���˿���

Self-catering properties are about 0.8 per cent of Scotland’s total housing stock—that is compared with 3.4 per cent that are empty homes and 0.9 per cent that are second homes. We are talking about small landlords here, not large investors. Although your aim is laudable, it does not deal with the root cause of the housing shortage. It only pushes small landlords into a detrimental financial situation; it does not deal with cause of the situation.

I agree with Meghan Gallacher. For example, the self-catering business is important in my area in South Scotland: it is a crucial part of the bed stock and drives the local rural economy. Having spoken to many people across Scotland, I know that they have had a difficult few years with the short-term let licensing and other legislation that has come down the road. I fear that this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

If I were a member of this committee, I would not support Ross Greer’s amendments because, even though he has tried to explain them, I do not believe that they would achieve what he is aiming to do.

In the rural areas that we represent, short-term lets are important to the local economy. I wonder whether the removal of the NDR relief and exemptions, and the additional surcharge, would mean that those businesses, which are very small businesses, would be unable to apply for the small business bonus scheme, which would be quite detrimental to that economy.

For transparency on my amendments in this group, I point out that I worked with Propertymark, which is a leading membership organisation that works with hundreds of property agents.

Amendments 203 to 205 seek to make changes that would require local authorities to submit their reports on rent conditions to Scottish ministers on a specified date. As drafted, the bill requires all local authorities to assess rent conditions in their area and to submit a report to ministers at least every five years. The first report must be completed by 30 November 2026. However, that risks creating a scenario in which all 32 local authorities will work to their own timelines and report at different times.

To help tenants and landlords to understand when the designation of a rent control area will take place, local authorities should be required to submit their reports on the same date. That would ensure that the periodic assessment of rent conditions by local authorities was consistent.

Amendments 203 to 205 would improve transparency, ensure consistency across local authorities and make it easier for the Scottish Government to assess national trends and take informed action, where it was needed. Amendment 204 is consequential to amendment 203, as is amendment 205.

Amendment 206 aims to bring greater clarity and consistency on the designation of rent control areas for landlords and local authorities. As the bill is drafted, the designation of a rent control area is open ended, which means that the provision can be interpreted and applied by local authorities differently across Scotland. To help tenants and landlords to understand rent control areas, amendment 206 would require local authorities to specify the rent control area by reference to the street or ward. That would ensure that such areas were clearly defined and easily understood and that implementation was more consistent.

I will now speak to some of the other amendments on rent control areas. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 133 would ensure a layer of protection for rural areas in which a rent control area was introduced. Amendment 90 is similar, in that it would strengthen the bill by ensuring that the impact on rural areas was considered.

Amendments 81 to 84 would change the reporting period for local authorities to assess rent conditions from the five-year period that is specified in the bill to four years, three years, two years or one year respectively.

Amendments 94 to 97 deal with the power to designate a rent control area. They would amend the period after which regulations to designate a rent control area will expire from five years to four years, three years, two years or one year respectively.

I move amendment 203.

I will press amendment 203. I am slightly disappointed that the minister is not minded to support most of the amendments. However, he has committed to supporting Edward Mountain’s amendment 142, which will change the wording slightly to create some clarity. I also understand the comments that the minister made about ensuring that local authorities have flexibility. That is really important, because we accept that local authorities want to be flexible, and we are supportive of encouraging that autonomy.

I understand Maggie Chapman’s concern that limiting the lifetime of RCAs could be overburdensome on local authorities, and I thank her for her support for amendment 206.

It is important that we recognise that consistency in local authority approach is essential to driving the local economy, particularly in rural areas, which need to be supported, as Meghan Gallacher eloquently set out. Improving data collection and giving the rental sector confidence, which has been lacking lately, are really important, because we know that some of the legislation has had an impact and affected the sector. It is reasonable to ask for clarity and consistency, and that is very important when it comes to rent control assessments, rents and designation.

Although we do not want to be overburdensome, we want to offer flexibility, as the minister said. It is our job in this Parliament to ensure that the approach is consistent, while recognising that we must not put too much of a burden on to local authorities.

It is really important for the economy, jobs and the sector that we see improvements—we all want that, as I can hear in this room. I also recognise that the minister has said that he will work with me, my colleagues and others on some of the amendments. I thank him for that.

I thank you and the committee, convener, for welcoming me to the committee and giving me the opportunity to speak.

