any exemptions carefully.

On that point, I will give way to John Mason.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I agree with Meghan Gallacher that we need more housing, but does she accept that there is not much point in having new houses if people cannot afford to rent them?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I hope that John Mason agrees that, in order to lower rents, we need to build more homes so that we have more supply to meet the demand across the country. That is the only way that we will get out of the housing emergency. We must learn the various forms of housing tenure that we need in order to determine the stock that we will require to have up and down the country. I note how diverse our communities are—

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Meghan Gallacher give way again?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Okay—we will have a debate. I will take one more intervention.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the member for being generous. I do not want to extend this discussion for too long. If her aim is to lower rents, that would imply that they are too high at the moment. I accept that they might be too high because there is not enough housing, but she seems to be saying that rents are generally too high at the moment.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

John Mason has not pointed out what he would determine high rents to be. I am simply saying that, if we want to drive rents down, we have to make sure that there is a more ample supply of mixed-tenure housing up and down the country. That is a sensible and pragmatic point, and it explains the current state of the housing economy more generally. I hope that John Mason will look at that in relation to housing demand in his area, including how many people are looking for mid-market rent properties or for social housing, the latter of which we know has incredibly long waiting lists. I hope that that explains the position that I am trying to lay out.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have more amendments to speak to in other groups, but I say to Mr Greer that I hope that we can debate those when we reach them.

I return to the point about removing exemptions. I have no idea how we will get out of the housing emergency if we do not build more homes. I welcome the announcement that confirmed that MMR and BTR properties will be exempt from rent controls. I hope that Maggie Chapman will also welcome that announcement, even if she does so solely because we need homes to tackle the housing emergency. However, I understand that the Greens have quite defined stances on exemptions and rent controls in general.

I will touch on Graham Simpson’s amendments 158 to 160. He will be aware that Scottish Conservatives support the exemptions to rent controls. We would prefer to see them in the bill, but the Scottish Government has announced that MMR and BTR properties will be exempt from such controls once the secondary legislation has been approved. Given that the stage 3 proceedings on the bill are planned to take place over several days, I hope that at some point in the process we will be able to tease out from the Government what further exemptions could be included as part of the consultation process, because it is hugely important that we provide the required certainty and clarity.

I will finish on this point: we have to be incredibly careful about what we put in the bill. It is important that we have debates on exemptions; however, it is also important to note that if we put in some but not others, we could harm investment opportunities and, therefore, the people whom we are trying to help by passing the bill.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I get really depressed when I meet my constituents who are desperate for a home. I am fed up with the Parliament not being able to deliver an environment that incentivises investment and encourages the construction of more homes. It is important that we get the exemptions criteria right, because I want more homes to be built. To do that, we need to involve everyone—RSLs, councils, charities, those in the private rented sector and institutional investors. We must consider them all as partners, not enemies. We must work together to make this work.

We saw what happened with the emergency rent cap. Mid-market rented properties were not exempt, as the social landlords went with social homes instead. The result was a massive decline in housing association investment in mid-market rent.

Not everybody can get into a social home—people will not have enough points and will not be in sufficient housing need to get into those properties. They need other properties of an affordable rent in their community. We need housing associations to use the opportunity to invest. We agree, I think—we should agree—that an exemption is needed for housing association mid-market rented properties. If we agree that exemption, we need to consider what other exemptions would also be appropriate.

This is not about whether we have exemptions—we saw what happens if we do not have an exemption for housing association mid-market rented properties. The issue is the types of exemption and how we exempt properties.

I lodged amendments at stage 2 because I wanted exemptions in the bill for build-to-rent properties and for mid-market properties. I also wanted an exemption for a certain period of time for landlords who invest significantly in their properties, so that they could recoup that investment.

I thought that that approach was reasonable, but I was persuaded by the cabinet secretary when she was before the committee that the best way of doing this was through consultation leading to regulation, for the reason that the Government wanted a legally robust approach, given that this is an area where there could be legal challenge. We need it to be as robust as possible.

