���˿���

As I prepare to speak to amendment 69, it is, as always, good to have the support of my good friend Maggie Chapman. My approach to the bill has been to accept the parliamentary arithmetic and that we are going to have rent controls, and to work to achieve the best possible system of such controls. Even though my party is opposed to rent controls, my approach is to get the best system possible, for tenants and landlords.

Convener, you are well aware of the important work that the cross-party group on housing has done over the years, because you are deputy convener of that group, which I convene. In 2022, we produced a detailed report on rent controls, which looked at systems that are used throughout the world, and I was pleased to write a foreword to that report. In some parts of the world—San Francisco is a good example—rent boards are a feature of the system. I have to say that San Francisco is not a good example on homelessness, because it has a terrible problem with that. However, the rent board there protects tenants from excessive rent increases and unjust evictions while ensuring that landlords get fair and adequate rents.

Having a rent board in each local authority area would create a one-stop shop for people. They would know where to go. Remember that, if we accept that we are going to have rent controls, we should make the best system possible. Amendment 69 says that rent boards should be established and sets out their functions. Currently, we have rent service Scotland, and I bet that most people have never heard of rent service Scotland, let alone know how to use it. The committee has heard about the difficulties that tenants face in exercising their existing rights, which has led to low take-up of the right to rent adjudication by rent service Scotland. That makes the point for me.

Amendment 69 would create a new system. I accept that it might be a new idea for some members, but I argue that it is worth looking at—maybe not at this stage, but perhaps for stage 3. The minister, in his usual style, has offered to talk about it, and I am happy to do that. I accept that the amendment as drafted could be onerous and costly, but I hope that I have explained what I hope to achieve, which is a local system. I will take the minister up on his offer.

There was a bit of a gasp when the minister accepted Edward Mountain’s amendment 142, which was the first Opposition amendment that he has accepted today. I hope that it is not the last.

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 ���˿��� together to discuss what we could do at stage 3, he has not offered that—he has not offered anything.

But when you have looked at colleges, for instance, you have looked at the condition of the estate, too. You have mentioned that in previous reports.

Just one more, actually. It relates to your planned audit on best value in policing, Auditor General, which you are going to do in conjunction with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. Our predecessor committee, in its legacy report, said:

“The Committee is strongly of the view that there needs to be a full and comprehensive review of police governance and accountability arrangements.”

Will you look at that, and how will you work with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland?

Thank you. I am looking forward to seeing that piece of work.

Moving on to something else, I note that you are doing an audit of resilience in flooding. That will certainly be of interest to other members; I know from chatting earlier that Mr Beattie has a case study that he might want to mention, and Mr McMillan has a case study on his patch, too. Indeed, the convener and I have a great interest in the big scheme that is being planned for Grangemouth.

What level of detail will you be going into in that piece of work? Will you be looking at individual schemes such as Grangemouth, for example, which is going to use a lot of public money? How will the work link with your planned work on climate change? Will you be looking at case studies and examples of work that has already been done, and will you be looking at things that you think have worked and things that have not?