Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. There is a range of needs—as you said, Mr Rennick, a need might be short term because of bereavement, for example, which is one of the categories, or it might be longer term because the pupil has autism or something like that. In high school or even in primary school, youngsters might struggle in a particular subject but be brilliant at something else, so things can be very complex.

This is a hefty group with quite a lot of amendments. I have lodged a number of amendments that deal exclusively with students. I mentioned the cross-party group on housing, which has produced another report, this time on student housing and homelessness. The report followed on from the very powerful presentations that we heard from students and from meetings that I had with students and student organisations. The minister was at at least one of the meetings of the cross-party group and also heard those presentations. The report included some challenging recommendations for Government, which led to my amendments that we are considering today, along with others that were considered by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.

My strong view is that, if we are to have rent controls, students ought to be covered by that system. I would love to hear from anyone who has a contrary view, and if anyone does, they can intervene on me at any point. The committee correctly identified in its excellent stage 1 report that students have been overlooked by the bill, but we can rectify that quite easily.

I turn to my amendments and others in the group. Section 1 of the bill deals with the designation of rent control areas. Amendment 51 provides a definition of “student residential tenancy”, namely that it is a tenancy where the tenant has

“the right to occupy the let property while the tenant is a student”.

The amendment adds student residential tenancies to the definition of a relevant tenancy so that student tenancies might be considered in the rent control provisions that are contained in the bill.

Amendments 52 to 58 insert the word “student” into various sections of the bill. Amendment 52 says that the report that councils send to ministers recommending that an area be subject to rent controls should also include student tenancies. Amendment 53 provides that student tenancies must be included when a minister makes a decision about designating a rent control area. Amendment 54 includes students in a subsection that makes reference to private residential tenancies, this time for regulations that designate an area as a rent control area. Amendment 55 seeks to explicitly include student tenancies under the type of tenancy that is included in the definition of a rent control measure.

When I close the debate on this group, I will have more to say about this then, but the process has been immensely frustrating. I feel the pain of Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy. Many of the amendments have been lodged for some time now. I lodged my amendments ages ago, and as soon as I could.

The minister has seen them. If he is hiding behind the review group, it should have seen the amendments—and that applies not only to my amendments but to others. The review group and the minister have had time to consider the amendments. Why has that not been done?

All that work should have happened already, frankly.

I will not address all the amendments in the group, because that might take some time, but I will address my amendment.

You would expect a group of amendments that deals with taxation to be dominated by the Greens, and, sure enough, they have not disappointed. Amendment 74 is my one amendment in the group. Again, it deals with students. It would exempt students from paying council tax until they have graduated. It directly amends the Council Tax (Discounts) (Scotland) Consolidation and Amendment Order 2003. I lodged the amendment after getting representations from students about that very issue. It really is as simple as that, so it is a case of whether members agree or disagree with the amendment. I think that it is worth voting for.

Mr Greer has raised a number of issues. You might consider that this bill is not the place for them, but he has managed to air his views. One calls for a council tax revaluation. We have a system in which property values for council tax purposes are based on 1991 values. That is clearly absurd, but if you were to change that and revalue, there would be winners and losers. As there would be losers, that is, no doubt, why his amendment will not be agreed to today.

As I prepare to speak to amendment 69, it is, as always, good to have the support of my good friend Maggie Chapman. My approach to the bill has been to accept the parliamentary arithmetic and that we are going to have rent controls, and to work to achieve the best possible system of such controls. Even though my party is opposed to rent controls, my approach is to get the best system possible, for tenants and landlords.

Convener, you are well aware of the important work that the cross-party group on housing has done over the years, because you are deputy convener of that group, which I convene. In 2022, we produced a detailed report on rent controls, which looked at systems that are used throughout the world, and I was pleased to write a foreword to that report. In some parts of the world—San Francisco is a good example—rent boards are a feature of the system. I have to say that San Francisco is not a good example on homelessness, because it has a terrible problem with that. However, the rent board there protects tenants from excessive rent increases and unjust evictions while ensuring that landlords get fair and adequate rents.

Having a rent board in each local authority area would create a one-stop shop for people. They would know where to go. Remember that, if we accept that we are going to have rent controls, we should make the best system possible. Amendment 69 says that rent boards should be established and sets out their functions. Currently, we have rent service Scotland, and I bet that most people have never heard of rent service Scotland, let alone know how to use it. The committee has heard about the difficulties that tenants face in exercising their existing rights, which has led to low take-up of the right to rent adjudication by rent service Scotland. That makes the point for me.

Amendment 69 would create a new system. I accept that it might be a new idea for some members, but I argue that it is worth looking at—maybe not at this stage, but perhaps for stage 3. The minister, in his usual style, has offered to talk about it, and I am happy to do that. I accept that the amendment as drafted could be onerous and costly, but I hope that I have explained what I hope to achieve, which is a local system. I will take the minister up on his offer.

There was a bit of a gasp when the minister accepted Edward Mountain’s amendment 142, which was the first Opposition amendment that he has accepted today. I hope that it is not the last.

I have approached the issue in that way because that is the approach in the bill. I am working with the bill, I guess, which Mr Greer may not do at various points. We will come on to deal with his amendments later, but that is my approach. The PBSA sector needs to be looked at.

As I explained earlier, I and my party are against rent controls, but we accept that they are going to come in. If we are going to have them, there ought to be a comprehensive system, and it would be very unfair if students were not covered.

Amendment 56 adds student tenancies to the private residential tenancies that Scottish ministers may make regulations for under section 14. Amendment 57 is another amendment that brings student tenancies in alongside private residential tenancies.

On amendment 58, section 18 of the bill, which relates to the

“Power to modify the law in connection with the expiry of a rent control area”,

also refers to private residential tenancies, and my amendment seeks to include student tenancies in that section, too. You will see a theme emerging here.

Amendment 59 is a substantial amendment that seeks to give ministers the power to subject student residential tenancies to rent controls. It does not say that they have to do so; it just says that they can. I note that Maggie Chapman seeks to change my “may” to “must”; I have some sympathy with that, but I have had a brief—and it was brief—chat with the minister. We all know that the minister is a fan of consulting. I think that he wants to consult on this one, too, but if he wants to intervene to clear that up, he can do so.

I know that the minister is going to outline a way forward, but I am trying to understand his argument. Is it his argument that student halls of residence should not be subject to rent control rules because they might be rented or let out to people other than students at some point during the year?

I have not studied the standing orders recently, so I will take Mr Johnson’s word for it. However, today, the committee members, who will have to vote on the amendments, are in a very tricky position. The members who are proposing amendments have given a great deal of thought to them, but the minister does not appear to have done so. He is hiding behind the review group, which, as Mr Greer said, reported 15 months ago.

That is correct. It is absolutely right.