Secondly, we need flexibility, because we will need to learn as we progress. We will need to understand what exemptions work, and the particular ways in which they work. Putting the exemptions in regulation allows us to have flexibility to have different types of exemption, and maybe take out certain exemptions as we progress and learn. I am persuaded by the need to have consultation and regulation, rather than having provisions in the bill.

I agree with everything that Graham Simpson said—other than the process. If we proceed with his method, there is a danger that we will have a rigid system that is perhaps not legally robust.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I hear what Willie Rennie says. However, at stage 2, he was arguing for the issue to be in the bill—and I think that he agrees with me that it should be in the bill.

I read out words from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which wants amendment 160 in particular to be agreed to. As the SFHA points out, things can change, and Governments can change. We might have a change of Government next year—some of us hope for that.

In addition, as Willie Rennie knows fine well, if we leave things to regulation, there is less scrutiny; with regulation, the Parliament just does not have the chance to shape things that it has at this point.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

As always, Graham Simpson makes very fair points. It is a balancing act between the different ways of dealing with exemptions. I would love to have had them in the bill itself. I would love to be absolutely certain that the provisions would last for ever. I would love to have had a consultation well in advance so that the committee could have fully looked at exemptions for its stage 1 report. However, we know that the policy has evolved over time and that the Government has changed its approach midstream. That change is welcome, but the result is that we are now having to play a bit of catch-up and do a consultation in order to consider regulation. Regulations have the advantage of flexibility over time, as we learn, but I fully accept what Graham Simpson said. At stage 2, I lodged probing amendments to try to get the Government to tell us a bit more, which the minister did when she gave her statement to the Parliament earlier. She made it clear that mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties will be excluded, and I take her at her word.

However, this area is complicated, and we will need to consider how the system runs in the long term and what particular areas of the investment that I would like to see work in practice—and how long the exemptions would run, how much that would cost and what types of investment would be required to meet the criteria. It is appropriate that that is done through consultation and then regulation, and I urge the chamber to support the Government’s approach of doing that to get it right for the longer term.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will be brief, given that I do not have an amendment in this group.

On the principle of exemptions, at stage 1, the committee had two big concerns about clarity in the bill: one was about how rent controls would operate—that was settled at stage 2—and the second was about exemptions. In particular, given that we are dealing with a housing bill in the middle of a housing emergency, I had a real concern that the bill would not contribute to the building of a single house and would actually—if we did not develop the work on exemptions—lead to fewer houses being built during a housing emergency than would have been built ordinarily.

I support the work that the Government, stakeholders and others have done on exemptions in relation to MMR in particular but also build-to-rent properties and other areas of construction and expansion in the housing stock, which we could see, but which we would not otherwise see without the exemptions in the bill.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I invite Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 138.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

We believe that all renters should have the same rights, protections and securities, regardless of the type of property that they live in. That is the principle that underpins our position on exemptions. I have spoken about specific types of properties, especially build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties. However, I also stress that exempting from rent controls properties that do not meet basic standards for healthy living really sends out the wrong message. Landlords who do not maintain their properties or who take far too long to remedy serious issues should not be rewarded with the ability to hike rents.

I appreciate that the Scottish Greens’ view is a minority view in the chamber, even though it is the same as the view of Living Rent and other tenant campaign groups, so I do not expect my amendments to be agreed to. However, I will engage closely on the forthcoming discussions about exemption regulations. We must ensure that renters and their rights and ability to live safely and securely are at the heart of the regulations.

I wish to press amendment 138.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that, if amendment 138 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 65, due to pre-emption.

The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 103, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 138 disagreed to.

Amendment 65 moved—[Màiri McAllan].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My yes button would not work, but I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Leonard. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 1, Abstentions 7.

Amendment 65 agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I suggest that we have a comfort break for 15 minutes, colleagues. I would be grateful if members could be back in the chamber for just before 17:40.

Section 15—Information that may be sought by local authority

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 4 is on information gathering and reporting in relation to rent control areas. Amendment 139, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 271 to 275, 140 to 142, 276, 143, 277, 144 to 147, 30, 31, 148, 32, 33, 149, 151, 39, 40, 262, 263 and 393.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I have a number of amendments in this group on different issues. Amendments 139, 275 and 140, along with my amendments in other groups, address a technical but important issue. Currently, challenges to rent increases are based on open market rent, as understood largely through advertised rent and not the actual rents being paid. Since the majority of advertised rents are set at the maximum that the market will bear, open market comparison always drags rent upwards. Real rent comparison would ensure that rental data that is collected can be used for determining the open market rent, which would slow the ever-upward creep of the open market rent that happens when that real value is not used.

