Chamber and committees

This has been a real marathon; however, it has felt as though we have run this course before—as we have. Many of the stage 3 amendments, which have been debated over three long nights, were also debated at stage 2, when they were mostly not moved following promises of talks with the Government. Some of those talks took place, but some did not. We have ended up with a bill from which good ideas have been jettisoned, and the Government has got its own way on everything.

The bill is well intentioned but fundamentally flawed. It risks undermining the very goals that it claims to pursue—affordable, quality housing and a thriving rental sector. Instead, it introduces sweeping rent controls that will deter investment, reduce housing supply and, ultimately, hurt the very people it aims to protect.

I lodged amendments to help students, but none of those made it—not even the one that said that councils should include student housing in their local housing strategies. I proposed exempting build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties from ruinous rent controls. Even though the cabinet secretary agreed with that, those amendments did not make it either. We have ended up with a system in which those sectors will be exempted through regulations so as not to stifle investment, but the private rented sector will not be exempt. Quite why that will not stifle investment is beyond me—because it will.

Rent controls are a blunt instrument. They do not address the root causes of housing unaffordability, which are a chronic lack of supply and planning bottlenecks. The bill centralises too much power in ministers’ hands by leaving key decisions to secondary legislation with limited scrutiny.

There are some good measures on homelessness; I want Awaab’s law; and the measures on domestic abuse are good. However, I cannot vote for the bill because of the rent control measures, which will be extremely damaging.

It will be brief, Presiding Officer—I just want to speak briefly about the amendments from Maggie Chapman about compulsory sale orders. The subject has been a frustration for many of us in the Parliament over many years—I think that the commitment from the SNP dates back to 2018; it might have been from even earlier than that. The SNP committed to legislate on the issue, and that was backed by parties on all sides of the chamber, but nothing has happened.

I hear that there is going to be a consultation—that is often Governmentspeak for kicking the can down the road. However, I hope that that is not the case here, and that the consultation will actually lead to action. We have too many properties sitting empty in Scotland, so it has to lead to something.

Unfortunately, Mr Lumsden did not appear to hear what I said. I will not move amendment 247, because it has problems—probably the exact problems that he has alluded to.

This group of amendments has allowed Ross Greer to re-rehearse the arguments that he made at stage 2 about reforming council tax. He knew then, as he knows now, that although there is great merit in looking at council tax reform, it really needs separate legislation. That is also the case with his LBTT amendments—the issue needs proper consultation—although I accept that it has gone into the too-difficult box for too long.

I am pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that there could be a debate about council tax revaluation in the Parliament in early 2026. That would be a good thing, but this legislation is not the place to make such a change. Ross Greer knows that, but at least he got a press release out of it.

What does Paul Sweeney recommend should happen when owners cannot agree on a common insurance policy? I can imagine a case in which one owner comes up with one policy and another owner fancies another. How would he resolve that?

In relation to amendment 346, which deals with owners associations, we have already heard that the Scottish Law Commission is doing a piece of work specifically on compulsory owners associations for tenements. I know that the member is speaking for Sarah Boyack in this case, but would he accept my point, which is that we really ought to let the Law Commission complete its work? I know that it is slow and that it has been very frustrating, but I think that the commission needs to complete that detailed piece of work and report back to Parliament. It will be for the Parliament in the next session, whatever its make-up, to deal with the important issues that the commission reflects on.

This group of amendments is important. It deals with issues that most members will have come across, I imagine: difficulties with changing property factors and removing substandard property factors, albeit that those are a very small minority of the sector.

I am pleased to have heard from the cabinet secretary that she wants to update the code of conduct. My question is, how enforceable is that? She can intervene to tell me. What powers would there be under that code of conduct to get important matters changed?

I see that she does not seek to intervene, so I will just have to guess on that front. However, it is encouraging that there will be an updated code of conduct—that she is going to conduct a review—so I can happily support amendment 243. That said, the issues that have been raised by other members are equally serious and should be considered seriously. Making it easier to change a property factor is very important, so the action that has been called for should be taken.

Unfortunately—and it is a rare event for me—I am not persuaded by Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 341. I apologise for that, but I can probably support most of the other amendments in the group.

The amendments deal with the really important issue of rough sleeping. In the previous parliamentary session, I was lucky enough to go with the Local Government and Communities Committee on a visit to Sweden, where we looked at the housing first model. That had virtually eliminated rough sleeping in Sweden, but I well remember being told that it could not totally eliminate it, because some people choose to rough sleep. It is incredible to think that some people choose to do so, but, in relation to amendment 237, how would Jamie Halcro Johnston address that issue? Of course, amendment 238 calls for an action plan, which is different.

Amendment 247 covers an issue that I raised at stage 2. I did so because it has been raised with me by students themselves. The amendment seeks to exempt students from the requirement to start paying council tax in the period between finishing a course and graduation.

The cabinet secretary alluded to drafting errors—it is the first that I have heard of them—but I will accept what she has said. However, the wider issue, which I have discussed with her, is that there could be quite a gap between someone finishing a course and graduating, and some people might not get round to graduating.

For those reasons, I will not move amendment 247.

So you look at the shortlist for every health board chair.

Have you ever done that?