Seòmar agus comataidhean

I cannot speak for the Government on tax policy. I mentioned that LBTT is under review.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 224 seeks to repeal the additional dwelling supplement entirely, which is at odds with the policy intent of supporting opportunities for first-time buyers and homeowners. It would also be likely to have a significantly negative revenue impact. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 224.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 225 seeks to exempt properties from the additional dwelling supplement in cases in which a buyer intends to renovate a property to make it habitable. We consider the amendment to be unnecessary on the basis that properties that are genuinely unsuitable for use as a dwelling are deemed non-residential and, as such, ADS does not apply to their purchase. If the intention is to exempt purchases of otherwise habitable properties, such properties will be correctly treated as dwellings for ADS purposes. In such cases, the current ADS repayment arrangements are considered sufficient. Therefore, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 225.

I will finish my point on amendment 537 and then come back to amendment 536.

It is also unclear how such requirements could be effectively enforced with no formal agreement being in place between the prospective tenant and the landlord or agent. Setting additional requirements in this area might also inadvertently discourage mainstream landlords from letting to students rather than support better access. I therefore ask the member not to move that particular amendment.

As I mentioned, it is about the fact that no formal agreement is in place between the tenant and the landlord or agent, which might discourage that.

I will touch on number of points—I was going to come on to income, which is just one of the requirements. I am happy to engage further on that particular point with Ms Duncan-Glancy.

I am happy to further engage with Graham Simpson on the drafting and the point that he has made.

Ross Greer’s amendments 191, 192, 192A, 197 and 198 seek to devolve responsibility for the setting of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. I agree in principle with the proposal to remove caps imposed on the variation and modification of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. The Government is committed to delivering a fairer housing and taxation system. In line with that commitment, we worked closely with local government, through the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform, to deliver the first council tax premium on second homes from 1 April 2024.

Local authorities should have greater flexibility in relation to the council tax that applies to unoccupied dwellings in their areas. The pressures that are associated with second homes vary significantly across Scotland. In some areas, second homes reduce housing availability and, in others, they might contribute to local economies. Such decisions are best made by local authorities based on the needs of their local communities.

Amendment 191 would remove a cap on increasing council tax for unoccupied dwellings by means of regulations under section 33(1) of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. I agree with that and ask members to support the amendment.

Amendment 192, along with amendments 192A, 197 and 198, would remove caps on powers to vary or modify the application of council tax for unoccupied dwellings. Although I agree with that, I cannot support the amendments because they would also impose duties on the Scottish ministers to exercise powers in a particular way. However, I offer to work with Ross Greer ahead of stage 3, with a view to removing the cap on the power of local authorities to modify the application of council tax.

Ross Greer’s amendments 462 to 464 and 478 would commit the Government to a revaluation and modify valuation plans used for council tax purposes. There is broad agreement on the need for council tax reform, but views differ on how it should be reformed. The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have announced a joint programme of engagement to build consensus on long-term council tax reform. A revaluation exercise might look different depending on the form that that ultimately takes.

I am happy to engage with the member on that particular point. On the complex issues that are there, we need to work with Revenue Scotland.

No. We need to encourage them. We know that there have been issues with landlords and foreign students who have come here, and we have all had casework about it. It should be made as easy as possible for foreign students to come to and reside in Scotland. We also need to recognise where landlords sit in relation to the issue. Again, I am sympathetic to the point that we are looking at. We should be working to engage with the sector to progress that and to make the system as easy as possible. The sector is looking at the issue.

Amendment 540, in the name of Ross Greer, would enable students living in PBSA to bring their contract to an end with either seven or 28 days’ notice, depending on when the accommodation agreement started. A 28-day notice period would reflect the notice period in the mainstream PRS. The amendment reflects the temporary emergency legislation that was introduced in response to Covid.

Although I understand the purpose of the amendment, I cannot support it. The Scottish Government led a review of purpose-built student accommodation, working with a multi-agency group, the outcome of which contained 11 recommendations. Those covered issues such as regulations, supply and affordability in the PBSA sector. The recommendations are currently being progressed—I come back to the point that I made to Mr Greer earlier. Further consultation on notice periods has been undertaken by way of student and provider surveys; the results are currently being analysed.

In addition, a PBSA agreement is a very different type of agreement. Voids in PBSA can only be filled by students, which is difficult to do in the middle of the academic year. Amendment 540 would have a substantial impact on the current operation of PBSA, with the possibility of higher rental costs for students and an increase in affordability issues.

I come back to amendment 536, in the name of Maggie Chapman, which proposes to gather more information about non-UK domiciled students and tenancy deposits. The amendment provides for the use of regulatory powers.

There are practical issues with obtaining the data sought. Tenancy deposit schemes do not currently collect any information from tenants that would enable them to establish whether a tenancy deposit protects a non-UK domiciled student, and placing a requirement on the schemes to collect that data would be a significant change, with resource and cost implications.

I have concerns about the proposed enabling regulations. Placing restrictions on the amount of tenancy deposits that can be lodged by a non-UK student might also result in the unintended consequence of landlords choosing not to let their properties if they cannot obtain sufficient security over them. I also have concerns about treating non-UK students differently, as there is a need to ensure a fair approach for all students. I therefore ask Maggie Chapman not to move amendment 536.

We recognise that. It is part of the discussion that we have had with the PBSA review group in terms of what it is looking to do about the issue. It comes back to engagement.

I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s intentions, but we need to engage with the sector on the work that is already being done. It is important to engage with the sector and the work of the PBSA review group, and to recognise the work that the sector is already doing.

Yes.

The debate has been really interesting in terms of the consensus that has emerged. I will touch on suggested ways ahead, but I will first speak to individual amendments and touch on the points that have been mentioned.

Amendments 51 to 59 and amendment 75, all in the name of Graham Simpson, and amendments 59A and 59B, in the name of Maggie Chapman, have the effect of including student tenancies in rent control measures.

Amendments 427 to 439 and 441, all in the name of Edward Mountain, support the inclusion of student tenancies in rent control measures through the creation of a new process to increase rents within student tenancies. The measures would have an impact on the PBSA sector and on university halls of residence.

Although I understand members’ concerns about the affordability of student accommodation and the calls for rent controls that could apply in rent control areas to also cover student tenancies, there are significant concerns about that approach due to its lack of alignment with how the student accommodation sector operates in practice. I therefore do not support the amendments that have been lodged by Graham Simpson, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain, but I will touch on a suggested way ahead later.

Student accommodation provision operates on a different basis from the wider private rented sector, taking account of the needs of students. As a rule, students seek accommodation for a fixed period, covering the academic year, at a fixed cost. That is unlike the wider PRS, in which tenancies are open ended and must be brought to an end by the tenant or the landlord. That is reflected in the business model of PBSA and university accommodation providers, which align move-in and move-out dates with the academic year. PBSA is not generally rented to those who are not students during term time, and university halls of residence are generally rented only to students of the institution in question during term time. As such, student accommodation cannot be considered as part of the wider supply of rented housing that is available to all tenants.

In addition, rental costs for PBSA and university halls of residence usually cover more than just rent. As a result, generally, student accommodation costs are not directly comparable with mainstream rents.