Chamber and committees

That is it. It is the equivalent of the NHS England app, which I keep mentioning to you. I am waiting eagerly for an equivalent in Scotland—where is it?

Okay—good. I look forward to that.

I have one more question, which is for Caroline Lamb. In July, it was reported that you had not been in a hospital in more than a year. Have you since visited a hospital?

Will the minister take an intervention?

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

We have already heard that, at stage 2, I moved an amendment that would have included purpose-built student accommodation in rent control arrangements. For anyone who was at that committee meeting or who was watching it, it would have been perfectly obvious that I did that merely as a tactic to get the Government to the table. To some degree, that has worked—although it caused quite a hullabaloo.

The cabinet secretary has successfully reversed the position. However, that leaves us in a position in which PBSA is exempt from rent controls but build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties are not, which was the Government’s original intention. If the situation stays like that, investment will go into student flats and not into the other sectors, which is a completely incoherent position.

The new Cabinet Secretary for Housing has said that she agrees that build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties should be exempt, which is good. My amendments 158 and 160 should, therefore, make her very happy. However, she has already argued that we do not, after all, need anything in primary legislation and she will consult instead. The Government loves to consult—who knows, there might be a pilot or a task force, if we are lucky. I cannot help thinking that, if she had lodged the amendments before I did, her thinking might have been different.

The sector is strongly in favour of amendment 160. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said:

“We have consistently called for mid-market rent homes to be excluded from private sector rent controls under the housing bill. We’re therefore pleased that the Scottish Government announced their intention to do so in the housing emergency action plan. This mirrors what the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have already called for, as well as the housing investment task force. However, to provide certainty as soon as practically possible, we would like to see an exemption for MMR on the face of the bill.”

“Certainty”—the cabinet secretary has used that word several times already today. The SFHA continued:

“We’re already seeing less MMR development among our members due to the uncertainty caused by the potential introduction of further regulation and its impact on investor confidence. MMR rents rise slower than typical PRS rents, and our sector does not raise rents above the levels required for business planning and viability. We are therefore strongly in favour of amendment 160.”

That position is backed by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which wants that amendment made to the bill, as it said,

“in case there is a change of approach (for example, from a new government next year).”

Amendment 160 has the backing of the people in the sector, who are the people on the ground. I know that nobody is listening to me, but they should listen to the people in the sector. Actually, I know that Mr Rennie will be listening to this, and I am sure that he will back these amendments.

Amendment 159 deals with another issue that I raised at stage 2, which is where a landlord has been charging below-market rent or where they have incurred significant costs to improve a property. In both those cases, they should be able to have exemption from rent controls. It is news to me that the cabinet secretary thinks that there is a drafting issue with the amendment. She has had time to raise that with me, yet this afternoon is the first that I have heard of it, which is a disappointment.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 278 on cladding and amendment 279 on meeting energy performance certificate regulations deal with broadly similar themes. She will have my support for those amendments.

I will attempt to answer Ms Gallacher’s question. I will not move amendment 228, and I will probably not move amendments 230 and 231, which relate to Awaab’s law. I hope that that helps.

The idea behind amendment 228 was that we could keep a lifetime record of a property and the work that had been done to it. On reflection, the way that the amendment is worded is perhaps too onerous, so I will not move it.

I will move quickly on to amendments 230 and 231, which deal with damp and mould. At stage 2, there was a lot of debate about Awaab’s law. I am grateful that the cabinet secretary has said that she wants to bring in Awaab’s law in Scotland. Amendments 230 and 231 would do that in a tougher way than the one that applies in England. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

I attempted to lodge a manuscript amendment, to mirror what will be the situation in England when the UK Government lays regulations. Sadly, it was rejected. That was a missed opportunity; it would have been good for the Parliament to have the chance to vote on that. In his amendments, Mark Griffin tackles the same problem. He has my support—I hope that he moves his amendments.

Paul Sweeney’s amendment 115 would establish a system whereby, if someone were in a substandard property, they could ask their council to buy it and transfer it to a housing association. I am not clear on what the cost of all that would be or even whether councils or housing associations would want such properties. I suspect that they would not.

That was quite an intervention. We probably do not need to hear from Mr Sweeney again, because he has explained it all. I will study the wording of the amendment—I think that it is too onerous, but if Mr Sweeney wants to add to what he has already said, I look forward to hearing it. I will end my comments there.

Richard Leonard has outlined a disgraceful situation in which people in this country are having to live in such substandard conditions. Nobody should have to do that. My understanding of what he is telling us is that there are no rules that protect those people. There seem to be no inspections of the accommodation or the standard of it. Is that his understanding, too?

I have accepted the cabinet secretary’s points about my amendments, so she did not need to labour them. Can she tell us how she plans to introduce Awaab’s law? Will she use regulations or some other means?