���˿���

It is important to ensure that overseas students have the ability to come to Scotland.

Again, that is a valid point and I am happy to engage further on it. We reacted to the flexibility that local authorities asked for, but I am happy to engage on that point.

I will keep going, convener. Amendments 81, 82, 83 and 84, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, reduce the local authority assessment period from five years down to four years, three years, two years or one year, respectively. Although I recognise her desire to ensure frequent assessments of rent conditions, those amendments would result in assessments being conducted more frequently than is necessary and would increase the workload on and costs to local authorities. The bill sets out that any designation of a rent control area will apply for five years. That is intended to allow a sufficient period for rent levels to stabilise and provide certainty for landlords and tenants. The five-yearly assessment process supports that approach.

The bill provides a number of checks and balances to ensure the continuing proportionality of rent control. The Scottish ministers will be under a duty to keep the operation of rent control areas under review to ensure that they remain proportionate. That will include a duty to revoke regulations earlier if they are no longer proportionate. Local authorities will be able to carry out an interim assessment of rent conditions in their area where they consider that there has been a significant change in circumstances. There are also powers for the Scottish ministers to direct a local authority to undertake such an interim assessment. Those provisions will ensure that rent controls remain in place only where they have been demonstrated to be necessary in connection with the purpose of protecting the social and economic interests of tenants in those areas. I therefore urge Meghan Gallacher not to move those amendments.

Amendment 480, in the name of Carol Mochan, would change the powers in the bill that enable ministers to change the period in which local authorities must submit reports on their assessment of local rent conditions. The amendment would prevent ministers from extending the period between each local authority report beyond five years. I recognise the importance of ensuring that local authority assessments are undertaken at regular intervals, and I am committed to such assessments being made every five years. However, allowing for the time period to be adjusted in unforeseen circumstances is considered to be essential. I believe that amendment 480 is unnecessarily restrictive, so I urge Carol Mochan not to move it.

Amendment 206, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would require local authorities to specify areas that were recommended for designation as a rent control area by referring to the street or ward. That would be in addition to the requirement to delineate the area of the plan. Requiring both could cause confusion when a recommended area included only part of a street or ward. I recognise the importance of ensuring that rent control areas are clearly defined, but the powers in the bill already allow for that. For that reason, I urge Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 206.

Amendment 90, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would require the Scottish ministers to consult

“persons who appear to them to understand the impact of rent increases on rural areas”

before issuing guidance to local authorities on carrying out assessments of rent conditions. That would be in addition to the existing broad requirement to consult local authorities and representatives of landlord and tenant interests. I have concerns that the amendment would require ministers to consult every person who appeared to them to understand the impact of rent increases on rural areas, which would not appear to be beneficial or necessary. The term “understand the impact” is also entirely subjective.

However, as I mentioned, I am happy to engage with Ms Gallacher on the issue. I have had discussions with SLE in that regard, and I can pick up those points with her. I recognise the importance of the underlying principle behind amendment 90, and I am committed to engaging with the sector as the bill progresses. However, I cannot support amendment 90 at this stage, so I urge Meghan Gallacher not to move it.

Amendments 279 and 280, in my name, allow for the consultation requirements in relation to guidance on local authority assessments of rent conditions and local authority reports, respectively, to be met through consultation before the requirements come into force. Consulting before the requirements come into force will support the issuing of guidance as soon as possible. I therefore encourage members to support my amendments 279 and 280.

Amendment 142, in the name of Edward Mountain, would oblige the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities about reports that were prepared following their assessments of local rent conditions. I am clear that there is a need to provide guidance to local authorities and, although I believe that the power in the bill is sufficient, I will support amendment 142. However, I will look to amend the duty at stage 3 to allow time for consultation before any such guidance is issued.

Amendment 143, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require the Scottish ministers to include in guidance to local authorities eligible reasons why a local authority could make recommendations about rent control when reporting their assessment of rent conditions. The assessment process is intended to ensure that local authorities can consider conditions that are relevant in their area and reach their own conclusions about the need for rent control. Having an exhaustive list of reasons for recommending rent control would be restrictive and might not support consideration of local factors. Although I cannot support amendment 143, I offer to work with Edward Mountain ahead of stage 3 so that I fully understand the intent behind his amendment, with a view to informing the guidance, which we all recognise is important. On that basis, I urge Edward Mountain not to move amendment 143.

Collectively, amendments 144 to 146, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would remove the Scottish ministers’ discretion in the rent control process when a local authority recommended that all or part of an area should be designated as a rent control area. Ministers would have a duty to designate a rent control area if that was the recommendation of a local authority, even if ministers considered that the rent control area was not supported by evidence or that rent control was not necessary or proportionate. I understand Maggie Chapman’s desire to ensure that local authority recommendations are given due consideration, but I cannot support those amendments, because I believe that the Scottish ministers’ duty to consider the necessity and proportionality of rent control measures should apply to every decision about whether to designate an area as a rent control area. Therefore, I encourage Maggie Chapman not to move amendments 144 to 146.

Amendments 94 to 97, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would reduce the period for which, under regulations, an area was designated as a rent control area from five years down to four years, three years, two years or one year, respectively. The overarching purpose of the rent control measures is to stabilise rents in areas where market rents have been increasing particularly steeply. We consider that reducing the length of time in which a rent control area could be in place would reduce the overall effectiveness of the measures in meeting that purpose.

