Seòmar agus comataidhean

Similar to Graham Simpson, I do not intend to speak to every amendment in the group, because I know that time is becoming precious.

My amendment 132 is a probing amendment on the land and buildings transaction tax. Scotland’s budget for 2025-26, which was published in December 2024, announced an immediate increase in the surcharge in land and buildings transaction tax on the purchase of second and rental homes from 6 to 8 per cent. The Scottish Conservatives were opposed to that.

Interestingly, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has—rightly—stated:

“Despite the publication of a Tax Strategy alongside the Scottish Budget, it is not yet clear what the Scottish Government’s vision for tax policy is—but increases to LBTT are not consistent with any economically sensible strategy.”

We are in that position with various taxes, and it is imperative that the Scottish Government finally comes clean as to what its tax strategy is and what it will be in the future. That will allow us to make clear assessments on what its thinking is and what its objectives are.

Amendment 132 would modify the land and buildings transaction tax to change the number of dwellings from “one dwelling” to “two dwellings”, thereby altering transactions relating to third homes. That would act as a partial relief on LBTT for smaller home owners. My colleague Rachael Hamilton will expand on the arguments about LBTT, as she has lodged amendments 224 and 225.

I want to pick up on the points that were raised by Ross Greer in relation to council tax. I agree with Graham Simpson that it is absurd that we use valuations from 1991. The committee has begun an inquiry on council tax, in which we have heard from various stakeholders and from the minister. However, not enough time has been afforded to the committee to undertake the inquiry or to reach a consensus on what the next stages of council tax reform would look like.

I understand why Ross Greer has lodged his amendments and he has articulated the points that he wishes to raise. However, the bill is not the correct mechanism to make those changes, given that it is such a wide-scale topic and that there are various different views on it, not just among political parties but among stakeholders and groups that would be impacted. A wider piece of work would need to be undertaken, not just by the committee—which we have already tried to do—but by the Scottish Government, which would need to decide whether to introduce legislation on council tax reform.

Does Rachael Hamilton agree that, with rent controls on top of such measures, it will tend to be smaller landlords who will leave the sector? In rural areas in particular, the measures will not allow people to utilise the homes for the local rural economy, which is very important.

What work has been undertaken to show that the period should be five years? One of the main reasons why stakeholders are concerned about permanent rent controls is the lack of data analysis and work in that field, so we do not know exactly what the impacts will be in Scotland. What impact assessments did the Scottish Government carry out before arriving at the period of five years?

Ross Greer has raised a really important point. It has been 15 months since the findings in question were published, and I note, too, that the stage 1 report of the Housing (Scotland) Bill was published on 14 November 2024. In both, concerns about these issues from students, student bodies and student representatives feature heavily.

Basically, we are collectively saying that progress has been very slow. I, too, am concerned that if these amendments are not at least considered, there might not be an opportunity to legislate to help to protect students. The minister needs to take the matter seriously and I hope that he will conclude that he will work with members on some of these issues and tease things out before stage 3.

Absolutely—but, again, that issue is in the Scottish Government’s bundle of issues that are too hard and too difficult to sort out that we have been dealing with for many years. I do not believe that we have sufficient time to examine what council tax reform would look like. As I said, the principle may well be supported. However, there needs to be a wider discussion about what that would look like and what the party positions would be. Legislation would need to be brought forward by the Government and parties would need to make their own considerations following that wider piece of work. I do not mean to take away from the work that has already been undertaken and the assessments that were concluded.

I will leave my comments there, other than to say that amendment 132 is intended to be a probing amendment on the LBTT.

Amendment 427 seeks to insert a part called

“Student residential tenancies: rent variation instigated by landlord’s notice”,

and a section called

“Landlord’s power to increase rent”.

