���˿���

The Government’s amendment 128 rightly seeks to provide powers to exempt some transactions from the prohibition on sale under prior notification—an issue that was highlighted in evidence at stage 1—and would provide a much-needed element of common sense in those sections.

There are too many transaction types to list in the bill, so having a regulation-making power is the right way to go. However, there is a real risk that, as drafted, amendment 128 will not achieve the required outcome. I understand that the wording has been lifted from other anti-avoidance measures related to the right to buy, but the proposed new subsection (4) in that amendment is problematic in that context. It provides that a series of transactions that have the effect of avoiding the community’s right to buy may not be eligible for exemption from prior notification. That would catch the types of transactions that are referred to in amendment 128, because the outcome would be the avoidance of the formal community right-to-buy process, but the purpose may not have been to frustrate community ownership or avoid compliance with legislation.

In many cases, the opposite would be the case—in fact, the intention may have been to achieve a number of transfers to communities, tenants and others. We have seen examples of that. For example, in my constituency in the Borders, Buccleuch Estates and its tenants, farmers, communities and other relevant parties are embarking on discussions about a programme of voluntary land sales and are expending significant sums of money to do that. I believe that those are positive steps towards greater community ownership, and that could be frustrated by the inclusion of the words

“or effect, or one of the main purposes or effects”

in this context. Removing them from the Government’s amendment would provide comfort that the transfers to communities or sitting tenants would not be open to delay or challenge.

I have only been dipping in and out of this committee to move amendments, but I have the feeling, from some of the cabinet secretary’s comments, that, as has been the case in relation to other legislation that has been passed in the rural context, there is an element of mistrust around this issue. The view that my amendment 128A would make it difficult to close loopholes goes against the grain of what I am trying to achieve, which is to ensure that there is not a delay for sitting tenants or communities in that context.

I will be clear from the outset that I will press amendment 223, for the following reasons. The issue is so important: what might have happened if I had not lodged this amendment on improving the current position on permitted development rights? We are in a housing emergency—that has been mentioned so many times during the course of the bill—and the group of amendments is entitled “Housing availability”.

I really appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comprehensive explanation about bringing forward a consultation and then a Scottish statutory instrument. However, we are getting to the point at which there are so many consultations. We are here as legislators to make it clear that we want to give confidence not only for housing investment but to those in the rural sector. If we did a little search in the Official Report for conversations in the chamber on “permitted development rights”, we would find that it has come up numerous times among rural ���˿���. Amendment 223 would ensure that we are more flexible, that we simplify and speed up the whole process and that we open up opportunities with barns and steadings.

I appreciate that explanation, but there are steading developments that are currently being held back that could offer, for example, farmers the investment that they need—especially in the current financial climate. They could develop their steadings and provide accommodation for people who are working in, for example, diversification on their farms, but they are being held back. Depopulation has become more acute in remote and rural areas, and the provisions in my amendment would go a long way to solving some of those issues without having to go through a consultation this summer and beyond. We have an election coming up next year, so there is an urgency to this. I will press amendment 223.

I declare an interest on this point: my husband has a hotel in the Borders. I cannot understand the link between the self-catering businesses and hotels in this context. It was self-catering businesses—a hotel is not a self-catering business—that were removed from the non-domestic rates system and reclassified on to the council tax list. Amendment 568 ensures that there is fair treatment for those small businesses under only the short-term lets taxation rules.

Self-catering accommodation makes up only 0.8 per cent of Scotland’s housing stock but it is so important because it provides jobs and an income to people who, because they live in a rural area, do not have any option other than to run that type of business. It is important that Scottish ministers address these concerns. The sector is in trouble at the moment because it is facing double council tax bills, which are completely unaffordable. It is taking any income that the sector has had to pay bills going right back to 2023-24. It is important that there is an evidence-based system that will allow local authorities and self-catering businesses to understand the implications. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a precarious position when people start to come out of the sector. I press amendment 568.

Amendment 223 seeks to make practical changes to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in relation to permitted development rights for the change of use of a building from agricultural use to use as a dwelling. It aims to unlock such potential by ensuring that regulations and orders that are made under the 1997 act must not place restrictions in relation to the number of separate units or the floor space of the units.

Why am I doing this? I am doing it because rural Scotland needs more homes. The buildings are already available. Amendment 223 would support a lot of what is discussed in relation to rural regeneration in this Parliament by bringing disused buildings back to life, delivering housing faster without taking up new land and making better use of existing infrastructure that is already there. Crucially, it would reflect the variety of agricultural buildings that exists across the country, from small barns to large steadings, thereby allowing for more creative, efficient and scalable development.