Amendments 30 to 33 would increase the £1,000 fines for non-provision of information and provision of false information to a minimum of £2,000 and would allow them to be increased with rising rents. The amendments underline the importance of getting the necessary and correct information, which was the issue that made rent pressure zones unworkable. At the moment, the bill’s £1,000 fine, which may not even be one month’s rent, is not a sufficient disincentive, and the incentive will become weaker over time if the fines are not updated. It is clear that rents continue to rise and that, therefore, the penalties that landlords face for providing incorrect information or not providing information should also rise.

I support the principle of Edward Mountain’s amendments 141 and 142 and Graham Simpson’s amendment 151, which would require the publication of the information that is gathered and would help to improve transparency. However, I note the concerns about the implication for resourcing that at local government level, so I ask those members to provide assurances on that in their contributions.

I move amendment 139.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Amendments 271 to 277 and 393 would introduce a clear and consistent definition of a “relevant” landlord across all housing-related legislation, including the bill. The aim is to ensure clarity over responsibilities for compliance, particularly where residential tenancies exist in agricultural holdings or other arm’s-length ownership arrangements. The proposal addresses an issue that Scottish Land & Estates has raised repeatedly since the introduction of the landlord registration regulations. The bill is a vital opportunity to fix a long-standing problem to the benefit of all parties.

Current housing law, such as the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, does not recognise landlord-tenant relationships that are created under agricultural holdings legislation. That causes confusion, especially when tenant farmers sublet housing under private residential tenancy—PRT—arrangements. The workarounds that are set out in Government guidance are flawed because tenant farmers are currently advised to register as agents on the landlord register. However, that is inappropriate, because the agents are meant to act on behalf of the owner, whereas tenant farmers are not required to do so under agricultural holdings law. That ambiguity creates uncertainty about who is responsible for compliance with data collection, rent control, energy efficiency and housing standards.

Although the bill has been amended to address some areas that relate to data collection—I believe that we will have further discussions on that—it does not resolve issues of compliance with or enforcement of other regulations.

My amendment has benefits for all sectors involved. It gives local authorities accurate landlord registration and enforcement, and it ensures that the correct person is held responsible without penalising owners for actions that are beyond their control. It provides tenant farmers with clarity on their responsibilities and rights without compromising the entitlement to compensation that is payable to them by the owner for any improvements that are made to enable subletting. For residential tenants, the amendment provides clearer information about who is responsible for compliance and a straightforward route to consider any required remedies. For owners, it will increase confidence in allowing subletting, because they will know that the compliance status is protected.

Amendments 144 to 148, which are consequential amendments to amendments 271 and 277, would remove potential confusion from the bill about such matters.

I understand what Maggie Chapman is trying to achieve with amendments 275 and 140, but there are unanswered questions on their potential consequences. For example, amendment 275 sets out that the council may ask for data on a landlord’s property to allow an order maker to determine the open market rent. However, the big question is what happens if the landlord does not respond to the request, because the bill will say only that the council “may” request the data. That point is still very open to interpretation, so the amendments do not clearly set out her intent.

The Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 149, in the name of Emma Roddick, because it gives the Government the ability to look at legislation that would give councils and the Government the power to require landlords to provide information. I believe that there will be further consultation on the details, which will need to be set out via regulation. However, the proposal seems reasonable and should be explored.

In response to amendment 151, in the name of Graham Simpson, I agree that data collection is a vital part of the bill. However, there was an opportunity to attend a round-table discussion with the cabinet secretary. I was pleased to receive correspondence from the cabinet secretary about the measures that the Government will take on data. We should continue to engage with the Government to ensure that we get data collection in the bill right. If we do not get it right, it will have negative consequences for rent controls and our housing stock in general.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak to my amendments first. Amendment 141 would require the information requested by a local authority and supplied by the landlord to be entered on to the landlord register. It is vital that we do not continue to ask for the same information time after time. That is an easy and slovenly way to keep a register and would be a failure. I want to see local authorities entering such information on the roll and for landlords to have the ability to update it as and when they see it as appropriate to do so. If we are asking landlords to provide information to local authorities, providing that information should not come at any cost to them. If we are going to fine them for not providing information, it seems odd to charge them for providing it in the first place.

