I bring this meeting back into session. We will reconvene at the start of group 4 at amendment 29 relating to education regulations. Exemptions for non-educational functions of further education and higher education institutions. I remind members that we have 14 groupings in total. Our intention is to conclude stage 2 proceedings this evening. I am keen to ensure that we achieve this. I am mindful that there are on-going travel disruptions and some members who have amendments towards the end of the groupings should be given a fair hearing. Therefore, can I ask members to keep their interventions and responses concise? If I feel that an intervention is just going on too long, I will interrupt to ensure that we continue to make progress on the bill. If you have the First Amendment in the grouping, please bear in mind that you will be given the opportunity to respond to points made by the other members when I invite you to wind up. We will move on to group 4, which is education regulations. I call amendment 29, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 29, please. Amendment 29 exempts the non-educational functions of further and higher education institutions from regulation-making powers in section 8 of the bill. The effect of the amendments that the power of ministers to make regulations in relation to the continuation of an educational establishment under section 8 of the bill will continue to apply in relation to further education and higher education institutions, but with the express limitation that any regulations made under section 8 may not make provision relating to an institution's non-educational functions. This will prevent any regulations having an effect on the functions of further and higher education institutions, which is not connected to the continuing operation of education. In my stage 1 response to the committee, I committed to considering the scope of the regulation-making powers for further and higher education institutions and to continuing a dialogue with stakeholders. I am grateful to Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland for their engagement with ministers and officers on the bill, which has allowed us to make this progress. Throughout the Covid pandemic, we worked in partnership with the sector's student accommodation providers, three unions and student representatives, to ensure that appropriate guidance was in place for the safe operation of colleges, universities and student accommodation. I can confirm to the committee that, in the event of a future public health emergency, the Government's preferred approach will be to continue with that partnership approach, working with the college and university sectors and other stakeholders as appropriate to ensure that effective guidance is in place. Our expectation is that the regulation-making powers in part 2 of the bill, insofar as they relate to further and higher education institutions and student accommodation providers, would only be used should that partnership approach identify a need for regulatory certainty. I hope that amendment reassures members and college and university sectors on their commitment to working in partnership with both sectors in the event of a future public health emergency. On that basis, I encourage the committee to support amendment 29, which I now move. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I invite any member who wishes to comment? Thank you. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 29 is agreed. Can I call amendment number 30, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 113? Cabinet secretary, could you please move formally? Move, cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 30 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment number 30 is agreed. I call amendment 31, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 113. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally? Move, cabinet secretary. Thank you. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 31 is agreed. I call amendment number 118, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? I move. Thank you, Mr Mundell. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 118, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against 118, please raise your hand. So, there is a tie and it's 3-4 and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 118, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against number 118, therefore the committee disagrees the amendment. Can I call amendment 119, in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 112. I know Stephen is not here, but Oliver Mundell will do it in his place. Could you please move or not? I move. Thank you, Mr Mundell. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Can those in favour of amendment 119, please raise their hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 119, please raise your hand. Therefore, there is a tie, 3-in-favour and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 119, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will therefore vote against, therefore the committee disagrees amendment 119. I'll call amendment 120, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move? To move. Thank you. The question is amendment 120, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so there will be a division. Can those in favour of amendment 120, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 120, please raise your hand. We have a tie, 3-in-favour and 3-against. As an outcome of the division is tied on amendment 120, I will use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 120. Can I call amendment 121, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? To move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 121, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, so there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 121, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hand. Therefore, we have 3-in-favour and 3-against. As an outcome of the division is tied on amendment 121, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 121. I will now call amendment 122, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, can you move or not to move? To move, please. Thank you. The question is amendment 122, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, and there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against? Thank you. So we have 3-in-favour and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 122, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 122. I call amendment 123, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, can I ask you to move or not to move? To move, please. Thank you. The question is an amendment 123, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, and there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, please raise your hand. Therefore we have 3-in-favour and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 123, I will use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 123. Can I call amendment 124, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is an amendment 124, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hand. We have 3-in-favour and 3-against. The outcome of the division is tied on amendment 124. I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 124. Can I call amendment 125, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, to move or not to move? I move. Thank you. The question is the amendment 125, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hand. We have 3-in-favour and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 125. I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 125. Can I call amendment 126, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 126, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, please raise your hand. We have 2-in-favour and 4-against. It is not agreed. Thank you. Amendment 126 is not agreed. Just for clarification. We will move on to call amendment 13, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 112. I know Graham Simpson is not here. We will move on his behalf. Thank you. The question is that amendment 13, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Those against, please raise your hand. We have 3-in-favour and 3-against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 13, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 13. For clarification, we have agreed section 8. Thank you. We are now going on to grouping number 5, which is education regulations issues, consequentials to making regulations. I call amendment 127, in the name of Oliver Mundell, grouped with the amendments 129, 135 and 144. Oliver Mundell, to move amendment 127 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 127. Those are further amendments, which seek to put additional protections in place and to address some of the shortcomings that we have seen in the Government response during this pandemic. They are fairly straightforward because of the principle that I accept that there may be questions around how some of those amendments are drafted or worded. Again, I am happy to work with the Government or anyone else to find a form of words that takes those principles forward, particularly around educational assessment and examinations, because our young people do want to see that lessons have been learned. I know that, in the past, the Government has done a great deal of anger and concern. I recognize that things must be fair in future. It is important for those powers to rest with ministers. I also think that there are significant financial impacts often on students. As a result of the use of those powers, I think that they would want to know gwneud hynny i gwelio'r righton o'u maslydd i gael.  Gwaeddiwch i economi'r Gwyrdd yn zeithio ar y gwir cyflennidau Rydymaire Nkers, o telangoddau'r bicycle olaf a gyllteb backedu ilareth, oherwydd ielectronic, cream femin, The Scottish Qualifications Authority has been responsible for delivering the national diet of examinations in Scotland. During the Covid pandemic, the SQA has worked closely with partners through the national qualifications group to ensure that young people were able to achieve fair and credible grades in spite of the most challenging of school years. That included informing decisions on the timing of return to an examination diet with appropriate decisions taking into public health advice at the time. The SQA and partners have been clear that the awarding of qualifications must be based on demonstrated attainment, a range of measures, including adaptive appeals processes that give learners a free and direct right of appeal, have been put in place to ensure that all of our young people have the best chance to demonstrate their potential in order to receive the grades that they deserve. Amendment 127 would introduce detailed statutory regulation of some aspects of examination and assessment, which are otherwise within the scope of broad functions exercise generally independently of the Scottish Government in a way that is at odds with the existing legal framework. By taking a collaborative approach rather than the statutory approach proposed in this amendment, it means that we can ensure that any assessment approach for the awarding of qualifications is appropriate to the circumstances at the time and does not pre-empt future legislation for the SQA's successor or any outcomes from Professor Louise Hayward's review on the future qualification system for Scotland. Amendment 129 requires ministers to set out plans for providing additional financial support to students if any regulations made in relation to the continuing operation of educational establishments or student accommodation will or are likely to have a detrimental financial effect on students. During the Covid pandemic, we provided substantial support to students, including over £96 million through hardship funding, digital access support, mental health support and for student associations. We also worked with the sector's student accommodation providers and with student representatives to ensure the continued welfare and safety of students. That includes our on-going commitment to more than 80 additional councillors in colleges and universities that we have achieved. Of course, in the event of a future public health emergency, we would set out any additional support for students that we considered to be necessary, financial or otherwise, just as we would set out additional support for any other groups that we believe require support. We would do so in the context of the situation at the time and through consultation with stakeholders, including student representatives. By taking the non-legislative and broader approach, we can ensure that any additional support for students is appropriate to the circumstances at the time and includes non-financial support where appropriate, so that the Government cannot support amendment 129. In relation to amendment 135, there is already flexibility for individual applications to be made to the education authority for a pupil to repeat a year, and those applications are assessed on their individual merits. In relation to pupils with additional support needs, an extra year sometimes arises as a result of a deferral at an earlier point in their learning. A better approach would be that the young person be considered under the additional support for learning act as having an additional support need that may arise for whatever reason and appropriate catch-up support provided. During the years in which pupils take their formal exams, there is significant flexibility for young people to take qualifications when they reach a level rather than a single year. Finally, the amendment is ambiguous in the terms that it uses and to which types of educational institution it would apply to, so as drafted, it does not deliver legal certainty. Amendment 144 does not specify who may make a request or to whom a request for an education catch-up plan should be made and whether there is any obligation on the institution to whom the request is made to agree that request. Neither is any definition or content given to what such a plan should include, so again, that does not offer legal certainty. I cannot support any of those amendments and I invite Mr Mundell not to press the amendments in this group. I have to say that I am unsurprised that the Deputy First Minister is unable to support any of those amendments because they all speak to errors or failure to provide support during his input in education during the pandemic. Frankly, around the SQA, to hear that ministers were not involved in some of those mistakes, I think is a bit certainly. Thank you for giving way. I mean, would member accept that there were different opinions on some of those things? It is not a question of error or mistake, it is a question of one choice against another choice. I politely say to the member that the use of historical data at a school level to impact the grades of other young people is wrong. I also think that when we saw the use of an algorithm and grades being changed on that basis, ministers were aware of that information and chose not to act. They were mistakes, that is why things were changed later and I think that young people do deserve a guarantee that they would not happen again. It is back to Mr Mason's own point in relation to some of the other amendments such as the financial impact. Again, we hear that we will not, in a future pandemic, do this or that, but we do not know who the Government is going to be at that point, we do not know who the ministerial office holders are going to be. That is why putting some of those things on the face of the bill offers a much stronger protection to those impacted than relying on guidance or regulation, but I could go on at some time and I know that people have travel plans. The question is that amendment 127 to be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are not agreed and there will be division. Those in favour of amendment 127, please raise your hand. There is a tie 3, 4 and 3 against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 127, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment 127. I am now moved to call amendment 32 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 113. