Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is it the minister’s view that the PBSA sector should not be able to treat international students differently?

Is the Scottish Government sympathetic to finding some solution for students who struggle to get guarantors, regardless of whether they are international students?

Okay. Apologies.

I am sorry, minister. I want to ask a question about amendment 536, which is about deposits. I had thought that you might say a bit more about it.

The minister has concerns that a system that would restrict up-front rent payments would mean that international students were treated differently, but they are already treated differently by the sector. It is international students who are often asked for three, six or 12 months’ rent up front—UK-domiciled students are not asked for that level of up-front rent. The sector is already treating international students differently, and they are disadvantaged as a consequence. The scheme is an attempt to equalise the system so that they would not be treated differently. What is the minister’s response to that point?

Should they be treated differently or not?

If I may, I will take a little time to talk about the bill overall but, before I do that, I express my thanks to the legislation team, the minister, MSPs from other parties and the organisations with which we have all had lots of conversations over the past many months.

I am proud that we are here discussing amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which, of course, was introduced by my Scottish Green colleague Patrick Harvie as part of our work with the Scottish Government to deliver a new deal for tenants. That bit is key, so I will repeat it: this is part of a new deal for tenants.

That is the point of the bill. The aim is 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 for those who have to rent; and to make renting not just something from which landlords profit but something that is viable and non-stigmatising as part of our housing system. It is for renters that the bill exists at all. It aims to tackle and check the soaring rents to which they have been subjected for far too long; to give them rights to make their home really feel like their home; to provide protections against homelessness; and to give specific groups of tenants, such as students, protections against rip-off rents and to make housing fairer for them. It is with renters in mind that we have lodged the amendments to the bill that I will speak to today.

My amendments 144, 145 and 146 would establish a simple but important principle that the Scottish Government should respect local decision making on rent control areas. Under the bill at present, an application for a rent control area could simply be vetoed by the Scottish Government by not acceding to a request to designate a zone or by not making a decision on it. The Verity house agreement, which was signed by the Scottish Government, 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”.

With all due respect to the minister, I do not see how a Government that signed up to that principle can then give itself an unchecked right of veto, however unintentionally. I think and hope that that is simply a drafting issue.

My amendments suggest a compromise and a way to deal with the issue. They would require the Scottish Government to introduce a suggested rent control area unless it brings a motion to the Parliament on not doing so. Therefore, the minister’s point that the amendments would remove ministers’ discretion is not actually the case; rather, the proposals would respect local decision making while guarding against any unlikely scenarios where a proposed rent control area is fundamentally flawed—that is very specifically what amendment 145 would do. It would give ministers the power to say, “No, not at this time,” but to do that in a democratic way, through the Parliament.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I question why the minister’s amendment 278 kicks the can further down the road by ensuring that the process starts another six months later, given that the process has already been delayed on more than one occasion.

On the timing of the process, I support Carol Mochan’s intent in amendment 480 to ensure that local authorities need to look at bringing in rent control areas at least every five years. Doing it more frequently than that and limiting the lifetime of RCAs, as some of Meghan Gallacher’s amendments suggest, would add too much uncertainty for renters and landlords and would severely overstretch local authorities.

Although we cannot support all the Conservative amendments in the group, Conservative members have a number of helpful amendments, such as Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 206, which would help us to be clearer about how we draw the boundaries of rent control areas, and Graham Simpson’s amendment 69, on the establishment of rent boards. I have a couple of questions about the powers and responsibilities of those boards, but the principle is sound and we support amendment 69.

Thank you, Lucy. I will leave it there for now, convener.

Convener, do you want me to come in?

Thank you, Lorne. That is helpful.

Charlie McMillan, do you have any comments on the point about public bodies and businesses engaging with the content of the mandatory human rights due diligence? I also have a question about action plans, which follows up on your earlier comments.