I have no problems with Maggie Chapman’s amendment 139 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendments.

I have a slight concern about Maggie Chapman’s amendments 275 and 140, given the way in which she spoke about them. I am not convinced that she understands the definition of “open market rent”. It is clearly laid out that an open market rent is the price that is achieved with a willing landlord and a willing tenant, without there being any obligations on either. That is my definition of “open market rent”. It is not, as Maggie Chapman suggests, the highest rent that the landlord can achieve. Those are two very different things. Technically speaking, the open market rent for a property is as I have described it.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 30 to 33, which would increase from £1,000 to £2,000 the fine for landlords for not providing data, are absolutely unnecessary. Would that mean that £2,000 would be added every time that a landlord failed to provide any information? Where would it stop? The amendments are not clear about that.

I look forward to hearing Emma Roddick’s explanation for amendments 149 and 262. My gut tells me that we should support those amendments, but I would just like to ensure that there is nothing more to them than what is set out in them.

I also look forward to hearing Graham Simpson’s explanation for amendment 151. I am probably more comfortable with his amendment 263.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendment 139, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend section 15 of the bill to oblige a local authority to request the information that is included in section 15(2). That would remove a local authority’s discretion to ask for the information in the manner and at the times that it considers to be necessary. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 139.

Amendments 271 to 274, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would amend section 15 to change references to

“persons from whom information may be sought”

to the “relevant person”. In addition, amendment 276 would add a definition of “relevant person” to section 15. It states that the term “relevant person”

“is to be construed in accordance with section 83(8) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004”.

I listened carefully to what Meghan Gallacher said, and the intention behind the amendment appears to be that information should be requested only from a person who is registered in the landlord register. I had discussions about that with Scottish Land & Estates, but that would not be the effect of amendment 276. The effect would be that information could be requested from anyone who was not from a local authority, a registered social landlord or from Scottish Homes. I am afraid that that would be an unnecessary change—perhaps the amendment has the wrong framing—and it would serve only to confuse section 15, so I cannot support it.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is an issue with the legislation as it stands, given that some small dwellings holders are being put out because of the way in which the legislation is being enforced? Does she have any intention to further consider such issues and rectify them through the bill or secondary legislation?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I said, I had a conversation with Scottish Land & Estates about the issue, particularly the implications for agricultural holdings, so I understand its concerns. Taking a broad-brush approach by changing a definition is not the way to address the need for a nuanced position for agricultural holdings, but I am not undermining the importance of the issue. I commit to continuing to discuss the matter with Meghan Gallacher, Scottish Land & Estates and others, perhaps including the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, who, I am sure, will have an interest in it.

On amendment 140 and related amendment 275, in the name of Maggie Chapman, I have concerns about using the powers to collect information that are designed to assist in the implementation of rent control for a separate purpose, as is proposed. There has been no consultation with landlords, tenants, local authorities or rent officers about the proposal, and there has been no opportunity to consider the rationale, impacts and unintended consequences of such a change, so I cannot support the amendments.

Amendment 141, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require information requested on a private rented property be added to the local authority landlord register. I should say from the outset that the amendment has a slight drafting defect and I presume that it means the information that is received following a request by a local authority or the Scottish ministers.

The amendment does not specifically apply the terms of part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to that information. For that reason, it is unclear what status it would have on the landlord register and what the local authority’s duties in relation to it would be. However, it is our intention that the landlord register has a key role to play in facilitating the long-term collection of data on rent levels, while acknowledging, as I do, that it gives us the capacity to build on an existing platform that is already familiar to landlords. That would involve using the landlord register’s digital platform as a vehicle to collate the data.

