Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is fine. I will get to close the debate on the group, so I can address the minister’s comments then. I have spoken to him, and I will wait to hear what he has to say.

Amendment 60 adds student residential tenancies to the definition of “a relevant tenancy” by repealing paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. That schedule lists the tenancies that cannot be private residential tenancies, and the list includes a tenancy whose

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

Repealing that paragraph of the 2016 act will promote greater equivalence between private residential tenancies and student residential tenancies.

Amendment 75 provides that the new regulation-making powers under amendment 59, which empowers Scottish ministers to make provisions for student residential tenancies to be subject to rent controls on an equivalent basis to private residential tenancies, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I note that the amendments relate to rent control and rent increases, and not to other aspects of the bill.

I turn to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 535, which deals with guarantors for students who are non-UK domiciled. I have a lot of sympathy with that, not least because I address the issue with an amendment in a later group, and I am keen to hear about it from Ms Chapman when she speaks to her amendments.

I shall close there, convener. I move amendment 51.

I will press amendment 51. At the start of this debate, while members were speaking to their amendments, I wrote down the word “uplifting”—it was uplifting, because we had virtual unity across the board on what people think ought to be achieved. Then, as soon as the minister started to speak, my mood darkened. I was watching the body language of members who are on the committee and those who are not, and there was a lot of head shaking going on, as the minister dug a hole deeper and deeper. He does not appear to have been able to get out of it.

What he seems to be saying—in fact, what he is saying—is that he has not reached a conclusion on many of the amendments in the group. He cannot reach a conclusion, because the PBSA review group has not reached a conclusion on many of the amendments in the group.

I see that Mr Johnson wishes to intervene, and I shall, of course, let him.

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.

That is also correct. When I came to discuss this group having had a very brief chat with the minister, I was minded, as I often am, to work with him and allow him to do his consultation, but I am afraid that I have changed my mind. If I was a committee member with a vote, I would vote for many of the amendments in this group in order to put the minister in a position where he has to deal with them. Whether or not you agree with the individual amendments, the minister has to be forced to the table.

It may be uncomfortable for the minister, who I like personally and who knows that, as I have said it many times, but if that does not happen, he will hide behind the review group, the can will get kicked down the road, no amendments will be agreed to at this stage nor at stage 3, and—to answer the point made by Mr Greer, who is realistic enough to know this—we will end up with a bill that does not address student housing, guarantors or the issues that were raised by Ms Duncan-Glancy.

In my view, the minister has got himself into a position that he should, frankly, not be in. That is because he has not given any guarantees that he will work with people with a view to bringing forward amendments at stage 3—I notice that he is not intervening, so he must agree with that point.

I share Ms Gallacher’s frustrations. The committee and, indeed, the minister are in a pretty astonishing position. Some members may be wondering what to do. The minister has not been clear at all, but I am clear that the committee needs to think tactically. I should not be speaking in those terms: we should just know what to do, but I think that committee members need to vote for most of the amendments in the group, unless they are ideologically opposed to them, which they may be. I think that the minister needs to be brought to the table. Despite my suggestion to the minister in our private conversation that he ought to bring parties and MSPs together to discuss what we could do at stage 3, he has not offered that—he has not offered anything.