Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you accept the point that there needs to be something short of that? It is—quite appropriately—often not used, because it would make the situation worse. However, the SFC needs to have other tools at its disposal.

I have one final point to make for clarity, which is one that Universities Scotland raised in its evidence on the threshold for information sharing—this goes back to John Mason's line of questioning. Universities Scotland pointed out that there is a bit of inconsistency—there certainly is in the explanatory notes—on the general principle of when information should be shared, which seems to have been set at quite a high threshold. Sir Paul Grice of Universities Scotland felt that the examples seem to be at a lower threshold than the principle that had been set out.

Universities Scotland was seeking a bit of clarity. It would like an initial statement of clarity from the Government, but also for greater clarity to be put into the bill or an assurance about the level of clarity that will be put into the relevant regulations if such clarity is not put into the bill.

I very much support the proposed change, which I think will significantly improve college governance. However, could you provide a bit of clarity on what the impact will be on the handful of staff who are involved? Much as this is the right move when it comes to overall governance and efficiency, the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board has some brilliant and highly skilled staff, whose individual contributions have added a lot to the sector in recent years. Are they to be transferred to the individual colleges?

He is just intrigued.

That is fair enough. I would broadly agree with that. I think that Universities Scotland makes a fair point about simply wanting to understand what the Government is looking for.

If they have already taken voluntary packages, I will not pursue the matter further, but I echo your hope that we can find a way to retain the skills and knowledge that they have built up in the sector.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Church of Scotland. My understanding is that the Church of Scotland is keen to have this issue debated because it has a number of properties that it would like to make available due to long-term ministry vacancies, but it would obviously still require those properties when the ministry vacancies are filled. However, it has found it challenging to engage with the Scottish Government on this issue. Would the cabinet secretary be amenable to a discussion with the Church of Scotland about how its considerable property portfolio can be used to help tackle the housing crisis, given the limitations on that portfolio?

I am confused about the point about consistency. Local government is not just another set of public bodies; they are 32 governments, and that level of government has been given responsibility for the landlord register. The argument about its being helpful to have consistency across the country somewhat flies in the face of the fact that councils can set their own rate of council tax. Indeed, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which we have just passed in this Parliament, allows them to set their own rate for that levy, and the point that was made in relation to a cruise ship levy is also about local authorities being able to set a rate that is relevant to them.

There is a whole range of other measures whereby local authorities can set a rate—whether for fees, charges, taxes or so on—that suits their local context. I am struggling to see how the Government’s position can be reconciled with the Verity house agreement that this Government signed.

Unlike Graham Simpson, I am probably going to disappoint everybody by saying that my amendments in the group are not the last ones that I will speak to, but we are getting close to the end of mine.

Together, amendments 189 and 195 would require ministers to establish a scheme for public bodies to act as guarantors for young people who are estranged from their families. That reflects the fact that many young renters, particularly students, have to provide a guarantor when they enter a private tenancy. In practice, the vast majority of the time, for Scotland-domiciled students, or for UK-domiciled students, that role is often fulfilled by a family member—typically a parent.

The scheme would deliver on a recommendation from a piece of research that the Government commissioned on the barriers that are faced by estranged students. That was published in 2022, but it has not yet been actioned. Guarantor requirements are often used in a discriminatory manner but, as long as those requirements exist, that small but vulnerable group of people should be supported. It is a sad reality that, for some young people, moving away from home for the first time for university or another reason is their first opportunity to escape an abusive family or home situation. Guarantor schemes act as a massive barrier to that, and they often allow abusers to maintain a position of power over young people into their adult life. Some universities already operate their own guarantor schemes, which is fantastic, but it is far from being the case that all universities do that.

This is the missing piece of the puzzle in support for estranged young people in particular. We have seen improvements in other areas, such as student support funding, which was campaigned for and won by Councillor Blair Anderson based on his personal experience of abuse and estrangement. He has worked with me on the amendments, which would make a huge difference for a small but really vulnerable group of young people who face a very particular barrier to being able to secure housing and escape from often unsafe home situations.

Amendment 189 would require ministers to set up such a scheme. Amendment 195 is simply a consequential amendment that sets out that the regulations that were relevant to that provision would come under the affirmative procedure.

I will wait to hear how the cabinet secretary is going to tie all that off before deciding whether to move my amendments in this group. However, on the point about financial uncertainty, it is worth putting on the record that my understanding is that, if every estranged student in Scotland made use of the rent guarantor scheme in a single year and defaulted, the cost would still be less than £10 million. In practice, there will never be a situation in which every estranged young person or student needs the scheme and where they all default at the same time.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise such a level of financial risk is one of dozens of examples of financial risk that the Scottish Government is able to successfully carry every year? In the grand scheme of a Government budget, not even a £10 million cost with not even close to a £10 million risk is perfectly manageable.