It is important to stress that the Government does not intend to change the landlord registration requirements but rather to use the information technology infrastructure that supports registration. Although I believe that that is the optimum approach, it will require significant upgrade of the IT infrastructure to build the necessary functionality. I cannot therefore support Edward Mountain’s amendment 141 but I reassure him of my intentions in relation to data handling, namely that I agree that, with upgrades, the landlord register appears to be the appropriate repository for information.

Amendment 142, in the name of Edward Mountain, would add that a person must not be charged any fees, as he has explained. Given that the terms of the 2004 act do not apply to this information, it is not clear how a local authority would be able to charge a fee and, as a result, amendment 142 is unnecessary and I cannot support it.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My concern is that, if you are suggesting in one breath that local authorities can make entries in the landlord register, every time an entry is made, the council applies another charge, and it seems to go up exponentially. The principle of charging for making entries in the landlord register is there, but I am concerned that if you are going to design a whole new system to bolt on to that, there will be charges. Can you not just agree that no one should be charged for providing information to allow you to do your job?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair, please.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The principle of charging will vary from issue to issue. I am not going to say definitively how I think that local authorities ought to handle what will ultimately be their job in respect of data collection. However, I want to be clear to Mr Mountain that, although his amendment responds to the 2004 act, it does not apply here and it will not be possible to charge a fee, so we cannot accept the amendment, which would reverse that.

Amendment 277, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would require Scottish ministers to provide for the information that is gathered by local authorities

“to be published in a single data system.”

Although I agree with the principle of making data available, we have not been able to consider how that would be delivered and, more importantly, whether there are any data protection concerns around sharing such information. I want us to understand the relevant issues—as I am sure Meghan Gallacher does—not least in respect of the general data protection regulations and landlord privacy. At this stage, therefore, I cannot support an amendment that is about publicising that data.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I lodged the amendment at stage 3 as a result of discussions with the Chartered Institute of Housing, which said:

“If the Scottish Government decides that a rent cap system should be introduced, it must ensure that the rent system is viable and adequately resourced. This includes provision for robust data collection.”

That is perhaps what the cabinet secretary alludes to with regard to the work that she is going to undertake as part of creating a good data system in which information can be collected.

Does the cabinet secretary agree, however, that the system needs to be streamlined; the information has to be contained within a single data system; and it has to be easy for landlords to feed into that without—as Edward Mountain said—there being extravagant costs attached when they are simply doing their job?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I agree with that, and that is why I consider that the landlord register might be a suitable repository for the information.

I went into the decision-making process on the issue with the thought in mind that, if I were a landlord and rent controls were imposed in the area where I was letting, I would want to know that that was based on the most accurate and up-to-date data. At the same time, however, I should not want that to give rise to an unduly onerous process.

At stage 2, the Government lodged an amendment, which was agreed to, to allow for the publication of statistics and other information in relation to the information that ministers will obtain. That will allow us to publicise information about rent levels that will not involve the publication of a landlord’s personal information. I hope that Meghan Gallacher would agree that that is the best way to proceed.

Amendments 144, 145, 146, 147 and 148, which are also in Meghan Gallacher’s name, would change the references to “relevant person” in section 16A of the bill to “relevant applicant”. My position is similar to what I outlined in my previous discussion with Meghan Gallacher in respect of the implications for agricultural holdings. I am afraid, once again, that the amendments are confusing and would make section 16A unworkable, so I cannot support them.

Amendments 30, 31 and 39, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would replace the maximum £1,000 penalty where a landlord fails to provide information in response to a request under section 15 with a fixed penalty to be defined in regulations. That fixed penalty can be set at no less than £2,000 and must be

“adjusted annually with reference to average rent levels”.

