Chamber and committees

I appreciate Mr Greer’s point, but I cannot speak for decisions that were made by previous ministers or First Ministers. As I said, our approach is to ensure that future changes are informed by robust data, expert analysis and wide public consultation. I ask Mr Greer not to move his amendments.

I will just conclude my point first.

The scope of the amendments could also unintentionally capture a wide range of property types, such as hotels, guest houses and timeshares, that might not be the intended target. A more effective way forward lies in the use of tailored local measures that are already in place, such as licensing schemes.

Amendments 203, 204 and 205, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would change the requirement that local authorities submit a report on an assessment of rent conditions to the Scottish ministers by the end of a specified reporting period. Instead, local authorities would be required to submit those reports on a particular date. The bill as introduced offers greater clarity and increased flexibility, enabling local authorities to submit reports in advance of deadlines if they wish.

Amendment 133, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would require local authorities to include the specific impact on rural areas in their assessment. I recognise the importance of having the fullest understanding of the impact of rent levels on specific groups of landlords, including those in the rural sector. However, the existing requirements already require local authorities to assess rent levels and the rate of rent increases in their area. Where rural properties are a feature of the local authority, that will be reflected in the assessment. The amendment is not considered necessary, but I will touch on the points that Ms Gallacher mentioned.

I have engaged with SLE on the point that Meghan Gallacher quoted on a number of occasions, and I have encouraged it to take part in the consultation.

As Ms Gallacher may be aware, a consultation to support the consideration of the use of powers in the bill in relation to exemptions and circumstances where rent may be increased above the rent gap was recently published. That presents an opportunity for all those who will be affected to input their views.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 133, and I encourage Meghan Gallacher not to move it. However, I am happy to engage on the points that she raises, and I will touch on amendment 90 shortly.

Amendment 278, in my name, will amend the date by which local authorities should submit their first report to Scottish ministers on their assessment of rent conditions from 30 November 2026 to 31 May 2027. We recognise that the current timetable in the bill for local authorities to submit their first assessment report is challenging. Moving the date for local authorities to submit their first report is considered necessary to allow sufficient time for assessment and reporting to be completed. We continue to work collaboratively with local authorities. The later date for reporting will not prevent local authorities from starting their assessments as soon as part 1 takes effect.

Give me a wee second—I am looking at my notes.

Again, the issue has been raised in the PBSA review group, and it is about recognising individual circumstances. However, as I said, I am happy to engage with you on that particular point.

I recognise the points that have been made and the consensus that has arisen in this debate. For me, one of the key things that is coming out of this discussion at stage 2 is the need to consult the PBSA review group, which includes the major stakeholders. The group will have to conclude its recommendations. I am aware that there will be no other measures arising from the group’s work that will be coming forward in legislation, but it is important that, before we progress with some of the amendments that have been lodged at stage 2, we engage with it.

Indeed, Mr Greer, I will touch in a second on how we take that forward with regard to all the amendments that have been lodged. However, engaging with the PBSA review group, which as I have said includes all the major stakeholders, will be important; members will then have to decide whether they press the issue at stage 3 and the Government will have to consider where it takes things, too.

No, although that happens at the moment, and there needs to be wider discussion on that issue. I will touch on the role of the PBSA review group, which Ross Greer mentioned. It is important that we all engage with that group on the matter that Graham Simpson has raised and on wider issues. I will come on to suggest a way forward in how we engage with the PBSA review group, which is important because the group includes providers, universities, local authorities and student groups. It is important to engage with that group, which includes all the major stakeholders, regarding what is being proposed in the amendments in relation to the work that it has done and to get its thoughts on the amendments. I will come on to that specific point.

Including student tenancies in rent control measures would be a significant change to the measures that are set out in the bill, but there has been no prior consultation with student tenants or accommodation providers on the proposal. There is therefore no clear understanding of the potential implications of the measures—for providers or for students—on the provision of student accommodation.

Amendments 51 to 59 and 75, in the name of Graham Simpson, would have the effect of including student tenancies in rent control measures and would give the Scottish ministers the power to set out in regulations the necessary provisions to allow for that.

Amendments 59A and 59B, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would require the Scottish ministers to exercise those regulation-making powers to set out such provisions.

Amendment 60, in the name of Graham Simpson, would amend schedule 1 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, on tenancies that cannot be private residential tenancies, by removing paragraph 5, on student lets. That would have the effect of making every student tenancy, hall of residence and PBSA a private residential tenancy. That would mean that every student tenancy would be regulated in the same way as a private residential tenancy. There would be no fixed duration, so the tenancy could be terminated only when notice was given by the tenant or when the tenant was evicted by the landlord. Therefore, I ask Graham Simpson not to move amendment 60.

Amendments 427 to 439 and 441, in the name of Edward Mountain, which seek to replicate the regulation of rent increases in private residential tenancies for student tenancies, raise similar concerns. As I said, rent increases in student tenancies do not generally take place during the tenancy, as it is for a fixed duration, and the amendments could make way for a change in that approach, which could be unwelcome. I am therefore not convinced of the need for those provisions. In addition, there has been no consultation with the sector to understand the impact or suitability of the approach that has been set out.

Given the unique nature of the PBSA sector, we do not think that it is appropriate to extend certain measures in the bill to cover those living in PBSA. The recent PBSA review looked at a number of issues, including supply, affordability and regulation. Work is on-going on the review’s recommendations, and it is important that that work be allowed to conclude before any decisions are made. I will touch on that point in a second.

Yes. Looking at my speaking notes, I think that I said that. You know that we are sympathetic to the outcomes. It is about engaging with the sector to strengthen what is already there. If that does not happen, we will look at what we are doing. It comes back to the point that you made about engaging with the PBSA review group and so on. However, I mentioned that I was sympathetic to the intentions that you have stated in your amendment.

I will come to it in a second.

As you will appreciate, some of the amendments were lodged at a late stage and are quite new. We have been engaging regularly with the group, but some amendments were lodged only a short time ago, and a large number of amendments have been lodged on this part of the bill, as there were on the previous part. It is important that we engage with the PBSA review group on the amendments that have been lodged. I know that we have to be timeous here, so we will need to engage with it as quickly as possible.

I take Mr Simpson’s points on the discussion about the review group. As I said, the review group sets its own agenda. I appreciate the points that have been made on that, and I have offered to work with members both on their individual amendments and collectively.

My work with the PBSA sector is not about hiding behind it but engaging with it—including with the whole range of stakeholders that I have talked about—to make sure that it is comfortable with the amendments that have been lodged. I am not saying that I will not engage; I have already mentioned that I will engage with members both individually, on their amendments, and collectively, on where the PBSA review group is. It is not about hiding behind the review group; it is about ensuring that we get its full views, including from stakeholders from different sectors, students, local authorities, providers and investors. That is not hiding behind the review group but taking cognisance of the importance of its views on where the work is going. It is not about hiding behind anything.