t are not good landlords, can be removed off the landlord register, which means they're not available to rent their property. Amendment 70 was done in a bit of a rush because of this emergency legislation, and I think it could be improved. I asked the Minister if he would consider, or his officials would consider with me, looking at amendment 70 to allow me to include the word in there available to tenants and landlords so that both sides knows what the advice they need to consider when the value of rent that is in arrears have reached excessive levels. I think that would be helpful for both parties, and if the Minister would be minded to consider that, then I would be happy to withdraw amendment 70 at this stage and resubmit it at stage 3. I'm happy to hear other arguments on the amendments that I've put forward, Presiding Officer. Thank you, convener. Amendments, I have to preface this, I'm afraid I won't be accepting any of the amendments in this group, and if the members move them to the vote, then I will have to ask Parliament to vote against them. Amendments 51 and 60 seek to make the eviction ground for substantial rent arrears subject to the eviction ground of the landlord intending to live in the property to alleviate financial hardship. This appears to provide that a landlord could only evict the substantial rent arrears if they also intended to live in the property. Given that intends to live ground is a standalone provision already, which can provide the basis for evictions anyway, the effect of this amendment is to make the ground for eviction for substantial rent arrears redundant in most cases and only applicable in cases where the landlord intends to occupy the property. That would significantly reduce the impact of the safeguard, the packet of safeguards, which we have said is balanced in terms of respecting and recognising the rights and interests of tenants as well as landlords. That amendment would interfere with that balance and I think it would interfere with it in a way that would give rise to significant risk of challenge. Amendments 53, 57 and 63 seek to place an obligation on presumably the landlord to ensure that the tenant is informed about all support available, including that the tenant has exhausted applications for any local authority financial support to which the tenant is entitled. I am sure that it is not intended to do this, but we believe that it would inappropriately require the landlord to make inquiries potentially of an intrusive nature into the financial affairs of a tenant. Many tenants may not want to share that information with their landlord. The tribunal, of course, already has discretion to explore whether the tenant has attempted to seek support and indeed, if in circumstances where a pre-action protocol is required, whether that has been complied with. We believe that the intention of these amendments is not necessary and we would urge the member not to move them. Amendments 59 and 69 seek to tie the link between the landlord's financial hardship as part of the landlord's intention to live in the let property with the tenant being in substantial rent arrears. Those grounds are separate because it is acknowledged that the cost of living crisis not only impacts on tenants but also on landlords independently of whether their tenant is paying rent or not. If a landlord has lost their residence, for example, due to financial hardship, we think that it is reasonable that they should be able to occupy a rental property that is owned by them. It is the tribunal in each individual case that would determine whether eviction is reasonable in those circumstances. Again, I am afraid that I would ask the member not to move those amendments and Parliament to vote against them if they are moved. As for amendments 70 and 62, it is consequential on 70. We have considered carefully what the level of arrears should be, the appropriate level of arrears. We have concluded that six months worth of rent is the appropriate level. A reduced threshold for triggering this eviction ground might see tenants becoming at risk of eviction even after a relatively short and temporary period of financial difficulty. We do not believe that this amendment should be supported. It is worth reflecting that some in this debate have argued that a level of six months worth of rent arrears is setting the bar too low and others have suggested that it is setting the bar too high. Again, we come back to this issue of balance. We need to ensure that we have a balance package. We believe that that is what the bill represents at the moment, so I cannot support the amendments in this group and would our members not press them and members to vote against them if they are pressed. If I am still able to give way. I understand that you actually group 70 with 52, 61 and 68. Amendment 70 is particularly different. It is about advice to tenants and landlords. I would be happy to withdraw it if you or your officials would work with me to allow advice to be developed for landlords and tenants. I think that that would strengthen it, minister. I offer a sincere apology to the member, as he offered to me earlier. I think that I may have glanced over some of my speaking notes about amendment 70, which seeks that the ministers make sure that advice is available for landlords on how to recoup rent arrears. A landlord will be able to go through the usual eviction proceedings in cases where a tenant has not paid their rent and will also be able to pursue any existing remedies for recovery of arrears owed to them, and nothing in the bill impacts on the existing processes for landlords' recovery of rent. I call Mark Griffin to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 51. I thank members for engaging in the debate. I thank the minister for his comments in response and seek permission to withdraw amendment 51. Mark Griffin seeks to withdraw amendment 51. Does any member object? No member objects, and amendment 51 is withdrawn. I call amendment 52 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 51. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 52 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 27, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 53 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 51. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 54 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 33. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. Thank you. I call amendment 55 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 45. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 56 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 57 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 51. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 58 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 59 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with Rwy'n meddwl yn ymïlwadhan oedderion eich newid, oedd yn edrychedd cyfle, hyd yn ymgyrch oedd yn meddwl hefyd, oedredigon yn meddwl i'r meddwl, oedd yn iddo meddwl yn meddwl â'r meddwl oedderion? Rw'm eisiau yn meddwl a rydwg â'i meddwl ar Ystod 3. Rwy'n meddwl yn meddwl. Rwy'n meddwl oedderion i wych. Rwy'n meddwl yn meddwl i'r meddl i vowadau And although I think it could and should have been done sooner, it should go further and ultimately it should do more to address the fundamental imbalance of power that exists between tenants and their landlords. However in the absence of increased protection and considering what the Minister has said regarding legal challenge, I do think we should now be looking at how we communicate and inform those affected by the legislation of their rights under this legislation ar arser i gymdeithasol yn y cyflwynedd gydydd i gyflwynedd gyda'r rhyw ffordd. Mae Gw embeddedd yn ymgyrch yn rydyn ni'n gofyn falarog y Gwenedigiaeth Cymru yn cystalio â hynny. Roedd y Gwendedig cymaint yn cyflwynedd cymaint Cyngheng ddeuatidio wrth cyflwynedd cyllidig ac yn cyflwynedd cyllidig yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ei ddyliadau yw'r amrywhaeth yn yr ysger sefydlu. Errhyw hi oedd yr ysger yw cyflwynedd gyda hwnnw, mae'n celf arall yn ond gwladig nhw I believe it makes sense to include an obligation on the government to take steps to ensure that the new provisions contained in this bill, when it is enacted, are communicated clearly and concisely to those impacted by its provisions. It is a minor adjustment to the legislation but one that will guarantee that all tenants are aware of their rights and that all tenants can easily access information and advice and that all tenants know where to access support if they need to do so. Research from Rent Better conducted in May of this year found that tenants in Scotland have low awareness of their rights. Against the backdrop of a cost of living crisis and in the wake of new tenant protections coming to force with the introduction of this bill, it is vitally important that we do everything in our power to ensure that tenants are well informed when it comes to their rights. By doing so, we may not fully redress the balance of power that exists between tenants and landlords, but we will, at the very least, begin to enable tenants to exercise their rights. I would encourage the Government to take this amendment in the spirit in which it is intended to add to and complement what is already there, not to distract from it. I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 73 and other amendments in the group. Thank you. I speak to ask members to support the amendment in my name, number 73, but also the amendment 71 in my colleague's name. Amendment 73 places a duty on the Scottish Government compelling them to write to tenants and landlords, giving advice and information on the rent freeze and eviction bans. I raised this at stage 1 yesterday and was pleased to get support for that principle across the chamber. As I indicated in the debate yesterday, communication about the cap, the moratorium and the rights to enforce protection is key. In May, rent better reported that there is a lack of confidence in, actually, most would say, fear amongst residents. Tenants exercising their rights due to a perceived potential repercussion of rent increases or perhaps even losing their home. The duty would come into force, as part 1 does, and a registered landlord is defined as those on the landlord register, as there is likely no register of tenants. Ministers should write to those properties addressed to the tenant recorded on the register and I hope that that would give tenants the information that they need to constantly challenge any landlord who would decide to act illegally and just hope that their tenants were misinformed and simply paid a higher rent and asked the members of the chamber to support amendments 71 and 73. We are happy to support amendment 71, but we cannot support amendment 73. Amendment 71 would require Scottish ministers to take steps to ensure that tenants affected by the rent cap and the evictions moratorium receive appropriate information, advice and support. We are committed to taking those steps and already have plans in place, including through our cost of living campaign. Today's awareness of tenants' rights and the support available to them are happy to accept that in the bill. Amendment 73 would require that Scottish ministers write to all registered landlords and residential addresses on the landlord register. It is important that landlords and tenants are fully aware of their responsibilities and their rights. We will therefore work with local authorities to ensure that all registered landlords are informed about the emergency measures and support available to their tenants. It is vital that tenants have the right information, too. However, we know that a blanket approach would not be the best or most cost-efficient way to contact tenants and landlords, and that is why we will not support it. We will employ a full range of communication channels to ensure a broad and effective reach of our messages. I urge Members to support amendment 71, but not to support amendment 73. I call Paul Sweeney to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 71. I rise just to thank the Government for the constructive way in which they've engaged with my proposed amendment and to move it to vote. Thank you. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 72, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 8. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 73, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 71. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? My apologies. We move on to the group entitled expiry suspension of provisions. I call amendment 74, in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. If either amendment 77 or amendment 78 are agreed to, I can't call amendment 79 due to preemption. Mark Griffin, to move amendment 74 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. I move amendment 74 and ask members to support the other amendments in this group, in my name. Amendment 74, 75, 76 ensure that an eviction ban is in place from October 2023 to March 2024, regardless of whether the remainder of the provisions of the bill have been extended. All exceptions already in the bill, for example concerning antisocial behaviour, criminal behaviour abandonment would apply. Those amendments relate to the whole of schedule to and provide that if the schedule is suspended it must be revived over winter. The amendments expire the provision on 31 March 2024 so that it is not subject to the expiry date in the bill or any earlier one that could be provided for in regulations. The government's a new deal for tenants consultation found that a substantial majority, 90 per cent of those answering the question, thought that additional protections against the ending of tenancies during the winter period are needed. The intention here is to ensure that that winter eviction ban is in place. It is in place for this winter and then continues for next winter ahead of the new housing bill becoming law. I ask members to support amendment 74, 75, 76. Thank you. My amendment number 77 looks to put in place a point at which this legislation would expire. The First Minister has stated that such interventions into the housing market must be time limited. This is emergency legislation and we believe that it must have an end date. We therefore, in terms of this bill, note that ministers are already signalling two potential extensions, which would make this at least 18 months that this legislation will sit on the statute book. Examples from other countries such as Sweden and Ireland have indicated that prolonged controls on rents can lead to significant housing shortages, which in turn hurt potential tenants and homeless people trying to access tenancies, especially private tenancies. Therefore, I hope that members will support my amendment 77 to put in place an expiry date for this legislation. Thank you. I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 78 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. One of the advantages of modern technology is that constituents can contact you as the debate goes on. I received this email a few moments ago from one of my constituents here in Edinburgh. I have four HMO properties housed in 21 tenants. If this legislation is passed tomorrow, I will need to sell up now, no option, and unfortunately, those youngsters will have to be evicted. That is the consequence of this legislation, but this Government is forcing through. When these 21 people come to Mr McPherson's surgery, they ask him, where can I live? I hope that he can look within my eye and say, you could have had a safe house if I hadn't voted for this legislation. That's what you're doing today, Mr McPherson. I want to move amendment 78 and 82 in my name. 82 was, in fact, inspired by my good friends Bob Dorris and John Mason in their speeches yesterday afternoon in the chamber. We have been told again that this is emergency legislation. That's why it can't be scrutinised. That's why it has to be rushed through in three citizens of this Parliament. If that is right, then we should have no further extensions to be allowed. We should come back and review it in an appropriate way. If this bill is truly designed as an emergency power with short-term measures, then all future extensions should not be allowed, and instead we should, the Government should bring forward new primary legislation that can be fully scrutinised by the whole of this Parliament. What this Government is suggesting is that, if they want to examine it—and I think that they've already pretty well clearly said that they do—it will be done by regulation. As everyone knows within this chamber, regulations cannot be amended. We can simply be voted for or against. It gives Parliament no scrutiny to make changes to anything that they would look at, which means that you either take it or you leave it at all. That, to me, does not seem appropriate, and that is why I brought forward amendment 78. None of us know what the situation is going to be like in six months. None of us know how this legislation will work. We can guess that more people are going to be homeless because we are hearing that already from people writing in. However, we do not know that. We do not know what the economic situation is going to be. What we should be doing, if it is required, is to bring forward legislation. Do not just take a power grab to yourself. I move both amendments in my name, convener. Thank you. I call Willie Rennie to speak to amendment 79 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Even though I am still crushed by Bob Jordan's rejection of my earlier amendments, I am back for another attempt to give him another chance to redeem himself. I will speak to amendment 79, which seeks to remove the social sector from the power to extend post-March next year. Earlier, I sought to remove the social housing sector from the scope of the bill altogether, but now I seek a more modest attempt to limit it to March next year. Housing associations set their rents once per year in conjunction with tenants, with the majority seeing any changes to rents take effect from April 1 each year. Removing the ability to extend the term of the cap would give housing associations and councils the certainty that they need to plan for the year ahead and engage as they normally would do with tenants rent levels and service levels. The ability to extend the cap and remove housing associations and councils' control over their income would also damage investor confidence in the social housing sector in Scotland. The indications from the minister through today and yesterday have been that the social housing sector could be decoupled post-March. That is a good sign. All my amendment seeks to do is to confirm that now, rather than waiting until later, I urge members to vote for amendment 79 to remove the uncertainty now, which will give benefits to councils, housing associations and tenants. I promise the chamber that there is nothing deliberate in the fact that the cabinet secretary chose to lead on the group where we are being magnanimous, and I am once again having to be here asking Parliament to