Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have engaged with the PBSA review group—

Again, that is something that the group is discussing at this stage. For me, it is important that we get the review group’s conclusions. I have reflected on what is being said today about where members are at stage 2. The point that I have been trying to make all the way through this is that the PBSA review and implementation group is already doing some of that work. Rather than agreeing to amendments at stage 2, and before anything is brought forward at stage 3, it is important that we have consultation with that group. That would allow me to conclude where we are with the amendments and, more broadly, where the group is on the amendments.

Amendments 85 to 89, 91 to 93, 98 to 101, 107, 108 and 110 to 115 would remove sections 1 to 20 of the bill. They would collectively remove the provisions of the bill that provide for the establishment of rent control areas and associated rent controls. With the exception of amendment 107, each of those amendments would significantly impede the implementation of provisions of the bill relating to rent control areas.

Although I recognise that Meghan Gallacher has concerns about the provisions that allow for the establishment of rent control areas, the Government is committed to making provision for that, as we recognise that people who rent their homes are more likely to live in poverty, be financially vulnerable and live on low incomes, compared with those who own their home either outright or with a mortgage.

The rent controls that are provided for in the bill are just some of the measures that we are taking to improve lives and work towards achieving our goal of ending child poverty in Scotland. Rent controls will support tenants to remain in their homes by helping to keep rents affordable. Rent controls exist in most European countries, and they allow for investment in the buy-to-rent, mid-market and private rental sectors. Our proposals achieve a balance between rent controls and allowing for investment in the sector.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 107 would remove the power in section 13 to exempt properties from rent controls. I support that amendment, because the power in section 13 can be removed in consequence of my amendment 329, which will be considered in a later group. My amendment 329 seeks to move the power in section 13 into a different bit of legislation. As my amendment would insert the same power into that other legislation, the power in section 13 will no longer be needed. I therefore support Ms Gallacher’s amendment 107 on that basis.

I turn to the amendments in the group that seek to remove provisions of the bill that modify other rent control provisions. Amendment 116 would remove section 21, which provides that the rent payable for a private residential tenancy must not be increased during the first 12 months of a tenancy. Section 21 applies to properties that are not in a rent control area and to exempt properties that are in a rent control area. It provides tenants with the security of knowing that the rent that they have agreed to at the start of a tenancy will not increase during the first 12 months. Amendment 116 would remove that clarity and certainty for tenants, and for that reason, I cannot support it. I urge Ms Gallacher not to move amendment 116.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 117 and 118 would remove sections 22 and 23. Those sections make provision to ensure that, where a proposed rent increase is referred by a rent officer to the First-tier Tribunal, the rent will not be increased by more than the amount originally proposed. Under those measures, the rent would be set at the lower of either market rent or the rent increase proposed by the landlord. Again, those provisions would apply to properties that are not in a rent control area as well as to exempt properties that are in a rent control area.

Sections 22 and 23 are designed to address concerns about the current process, which enables a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal to increase the rent to the open market rate, even if that is higher than the rent increase proposed by the landlord. Without those changes, tenants may be reluctant to pursue their right to refer a proposed rent increase for independent adjudication. I cannot support amendments 117 and 118, which would remove that additional protection for tenants.

I therefore encourage members to support amendment 107, but I urge Meghan Gallacher not to move her other amendments in the group. If any of those amendments are moved, I urge members of the committee not to support them, for the reasons that I have set out.

No. With some of the amendments that have been lodged, there are a number of issues that the group has not been asked to look at. With some of the amendments—those that were lodged at a late stage—the group has not been asked to look at those. Hence my suggestion of a further discussion with the review group going forward.

I appreciate that, convener.

On the amendments, given the work of the PBSA review group, I ask Mr Greer not to move his amendments 548, 549, 559 and 560. If any of the amendments are moved, I ask members of the committee not to support them, for the reasons that I have set out.

I have offered to meet individuals and the group collectively, as well as the PBSA review group, which includes major stakeholders. That has been offered.

That point has been mentioned. It is up to the Government to decide what it will do, depending on the results of the analysis. I take cognisance of the point that you made about the only way to make changes being through amendments at stage 3 of the bill.

The consultation in respect of the notice period involved student and provider surveys. The results of that are being analysed. When we see those results, the Government will come to a position, and it is important to consult the PBSA sector on that. The survey results will affect what that position will be.

I appreciate Mr Greer’s point, but I cannot speak for decisions that were made by previous ministers or First Ministers. As I said, our approach is to ensure that future changes are informed by robust data, expert analysis and wide public consultation. I ask Mr Greer not to move his amendments.

I cannot speak for the First Minister, but the importance of council tax reform has been discussed in various debates. As I said, such reform would have to be made in tax-specific legislation following consultation.

Ross Greer’s amendment 519 would amend section 2 of the bill to require a local authority, when stating in a report whether it recommends designating a rent control area, to also state whether it recommends that a higher rate of additional dwelling supplement should be payable in the area.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 74 would modify council tax discount law so that it applied until a student had graduated from, rather than just completed, their course. Graduation ceremonies can occur weeks or even months after a student has completed their course and, in some cases, individuals might defer their graduation. That raises two concerns. First, the amendment would extend council tax discounts to those who had, in practice, finished their studies and had potentially entered the workforce but who had not yet formally graduated. Secondly, the lack of a consistent meaning of “graduated” would create enforcement difficulties for local authorities. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 74 and I ask Graham Simpson not to move it.