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Amendment number 33 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 113. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? I am moved. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment number 14 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 112. I know that Graham Simpson is not here, so I would ask Brian Whittle to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 14, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against, amendment number 14, please raise your hand. Thank you. We have three four and we have three again. All right, so we had two four and four against, so it is not being agreed. Okay, so therefore we have agreed to number section nine. Yes. Okay, thank you. Apologies. Can we move to call amendment number 34 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 113? Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment number 34 is agreed. Can I call amendment number 35 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 113? Can the cabinet secretary please move formally? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment number 35 is agreed to. Can I call amendment number 128 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112? Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? I don't move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 128, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hand. Thank you. We have 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 128, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision and I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment number 128. I call amendment number 15 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Brian Whittle to move or not to move? Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 15, please raise your hand. So we have 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 15, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment number 15. Therefore we have now agreed section 10. I call amendment number 129 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 127. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move, please? I don't move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 129, please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against amendment 129, please raise your hand. So we've got 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 129, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 129. I call amendment 130 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Not moved. Thank you very much Mr Mundell. I will move to call amendment number 131 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Not moved. Thank you Mr Mundell. I call amendment number 132 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? I don't move please. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 132, please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against amendment 132, please raise your hand. So we have 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 132, I will now use my cast of voters convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 132. I will call amendment number 133 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? If. Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 133, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 133, please raise your hand. We have 34 and three against. So as the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 133, I will now use my cast of voters convener in order that the committee reaches a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 133. I now call amendment number 134 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? And move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 134, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 134, please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 134, I will now use my casting of voters convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 134. So we have now, therefore, agreed section 11. Thank you. Can I call amendment 135 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 127. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Move please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and we will go to a division. Can I ask those in favour of amendment 135, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 135, please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have 34 and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 135, I will now use my casting of voters convener in order that the committee reaches a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 135. I call amendment number 16 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 112. I ask Brian Whittle to move on Graham Simpson's behalf. Not moved. Not moved. Thank you. I am moving on to call amendment number 17 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment number 112. I will ask Brian Whittle to move on Graham Simpson's behalf or not to move. Not moved. Thank you. I will call on amendment number 18 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 112. I will ask Brian Whittle to move or not move on behalf of Graham Simpson. Not moved. Thank you. I call on amendment number 36 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally? Thank you. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 36, please raise your hand. I have got five votes for and one against. Therefore amendment 36 is agreed. I call amendment number 37 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Amendment 37 is agreed. I call amendment number 136 in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? No. Thank you, Mr Mundell. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 136, please raise your hand. Those against amendment 136, please raise your hand. We have three for and three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 136, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore the committee disagrees to amendment number 136. We have therefore agreed section 12. I call amendment number 38 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Move again. Thank you. The question is amendment 38, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 38, please raise your hand. Those against amendment number eight, please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have five for amendment number 38 and one against, therefore amendment number 38 is agreed. I will call amendment number 39 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 39, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 39, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment number 39, please raise your hand. So we have five for amendment number 39 and one against, therefore amendment number 39 is agreed. Amendment number 137, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you, Mr Mundell. The question is that amendment 137, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 137, please raise your hands. Thank you. And those against amendment number 137, please raise your hand. Thank you. We have a tie. We have three for and we have three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 137, I will now use my cast to vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees with amendment 137. Can I call amendment 138, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Mr Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 138, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 138, please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against amendment 138, please raise your hand. We have a tie. Three for and three against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 138, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against, therefore the committee disagrees to amendment 138. I call amendment number 139, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Not moved. Not moved, thank you. I move to call amendment number 140, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Can I ask Mr Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 140, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. Thank you. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 140, please raise your hand. And those against amendment 140, please raise your hand. So we have two for the amendment and we have four against the amendment, so the amendment is not agreed. Can I just confirm that section 13 has now been agreed? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment number 141, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Mr Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is amendment 141, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 141, please raise your hand. Those against, please raise your hand. So we have two votes for amendment number 141 and four votes against amendment 141, so amendment 141 is not agreed. I call amendment number 142, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Oliver Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 142, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 142, please raise your hand. Those against amendment 142, please raise your hand. So we have a tie, 3, 4 and 3 against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 142, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, committee disagrees to amendment number 142. I call amendment number 143, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment 112. Oliver Mundell, to move or not to move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 143, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 143, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment 143, please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have a tie, 3, 4 and 3 against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 143, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment number 143. I call amendment number 144, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 127. Can I ask Mr Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is amendment 144, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 144, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment number 144, please raise your hand. Thank you. We have 3, 4 and 3 against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 144, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment number 144. I call amendment number 145, in the name of Oliver Mundell, already debated with amendment number 112. Can I ask Mr Mundell to move or not to move? Move, please. Thank you. The question is amendment number 145, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a decision. Those in favour of amendment number 145, please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against amendment number 145, please raise your hand. Thank you. We have 3, 4 and 3 against. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment number 145, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order that the committee can reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment number 145. Can we all agree that section 14, be agreed? Yes. Thank you. We are now moving on to 6 grouping, which is transitional and saving provision and commencement. Can I call amendment number 40, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings? I remind members that if amendment 67 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 68 in group tenancies, emergency rent freeze plan, due to a preemption. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment number 40 and also to speak to all amendments in the group. The principal amendment in this group is amendment 67, which seeks to codify most aspects of commencement policy on this bill to ensure a seamless transfer from the existing temporary provisions, which expire in September 2022 and to eliminate the need for commencement regulations immediately after summer recess. Generally, if temporary provisions transition to replacement provisions under the bill on the dates mentioned, the Government considers that no transitional or savings provisions are required. I now speak to amendments for those cases where the Government considers that appropriate transitional and saving provisions are required to enable a smooth legislative transition. Amendments 64 and 65 ensure appropriate transitional and savings arrangements are in place in relation to part 4 of the bill in tenancies. Discretionary grounds of eviction and pre-action requirements were introduced via the emergency coronavirus legislation. I mean that all eviction notices served on or after 7 April 2020 and all proceedings raised in relation to those notices are subject to the discretionary grounds of eviction and, for rent arrears cases, the pre-action requirements. The new law, as provided for in the bill, will apply to all post-commencement eviction notices and all eviction proceedings raised in relation to those notices. In addition for those post-commencement eviction notices and connected eviction proceedings, the current pre-action requirement regulations are deemed to have been made under the powers in the bill in relation to the pre-action protocol. The effective amendments 64 and 65 is that where an eviction notice has been served on a tenant prior to 1 October 2022, the law as framed by the Scottish coronavirus acts and the relevant regulations will continue despite the expiry of the relevant provisions in those acts and those regulations. Where an eviction notice is served on or after 1 October 2022, the new law as framed by the bill will apply and the relevant regulations will continue in effect as if made under the new pre-action protocol powers created by the bill. Those technical amendments are crucial to ensure a seamless transition from the emergency legislation ending on 30 September to the proposed new law coming into force on 1 October 2022. They ensure that the law remains stable for anyone who has already begun an eviction process and they also take account of the fact that there may not be enough time before 1 October 2022 to pass new regulations for the pre-action protocol. The seamless continuation of this important protection for renters will avoid any confusion or uncertainty for landlords and tenants, which would be caused if there was a short gap between the expiry of the emergency legislation and the making of new regulations under this bill. Amendments 40 and 42 on bankruptcy provisions are technical amendments to provide clarity on the specific subsections that have been referred to in sections 15 and 16 of the bill respectively. Amendment 41 provides that amendments made by section 15 of the bill service of documents apply in relation to documents that are sent or transmitted on or after 1 October 2022. Amendment 43 provides a saving provision for the provision in section 16 of the bill. Section 16 sets the minimum debt level accreditor must be owed to petition the court for bankruptcy of the debt at £5,000 on a permanent basis. Amendment 43 ensures that any creditor petition for bankruptcy presented before 1 October 2022 is not impacted by the change to the creditor petition level. Amendment 67A will bring into effect on the 1 November 2022 proposed changes to the protected minimum balance that is applied when someone is subject to a bank arrestment. That is consequential on amendment 69, which has been put forward by John Mason, and will be considered more fully in group 7. The Government supports those amendments, which together introduce the change at an early opportunity to allow debtors to benefit from the revised figure. I move amendment 40. Can I please ask John Mason to speak to amendment 67A and any other amendments in the group? Thanks very much. My amendment 67A is consequential on amendment 69, which we are due to come to in the next group, and I will say more about that at that point. Amendment 67A effectively amends the Government amendment 67 so that my proposed changes to the protected minimum balance that is applied when someone is subject to a bank arrestment will come into force on 1 November 2022. As the Deputy First Minister said, that would introduce the change at an early opportunity. Thank you very much. I invite any other members who would like to contribute to those amendments. Thank you. Can I ask Cabinet Secretary to widen up, please? I have no comments to close. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 40 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment number 40 is agreed. I call amendment number 41. In the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment number 40, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 41 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can we all agree that section 15 is now agreed? I now move to call amendment number 42. In the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment number 40, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment number 42 is agreed to. I call amendment number 43. In the name of the Cabinet Secretary, already debated with amendment number 40. Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you to move formally, please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 43 is agreed. Can we all agree that section 16 and section 17 is now agreed? Thank you. I now move on to the seventh grouping, which is diligence and bank arrestments. I will call amendment number 69 in the name of John Mason in a group of its own. John Mason, can I ask you to move and speak to amendment number 69, please? Yes, thanks very much, convener. The Government responded rapidly to the Covid pandemic and introduced some welcome changes to the insolvency process. Unfortunately, the emerging cost of living crisis is putting further pressure on household budgets, and this will regrettably lead to further instances of unsustainable debt, as has been underlined by step change and other charities. I am aware of concerns from the advice sector about the current bank arrestment process and how that may be improved, again taking into account the unique pressures that are faced by households. In particular, this has been raised very recently, during evidence, as I understand it, at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, as part of its inquiry into low income and debt. The current arrangements protect the sum of £566.51 through provision made in the Detters Scotland Act 1987. This is linked to the arrangements made for a wage arrestment, namely the maximum monthly salary required before any wage arrestment is enacted. I believe that it is right to decouple this arrangement and fix the protected balance for bankruptcy separately, with new powers to vary this by negative regulations. This is the same parliamentary procedure used at the present time for regulations to vary the wage arrestment thresholds, which in turn amends the protected minimum balance. Rather than £566.51, I believe that £1,000 would be a better level of protection. It affords greater flexibility and financial resilience, while also being consistent with the level of funds an individual can retain while pursuing debt relief through minimal asset process bankruptcy. As mentioned during the group's sixth debate, my amendment 67A in that group makes this new provision, would make this new provision, come into force on 1 November 2022. I do encourage the committee to support my amendment in this group. I move amendment 69. Thank you, Mr Mason. Can I ask if any other members would like to speak at this moment? Thank you, thank you, convener. I read Mr Mason's amendment with interest. I sat on two previous committees that dealt with bankruptcy legislation in the previous parliament. I am well aware of the issues around questions of diligence and arrestment and the difficulty there is in balancing the rights of creditors and debtors. I know in the past when these issues have been raised, creditors such as credit unions, for example, have raised concerns about the inability to recover funds and the position that might put them in. I think that my concern with Mr Mason's amendment is not an issue that we have taken any evidence on as a committee. The representation that I have seen from the Society of Minister's Arms and Sheriff Officers expresses concern about the increase in the level to what appears to be an arbitrary figure of £1,000. I find it difficult to agree on amendment 69, given the absence of substantial evidence in support of it. The Government is happy to support amendment 69, which seeks to increase the funds that can be retained in a bank account that has been subject to bank arrestment. The Government also supports the creation of a power to amend the figure through regulations. The Scottish Government is aware of the issue that is coming forward during the stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. We are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures that have compounded the issues of financial uncertainty arising from the coronavirus pandemic. This amendment will provide some respite for people in households that are experiencing issues of problem debt and improve financial resilience. While I understand that provisions already exist to challenge bank arrestments on hardship grounds, I am aware that those can be quite arduous to effect and not provide an immediate resolution for many when what they need is urgent and early help to better manage their situation. I also understand that bank arrestments are used predominantly by local authorities to recover unpaid debt and acknowledge that that will reduce the amount of funds that local authorities and other creditors can recover using that diligence. However, in the current climate in particular, the Scottish Government considers that this reform achieves the right balance and revised arrangements to fix the protected sums provide greater flexibility to respond to economic factors in the future. We accept the need to do something immediately to protect individuals from unnecessary hardship. Over the coming year, we will carry out further consultation to look at both the process and the thresholds here and see what longer-term improvements can be made to bank arrestments. Some of that might address some of the legitimate points raised by Murdo Fraser. However, for now, the Government agrees that this is unnecessary and welcomes stopgap, and I welcome the amendment that has been lodged by Mr Mason, and the Government would encourage members to support amendment 69. I take Murdo Fraser's point that we did not spend much time on that particular point, but what we did do on the committee was to look at a range of measures around bankruptcy and related matters. Generally, the theme was to round up figures and make them a bit higher. I think that that is fully consistent with what we did. While £1,000 is a round figure, and it may be called arbitrary by Mr Fraser, £566.51 is a very odd figure, and strikes dislike that kind of level of detail, I have to say. With inflation going clearly £566.51 is not very much to live on, so I would encourage members to support £1,000. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, and there will be division. Those in favour of amendment 69, please raise your hand. Those against amendment 69, please raise your hand. We have four amendment 69, and two against amendment 69, so amendment 69 is agreed. Moving on to the next grouping, which is diligence and period of moratorium. I call amendment 44, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, grouped with amendment 45. Cabinet secretary, can you please move amendment 44 and speak to both amendments in the group? The Scottish Government has acted quickly and decisively in response to the coronavirus pandemic recognising the unparalleled economic uncertainty, which financially impacts on households. A range of measures were introduced through the Scottish Coronavirus Act to mitigate against the impact of that uncertainty. Among those was an extension to the moratorium period on diligence, providing a longer period of breathing space for those facing issues of unsustainable debt to fully consider their options. A commitment was made to consider at stage 2 of the bill what would be appropriate for a permanent provision for the moratorium period. As with most provisions in the bill, consultation was undertaken on this issue, and a number of options were considered, including reverting back to the six-week period provided for in bankruptcy legislation, a 12-week moratorium period, or retain the longer protection period of six months. The Scottish Government is acutely aware that the turmoil resulting from the pandemic has been quickly followed by the onset of additional extreme pressures on the cost of living. We also acknowledge that the committee recommended a moratorium period of 12 weeks at a minimum. Given those very real pressures, we believe that it is justified that at the present time to make provision that continues the existing protection period of six months, or the main debt advice organisations have called for this. Amendments 44 and 45 also provide for a new specific power to revise the period of moratorium against diligence through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That is considered appropriate for changes of this significance. We have listened to the evidence heard at committee, and there is little doubt that the current cost of living crisis will see an influx of demand on our excellent, but already hard-pressed advice sector. It is very likely that many households that have previously been able to manage their budgets will come under increased pressure, resulting in their debt potentially becoming unsustainable. That is why we have retained the existing enhanced protection, but it comes with a commitment to review and introduce an amended time frame when the current risks hopefully subside. The regulation-making powers will enable flexible and rapid response to changing economic circumstances. For those reasons, I invite the committee to support the amendments in this group, and I move amendment 44. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I ask any other members if you would like to make a comment? No? Can I ask cabinet secretary to wind up, please? I think for the time being. Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Amendment 44 is agreed. I will call amendment 45 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 44, can I ask the minister to move formally, please? Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 45 is agreed. Moving on to number nine grouping, which is registration of births and deaths. I call amendment 46 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to move amendment 46 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please? This group relates to remote birth and death registration and to a project named calling in the register pages. This project is aimed at ensuring that the registers of birth, death, marriages and civil partnerships can be held electronically rather than on paper. It also aims to remove requirements that signatures on the registers have to be traditional wet signatures and help to move towards electronic registers. Amendments in the group cover emphasising the choice available to the informant and provisions to enable registers to become electronic. The text asserting the informant's right to choose has to refer to the options that can be chosen. Amendments 46 and 54 relate to remote birth and death registration. As the bill stands, informants can provide information about a birth in person at the registration office or remotely if the local authority register has issued a direction enabling local registration in their area or the registrar general has issued an all Scotland direction. Amendments 46 and 54 enable the birth and death registration forms to be attested—that is signed—in a way other than a traditional wet signature. That paves the way towards making those registers electronic. Amendments 46 and 54 also make it clear that, when remote registration is available to an informant, the option of in-person registration remains and the informant can choose remote registration if they so wish. That responds directly to points that were made in the stage 1 report on potential digital exclusion and the need to ensure that in-person services remain available. In-person service provision has always been intended to be preserved under the bill and there is no compulsion to use the telephone or video call option. Those amendments clarify the position and remove any doubt in-person services must be maintained. Amendments 47 and 55 relate to late registrations of births and deaths. There are legal obligations to register births and deaths. If an informant fails to do so, local authority registrars have long-standing powers to require information to be provided. This currently involves requiring the informant to attend the registration office in person. Amendments 47 and 55 make amendments so that remote registration is possible in late cases as well, where the district registrar has issued a direction enabling remote registration in the area or the registrar general has issued an all-scotten direction. However, amendments 47 and 55 also provide in late cases that where the option of remote registration or having the registration form attested remotely is available, the informant has the choice of whether or not to do it in that way or to attend the registration office in person. Again, we are responding to the stage 1 report. Amendments 47 and 55 also make amendments so that one option for attesting a birth or death registration form provided latest for the registrar to do so on behalf of the informant. That again helps to pave the way for registers to become electronic. Amendments 48 and 56 are consequential amendments. There are obligations on local authority registers to register births and deaths where the required information has been provided. Amendments 48 and 56 reflect that information may be given remotely in future. Amendments 49 and 51 are further consequential amendments. They relate to birth registration by a father not married to or in a civil partnership with the child's mother and to birth registration by second female parents. Those amendments make provisions so that when attesting a birth registration form on behalf of such a father or second female parent, a registrar cannot ask for information generally and not just about the person's usual signature. That might be useful for example when asking fathers and second female parents exactly how they are to be referred to, for example by the first name and surname or using the middle name too or by using initials. Proceeding in this way is a step towards helping registers to become electronic. Amendments 50 and 52 again relate to birth registration by a father not married to or in a civil partnership with the child's mother or by second female parents. They provide that if the father or second female parent can attest a birth registration form in a way that does not require to be in the presence of the registrar, it is for that person to choose whether or not to attest the form in that way. That again reflects the points in the stage 1 report that some informants will wish to use in-person rather than remote services. Amendments 53 and 57 provide new definitions of the birth registration form and of the death registration form. Those forms will be prescribed by the registrar general in regulations. Amendment 58 ensures that regulations made by the registrar general under the registration of births deaths and manages Scotland at 1965 may make different provisions for different cases or circumstances. This is already in place for the marriage register. The ability to make different provisions for different cases or circumstances would help to future proof this legislation. The main future needs to be different formats of birth registration forms and death registration forms, depending on whether those forms are electronic or manually signed and scanned into the electronic register. Amendment 59 makes an amendment so that a civil partnership register may, if the registrar general so determines, be electronic rather than paper-based. There is existing provision so that a register of births deaths still births or manages, or the register of connections, etc., may, if the registrar general so determines, be electronic rather than paper-based. The amendment extends that provision to the civil partnership register too. On that basis, I move amendment 46. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will open it up to any other members that wish to comment. Thank you. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up? I have nothing for that, convener. Thank you. Thank you. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 46 is agreed. I am going to call amendments 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated with amendment 46. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 47 to 53 on block? It moved on block, convener. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 47 to 53? Good. Thank you. The questions are that amendments 47 to 53 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendments 47 to 53 are agreed. The question is that section 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. And the question is that section 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I am going to call amendments 54, 55, 56 and 57, all in the name of the minister and previously debated in number 46. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 54 to 57 on block? It moved on block, convener. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 54 to 57? Nope. Thank you very much. The question is that amendments 54 to 57 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendments 54 to 57 are agreed. The question is that section 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 58, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 46. Can I ask cabinet secretary to move formally, please? Move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 58 is agreed. I call amendment 59, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 46. Can I ask cabinet secretary to move formally? Move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 59 is agreed. Moving on to grouping number 10, alcohol and civil licensing format of hearings and meetings. Can I call amendment number 60, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Grouped with amendments 61 and 62 and 63. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to please move amendment number 60 and to speak to all amendments in the group? Convener, the purpose of amendments 60 to 63 is to ensure that any views which participants at a licensing hearing or meeting may offer with regard to the appropriate format for the hearing or meeting must be taken into account by a licensing board or licensing authority prior to finalising its decision on the format. This applies to anyone who notifies the authority of their intention to participate, such as the licence holder or an objector. That response, of course, yes. I wonder if this question of must take account of any views just seems a bit weak. The must take account, how would you demonstrate that they've taken account of any representations? Obviously, the licensing board is a body subject to statutory requirements which is in control of its own proceedings, so it must essentially consider any representations made to the licensing board or authority as a consequence of the provision that is proposed in those amendments. It doesn't oblige to, as Mr Rowley will be familiar with in legislative terms, language matters. I have made that point in the course of proceedings today. The must take into account must have regard to is different from must accept. Essentially, it is requiring the licensing board or licensing authority to consider the opinions and the views expressed by participants, but it does not oblige them to accept those views. Mr Rowley, of course, would be free should those amendments be accepted to return to some of those provisions at a later stage in proceedings if there was a desire to strengthen those provisions, and I am, of course, willing to engage in dialogue on that question. That approach responds directly to the committee's recommendation in the stage 1 report for amendments to make it explicit that those entitled to participate in licensing hearings and meetings are able to be involved in the process of decision making on the format of meetings. Following the stage 1 report, we have undertaken engagement with licensing stakeholders in relation to the decision making process around the format of licensing hearings and meetings. The policy contained within the amendments reflects this engagement and codify current good practice. What the amendments do is ensure licensing boards and licensing authorities retain flexibility and discretion to decide the format of licensing hearings and meetings as part of their overall responsibility, but, in so doing, they must ensure that any views expressed by participants are taken into account. Ensuring the licensing board or licensing authority retains overall discretion is important for two key reasons. Licensing boards and licensing authorities have to ensure that a licensing hearing and meeting is fair for all parties involved, not just one party, failure to do so may result in licensing decisions being appealed. Licensing boards and licensing authorities have to be mindful of statutory timescales for determining a licence application, with some larger licensing boards potentially hearing 25 or more cases at a meeting. Ensuring the decision to be made on meeting or hearing format sits with the licensing board or licensing authority is important to allow for the effective operation of the licensing system. The amendments lodged are a pragmatic and proportionate response to the committee's recommendation, which balances the goal of public participation alongside the need to be mindful of the responsibilities of licensing boards and authorities. The foreclosing of this group, members will recall that the preceding group included amendments that were intended to minimise digital exclusion risks. I acknowledge that the committee's stage 1 report posited wider cross-cutting amendments so that public authorities preserve the option of in-person or paper services. As committed in the Government's stage 1 response, we have considered whether any further amendments might be brought forward to other aspects of the bill, and I can confirm that we have concluded that none are needed beyond those in this and the preceding group. We are satisfied that, across the bill, as it is now proposed to be amended, the potential for digital exclusion has been minimised. To return to the specific amendments in this group, I invite the committee to support those amendments in the licensing context specifically, and I move amendment 60. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will now open it up to members. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 60 is agreed to. I call amendment 61. In the name of the cabinet secretary, I will now move amendment 60. I move amendment 61. Thank you. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Amendment 61 is agreed to. Can we agree that section 21 be agreed to? Yes. Thank you. And the question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 62. In the name of the cabinet secretary, I already debated with amendment 60. I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally, please. I move. Thank you. The question is that section 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Section 62 is agreed to. Amendment 62 is agreed to. There is a typo of my script. I call amendment 63. In the name of the cabinet secretary, I already debated with amendment 60. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally? I move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 24 and 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Now moving on to grouping number 11 and its mental health, the name person. Can I call amendment number three in the name of murder Fraser, group with amendment number two. Murder Fraser to move amendment number three and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I have two amendments in this group which address an issue that the committee took evidence on at stage one and indeed made an anonymous recommendation in our report on it. The background to this is that the 2003 mental health care and treatment Scotland act provides for a named person to be appointed to support someone who is subject to compulsory powers, for example where they might be detained in hospital or subject to compulsory treatment order. As the law currently stands, the signature of the named person accepting the appointment has to be witnessed by a suitably qualified professional with the intention that the responsibilities of being a named person should be explained to them. Section 28 of the bill as drafted removes this requirement. That is an understandable change and has been supported by stakeholders and those who we took evidence from. But we also heard in evidence a concern that a named person could be appointed under this new procedure without a full understanding of the role and the responsibilities that it involves. Both Dr Aaron Chopra of the mental welfare commission and Dr Roger Smith from the Royal College of Psychiatrists agreed when we took evidence that a named person should have to declare that they understand their role. The point of my amendment 3 is to require that there should be a declaration from the named person that they understand the role, duties, rights and responsibilities in being a named person. Amendment 4 is a complementary amendment that requires the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to named persons so that they are aware of their responsibilities given that there won't be a person there witnessing their signature that would leave a lacuna in my view and that's why it's important that this matter is addressed. As I said, it's a matter that we discussed in committee is in our stage 1 report as a unanimous recommendation and I hope that it will have support of members. I move amendment 3. The Government does not consider these amendments necessary for a number of reasons and I'll set those out until I understand the motivation behind them from Mr Fraser. Amendment 2 would require Scottish ministers to publish guidance on named persons, however this is already available through the Government's website. We propose to revise the content to take account of changes to legislation and we'll do this in partnership with key stakeholders including the Mental