One of the important things in all those issues is engagement with the PBSA sector. I appreciate that one of the key things right the way through the bill was consultation. I mentioned that the PBSA review group has engaged with us on the specific amendments, and I would like to engage further with the PBSA sector and work together with members on that particular issue. It is important that we listen to the views of the sector. It is up to us, as individual members, or as the Government, to respond to that, and we can do that on a very early basis.

I ask members not to move their amendments in this group at this stage, given the offer of meeting the PBSA review group, but they will have the ability to lodge amendments at stage 3.

The PBSA review group has discussed the issue and is trying to take it forward. I think that the issue could be explored again. The fact that discussions are taking place in the PBSA review group opens the opportunity for Maggie Chapman and me to introduce amendments at stage 3, after those discussions have been held.

Amendments 537 and 556, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, would provide ministers with an enabling power to make affirmative regulations to set out requirements that

“student funding has equal status to other forms of income.”

I do not think that additional regulations in that area would work in practice.

I come back to a point that Mr Greer made. I will probably come on to this, but I think that it would be useful for everyone who has lodged amendments to engage, either individually or collectively, not just with me, obviously, but with the PBSA review group and discuss their amendments with it. That group includes all the major stakeholders, who are incredibly important when it comes to dealing with this issue.

I said that I was going to come on to this, but I am happy to meet either individually or collectively with members. Obviously, I will have to contact the PBSA review group, but I am sure that it would have no issues with engaging with members on their amendments.

In recognising the points that members have made and the amendments that they have lodged, I have to say that I think it is important that we engage with the sector and hear its thoughts about the way ahead. At that stage, it will be for the Government to continue to push things—and, indeed, individual amendments will be lodged, too—but it is important that we engage with the sector to discuss matters on a much broader basis. As I have said, I am happy to take forward that engagement either individually or collectively.

I think that regulations have been used in that regard, but I am happy to engage further on that point.

Amendment 466 seeks to remove the exemption from LBTT for the purchase of military headquarters and barracks by overseas visiting forces. When it was introduced, that relief was considered necessary as a consequence of United Kingdom international treaty obligations and NATO agreements. In the light of the defence and international relations reservations under the Scotland Act 1998, the removal of the exemption from LBTT in such circumstances is outside parliamentary competence, so I ask Ross Greer not to move amendment 466.

Amendment 468 proposes the introduction of an exemption from ADS where a taxpayer purchases a property on behalf of an individual who is disabled and is not capable of assuming the responsibilities of home ownership. We are sympathetic to buyers who find themselves in those difficult and challenging circumstances. However, the proposal attracts significant legislative and administrative complexities, including considerations around the sharing of sensitive personal and medical information of a third party who is not connected to the legal substance of the transaction in order to ensure that only those who are genuinely entitled to the relief benefit from it. Complex equalities issues would also need to be addressed to ensure that the relief is designed fairly.

All that requires time for consultation and policy analysis. We propose to assess the issue as part of the LBTT review to allow us the necessary time to fully evaluate the challenges, engage in meaningful consultation, and work with Revenue Scotland to ensure that compliance and avoidance sensitivities have been considered in full. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 468.

As I mentioned, the programme of engagement that the Scottish Government and COSLA have announced will be key and it is the best way to proceed. I appreciate Mr Greer’s points, but the issues can be picked up in the engagement programme.

Of course I do. I know that members have done that over a period of time. It is important to get that broader view from the PBSA review group collectively. There will be a number of interests in the sector—providers, investors, student groups, universities and local authorities—and it is important to consult widely on the amendments that have been lodged. As I said, many of them were lodged later on and so have not been allowed that extensive consultation. That has been partly addressed by the PBSA review recommendations. However, with some of the amendments that were lodged later on, that broader engagement with the stakeholder group has not taken place, and I would encourage members to have that engagement. I am happy to speak to the group to arrange that; there could also be discussion of individual recommendations at that point.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging amendments 474 and 475. At this stage, it is important that we have that wider discussion with the PBSA review group.

On amendment 474, the review group made a specific recommendation on the development of a model of terms and conditions for the PBSA sector to support improvements in the consistency of the rights that PBSA tenants can expect across all providers. Work is under way in the sector to implement that recommendation by developing model tenancy agreements alongside a model complaints procedure to ensure that all PBSA tenants are empowered to raise complaints in the future.

The measure in amendment 541, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, raises similar considerations. It proposes an enabling power rather than imposing a requirement, but it is premature, as the need for action in that area has not been recognised.

On amendment 475, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, I understand the drive to recognise the issue with the supply of affordable student accommodation and to clarify a plan for future action on changes to the regulation of student residential tenancies. The PBSA review group work recognised those key issues, which were reflected in its final recommendations.

In particular, recommendations were made about the importance of effective partnership working at local level. Local authorities have been involved in that broader work, which is looking at the provision and use of student accommodation, and considering local supply issues in the short, medium and long term. The PBSA review group has also undertaken work to drive progress on the development of local strategic partnerships.

As I said, the group has met to discuss its recommendations at this point. Not knowing which other recommendations would be brought forward at that point, it has not discussed individual recommendations.