Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

We all accept that changes to homelessness prevention will have an impact on the provision of housing services and people who provide advice on homelessness. Jeremy Balfour and others have recently spoken about information sharing and the need for clarity from the Scottish Government on public bodies and how we begin to join up the system and streamline resource, not only in relation to homelessness data but so that any individual who is experiencing or is at risk of homelessness can share information and access any additional support networks that they might need.

In order to maintain that high-level and consistent service approach for anyone who is seeking help, advice or support when they are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, there needs to be a continuous professional development plan for key housing practitioners to ensure that they remain skilled and knowledgeable. I appreciate that housing services already have good training practices in place, and I am not attempting to patronise those who deliver them. However, the level of training that is needed when introducing the ask and act duties will expand throughout the many levels of public services, public bodies and person-facing services.

I have lodged amendment 1011 in order to probe the minister on how that training could be rolled out and whether it could take form in legislation or be followed up in guidance. I want to ensure that, when we introduce something new, such as the ask and act duties, the service is streamlined and all services are aware of what the duties mean for the person they are supporting who is experiencing homelessness.

I move amendment 1011.

This discussion has been helpful in relation to what is required for the pilot schemes, how they will work, how much they will cost and what additional pressures will be placed on local authority areas. This is a prime example of why such work should be undertaken before we look at legislative processes and bills, because we do not know the answers to those questions. We are in the unknown sphere regarding how things will look, what the challenges will be and what potential problems will arise in the pilot schemes. That being said, the principle is noble and I understand why the Government is progressing in this way.

However, Mark Griffin raised valid concerns about the financial memorandum. I stress to the Government that it should be realistic regarding how much the bill’s provisions will cost. As a former councillor, the minister will know the cost pressures that councils are under and how much of an undertaking the provisions will be—not just for housing departments but for all the wraparound public services that also play a huge role in housing service delivery.

The point that Jeremy Balfour raised about post-legislative scrutiny is crucial. I welcome the minister’s commitment to come back to the committee with updates on the pilot schemes. That will need to happen across the board. I would welcome the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having that opportunity, given the increased service expectations that there will be on all our councils up and down the country.

The convener is aware that I will not press amendment 1012 on behalf of Alexander Stewart. Graham Simpson raised the point that, although we are debating and voting on amendment 1012 today, we are relying on an amendment that we have not yet discussed fully or voted on in order to make changes. The minister needs to reflect on that, because that amendment might or might not pass, but we need to ensure that we have amendments of that nature so that we can scrutinise and make sure that what we implement will change homelessness prevention and have positive results.

Amendment 1012, by agreement, withdrawn.

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.

I welcome the minister’s response to my amendment.

I am still very concerned that there will not be consistency in the training that will be rolled out throughout public services or to people who deal with homelessness prevention on the front line. In introducing the ask and act duties, that training will be very important, because the duties will be brand new. A lot of public services will be working out how they will manoeuvre under the ask and act duties to ensure that they provide the best possible service to those who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. Therefore, there should be guidance from the Scottish Government on what it means and what it expects of public bodies in relation to the ask and act duties, and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the minister further about that before stage 3.

Amendment 1011, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1090 not moved.

Amendment 1046 moved—[Kevin Stewart].