���˿���

The purpose of the discussion that we are having is to put in place precise wording for the law that we are making. Members of the Parliament will be very conscious of that. If amendment 118 is agreed to, ministers must “seek” and “have regard to” a report. I am afraid that, with that amendment, Mr Mundell is encouraging me to pass legislation that is far from clear. Therefore, on the basis of what is before us, it cannot be supported.

Ministers are committed to preparing and publishing a children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment for regulations that are made under section 8. I expect similar mechanisms to the four harms assessment process and Covid education recovery group arrangements to be used to ensure that the impact on children and young people is fully understood and taken into account.

Amendment 119 fails to take into account how the provision of digital infrastructure and devices is organised, or would be organised in the future, in the education system, as well as the role and functions of operators rather than the Scottish Government.

The wording of the amendment is flawed. Are laptops to be “provided” irrespective of whether an establishment is to close or whether a young person already has a device? The amendment also does not take into account the point that the most appropriate device might not always be a laptop and it is prescriptive in the use of that term. As Mr Mason said in his intervention on Mr Kerr, it would present an unreasonable barrier to acting swiftly to address a public health emergency.

The Government is committed to ensuring that every child has access to a device by the end of this parliamentary session. Indeed, during the pandemic, significant investment from central Government ensured that more than 72,000 devices and 14,000 connections were provided to our most disadvantaged children and young people. We must and will continue to enhance young people’s access to technology, but introducing an open-ended requirement that must be fulfilled before ministers can take action that is necessary and proportionate to protect public health is not workable and could put children at a significant risk in future.

I will, but I am anxious to make more progress.

A balance is struck through existing legislation, which gives a local authority the ability to close a school when there is an immediate local public health issue. [Interruption.] If Mr Mundell will let me complete my answers, that might help us make some progress.

A director of public health can provide a report to a local authority about a public health situation that requires to be addressed. That is the existing law; nobody is challenging that. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that we as a country are equipped to handle wider threats. We have just gone through a pandemic, which is a much wider threat than, for example, a localised norovirus outbreak.

Obviously, there are matters for a church to weigh up as a landlord in those circumstances. We are happy to explore the matter with the Church of Scotland in due course, but I contend that there are strong grounds and foundations for churches to be optimistic in assessing the possibility of securing access to manse properties. That is, first, because most eviction cases do not end up anywhere near a tribunal and, secondly, because a tribunal has to do what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.

However, I am not dismissing the issues. I am very happy for ministers and officials to engage further with the Church of Scotland. I give that assurance.

It is difficult to give a definitive prescription about timescales, because tribunals, by their nature, exercise their judgments independently. I dare say that I would get into hot water if I were to start setting out the timescales for tribunals.

My second point is about resourcing. We make the best judgments that we can about resourcing so that decisions can be made, the private rental sector can operate smoothly and the issues that Mr Mountain puts to me can be properly resolved through the tribunal process, if they need to go there. I return to the point that I made to Mr Fraser, which is that the overwhelming majority of such cases do not go anywhere near a tribunal.

I return to the point that I was making about the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 before I accepted Mr Fraser’s intervention. I reconfirm the Government’s commitment to review all grounds for repossession after five years. That period ends at the end of 2022, and it is right for us to fully consider all the grounds for eviction together. I hope that that gives Mr Fraser and Mr Mountain some reassurance.

On the basis of those points, I urge Mr Fraser and Mr Mountain not to move amendments 76, 146 and 147, so that all grounds for eviction can be reviewed together. Any necessary legislative changes could be introduced following that review.

For all the reasons that I have provided, I invite the committee to reject all the amendments in the group.

First, let me say that I and the Government share Mercedes Villalba’s concerns regarding high rents. That is why the Government has set out the action that we will take. Our upcoming housing bill will seek to put in place a framework for a new set of rent controls, and will improve rent adjudication further by limiting the increase in rents that tenants might face in the adjudication process.