As members will be aware, I have supported the motion of my colleague Tess White. Maggie Chapman, who is deputy convener of the committee, must be removed. She has undermined judicial independence and breached rules on parliamentary conduct. I was surprised to hear her contribution just now. Maggie Chapman may not agree with the Supreme Court judgment, but it appears that she has doubled down; she is conflating her own opinion with the interpretation of law. This is not, as Paul O’Kane says, a triumph of one or more groups. This is about Maggie Chapman’s beliefs and opinions.

We could easily say that women have been victims of a personal culture war. Women have been accused of misogyny and sexism; they have been accused of racism and bigotry and could legitimately make the same claims that we are part of a cruel culture war. That has nothing to do with this matter. I agree with my colleague Pam Gosal—this is gaslighting, Maggie Chapman.

The committee is taking a highly unusual step today. Calling for an MSP to step down is a serious matter. We have been here before over lesser matters, but never has the Parliament seen such an egregious dereliction of duty. The convener will be aware that I was a member of this committee when Ms Chapman was sanctioned for breaching the MSP code of conduct by failing to disclose her former role as chief executive officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, while questioning the CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland. That breach, in a way, was small fry compared with what is before us today. I do not have a vote; other members have a vote.

We are discussing what Maggie Chapman said in Aberdeen on 20 April this year. We have heard that she declared to an assembled group:

“And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions.”

We will all be aware that when lawyers take their oath to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will, they mean it. Judges make decisions by interpreting the law, and to use the language that Ms Chapman used implies that Lord Hodge and his colleagues were not simply doing their job in interpreting the law, but bringing so-called prejudice, bigotry and hatred to their decision.

In response to Ms Chapman’s shameful attacks, as we have heard, Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, considered it his duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary. The faculty considers the comments made by Ms Chapman appalling and highlights that the Supreme Court and all judges are in the role to apply the law and not to take sides.

The most serious of points made by the faculty are that Ms Chapman has failed to uphold the independence of the judiciary, which members have talked about this morning, and that her comments

“create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”

The First Minister, John Swinney, agrees that her comments were wrong and that she was wrong to challenge the independence of the judiciary, so I am surprised to hear that Marie McNair does not support Tess White’s motion.

Many people will try to defend Maggie Chapman’s comments by referencing the right to freedom of speech. We live in a democracy, but as the legal academic Scott Wortley said,

“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”

In summary, why should Maggie Chapman stand down? She has not carried out her parliamentary duties in an appropriate manner, consistent with the standing of this Parliament. She has brought the Parliament into disrepute. Her comments are a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary. She cannot carry out her duties as deputy convener of this committee in line with impartiality requirements in guidance that is set by the Parliament, and in that vein, witnesses may be reluctant to partake in committee proceedings.

I call on all committee members to put personal loyalties and their personal opinions aside and to act to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the committee and vote to support Tess White’s motion to remove Maggie Chapman as a member of the committee.

Amendment 1068, as has been summarised, introduces a requirement for ministers to review provisions relating to tenants affected by domestic abuse. The review would encompass limitations on social landlords, the resources needed to implement those provisions and other relevant matters.

We know that social landlords are a key part of the support mechanism and the network. In some circumstances, they are the first port of call for tenants affected by domestic abuse, and it is important that we further understand the support that is available, as well as the limitations that are faced by social landlords such as local housing associations. After all, there is a limit on what a landlord can do in such circumstances, so advice and support from specialists and independent expertise ought to be a key part of the system.

Amendment 1068 was developed after discussions with housing associations in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, which emphasised that, because of resource limitations, many social landlords are unlikely to be able to offer support to tenants. One of the key areas that they highlighted was a critical need for independent specialist services to be funded and for such services to be integrated with local authority services. Those services are sometimes operated by the third sector, and they are subject to financial fragility, as we have all witnessed. Amendment 1068 would enable landlords effectively to signpost tenants and facilitate access to the necessary support, particularly in cases in which the disclosure of domestic abuse might not be immediate or forthcoming.

I welcome the minister taking the time to meet me to discuss the amendment, and I am willing to work on it and lodge a redrafted amendment at stage 3.

I would like you to clarify something, Mr McLennan. On some of the other amendments, you stated that you were willing to go back to the drawing board and work with members. In the meeting that we had, you said that you were willing to work with me on my amendment regarding the provisions for social landlords. Are you now saying that you have changed your mind?

Okay. Thank you.