Ms Chapman lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, fixing a higher penalty of £10,000. Although amendments 30, 31 and 39 would impose a lower penalty, which I welcome, it would still be a fixed sum, rather than, as is currently the case, a sliding scale with a maximum sum of £1,000. The current maximum sum is aligned with financial penalties for similar non-compliance in other regimes, and I remain convinced that it represents a proportionate maximum penalty. I am not prepared to abandon uniformity across the penalty system, and I seek proportionality in this respect.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will take an intervention, and then I want to make some progress.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention, and I hear what she says about consistency across the board. Is it not slightly odd, however, that while landlords can benefit from increasing rents regularly—above the consumer prices index, if the Government’s position stands—in a rent control area, the penalty that they face for not providing correct information, or providing incorrect information, is flat. Surely that makes it increasingly beneficial for the landlord, if you like, to break the rules?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I certainly agree that nobody ought to flout or break the rules in respect of law or public policy. That is exactly why we have provision for a penalty to be in place, so I do not dispute that principle whatsoever. I think that Maggie Chapman and I simply disagree on whether there ought to be a fixed sum or a sliding scale with the First-tier Tribunal able to apply discretion. I have to look across the piece at other penalties in the system and ensure that we retain proportionality, and that is why I cannot accept the amendment.

Similarly, amendments 32, 33 and 40 would make the same changes to section 17A, which currently enables the tribunal to impose a maximum penalty of £1,000 where a landlord provides false information. I believe that a penalty on a sliding scale up to £1,000 represents a proportionate response.

Amendments 149 and 262, in Emma Roddick’s name, would add a new section to the bill empowering Scottish ministers, via regulations, to prescribe a process whereby a landlord can be required to provide relevant information about their property or tenancy to the

“the Scottish Ministers, or ... the local authority (but not both).”

I thank Emma Roddick for her engagement on that following stage 2. Although the measures that are set out in the bill allow for the collection of the data that is needed to support implementation of rent control, having the flexibility to mandate automatic provision of that data is appropriate. That goes back to my earlier point to Meghan Gallacher when I said that, if we were landlords and we were to have rent control imposed on us, we would want that to be part of a predictable system. An annual requirement to provide that data could provide that predictability.

I am nearly there, Presiding Officer.

Amendments 151 and 263, in the name of Graham Simpson, would require the Scottish ministers to make provision requiring

“each local authority to publish information on the amount of rent payable under relevant tenancies, broken down by each postcode sector for each period of 12 months.”

Although I understand the principle of making data available, there has not been any consideration of how that would be delivered, and I would want us to understand the relevant issues, including the potential administrative burden that that would place on local authorities, before I could support such an amendment. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments. However, as I said, we lodged an amendment at stage 2, which was agreed, that will allow for the publication of statistics and other information that is not personal data.

Amendment 393, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, seeks to amend section 83(1) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to provide that an application for landlord registration must specify the name and address of the owner and the name and address of the relevant person.

I think that the amendment is attempting to require sub-landlords to apply for registration in the landlord register. However, I am afraid that the drafting is slightly defective and, taken literally, would require the application to include the address of each house in the local authority area that is subject to a lease or occupancy agreement whether or not the applicant owns it. I suspect that that was not Ms Gallacher’s intention. However, it means that I cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 143, in my name, is a minor amendment correcting a cross-reference in section 15.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As anyone who took part in stage 2 knows, I have been really keen to see data collection strengthened. We, in this Parliament, often find ourselves—there are similar situations in councils across Scotland—debating private rented sector policy using data that has been scraped from Zoopla or estimated by people on either side of the debate, meaning that the data naturally differs wildly. That serves nobody, and we end up taking positions that are based on anecdotes and guesses when the information is out there to be captured. What are people charging tenants, and for what kind of property? I strongly believe that an accurate picture of that will lead to better policy and greater confidence in decisions that are taken, whether someone agrees with them or not.

There are examples of that in the debates about this bill. I know from Scottish Land & Estates that there are concerns about the system of rent caps not taking into account private landlords in rural areas who have protected their tenants for many years and are now renting below the market rate. I do not know how common that is, and we will never know if we do not ask and require answers to be given. We also do not know the full scale of the exorbitant rents that exist. We usually know of them only once they are challenged.

My amendment 149 would allow the Scottish ministers to set up a process, through regulations, requiring landlords to provide information about their property or tenancy either to ministers or to the local authority. Unlike the existing powers in the bill, that would make it an on-going duty for landlords, rather than being instigated through a request by the Scottish ministers or the council.

