Chamber and committees

I have approached the issue in that way because that is the approach in the bill. I am working with the bill, I guess, which Mr Greer may not do at various points. We will come on to deal with his amendments later, but that is my approach. The PBSA sector needs to be looked at.

As I explained earlier, I and my party are against rent controls, but we accept that they are going to come in. If we are going to have them, there ought to be a comprehensive system, and it would be very unfair if students were not covered.

Amendment 56 adds student tenancies to the private residential tenancies that Scottish ministers may make regulations for under section 14. Amendment 57 is another amendment that brings student tenancies in alongside private residential tenancies.

On amendment 58, section 18 of the bill, which relates to the

“Power to modify the law in connection with the expiry of a rent control area”,

also refers to private residential tenancies, and my amendment seeks to include student tenancies in that section, too. You will see a theme emerging here.

Amendment 59 is a substantial amendment that seeks to give ministers the power to subject student residential tenancies to rent controls. It does not say that they have to do so; it just says that they can. I note that Maggie Chapman seeks to change my “may” to “must”; I have some sympathy with that, but I have had a brief—and it was brief—chat with the minister. We all know that the minister is a fan of consulting. I think that he wants to consult on this one, too, but if he wants to intervene to clear that up, he can do so.

I know that the minister is going to outline a way forward, but I am trying to understand his argument. Is it his argument that student halls of residence should not be subject to rent control rules because they might be rented or let out to people other than students at some point during the year?

I have not studied the standing orders recently, so I will take Mr Johnson’s word for it. However, today, the committee members, who will have to vote on the amendments, are in a very tricky position. The members who are proposing amendments have given a great deal of thought to them, but the minister does not appear to have done so. He is hiding behind the review group, which, as Mr Greer said, reported 15 months ago.

That is correct. It is absolutely right.

That is also correct. When I came to discuss this group having had a very brief chat with the minister, I was minded, as I often am, to work with him and allow him to do his consultation, but I am afraid that I have changed my mind. If I was a committee member with a vote, I would vote for many of the amendments in this group in order to put the minister in a position where he has to deal with them. Whether or not you agree with the individual amendments, the minister has to be forced to the table.

It may be uncomfortable for the minister, who I like personally and who knows that, as I have said it many times, but if that does not happen, he will hide behind the review group, the can will get kicked down the road, no amendments will be agreed to at this stage nor at stage 3, and—to answer the point made by Mr Greer, who is realistic enough to know this—we will end up with a bill that does not address student housing, guarantors or the issues that were raised by Ms Duncan-Glancy.

In my view, the minister has got himself into a position that he should, frankly, not be in. That is because he has not given any guarantees that he will work with people with a view to bringing forward amendments at stage 3—I notice that he is not intervening, so he must agree with that point.

I share Ms Gallacher’s frustrations. The committee and, indeed, the minister are in a pretty astonishing position. Some members may be wondering what to do. The minister has not been clear at all, but I am clear that the committee needs to think tactically. I should not be speaking in those terms: we should just know what to do, but I think that committee members need to vote for most of the amendments in the group, unless they are ideologically opposed to them, which they may be. I think that the minister needs to be brought to the table. Despite my suggestion to the minister in our private conversation that he ought to bring parties and MSPs together to discuss what we could do at stage 3, he has not offered that—he has not offered anything.

That is entirely right. I am clear on what I would do if I was voting, which I am not. I would be trying to get the minister to engage with the matter in a way that he has not done to date. To be honest, it is a pretty extraordinary situation. My position is clear and I have outlined what I think. I had hoped that the minister would have come to committee today to say, “I am not sure about that amendment. Maybe that amendment needs a bit of work and we’ll engage with the review group. I will ensure that MSPs can meet the review group, maybe collectively, and that, together, we can agree on some amendments to deal with the issues for stage 3,” but he has not done that. My strong suggestion to the committee members—I cannot really make it any stronger or clearer—is that, if you can bring yourselves to, you should support most of the amendments in the group.

If you just look at the revaluation issue, it is indeed quite absurd, but the bill might not be the place to deal with that. Frankly, Parliament has been playing around with the issue for far too long. I think that it falls into the “too difficult” pile, and that is probably why parties will not deal with it. However, the issue needs to be dealt with, and it is probably one for the next session of Parliament. I am sorry to say that, Mr Greer, but that is the reality.

I hear what the minister is saying—I accept that people can graduate long after finishing their course—but does he accept the general principle of what I am trying to achieve, irrespective of the details?

That is fine. I will get to close the debate on the group, so I can address the minister’s comments then. I have spoken to him, and I will wait to hear what he has to say.

Amendment 60 adds student residential tenancies to the definition of “a relevant tenancy” by repealing paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. That schedule lists the tenancies that cannot be private residential tenancies, and the list includes a tenancy whose

“purpose ... is to confer on the tenant the right to occupy the let property while the tenant is a student”.

Repealing that paragraph of the 2016 act will promote greater equivalence between private residential tenancies and student residential tenancies.

Amendment 75 provides that the new regulation-making powers under amendment 59, which empowers Scottish ministers to make provisions for student residential tenancies to be subject to rent controls on an equivalent basis to private residential tenancies, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I note that the amendments relate to rent control and rent increases, and not to other aspects of the bill.

I turn to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 535, which deals with guarantors for students who are non-UK domiciled. I have a lot of sympathy with that, not least because I address the issue with an amendment in a later group, and I am keen to hear about it from Ms Chapman when she speaks to her amendments.

I shall close there, convener. I move amendment 51.