Amendments 427 to 439 all relate to a similar issue. They seek to bring student residential tenancies and purpose-built student accommodation into line with private residential tenancies regarding the landlord’s power to increase rent and the protocol to be followed. As I have described, they are part of a wider group of amendments whose purpose is to include PBSA when dealing with the determination of rent in the First-tier tribunal. I believe that my colleague Edward Mountain is seeking to bring those amendments back at stage 3, so it would be helpful to hear what the minister thinks about amendments 427 to 439.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 407 proposes a different approach to the tenancy deposits of students who are non-UK domiciled from that which we have just heard about from my colleague Maggie Chapman. In my view, we are facing huge issues when it comes to not only student accommodation but the ability of students who move across Scotland or the UK to find that accommodation. Amendment 407 sets out that landlords who let to overseas students without a UK guarantor should be able to increase the deposit to

“three times the monthly rent”.

Again, that is to secure accommodation for students who are moving across the UK in order to find a university place and accommodation close by as well.

On the amendments that my colleague Graham Simpson has set out, I agree that amendments in relation to students must be included in the bill. It is evident from the committee’s stage 1 report that students have not been front and centre in the bill. However, we are experiencing so many different issues in relation to students who are trying to find good accommodation and affordable rents that we must seek to improve the bill in that area.

Amendment 1007 seeks to create an alternative approach that provides a stronger link to the Scottish social housing charter. I suggest that we amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 by inserting after subsection (1)(b)

“the needs of tenants who the social landlord has reason to believe have experienced or are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse.”

and by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection:

“In this section “domestic abuse” means abusive behaviour within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 (as read with sections 1 and 3 of that Act).”

Potentially, this is a suggestion for the minister to look at, and perhaps expand on, the standards and outcomes of the social housing charter. We have perhaps moved on from 2010, when the charter was created, and we need to look at other areas where someone might find themselves at risk or vulnerable. This is one of the amendments that would seek to amend that area; I do not intend to move it today, but I would welcome further discussions with the minister on how we can strengthen the charter and protect women who are fleeing domestic abuse and are in need of a safe and secure home.

Following on from amendment 1007, amendment 1006 also relates to the social charter and adds domestic abuse to the possible list of standards and outcomes in it.

I appreciate that Rachael Hamilton will speak to her own amendment in this group, but I support the review of provisions for tenants who are affected by domestic abuse. We need to look at ways in which we can strengthen the bill, particularly by looking at an issue that is impacting so many women and girls in our society today.

I have a question on the first part of your response. If someone presents at one public body and then needs support from another public service, how does that join up, and will they receive a consistent level of service?

My concern is that, if we do not have clear guidance and training rolled out in all the different services, people might receive a different level of service and will not be signposted to the place where they need to go for help and support.

Amendment 1007 seeks to create an alternative approach that provides a stronger link to the Scottish social housing charter. I suggest that we amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 by inserting after subsection (1)(b)

“the needs of tenants who the social landlord has reason to believe have experienced or are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse”

and by inserting after subsection (2) the following subsection:

“In this section “domestic abuse” means abusive behaviour within the meaning of section 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 (as read with sections 1 and 3 of that Act).”

Potentially, this is a suggestion for the minister to look at, and perhaps expand on, the standards and outcomes of the social housing charter. We have perhaps moved on from 2010, when the charter was created, and we need to look at other areas where someone might find themselves at risk or vulnerable. This is one of the amendments that would seek to amend that area; I do not intend to move it today, but I would welcome further discussions with the minister on how we can strengthen the charter and protect women who are fleeing domestic abuse and are in need of a safe and secure home.

Following on from amendment 1007, amendment 1006 also relates to the social charter and adds domestic abuse to the possible list of standards and outcomes in it.

I appreciate that Rachael Hamilton will speak to her own amendment in this group, but I support the review of provisions for tenants who are affected by domestic abuse. We need to look at ways in which we can strengthen the bill, particularly by looking at an issue that is impacting so many women and girls in our society today.

Amendment 1012 would require the Scottish ministers to provide an update to the Parliament on progress to implement the duty to act within six months of the bill receiving royal assent. The update would include the financial cost to implement the duty to act and a timescale for the duty to act to be implemented. However, from the further discussions that I have subsequently had with the minister and with Alexander Stewart, although I will move the amendment, I am aware that there are further amendments coming down the line that would supersede it.

I move amendment 1012.