My proposal also fits squarely with the national performance framework 4 presumption in favour of brownfield development. By expanding permitted development rights, it would streamline the planning process, reduce bureaucracy and unlock more opportunities for rural housing without compromising on quality or oversight. In short, this is a practical, low-impact change that would have high-impact results. If the Government was serious about delivering new homes, it would support my very practical amendment.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. We will support amendments 270 and 277, in the name of Mark Griffin. Amendment 270 would require the Scottish ministers to provide regulations that define exactly what constitutes a housing emergency. Amendment 270 also states that if a housing emergency is declared, ministers must outline a strategy to tackle that emergency and lay a report before Parliament on the progress made on that strategy. Amendment 277 seeks to make a technical wording change.

Sadly, we will not be supporting Maggie Chapman’s amendment 515, which outlines conditions for the introduction of compulsory sale or lease orders by local authorities, or Ariane Burgess’s amendment 553, which seeks to create a register of persons seeking to acquire land to build homes on.

I move amendment 223.

Amendment 568 would require the Scottish Government to undertake a comprehensive review and publish a report on the classification and assessment of properties with regard to their liability for non-domestic rates. The link between NDR classification for self-catering properties and housing data accuracy has, very recently, become increasingly significant. A growing number of legitimate operators have been removed from the NDR register, despite meeting the 70-night occupancy threshold and operating in full accordance with the law.

Many businesses in my constituency in the Scottish Borders have raised that issue with me, and I would not be surprised if other members in the room were not aware of the significant issue that exists nationwide, from the Highlands to the lowlands. Those business operators told me that formal notifications were never received from the assessor as a result of some assessors outsourcing delivery to a third party. That has led to backdated council tax bills—often at double rates—and significant distress for businesses that have had no opportunity to respond, appeal or defend their compliance.

A national survey conducted by the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, which involved 333 self-catering businesses, found that 39 per cent of businesses had been removed from the NDR roll; 63 per cent of affected businesses had not received a letter; 95 per cent could demonstrate more than 70 nights of occupancy; 81 per cent had received backdated council tax bills, in some cases exceeding £100,000; many had lost access to the small business bonus scheme, deepening the financial pressures that they faced; and 67 per cent had reported experiencing severe stress or anxiety.

Those are not isolated incidents, and I urge members to consider that the majority of such businesses are run by women in rural areas and that the whole industry supports a huge number of jobs, including 1,200 jobs across the Borders.

The review process that would be introduced under the provisions in my amendment would provide a comprehensive evaluation of how self-catering property assessments are conducted and communicated, thereby ensuring their accuracy, transparency and fairness. It would examine the processes that are used by assessors.

I move amendment 568.

Amendment 214 would amend the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to require that a rent increase notice specified the reasons for the increase. That aims to improve our understanding of rental trends across Scotland and, therefore, to ensure greater accuracy for future housing policy decisions. As drafted, the bill requires local authorities to assess the level of rent that is payable in their area and the rate of increase, but not to specify why rent increases might or might not be happening. Amendment 214 would improve data collection and increase the awareness of overall trends in the rental sector. It would allow Scottish ministers to have a better understanding of the sector so that they can bring forward evidence-based policy decisions on issues such as rent control. Amendment 214 would also improve transparency and reduce the likelihood of a tenant referring to the rent officer a rent increase that is made without good reason.

We will support amendments 500 and 501, in the name of Mark Griffin, and we will also support amendment 451, in the name of Maggie Chapman, but I wait to hear her speak on her amendments 229, 258 and 266, which, at the moment, we do not support.

I move amendment 214.

Amendments 216 and 227 are consequential to amendment 217, which would ensure that any future exemption that is set by ministers would also apply when the initial rent for a new tenancy is set. That is a critical clarification, because the period between tenancies is typically when housing providers assess properties, carry out improvements and adjust rents. Because the issue of exemptions is one of the most scrutinised aspects of the bill, it is essential that their application at that key stage is made explicit. Amendment 217 would remove ambiguity and ensure that housing providers can confidently plan and invest, knowing how exemptions will apply when initial rents are set.

Okay—I accept that. However, if the cabinet secretary does not mind, I will take that in while I am speaking to the other amendments. I am keen to press the amendment because I believe that, at the other end of the scale, it will remove the burden of bureaucracy.

I listened carefully to Maggie Chapman, and I am slightly concerned that the blanket restrictions on setting initial rents would harm the private rental sector and tenants who might benefit from reduced rent agreements, for example.

On the point that my colleagues Graham Simpson and Meghan Gallacher make on the definition of quality, we know that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 already provides for repairing standards that landlords must meet during a tenancy. When standards are not met, enforcement mechanisms can be used, and making further rent-setting controls is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

I have already indicated that I will support Mark Griffin’s amendments 501 and 500 and amendment Maggie Chapman’s amendment 451.

I will press.