The requirement to provide the same information could not be imposed more than once a year, regardless of who was asking. The amendment outlines what the regulations could cover, such as when and how information is provided, how it is used and shared, and how the process is enforced, including an appeals process. That approach would give clarity about what is expected of landlords and would reduce the need for repeated requests from the Government and, therefore, repeated answers from landlords.

However, I recognise that that would be a significant new responsibility for landlords and could require more resources from the Government to manage the returns, which is why my more specific amendments at stage 2 were rejected. Therefore, I have brought this forward as a regulation-making power, which means that it could be used if considered necessary and after engagement with those affected.

My consequential amendment 262 would ensure that any regulations that were made under this section would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise them fully. I suspect that Edward Mountain would have disagreed with my initial proposals, just as the Government did, but I hope that that provides him with the reassurance that he was looking for.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I have just one question. I was not sure about the amendment before, but I am quite taken by it now—as I said, I can change my mind. Has Emma Roddick liaised with the Scottish Association of Landlords on the amendment? What is its view?

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I do not believe that I have had correspondence with the association specifically. However, during stage 2, landlord and tenant round tables took place in the Parliament that discussed the much more forceful amendments that I had lodged at that point, and there was widespread support from both sides. Even back then, with those very different amendments on data collection, pretty much everyone agreed that, under the current system, in which we are guessing and people are having to put forward views, it is difficult for the Government to uphold the decisions that it has made. It is also difficult for people to challenge the Government when the data is not there to back up either side of the argument.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The member is right and has correctly construed that I would not have supported her amendment at stage 2.

I want to get an indication from you of where you are going with this. Are you—sorry, Presiding Officer. I will correct myself before you correct me. Is the member looking to do this on an annual basis or every few years? Would there be a standard form? I am looking for some guidance that she would expect the Government to follow when collecting that data.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is a tough question, because I am not the Government and I do not know what the Government is going to do with this. My hope is that we would look at situations and localities where we can get a good picture of what is going on across the country by collecting that data. I imagine that, depending on the purpose and the reason for needing the data, it would be best to have it as an annual event—at least for a few years—to get that body of evidence. However, as I said, it would depend. The important part is that the process would be open for consultation, engagement and, importantly, parliamentary scrutiny.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for discussing the issue over the summer and reaching a position that gives ministers the power to design a process to collect better data in the future. I encourage members across the chamber to support my amendments and to do what they can to ensure that, down the line, these provisions result in real positive change in the data so that we, Government, landlords and lobby groups can rely on it when making better law and policy in the future.

Regardless of policy disagreements, we can surely agree that we need solid data and evidence to back up the decisions that we make.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 151 and other amendments in the group.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

Edward Mountain said that he is looking forward to getting an explanation of amendment 151. It states that ministers must, by regulation, make provisions that require councils to publish data on rent. Amendment 263 is a linked amendment. Data is a good thing.

However, when I lodged those amendments—first, in response to Meghan Gallagher—I had not been invited to the round table that she was invited to—which, I understand, did not actually take place, due to a lack of interest. I also had not had sight of the cabinet secretary’s letter on data; I saw that only after I had lodged my amendment 151. Had that letter been sent to me, I would not have lodged the amendment. I will not be moving it, because I have subsequently seen that letter and I am reassured by it.

On Emma Roddick’s amendment 149, I am persuaded. Ms Roddick often manages to persuade me on things, and she has done so today.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 139.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Fines should be a genuine disincentive to landlords to behave inappropriately. Fines cannot just be brushed off as an acceptable cost of doing business.

Provision of accurate information is vital for renters. They should have access to clear, accurate and up-to-date information.

To address the cabinet secretary’s specific point about my amendments on fines, I note that they would not fix the fine level at £2,000. They clearly use the words

“an amount not less than £2,000”,

so they could provide the sliding scale that she seems determined to maintain.

We should also use the bill to rebalance the ever-upward creep of open market rents and ensure that we collect and use real rental data to present a much more honest and reliable picture of the rent levels that tenants are exposed to. That ask comes directly from tenants and tenant organisations, given their experience and analysis of open market rents. To counter the points that Edward Mountain made earlier, I note that there is an ever-upward drag of open market rents because adverts will push as high as they possibly can.

I press amendment 139.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.