The whole issue of rent controls is important, but we have to recognise that its consideration cannot be rushed, despite the difficulties that individuals are facing. I do not in any way question that they are having those difficulties, but there are complex issues to address and there is, quite simply, no quick-fix solution that can be implemented. All the international evidence shows that the systems that are robust and provide lasting benefit are those that are developed over time.

With the bill—the same argument that I deployed in relation to issues that were previously raised by Edward Mountain applies here—there has been no opportunity for Parliament to take evidence from a range of stakeholders on the pros and cons of a rent freeze. That means that there has been no opportunity to assess the likely impact of the proposal in a range of situations, or to consider how the rent freeze is to interact with a broader discussion of rent controls, as set out in our consultation “A New Deal for Tenants—Draft Strategy Consultation Paper”. In my view, therefore, taking such action through the bill would, at this stage, be premature.

Obviously, the Government will seek to take whatever action we can in the short term. I do not, in any way, doubt the testimony that has been put on the record today, and I acknowledge the challenges that individuals face. However, a range of substantial and complex issues have to be wrestled with in relation to the question of rent controls. Regardless of whether the issues are addressed on an emergency basis or over the longer term, their significance remains the same.

I will set out a few points in relation to particular challenges that the amendments raise. There are three problems with amendment 66. First, it states that the rent freeze should apply to “all tenancies in Scotland”, but it does not specify whether those are residential, commercial or agricultural tenancies and would therefore apply to all three.

Secondly, the proposed rent freeze is to be in place until rent control legislation is introduced, yet there is no clarity about the nature of the legislation that would be required. Amendment 66 does not take into account the fact that rent control measures are already in place in some form, with limitations on landlords regarding the number of rent increases that can be applied in a year. We also have in place, via the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, rent adjudication, which allows tenants to challenge unfair rent increases. That addresses, in part, the issue that Alex Rowley put to me.

It is not clear what further measures would count as the bringing forward of rent control measures so, as drafted, amendment 66 would not give any clarity as to the duration of the proposed rent freeze.

Thirdly, the amendment would oblige the Scottish Government to produce a plan to impose a rent freeze, but the Scottish Government has no power to implement a rent freeze. Amendment 66 would not confer such a power on the Government.

It is not clear how the proposed rent freeze would take account of the individual circumstances of the tenant, the landlord or the property. That would include giving due consideration to the impact of high rents in certain areas and the impact of the cost of living crisis.

The difficulties that I have highlighted with amendment 66 demonstrate why it is necessary to do detailed work to create a system of rent control that is effective, sustainable and robust against challenge, and which will stand the test of time. Proper consultation is a central part of that work.

Although the amendments in the group have been lodged with the best of intentions, I ask the committee to reject amendments 66 and 68 on the understanding that the Government is currently going through the required consideration of the implementation of rent controls and will consult all stakeholders fully on the issues.

I am certainly willing to consider the issues that arise. Colleagues will make a number of points this morning and, perhaps, this evening. I am happy to reflect on those points and to have further discussions. Indeed, on certain amendments, I will offer to do so.

In relation to the current point, there will be times when decisions on whether to impose restrictions or requirements are made locally. For the reasons that have been set out already, those decisions should be made by the people who know communities best, but it would be disproportionate to suggest that, for example, an environmental health officer must always consult the chief medical officer before making a decision.

It is important to highlight how many safeguards are included in the public health protection provisions and that expert advice will be sought under each. By way of example, Scottish ministers are required to carry out a proportionality assessment when making regulations under new section 86A in the 2008 act, and clinical advice would necessarily inform that assessment.

Additionally, regulations can be made only in response to a threat that presents or could present a “significant” risk, and regulations that enable the imposition of a special restriction or requirement can be made only where the threat is “serious and imminent”. Assessment of threat levels could be carried out only with advice from the CMO or other qualified advisers.

Finally in this respect, if the public health declaration amendment is accepted, it would require Scottish ministers to consult the chief medical officer or equivalent before proposing to make a public health declaration. I hope that that provides further assurances that appropriate advice and evidence will inform Government action.