Welfare Commission. The revised documents will make clear that in addition to the published guidance this should be on-going engagement through clinical teams and that that should always be the default position. The mental healthcare and treatment Scotland at 2003 already places specific duties on mental health officers when it comes to the role of named persons which directs them to seek out and talk to a named person before certain orders and applications are made or in some cases as soon as practicable after an order is made. Therefore the potential for a person not to understand the role is extremely minimal. In addition the statutory code of practice which accompanies the 2003 act is clear that it would be best practice for the mental health officer or any other practitioner discussing this with the nominee to ensure that they are provided with information about the role in a form which is helpful to them. That role will not change. The legislation as it stands only places a duty on a prescribed person to act as a witness to the nominee's signature. This process of checking understanding is separate to the requirement for the nominated person's signature to be witnessed and can be undertaken by a range of professionals, not just mental health officers. Amendment 3 proposes that a nominee should declare that they understand their own responsibilities associated with becoming a named person. However, the legislation does not provide specific duties for named persons as this will vary in each case. The named person and the patient are in each entitled to act independently of the other. Unlike, for example, a welfare guardian depending on their powers, a named person does not step into the shoes of the patient. While the proposals would extend the reach of this provision, they would also be difficult to verify as we are unclear how one would evidence that a nominee has been provided with guidance on their role, rights and responsibilities before they accept a nomination. There is no statutory form to complete a present, although there is a suggested template and we are aware that some local authorities have their own versions. Our aim is to reduce bureaucracy and encourage more people to accept the role of named person, which the committee agrees is a vital safeguard in the patient's care and treatment. The change amendment 3 proposes would be difficult to verify and offers no new safeguard as there is already an established practice that should ensure that nominated persons are provided with relevant guidance in a form that is helpful to them before they accept their nomination. Given the position that I have just set out, the suggested stage 2 amendments are, in my view, not required. They potentially unhelpfully introduce a greater degree of procedure before a role supporting a patient takes effect. The intention behind the reform is to remove a requirement that is currently experienced as disproportionately bureaucratic and may even be a disincentive to taking up the role. I believe that amendments 2 and 3 would not assist in the efforts that we are trying to make in this respect. With those comments, I would invite more to Fraser and not to press his amendments. I respond very briefly. I listen with great interest to the comments made by the cabinet secretary. I do not regard it as a major bureaucratic burden asking someone to simply sign a declaration saying that they would understand the role and responsibilities of being a named person. I would just go back to the fact that we did take evidence on this from stakeholders who were clear in their view that it would be a positive step to incorporate this particular measure. It was a unanimous recommendation of the committee in its stage 1 report. On that basis, I will press amendment 3. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 3, please raise your hands. We have 3, 4 and 3 against amendment 3. As the outcome of the division is tied on amendment 3, I will now use my casting vote as convener in order for the committee to reach a decision. I will vote against. Therefore, the committee disagrees to amendment 3. Can I call amendment 2 in the name of Murdo Fraser? I have already debated with amendment 3. Can I ask Murdo Fraser to move or not to move? Not move. Not move. Thank you. The question is that section 28 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 29 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I am going to suspend the meeting briefly for five minutes for a comfort break before we move on to the next section. Thank you. Good evening and thank you. We will now resume with grouping number 12 for tenancies, eviction grounds and pre-action protocol. Can I welcome to the meeting Edward Mountain, who is joining us virtually? Good evening. As this is your first time to the meeting of this committee, can I invite you to declare anything that is recorded in your register of interests that might be relevant to the remit of this committee? Thank you very much, convener, and of course, as I have not been to the committee for, I do want to make a declaration of my interests, which have already, of course, been declared to the Parliament. Being in my farming business, which includes six rental properties, the rental income from these properties, are critical to the security of the core agricultural business. I would also like to just remind the committee, if I may, that I am a qualified rural surveyor with over 20 years of professional experience, including the letting of properties for clients on holiday, short and long-term laps. This experience allowed me to develop a good understanding of the three acts that will be amended by this bill. I am not practicing in the surveyor's market at the moment and haven't done so since I was elected. Thank you, Mr Mountain. We'll move on. I call amendment number 70 in the name of Edward Mountain, group with amendments, as shown in the groupings. I ask Edward Mountain to move amendment 70 and to speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener, and I do move amendment 70. There are amendments in this group that cover the three acts, so I propose to do a description of what I see as the problem and then concentrate on the Housing Scotland Act 2016 and not talk to all the other amendments, which, convener, I'm sure you will be delighted for, as will be the rest of the committee. Over the past years, we've seen a move towards the protection of tenants, something that I believe really should be welcomed. The difficulty, of course, has been finding the balance between the landlord and tenant, ensuring that the legislation is equitable for both. The 2016 act was regarded as a tectonic shift in this regard. Tenants rights have become more defined and their position protected. What is clear is that not all private landlords have welcomed these changes. Those that did so did so on the basis that the act did retain some of the mandatory and some of the discretionary grounds for ending a tenancy that was in previous. This will change under the current act, a worrying research indicates and was recently published by property mark shows that there have been a 50% reduction in rental properties between the years 2019 and 2022. That is worrying and this decline has been directly attributed to the 2016 act. Less landlords, thus less properties, results in increased rents and increased pressure on social housing. I think that we all should be concerned. I would say that during the pandemic everyone adapted to working and living in what was, after all, a very hostile environment and the need to limit the spread of what was before vaccinations, a virus that could and did pose a threat to life. It was simple and very right to make the mandatory grounds for eviction discretionary. No one could support the eviction of tenants when the virus was as virulent as it was. The additional compensatory funds made available by the Government for tenants and landlords to help tenants pay their rent was welcomed by both tenants and landlords, but that is not the position we are in now. Before we go and look at the bill, I want to look at the provision of housing in Scotland very briefly. We all agree that there is a chronic shortage of all types of housing in Scotland. We need more housing and there will not be an MSP in this room who does not support greater provision. The private sector has a role in providing this, and there are about 360,000 privately rented houses in Scotland, which is about 14 per cent of the total housing stock in Scotland. It is impossible to define who owns those houses, a complete mixture of those and includes those by-to-let landlords, families who have reallocated due to work, companies and employers who provide accommodation of part of their employment contracts, such as farmers and churches, and people who have invested in their future retirement homes. You could go on forever and they will not produce an exhausted list. What is clear is the takeaway message that Scotland does need private housing to fill in the gaps in housing provision, and to ensure this invaluable resource, we must ensure that the rights of tenants and landlords balance. To favour one over the other, I am afraid we will distort the provision of use and the provision of housing. My background and knowledge of the market and having spoken recently to better landlords, their agents and tenants, it is my belief that part four of the coronavirus recovery bill, which makes all mandatory grants for eviction discretionary, fits a balance too much in favour of the talent. Whilst it was acceptable and right during the pandemic, which was a public health emergency, to continue this beyond, I do not believe, is justifiable. I would like to make some general comments on the mandatory grants for eviction and three housing bills, which will be amended by part four of the bill. The majority of those grants exist to ensure that property can be reclaimed by the landlord promptly, but there has been a serious and clear breach of the tenancy, or the property is required for another reason. Making every grant for eviction discretionary will slow the process down and ensure that every case goes to a first-tier tribunal. So what, you might ask? Well, prior to the pandemic, some landlords were having to wait up to eight months for a tribunal hearing. Thus, making every eviction grant discretionary will add to the delays and increase to the backlog further. Now, the Government in the past has made much of listening and consulting, but these changes have not been examined and if they would have been, they would have housing bill, which I also would favour. This would have allowed them to be more fully scrutinised, market tested, which they haven't, and I believe that that's the fundamental. Now, what I'd like to do is just say that, before looking across the private housing tenancy act, I tried to address the fundamental problems with the following amendments. Amendment 82, which removes the entire section 33, which relates to the private housing Scotland act. Amendment 93, which removes all of section 34, which relates to changes to the housing Scotland act. Amendment 106, which removes all changes to the Wren Scotland 1984 act. Those amendments would be my preference. However, I've also submitted a standalone amendment 111, which does not affect the changes proposed in the bill. Amendment 111 would place a sunset clause on sections 33, 34 and 35, but I will get to talk about that briefly later on. Now, I'd like to turn to amendments within the latest bill, the private housing tenancy Scotland act, 2016. Amendment 70 and amendment 71 allows the landlord and the lender, in each case, sell a property with vacant possession. I can tell you, if you sell a property with vacant possession, you will get full market value. If it is not full vacant possession, you will not get full market value. If this amendment is maintained that it cannot be given, then we will be promoting a buy to let, and first time buyers who want to live in the house will be put off because they won't be able to get in. Amendment 72 allows the landlord possession to refurbish the property when it's empty. If a landlord cannot get vacant possession of a property refurbishing, then I sincerely doubt that the Government will be able to move all properties to EPC within the time frame that be achieved. Just to remind you to achieve EPC and all the houses, you probably have to strip out all the walls and all the floors and remove areas of the roof to provide lagging just as minor things. You can't do that on a run-by-run basis. Amendment 73 allows the landlord position possession to live in its own property or their own property. I can't believe that anyone would want to deny a landlord's right to live in their own house. It cannot be anything but a right. Where will the landlord live if he can't live in his own house and has to wait for a tier 1 tribunal to give that? Council housing will not be available to people who earn their own houses, and therefore it creates a further problem. Amendment 74 allows a change of use of the property. Change of use would have to be agreed by planning commission. Planning commission would be the filter, i.e. the local authority would not grant planning commission if there was a pressure on housing. That's this. I believe that this should remain a mandatory ground. Amendment 75 is to allow the property to remain for religious purposes. It might need amendment 75, but it covers church houses. If mansions are not available, especially in rural areas, I suspect that churches and local congregations will suffer because they are not able to have them. Amendment 76 introduces a new discretionary ground when the landlord requires the property for an employee. I believe that that is really important in rural areas, where housing is in short supply. Employers have housing, which they need for an employee, but they cannot get. Amendment 77 allows any houses that have been offered as part of a contract to be given vacant possession should that contract terminate. That is really important. NHS Highland is looking at that, as far as its staff are concerned, trying to attract people to the highlands, but they cannot get possession of the houses. Amendment 78 is interesting because it allows the property to be got back by the landlord if it is empty. If a property is empty, why would you want to remove that as a mandatory ground? It is not good for the property to remain empty, especially if it is got to go by a first tier tribunal, which could take up to a year. It is not good for local taxation either. The other one is that if there is rent arrears for three or consecutive more months, that could allow the rents if it takes that long to go through a first tier tribunal to rack up over a year. Amendment 70 allows possession of the property if the tenant is being engaged in criminal behaviour. A landlord, for example, might not be able to get their house back if it has been used for criminal activities that attract non-custodial sentences—examples that are very relevant in rural areas where houses have been turned into cannabis. Amendment 81 is that where antisocial behaviour has been happening that it does not need to go to a discretionary ground. That is all the amendments that I want to talk to. I could talk to all the amendments on the Housing Scotland Act 1988 and the Rent Act 1984, which, incidentally, is an interesting and quite niche act. Any tenancies that were generated under that act would be 32 years old. The youngest one would be 32 years old, and I am not sure that there would be many there. However, as we have not done any research on it, we do not know. I want to talk briefly before I close on amendments 107 and 108. Those are probing amendments. I agree with the Scottish Property Federation that there are merits in introducing pre-action protocols. They have great advantages in creating a supportive process for tenants, and we should encourage them to continue to get them back on track. However, those merits are lost should the grounds for eviction become discretionary. If the landlord not only has to do the pre-action protocols and then proceed to a secondary discretionary process through tribunal after, it could create a very drawn-out process. Therefore, I have lodged those amendments, not because I want to stop them, but because I want to hear how the Government is going to address the problems that I perceive are here. Finally, convener, if I have not done it already, I will start off by moving amendment 70 in my name. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Mr Mountain. If I could please bring in Murdo Fraser to speak to amendment number 147 and any other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. I am not going to rehearse all the arguments put forward by Edwin Mountain. I have a lot of sympathy for the points he made. If colleagues have read the submission to the committee from Scottish Land in the States, the National Farmers Union in Scotland, the Scottish Association of Landlords and the National Trust for Scotland, he made some strong points about the unintended consequences of the legislation that was proposed before us. Scotland needs to have a vibrant private rented sector. We know that there are people who depend on the provision of private rented accommodation, often young people, often those in transit employment who want to move around from place to place. I think that there is a concern that we see a reduction in supply of private rented properties and that it is likely to be exacerbated if we continue down the route that is proposed in this bill. I think that Mr Mountain is correct to bring some of these issues to the committee. My amendment 147 is very similar to Mr Mountain's amendment 146 but is narrower in scope and is intended to deal with a very specific issue in relation to rural communities. We know that housing in rural communities can often be in very short supply and for rural businesses it is important that they have access to suitable accommodation to those who they employ. The purpose of my amendment 147 is to make sure that it is a mandatory eviction ground if there is a landlord who owns property in a rural-based business such as a farming or forestry business where they wish to recover possession of a property to provide accommodation for an employee. An employee who otherwise might really struggle to find somewhere to stay. We know that in many rural areas and in particular remote rural areas if accommodation is not offered along with employment then it is simply not practical for people to take up offers of employment because they cannot find anywhere to stay. Therefore, that protects a rural business employer who wants to create employment and provide accommodation that goes along with that. My concern is that, if we do not put that provision in, the unintended consequence of that will be that rural landlords who might be in a position looking ahead where they might need to take on a new employee might just decide to leave a property empty rather than offer up for a long-term let or they might decide, for example, to let it on a short-term let basis rather than for a residential let, which is probably not in the interests of wider public policy. My amendment 146 is supported by the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Land and the States in the briefing that we have seen. It provides a sensible balance in protecting the interests of rural communities and I am pleased to move that amendment. First of all, it is welcome to see Mr Mountain and I wish him well. The amendments in this group seek firstly to significantly alter the provisions in part 4 of the bill, which currently remove mandatory grounds of eviction, secondly to remove the private landlord pre-action protocol provision and thirdly to propose new eviction grounds relating to employees. The Government's view as endorsed by the local government housing and planning committee is that the position under the coronavirus act should be continued so that all grounds of eviction should remain discretionary. In a sense, that is one of the key points about this series of amendments that and the consideration that I think has to be applied to them. The bill in front of us and I have had this thought about some of the other provisions that we have wrestled within the course of today. The purpose of this piece of legislation is to look at the arrangements and circumstances that we have had to legislate for as a consequence of the pandemic and to put in place longer-term arrangements arising out of the pandemic. Some of the issues that are raised in this series of amendments, as we have seen in other aspects of the amendments today, are entirely legitimate points to raise, but they are not driven by the circumstances of the pandemic on its own. The local government housing and planning committee, when it has looked at the question in relation to the coronavirus, has come to the same view that the Government has come to that all grounds of eviction should remain discretionary. A tribunal is the correct place to balance the rights of both tenants and landlords when deciding whether an eviction is reasonable or not, and the tribunal cannot arrive at a decision that is incompatible with the convention rights of either party in determining whether an eviction order should be granted. Moving permanently to discretionary grounds is not a bar to eviction. It simply allows the tribunal to consider all the facts and to do what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case. I consider that those amendments seek to remove provisions that allow the full circumstances of both tenants and landlords to be taken into account by a tribunal, and for that reason I cannot support them. The private landlord pre-action protocol is again not a bar to eviction, but we hope that in many cases the support provided to a tenant by things like being signposted to information under the protocol will enable renter years to be addressed and for the tenancy to continue. That is in the interests of both parties as there are costs to our landlord in finding a new tenant, as well as costs to a tenant in moving. In addition, if all renter years' grounds of eviction continue to be discretionary, the removal of the protocol would disadvantage landlords by removing a means by which they can demonstrate that eviction is reasonable in the circumstances. For those reasons, I oppose amendments 107 and 108. Both Mr Fraser and Mr Mountain seek to create a further ground of eviction where a landlord seeks to recover possession of a property in order to rent it to an employee of the landlord. I do not consider that any of those new grounds of eviction are appropriate. There are already existing grounds to enable a landlord to evict a tenant from a property occupied for the purposes of employment where the tenant is no longer an employee. When we brought in the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016, we committed to a review of all the grounds for repossession after five years, and this period ends in December this year. I am happy to reconfirm that commitment and ensure that key stakeholders are consulted in the development of that work. Of course, I am grateful to Mr Swinney for taking an intervention. He will recall during the stage 1 debate a number of members who spoke about that debate and myself included raised the particular issue of mansas and other church properties that often will lie vacant for a year or more while a church is seeking a new minister. Rather than lie empty, the church will seek to let these on a private residential basis. The concern that was expressed by the Church of Scotland, among others, was that without a mandatory ground to be able to recover possession, it would be too risky. Although, as you said, it would go to a tribunal, there would be no guarantee that the property could be recovered when it was required for the new minister taking up office. You said that you would reflect on that during the stage 1 debate. Any more thoughts as to how that particular issue could be addressed? Otherwise, I fear the unintended consequence of that would be that churches would just leave the properties lying empty when they could be used to house families even on a short-term basis. I understand the dilemma here. I know that the Church of Scotland has made representations to the Government about that point. There are further discussions to be had with the Church of Scotland on those particular arrangements. Although I quite understand the context that the Church puts forward, I think that the options for resolving those questions are available to the Church. I accept that they are not guaranteed because a tribunal has the ability to come to a judgment. However, one of the points that I made earlier on is that the tribunal considers all the facts and must do what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case. Without wishing to draft the outcome of a tribunal judgment, I would think that a church, moving to appointment of a minister after a period of vacancy and therefore requiring to use accommodation to house that minister, is really quite a reasonable set of circumstances to put to a tribunal. Should that be required, because in the overwhelming majority of evictions, they do not go anywhere near a tribunal, they are resolved outwith the precincts of a tribunal. Of course. I'm grateful to those explanations. I think my concern would be, and I think that's been expressed by the Church, is that while that may well be the case, there is no guarantee a tribunal would reach that outcome. Therefore, the unintended consequence of this is likely to be that the Church will just say, we won't take the risk of renting that property out. Obviously, there are matters to be weighed up here by the Church as a landlord in those circumstances, but I would contend for the Church, and we're happy to explore this with the Church in due course. Further to be an assessment made by the Church of the possibility of securing access to a man's property that has been vacated, there are very strong grounds and foundations for the Church to be optimistic. A, because most cases of eviction do not end up anywhere near a tribunal, and B, in a tribunal, the tribunal has got to do what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. I don't put any of those comments on the record to dismiss those issues. I'm very happy for ministers and officials to engage further with the Church of Scotland. I give that assurance this evening. Jerry, can I ask if you would accept an intervention from Mr Mountain? Of course, yes. Of course, my apologies, I didn't support Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Camila, and thank you, Ms Finlay. I understand your points on 187 and 108, but, during the other points, it's critical that first-tier tribunals are correctly resourced. Could you give some indication, if you are supporting keeping the act as it is, what additional resources will be made available to first-tier tribunals, and how long do you think it would be reasonable for them to sit on a case before they hear it? I'm grateful to Mr Mountain for his intervention. I think that it's difficult for me to prescribe or to give a definitive prescription about timescales, because tribunals of their nature are bodies that operate independently to exercise their judgment. If I start setting out the timescales for tribunals, I dare say that I'll get myself into some hot water. The second point is about resourcing. We make our best judgments about resourcing to enable decisions to be made for there to be a smooth operation of the private rental sector, so that the type of issues and circumstances that Mr Mountain puts to me can be resolved properly through the tribunal process if it needs to go there. I come back to my point that I was making to Mr Fraser a moment ago that there are overwhelming majorities such as cases that do not go anywhere near a tribunal. Just to complete the point that I was making before I accepted Mr Fraser's intervention, on the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016, I reconfirm the commitment of the Government to review all grounds for repossession after five years, and that period ends at the end of 2022. It's right for us to fully consider all of the grounds for eviction together, which I hope gives some reassurance to Mr Fraser and Mr Mountain. On the basis of those points, I urge Mr Mountain and Mr Fraser not to press amendments 76, 146 and 147 so that all grounds for eviction can be reviewed together, and any necessary legislative changes can be brought forward following that review. For all those reasons that I have provided, I would invite the committee to reject all of the amendments in this group. I am grateful, convener. I should have put on the record the fact that I am a member of the Church of Scotland and therefore have an interest to declare. Thank you for that. If I can ask Edwin Mountain to wind up and to press all withdrawal please. Thank you, convener. You gave me sufficient time at the beginning to make my case. I've listened to what the Deputy First Minister said. I would like to explore with him, and perhaps for stage three and the Scottish Government, how we can resolve any backlogs that are perceived and realistically felt on tier 1 tribunals. Maybe that's something that we could look at to give some confidence if those changes are to go ahead. I also would say that I fear that Mr Fraser is right when he says that the unintended consequences of that would rather not risk going through a tier 1 tribunal for a whole heap of reasons and therefore it's easier to let them empty. I think that that goes for many landlords who wish to house employees. I do want to press amendment 70, convener, and each amendment in turn we can look at. I'm sure. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 70 please raise your hand. Those against amendment number 70 please raise your hand. So we have two for amendment number 70 and four against amendment number 70 therefore amendment number 70 is not agreed. I call amendment number 71 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment number 70. Can I ask Edward Mountain to move or not to move please? Convener, I would move it, but I may be able to help you. I don't know if this is in person, but I guess that I perceived the voting may continue in a certain way. I would be happy to move amendment 71, the 146 on block if that's to the committee and suited you, convener, without preempting your position. Thank you very much. If you just hold on one moment please. Sorry, Mr Mountain. Is it from 71 to 146 to being moved on block? That is correct, convener. If you are content to do that and the committee is content to do that, I'm trying to save you. Yes, as appreciated. Thank you. Unfortunately, because it's moving across a section what I can do at the moment to move amendments 70 to 81 on block. If you are happy with that, Mr Mountain. I'm very happy, convener, to move amendments 71 to 81 on block. No, 71 to 81, no, okay, okay, we're okay. Cabinet Secretary, did you want to come in? I think I was called interfering. Okay, okay, okay. So can I ask just to clarify Mr Mountain, can you please move amendments 71 to 81? Committee, I move amendments 71 to 81 on block. Thank you very much. So the question is that amendments, are the members agreed to move it on block from 71 to 81? Okay, so the question is that amendments 71 to 81 to be moved on block and be agreed, are we all agreed? No. Okay, we are not agreed and there will be a division. Can I ask for those in favour of amendments 71 to 81 on block to please raise their hands? Thank you. And can I ask that members who are against amendment 71 to 81 to please raise their hands? So we have two members for amendments 71 to 81 on block and we have four members against amendments 71 to 81 on block, therefore amendments 71 to 81 on block are not agreed. Thank you. If you just bear with me one moment so we can work out the next section. Okay, can I please call amendment number 82 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 70. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move? I move amendment 82 in my name. Thank you. The question is that amendment 82 is agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 82 please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against amendment number 82 please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have two members for amendment number 82 and four members against amendment number 82, therefore amendment number 82 is not agreed. And therefore we have agreed section 33. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment number 146 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 70. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division.  Thank you. And those against amendment number 146 please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have two members for amendment number 146 and four members against amendment number 146, therefore amendment number 146 is not agreed. I call amendment number 147 in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with amendment 70. Can I ask Murdo Fraser to move or not to move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division.  Thank you. And those against amendment 147 please raise your hand. Thank you. So we've got two members for amendment 147 and we've got four members against 147 therefore amendment 147 is not agreed. So just bear with me one moment please. Apologies for the delay. Can I call amendment number 84 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment number 70. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Convener, at the risk of being interfering I think as I don't know if that was directed at me Mr Swinney but I'm trying to help. I'm prepared not to lodge amendments 84, 106, allow us to move on and I'm prepared to not lodge 107 and 108 in the hope that the Scottish Government will be prepared to discuss with me how to resource first tier tribunals to ensure that delays are reduced. It's no undertaking from them, it's just my hope that they will say. I'm prepared to not lodge any of the amendments that remain in this section if that helps to be done. Apologies Mr Mountain, I'm just getting advice from the clerks and can I, we are not going to move number 84, is that correct? I don't want to move at 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, right the way up to 108. Yes, thank you for your help but unfortunately we have to go through them individually, so just crack on. Sorry, the question is that amendment number 84 is agreed, are we all agreed? Sorry, I call amendment number 85 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment number 70. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Not moved. Thank you. Can I call amendment number 86 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment number 70? Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Not moved. Thank you. Can I call amendment number 87 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendments 70. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Can I call amendment number 93 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment number 70? Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? No, I'll move it. Thank you. The question is at section 34 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment number 94 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment number 70? Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? Not moved. I would like to thank Mr Mountain for his patience during that. Tenancies with an emergency rent freeze plan. Can I call, just welcome to Mercedes Villalba and Mark Griffin. I know that you haven't been to this committee before, so I can invite you to declare anything that's recorded in your register of interests that might be relevant to the remit of this committee, please. Yes, I'm a member of both Acorn and Living Rent Tenants unions. Thank you. Thank you. I just draw members' attention to my register of interests as a non-on-non of a private rented property in North Lanarkshire County area. Okay, thank you very much. Moving on to 13th grouping, and I call amendment number 66 in the name of Mercedes Villalba, grouped with amendment 68. I remind members that amendment 68 is preempted by amendment 67 in the group transitional and savings provision and commencement. If amendment number 67 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment number 68. Can I ask Mercedes Villalba to please move amendment number 66 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Thank you. I'd like to thank committee members for their work on the bill so far and thank the convener for giving me the opportunity to speak to these amendments today. I think we all recognise that the private rented sector is continuing to grow in Scotland and it now encompasses over 15 per cent of all households. These households are now under increasing financial pressure due to above inflation rent rises. In the last year alone, average monthly rents in Scotland increased by over 8 per cent and that was before the current cost of living crisis and double digit inflation hit. As members will know from contact from their constituents, the impact of rent costs coupled with the other financial pressures caused by the cost of living crisis is taking its toll on tenants. Scotland's tenants union living rent have been gathering testimony from tenants about how rent increases are impacting on them. I'd like to share some of these testimonies with the committee today. First quote. Another testimony reads. Our landlord increased our rent by £150 to £850. To explain, he said that he could not be expected to stand still while the market moves on. We had to move to a place that doesn't suit our requirements as my wife is pregnant and the new flat is very old, has dirty and nicotine saturated carpets and is on the top floor. As I said, this is just a small sample of the testimony submitted to living rent and I have further submissions here if any member would like a copy. I want to take the Scottish Government in good faith and by their own admission rent pressure zones haven't been successful in tackling rip-off rent hikes. Thanks to campaigning by living rent members, I'm pleased that the Scottish Government have committed to introducing rent controls by 2026. This is welcome progress but by allowing a lead time of up to four years they're causing a short-term incentive for landlords to increase their rents prior to rent controls being introduced.  So that's why I have repeatedly raised the proposal of an emergency rent freeze in Parliament. And though the First Minister said that as a matter of good faith she will undertake to explore any suggestion that's made in the chamber, the subsequent response that I received from the tenants' rights minister didn't even address the idea of an emergency rent freeze. So that's why I've taken this step to bring forward these amendments to stage 2 of the Covid recovery bill today because rents are rising right now and renters need urgent action right now. So the amendments require Scottish ministers to produce a plan within three months of the bill receiving royal assent to introduce an emergency rent freeze for all tenancies in Scotland. And the rent freeze would have to remain in place until Scottish ministers bring forward their promised legislation in relation to rent control measures. So I hope the Cabinet Secretary will engage constructively with these amendments today and recognise the importance of standing up for tenants as part of our Covid-19 recovery because we cannot allow four more years of rent hikes. I hope members of the committee will put their constituents first and support these amendments. We've got the power to legislate in the interests of tenants today and there really isn't any excuse not to. These amendments enjoy the support of tenants through Scotland's tenants union, Living Rent and through workers in every sector through the Scottish Trade Union Congress. So let's show people which side we're on, let's show people in whose interests we're working and let's introduce a rent freeze that we so desperately need. I move amendments 66 and 68 in my name. Thank you, Ms Villalba. Can I please open it up to any members that wish to comment on this amendment? Thank you, convener. I thank Mercedes Villalba for bringing these amendments because she actually raises some really important issues and I agree with sympathy for the case studies she's identified. There are, however, potential unintended consequences of what she proposes and we heard in the earlier discussion about concerns that the supply of private rented property is already in decline and there's a danger that, by bringing this in at this particular point, we just constrain further the supply of private rented property which is not in the interests of those seeking accommodation in the private rented sector which might suit people who are young people or those who move around often with jobs. Being in the private rented sector actually is very helpful. I think there's a broader debate to be had around these issues. I think the context for that is in a housing bill which I understand the Scottish Government is considering, not in this particular bill before us. So while I have some sympathy with the point that she makes, I don't think this bill before us today is the appropriate avenue to be going down to bring in this particular measure. Thank you, Mr Mudd and Ms Fraser. Can I bring in the cabinet secretary, please? Thank you, convener. First of all, let me say that I and the Government share Mercedes-Benz Velbaz concerns regarding high rents and that is why the Government has set out the action that we will take. We have an upcoming housing bill that will seek to put in place a framework for a new set of rent controls and improve rent adjudication further by limiting the increase in rents that tenants may face in the adjudication process. The whole issue of rent controls is important, but we also have to recognise that it cannot be rushed despite the difficulties that individuals are facing. I don't in any way question the difficulties that people are facing. There are complex issues and there is quite simply no quick fix solution that can be implemented. All of the evidence internationally is that systems that are robust and provide lasting benefit are developed over time. In this particular case on this piece of legislation and the same argument that I deployed in relation to the issues raised by Edward Mountain in the previous section apply here, that 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 there has been no opportunity to assess the likely impact of it on a range of situations or to consider how the rent freeze is to interact on the broader discussion of rent control set out in our new deal for tenants consultation. Therefore, in my view, taking such action through this bill would be at this stage premature. Of course. Given the examples that have been given today and given that there are people out there who own properties that are trying to cash in and the massive problems that that's causing, is there anything that the Government should be looking to do in the short term? Obviously, the Government will look to take whatever action we can in the short term because I don't in any way doubt the testimony that's been put on the record today and I acknowledge the challenges that are faced by individuals. But there are a range of substantial and complex issues that have to be wrestled with in relation to the questions of rent controls and whether that's on an emergency basis or a longer term basis the same significance of issues applies. I'll set out a few points in relation to the amendments which raise particular challenges. There are three problems with amendment 66. First, the amendment states that the rent freeze should apply to all tenancies in Scotland but doesn't specify whether they are residential, commercial or agricultural tenancies that therefore would apply to all three. Secondly, the proposed rent freeze is to be in place until rent control legislation is brought forward. Yet there is no clarity as to the nature of rent control legislation being required. The amendment does not take into account that some form of rent control measures are already in place with limitations on landlords on the number of rent increases in a year and rent adjudication, which allows tenants to challenge any unfair rent increases via the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016, which in part addresses the issue that Mr Rowley puts to me in his intervention. It is not clear what further measures would counties bring forward of rent control measures, so, as drafted, the amendment would not give any clarity as to the duration of the proposed rent freeze. Thirdly, the amendment obliges the Scottish Government to produce a plan to impose a rent freeze, but the Scottish Government has no power to implement a rent freeze. The amendment does not confer such a power on the Scottish Government. It is not clear how the proposed rent freeze is to 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 with amendment 66 highlighted above demonstrate why it is necessary to do detailed work to create a system of rent controls which is effective, sustainable, robust, against challenge and stands the test of time, and proper consultation is a central part of this work. While I believe that the amendments in this group are coming from 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 on the implementation of rent controls and will consult fully with all stakeholders on those issues. Thank you very much. Can I ask Miserie Spearberg to please wind up and to press a withdrawal? Thank you, convener. I understand from the cabinet secretary's comments that the Government supports the principle of controlling rents in Scotland, and I'm grateful for him to outline the areas where he feels the amendment could be improved. On that basis, I'm happy to take the amendment away, discuss, hopefully, with his office, work to improve it and bring it back at stage 3, and not press to a vote. Thank you very much. So, just to confirm, Miserie Spearberg seeks to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? Thank you. There are no objections. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn. Moving on to grouping number 14. Can I call amendment number 109 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments number 110 and 111. Can I ask Mark Griffin to please move amendment 109 before the amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 109 in my name. The amendments in my name in this group seek to improve the information evaluation and reporting of the operation and effect of the provisions at part 4 and the precursors for which I think we're substantially lacking at the moment. I think it's clear from anyone with an interest in the private rented sector that there is a lack of hard and fast data to give an understanding of that sector, in particular when it comes to length of tenancies, rent levels, the make-up of that sector, and those amendments seek to address that in a small way by collecting more data, which would put us in a much more informed position ahead of the housing bill and in assessing how those provisions have worked previously and will continue to work. Amendment 109 requires an evaluation into the operation and effect of part 4 and to consult tenants, landlords and the tribunal service and the impact on those groups one year after royal assent and in time for the housing bill. Members will know that these policies maintain the pre-action protocols in requirement for all eviction grounds to be discretionary and are already active in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 1 and 2 from 2020, so the amendment would require the evaluation to cover from three years of continuing operation. Amendment 110 requires the tribunal service to publish on a quarterly basis statistics relating to the operation of the provisions at part 4. I think for anyone who's had experience of trying to retrieve statistical information from the tribunal service, we'll know that that's very difficult. They are a transparent body. They publish their individual judgments on a very clear basis, but it has been difficult to find overall aggregated statistical information in relation to the work of the tribunal. We would want tenants' rights to be protected, so people are not evicted from their homes as a result of hardship-based during the pandemic and subsequent cost of living crisis, but we do recognise concerns that the provisions are not supported by information or evidence reporting on the effectiveness of the measures as they currently stand in the existing Coronavirus legislation. At the moment, the extent of the debate has essentially been two sides on the tenant side and a landlord's side saying, actually, we do or we don't agree with it, but without any underlying evidence. I think that this reporting requirement would fill that gap. At committee earlier, the Scottish Association of Landlords questioned the effectiveness of the move to discretionary grounds, having published their own analysis of tribunal cases at a fairly lengthy piece of work. That showed that only one eviction had been prevented on the grounds of reasonableness. I am pleased that Shelter is supporting those amendments. At stage 1, they recommended evaluation and monitoring of the pre-action protocols, so that they are working in practice with the tribunal ensuring that they are upheld. Legislation without robust evidence of the impact of those policies was far from best practice but done with the best motivations in mind. I think that it would be entirely unacceptable to remove tenants' rights also in the absence of any compelling information. I believe that those amendments strike a balance, setting a requirement for post-legislative evaluation to assess the effects of the decision to legislate two years ago. Thank you. Can I ask Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 111 and other amendments in the group, please? Thank you very much, convener. I have lodged amendment 111 to give a time limit the changes to the mandatory and discretionary grounds placed under section 33, 34 and 35 to the relevant acts that we are discussing. I really believe that this is required to ensure that the Government brings forward their new housing bill thought about by 31 July 2024, allowing them to respond to the effects of the changes that they are bringing in will have to the leasing market. I know that the Government will find this hard to accept to put a timeline with that on, but what they are suggesting is a fundamental and retrospective change to existing law. They do that in my mind without full consideration of consultation and without really speaking to all those that they should be to and listening to those people on both sides of the landlords and the tenants in relation to the changes. I am sure that the committee will be driven in the way that they vote on this amendment by the wish to make good and watertight law. That is why Asundek flaws should find in my mind their favour. It makes, after all, a proportionate response to the pandemic to ensure that it is not allowed to carry forward beyond the pandemic. Before I finish, I would like to say that Mark Griffin's amendment 1110 has merit. I would like to go further. I would like to see that amendment to include a note of all the tenancies, types of alternative properties over the period as well. The Government will say that that is not possible to collect it, but of course it is possible to collect it because all you do is you speak to the councils who have to have a register of landlords and a register of their properties. You can easily find out on a yearly basis how that changes.  Then we can see what the effect of those changes are. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I will open it up to members for any comments on those amendments. Can I please bring in the cabinet secretary, please? Amendment 109 introduces what I would consider to be unnecessary reporting arrangements. As there are already significant reporting duties included in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020 and the Coronavirus Scotland number 2 act 2020, including two-monthly reports on the operation of the tenancy provisions being provided to Parliament, the preparation of a further report on the operation of those acts is, in my view, unnecessary. In addition, we have committed to carrying out a review of all repossession grounds. This will include the consideration of the impact of part 4 and is a more appropriate vehicle for assessing and reporting on the impact of the statutory framework for private tenancies as a whole of which those changes are a part. On amendment 110, obliging the first tier tribune to collect, prepare and publish statistical information on its roles and responsibilities in relation to part 4 to contribute to the Scottish ministers reporting duties is both problematic and unnecessary. It is problematic because it is not clear what information has been required and the tribunal does not have any roles and responsibilities in relation to part 4 as its powers and duties are contained in the Rent Scotland Act 1984, the Housing Scotland Act 1998 and the Private Housing Tenancies Scotland Act 2016. It is unnecessary because the first tier tribunal already provides a range of statistical information to the Government on a monthly basis. Amendment 111 seeks to oblige Scottish ministers to introduce primary legislation to reform the law in residential tenancies without specifying what aspects should be reformed. The Government has already committed to legislation on reform of residential tenancies which will deliver a new deal for tenants. This amendment is therefore unnecessary. I would therefore urge members not to support amendments 109, 110 and 111. However, if it would be helpful that the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenancies writes, who will be leading on the upcoming housing bill will be happy to meet Mr Griffin to explore how some of his thinking in relation to the improvement of data within the private rented sector could be reflected in that work. I am sure that he would also be happy to meet Mr Mountain to discuss the issues about which Mr Mountain is concerned. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I ask Mark Griffin to wind up to press or withdraw, please? Thank you, Cymru. Just to touch on amendment 111, we were sympathetic to the idea of a sunset clause but one that was linked to the introduction of the housing bill itself. I understand that that has difficulties in legislative terms on its own so it would not be supportive of amendment 111 that simply introduces a hard date which could result in the protections that the bill introduces for tenants simply expiring if the housing bill did not come forward and so would not be supportive of that. Amendment 109 is unique in a sense that both the landlord section and the tenants' lobby and those representatives are equally supportive of using this bill using the provisions contained within this amendment to fill a particular data gap and to fill a gap in assessing the performance of the particular measures in that particular section but I do take on board what the cabinet secretary has said and the offer from Mr Harvey to meet and to discuss that and in light of that we'll seek permission to withdraw amendment 109 and not press amendment 110. Thank you, Mr Beaver. So Mr Beaver seeks to withdraw amendment 109. Does any member object? And not press amendment Okay, sorry. I'll move on. So I'll now call amendment 110 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 109. Mr Beaver, do you want to move this? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 111 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 109. Can I ask Mr Mountain to move or not to move? I'm sorry, I think you're on mute. I've been on muted. I've moved. Thank you very much Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 111 please raise your hand. Thank you. And those against amendment 111 please raise your hand. Thank you. So we have two members in favour of amendment 111 and four members against amendment 111. Therefore amendment 111 is not agreed. The question is that sections 43 to 45 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment number 67 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment number 40 and I remind members that if amendment 67 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 68 as a preemption. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move formally please? Move. I call amendment number 67a in the name of John Mason already debated with amendment number 40. Can I ask John Mason to move or not to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 67a be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to press amendment number 67? As amended. I press amendment 67 as amended. Thank you, cabinet secretary. And the question is amendment number 67 as amended be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. So we'll move on to amendment number 8. I call amendment number 8 in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with amendment number 4. Can I ask Murdo Fraser to move or not to move? Thank you. The question is that amendment number 8 is agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 8 please raise your hands. Thank you. Those opposed to amendment number 8 please raise your hands. Thank you. So we have a tie. I call amendment number 8 in the name of Murdo Fraser already debated with amendment number 4. Can I ask Mr Fraser to move or not to move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment number 9 is agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed and there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment number 9 please raise your hands. Thank you. Those in favour of amendment number 9 please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against amendment number 9 please raise your hands. Thank you. We have two members for amendment number 9 and four members against amendment number 9. Therefore, amendment number 9 is not agreed. Can the question be agreed at section 46? Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that the long title will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That ends stage 2 consideration of this bill. I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister and his supporting officials for their attendance this morning and this evening. The committee's next meeting is on the 23rd of June when we will continue to take evidence on our Covid-19 communication on public health information inquiry and I'll close the meeting. Thank you.