Seòmar agus comataidhean

Why do you think that there needs to be a change?

Bluntly, do you think that the SFC can cope with the proposed changes, given everything else that is going on?

Does the modelling for the member’s proposals include the effect on investment in the sector? Does she understand what they would do to house construction?

What you have said about the purpose built student accommodation and the wider approach is welcome. We have learned that we cannot tackle the housing emergency on our own, just using the public sector; we need the private sector and private investors to be included. We are not talking only about specific proposals, but about the rhetoric that we use. Using language such as “exploitative” in relation to landlords in a generalised way does not help to provide confidence to those who are seeking to invest. On that front, I have seen a change of direction from the Government, and we now have a much more inclusive approach to tackling the housing emergency.

We are witnessing the effects of the Scottish Government’s welcome change of direction on housing policy over a period of time. It is an example of the need to understand how, when we consider only one side of a debate and do not have a comprehensive understanding of the effect of any proposals, there can be negative impacts, as we have seen with the massive decline in the build-to-rent market, which is down by something like 26 per cent over the past year.

Too many of my constituents, and many people across the country, are desperate for a house. We cannot simply consider one side of the argument. We need to consider investment and demand, but also supply. We are broadly getting to that position now. The reason why there are lots of proposals on exemptions—including mine—is that we want the Government to confirm that it understands that, and to ensure that there is a complete change of direction. I have to say that the confidence was not there before, but we are moving in that direction now, which I am pleased about.

I would prefer my amendments to become part of the bill to give clarity and confidence to investors, but I understand the process that the minister set out on a consultation on exemptions. However, for the sake of it, I will go through what I am proposing, which I hope is reflected in the conclusion of the consultation.

I am looking for specific exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties, which is what the Government has indicated in its consultation paper. In particular, I want the proposals in amendments 329B and 329G, which ask that registered social landlords be excluded, to be considered. Mark Griffin is right to say that there was a discussion on mid-market rent when we discussed the emergency measures, so this is not a new debate. At that time, we were unable to get that nailed down, which knocked the confidence in the RSL sector, which, of all the sectors, is the one that we should be encouraging to build more. I would like it to be excluded altogether from the rent control measures.

Amendments 329D and 329I try to give a definition of mid-market rent for landlords who are providing accommodation. That would be set at around half the amount of open market rent.

The build-to-rent proposals in amendments 329C and 329H state that build-to-rent properties should be defined as those that are “purpose built”, are in “institutional ownership”, are “professionally managed” and are “self-contained”. Those phrases are included in the Government’s consultation, but I would also like to see them in the bill.

I suspect that the cabinet secretary will not give us any response to those proposals, but I hope that she hears the strength of views that have been expressed by many members.

Okay. I will move on to SAAS. Earlier, Professor Seaton made a point about the tuition funding going to SAAS, as it is basically teaching funding. Is that not right? Tell me why you disagree with him.

I will conclude on that point. I do not intend to press or move my amendments.

Amendment 308, by agreement, withdrawn.

I do not want to encourage Stephen Kerr to speak any longer—[Laughter.]—but I suggest that he is perhaps arguing for a budgetary decision, which is about capacity, rather than a legislative process.

You still do not know what the figure is, but surely you must know whether or not Mr Yeates is right. You will have seen his evidence paper. All of this is making me believe that you are not ready for this. There is so much—

Again, you can understand our concern. Let us imagine that you put back in a relatively small amount of money—say, 50 per cent of the apprenticeship funding will be put back in with the remaining 50 per cent. It is not quite the 3 per cent that you mentioned, Mr Yeates, but we will take that. You can see, then, how the apprenticeship aspect might be dwarfed by the rest of the sector and how it might be possible to siphon off money elsewhere when the pressure is on.