I therefore cannot support amendment 4. I believe that it would impact the speed at which we could respond to a public health threat in an emergency situation, result in a disproportionate demand on the chief medical officer’s time and expertise and, in reality, reduce accountability for decisions that could have profound consequences.

I am grateful for Mr Whittle’s consideration of the matters raised in amendment 5, and I am willing to listen to arguments in favour of it. However, at present, I am not convinced of its value. My chief reason for that is that, as noted, all regulations must meet a proportionality test. In assessing that, the long-term health impacts, where relevant, would of course inform thinking. However, that may just be one of the many factors, and to mention only one in the bill may prejudice deliberations in its favour.

Additionally, the amendment does not distinguish between the regulations to which it would apply, unless it would apply to any that are made under new section 86A(1), regardless of their purpose. Concerns around the long-term impacts on public health as a result of Covid control measures are well documented. However, Covid should not be the template for consideration of all public health threats. Others may take different forms and require wholly different measures. Thus, a blanket requirement to consider long-term health impacts may not be appropriate. It would also be impossible to measure the long-term impacts of preparedness regulations, which would not impose restrictions directly and which might only impose obligations on the Scottish ministers or other bodies. A statement would therefore add nothing meaningful to scrutiny.

For all those reasons, I currently do not support amendment 5 but, as I said, I am open to arguments in its favour and will consider it further.

Amendment 24 is, I hope, uncontroversial. It would exempt regulations that are made on a “general” or “contingent” basis—that is, regulations empowering potential action if a significant public health threat emerged but which do not themselves impose any new restrictions or requirements—from the on-going three-weekly review process that is set out in new section 86G in the 2008 act.

Of course, amendment 24 has no impact on regulations that are made in response to a significant public health threat and which, if the Government’s amendment 23 on a public health declaration is passed, could not be laid without such a declaration. The reason for amendment 24 is that it would be both unduly onerous and an unreasonable use of public resources to subject to review every three weeks regulations that are intended to sit on the statute book on an on-going basis and that do not impose any new restrictions or requirements.

I have considered the issues that were raised during stage 1 by this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Amendment 28 provides for an explanation of urgency if the made affirmative procedure needs to be used in urgent circumstances to make public health regulations. The bill already provides for the draft affirmative procedure to be the norm and the made affirmative procedure may be used only for reasons of urgency. Members are aware that the parliamentary authorities are working with Government officials on a protocol for an expedited draft affirmative procedure in appropriate cases.

Amendment 28 also provides for an expiry or sunset provision to be included in public health regulations where the made affirmative procedure is used, unless the regulations amend regulations that already include an expiry provision.

The alternative amendments 6, 10, 11 and 12 that have been lodged by Mr Fraser and Mr Simpson in relation to made affirmative regulations would either mean that the made affirmative procedure was not available or lead to delay. I consider that the Government’s amendment 28 fully addresses the points that were made by the scrutiny committees at stage 1, and it should be preferred.

Amendment 7 would remove the public health regulation-making power entirely. I have already documented why these public health measures are so important, but the recent pandemic speaks more clearly on that point than I could. Therefore, I will not dwell on arguments against the amendment; I simply say that the amendments that the Government has lodged will add significant safeguards to the rules that were already included in the bill when it was introduced. I hope that that reassures members that their voices have been heard and that the bill will be better as a result.

For the reasons that I have given, I invite the committee to support my amendments in the group, and I ask other members not to press their amendments.

That is not what is happening. It might have been a legitimate accusation in the stage 1 debate, but it is not a legitimate accusation now, because I have lodged an amendment that, in essence, says that Parliament must approve any changes that are exercised under the one line in the bill that Mr Rowley wants to remove.

Will Mr Fraser set out what he would consider to be practicable in his consultation exercise? I would contend that there was extensive consultation with a myriad of organisations. What was difficult to secure was unanimity, which I think is the point that Mr Fraser is getting at.