���˿���

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.

Yes.

I cannot say at this stage what the Government will do in that position. Obviously, that will have to be discussed with colleagues, too. However, it will be really important for me as minister, having heard the consensus that has arisen today, to engage with colleagues in other parties on amendments. We might come to an agreement on that, or not, but that would be a process for stage 3. What I am hearing is a clear consensus coming through on some of these issues, and I think that we need to hear the thoughts and views of the PBSA review group on how we take things forward. The group, which includes all the major stakeholders, will probably come forward with a response, and then it will be for all of us to go away and reflect on what has come out of that engagement. Obviously, that will happen at stage 3.

I understand the comments that have been made, but I cannot speak for previous decisions. The Welsh Government consulted on the issue in 2022 and is talking about beginning a planned revaluation exercise from 2028. Some valuable points have been raised but, as I said, the Scottish Government and COSLA have announced an engagement programme that will seek to build consensus on the issues.

I move on to Ross Greer’s amendment 542, which would require

“a review of the scale and impact of council tax arrears.”

Council tax is a local tax and responsibility for the collection and enforcement of arrears sits, rightly, with local authorities. Councils have the tools that they need to manage arrears, including the discretion to write off debts. In addition, support for financially vulnerable people continues to be provided through the council tax reduction scheme, which benefits 460,000 households across Scotland, with an average saving of £850 per year. The Scottish Government will continue to work with local authorities to explore the best ways to deal with such debt. Therefore, I ask the member not to move amendment 542.

Ross Greer’s amendment 543 would require a review of the impact of joint and several liability for council tax arrears in relation to individuals who are experiencing domestic abuse, with a report to be laid before the Parliament within six months of royal assent to the bill. Joint and several liability is a long-standing feature of council tax collection. It allows local authorities to recover the full amount that is owed from any liable individual, which helps to ensure that local services are funded effectively. However, that can also present difficulties, particularly when domestic abuse is involved, as those cases are often complex. A review would be an opportunity to shed further light on how joint and several liability operates in practice for those who are affected by abuse and, crucially, could help to inform guidance or best practice that might assist local authorities in navigating those situations more effectively. Therefore, I support amendment 543, although I may seek to adjust the timescale at stage 3. I thank Ross Greer for raising that important issue.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 132 seeks to apply the additional dwelling supplement to the purchase of three or more dwellings, rather than second homes. That departs from the stated policy intent of the additional dwelling supplement and has the potential to have a significant negative impact on revenues. I cannot support the amendment and ask the member not to move it.

There have not been discussions on specific amendments to the bill. The group has met more generally to discuss some of the recommendations that are being taken forward, and it has continued to meet on that point. I have attended a number of meetings, and there have been similar meetings involving stakeholders. As far as I am aware, there have not been discussions about individual amendments that have been lodged.

Having been involved in the PBSA review group, I know that that is one of the key areas that it is looking at. The local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow have worked on that point and considered how it feeds into the wider issues of housing supply and housing strategy. That is a key piece of work that local authorities are doing. The work is on-going, hence I come back to the point about engaging with the PBSA review group on the matter.

You raise important points, but the issue needs further discussion with the review group, which is working on implementation, about the best way to proceed in relation to your amendment.

For me, it comes back to the principle that the PBSA review group is already doing work on implementation. On the amendments that have been lodged, it is important that we engage with that group on where we all go and reach conclusions on what we do at stage 3. That work is on-going. It is important that we engage more collectively and more widely in terms of some of the work that the group is already doing.

I come back to my earlier point that, whatever an amendment is about, it is important that we speak to the sector. If the Government agrees with the points that have been raised, we will look at that. It is important that we engage with the sector before we make any final decisions on what amendments will be lodged at stage 3.

I have indicated that I have some sympathy with some of the amendments. However, some of the other amendments will need to be considered. For example, it is important that the analysis of the notice period surveys is considered before we bring something in at stage 3.

As I said, the review group has been discussing the implementation of the review, and not the bill, in its own particular regard.

I will continue. I mentioned the amendments on terms and conditions. Complaint procedures are also provided—

Yes, of course. Nobody wants to see anybody sleeping rough in any part of Scotland. I will come on to the other actions that we have taken to that end. We want to eradicate rough sleeping, as does everyone here.

I want to emphasise a number of points. We have supported and encouraged local authorities to develop housing first programmes, which are essential. That intervention is aimed at people who are homeless and have complex needs, such as those with a history of rough sleeping. Housing first is backed by a wealth of international evidence and is a proven answer to resolving long-term homelessness and rough sleeping. The Scottish Government publishes regular monitoring reports that show the impact that housing first programmes are having.

Members will be pleased to hear that 27 of the 32 local authorities have housing first programmes and that more than 2,000 housing first tenancies have started. The tenancy sustainment rate is a remarkable 85 per cent. In my discussions with Mr Halcro Johnston, the point was made that those tenancies tend to involve people who have complex support issues. Importantly, we have also invested £4 million in homelessness prevention pilots in 2025-26 to test out how the ask and act duty will work and to scale up the good homelessness prevention practice that is taking place around Scotland.

I cannot support amendment 1087, which is contingent on amendment 1086, as it would impose a duty to report on how the Scottish ministers plan to meet the duty that amendment 1086 sets out.

The Scottish Government already has an action plan to end all forms of homelessness, not just rough sleeping, and it reports annually to the Parliament on the progress, including on ending rough sleeping, that it is making.

No. That is what I meant, and I am happy to chat with the member again on that particular point.