vote against the amendments in a group. Amendments 74 and 75 in this group would require the moratorium on evictions to be in place over next winter, regardless of whether ministers consider them to be necessary and proportionate at the time. If they had been expired before then, they would have to be revived. As we have stated on a number of occasions, this emergency legislation needs to be justified in terms of its necessity and its proportionality in relation to the context that we are living in. I am afraid that these amendments would undermine that. That would be a dilution of the on-going requirements that we built into this bill in recognition of the fact that emergency legislation is a serious step for Government and Parliament to take. The on-going requirements will allow them to be extended for two to six months periods, where we consider them the provisions to be remaining necessary and proportionate. That is an important safeguard, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to have it set aside. Amendments 76 support amendments 74 and 75, so I cannot support that either. Amendment 77 would remove Scottish ministers' power to extend the provisions for those two subsequent periods of six months altogether, and amendment 78 also removes the Scottish ministers' power to extend the provisions for two subsequent periods of six months. Instead, any extension under amendment 78 would have to be done through a further primary act of the Scottish Parliament. We consider that being able to have those measures in place for a potential period of 18 months is fundamental to the protection for tenants that we are proposing in this bill, so I cannot support amendments 77 or 78. Mr Balfour says that it would be appropriate to come back and review those measures in an appropriate way. That is precisely what is already built into the bill, just as it was for previous emergency legislation. Very clear provisions on review periods and a requirement for Parliament to be consulted if any future decisions on extension or expiry are proposed. Amendment 79 would prevent the power to extend the expiry of the bill as regards Scottish secure tenancies and Scottish short secure tenancies. As I set out, tenants in the social rented sector are some of the most vulnerable to the cost crisis in our society, and we do require to be able to extend the provisions if necessary to those tenants beyond 31 March if that is needed. I want to re-emphasise here, as I have repeatedly, the confidence that we have from the conversations that we have already been undertaking with the social rented sector, that we can work collaboratively with the sector, and that may be an alternative to an extension after the end of March. However, that amendment would pre-empt that work that we need to take forward with the sector. I give way to Mr Doris. I thank the minister for giving way. My good friend Willie Rennie was suggesting during his contribution that if his amendment was passed, that would allow social landlords to go on with their statutory duty to consult on potential rent increases. Can she confirm that there is nothing to prevent them in this legislation to go on with that consultation anyway? Indeed, not only is there nothing to prevent them from consulting, that consultation is a very fundamental and important part of the way that the social rented sector operates. We encourage them not only to continue that, but we also encourage tenants to participate in those consultation processes that will inform the decisions around rent setting after the end of March. Mr Rennie says that the 0 per cent cap that is in place for the first six months could be decoupled. Not only could it be, it is very clearly within the bill operates separately as a separate cap between the social and rented sector. Yes, it could well be decoupled, but I cannot commit now to guarantee that it will not need to operate at any level at all after the 31st of March to do so would pre-empt and potentially undermine the very positive and constructive dialogue that we are having between Government and the social rented sector. Finally, amendment 82 would delete section 6 entirely, meaning that the bill could not be extended beyond 31 March next year. Members will understand that, quite obviously, I cannot support that. Once again, I urge members not to move the amendments in this group if they are moved, I urge Parliament to reject them. Mark Griffin to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 74. I appreciate the minister's comments on the introduction of a winter moratorium on evictions going beyond the period when the Government would be assessing whether the legislation was appropriate or not. It could take comfort from the fact that more than 90 per cent of respondents to the consultation on a new deal for tenants said that they supported that measure. I would be happy to seek permission to withdraw if I was given assurance by the minister that it is a policy and a proposal that the Government would seek to take forward in that housing bill. The member is asking if we are continuing to commit to work collaboratively with colleagues on the longer-term work that we have under the new deal for tenants. I can absolutely give that assurance. As I say, I do not think that it is appropriate to make longer-term permanent changes within the emergency legislation. I think that I was looking for a more concrete commitment, not just to work constructively across all the years, which I do look forward to, but on that particular point, on the policy and principle of a winter moratorium on evictions. Given the discussions that we will have, I look to continue the conversation and the discussion that, as other legislation progresses, we will seek permission to withdraw amendment 74. Mr Griffin is not moving amendment 74. I call amendment 75 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 74. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 76 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 74. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. I call amendment 77 in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 74. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. I point out that if amendment 77 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 79 due to a preemption. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 77 in the name of Miles Briggs is yes, 28, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 78 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 74. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. Move, convener. Thank you. I point out that if amendment 78 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 79 due to a preemption. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 78 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 27, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Therefore, I call amendment 79 in the name of Willie Rennie, already debated with amendment 74. Willie Rennie, to move or not move. Based on the assurances provided by the minister, I am not going to move. Thank you. We move on to the group entitled additional information to be provided by Scottish ministers. I call amendment 80 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Mark Griffin, to move amendment 80 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 80 in my name. Amendment 80 is one drafted and lodged on the recommendation of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Amendment 80 requires ministers as part of their review processes to assess the impact of an extension to part 1 on the ongoing viability of the tenant grant fund and the funding for the affordable housing supply programme. Excuse me, just before I take your point of order, Mr Balfour, can I remind members that there is debate on going and I would be very grateful if all conversations could cease. I outlined yesterday the substantial concerns about the freeze on the social sector and their ability to continue their plans to build new affordable housing, which directly tackles Scotland's housing crisis, as well as maintaining and upgrading their existing properties. They have rang the alarm bells and, for one association in my region, the Abernhill housing association, could mean suspending all investment programmes well into 2024. Given that seven in ten social tenants receive housing benefit or universal credit, the majority of social tenants will not benefit from a freeze but could potentially lose out on investment in their own homes, where rent is paid by the UK Government, so then are the increases. Modelling from Spice has shown that that would mean approximately £30 million lost from the housing sector based on a 3 per cent rise next year, with that money being instead retained by the UK Treasury. Amendment 87 has been lodged because it is absent from any provision to consult relevant parties in the review process, required to consider whether part 1 remains necessary and proportionate. That amendment makes this requirement, which has been a serious criticism of the emergency legislation process, a formal requirement. I hope that formal consultation can go some way to resolving that issue and ask members to support amendment 80 and 87. I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 81 and other amendments in the group. Can I first put on record our comments on Mark Griffin's amendment number 80? I think he makes some very valid points reflecting the views that many of us have heard. I wrote to all the housing associations in my region about the very points that he has made, very valid points. We would support his amendment where he would push it, I should add. I have got a number of very detailed responses for the benefit of time. I will not go into them in detail, but a number of them made that very point horizon housing, for example in my region, specifically said that the rent freeze will impact our future cash flow projections and reduce our ability to invest in our homes. That is something that we have been talking about, but I have got it in black and white. What does that mean investing in homes? Not just new homes, but we are resulting in less kitchens, bathrooms, boilers, heat pumps, fabric, first works, etc.  Another group, the clock housing association, said that this will have a negative impact on the services that they offer to their tenants and is a major concern to them. The link group, another housing association in my area, said something similar to the Hanover group. I have got reams and reams and reams of all this. I think that I would really urge members to think carefully about voting against amendment 80 if it is pushed by the member. My amendment 81 comes to the issue around extension. We have heard, of course, that this is an emergency legislation with a finite end-life. Some do have concerns that the 18-month provision does stretch it a little bit too far. There is nothing temporary for 18 months. It is a long time to put into place a policy like that. Very few people believe that this is a temporary measure. I think that there is a real fear, as is evident in the responses that we have had from the market, that this mission creep will go on and on. It is highly unlikely that the wider cost of living issues that have been discussed by Members and Ministers will clear up or go away anytime soon. The fear is therefore that there will be an inevitability that the Government will come back and say, oh, we have to keep going with these measures. I am asking specifically for amendment 81, that when it comes to that crunch point in March 2023, when Ministers do come back to report and make a statement to Parliament, ideally it should have been a new act, as Members have indicated in other amendments, but if it is a continuation of the emergency legislation, then I have added some extra parameters of data, because I think that data is what really should be driving this, specifically rent levels, the number of evictions that have taken place, the number of rental properties available on the housing market, and the level of renteriers. I believe that all of that data should be available to Government. If it is not, I would be worried and concerned. If it is available and it does not want to include it in the statement, I would equally be worried. If, of course, some of that data is simply not available, that is fine too. It is a stage 2 amendment. I am happy to work with Ministers if he thinks that that sounds a bit onerous, we can take some of it out, we can add to it if he thinks that is a helpful idea. I would be really interested in hearing the Government's views and if they are minded to push back on this amendment, I would ask why. Amendments 88 and 89 are slightly similar, but they are on the wider reporting requirements around what the rent cap means. Again, I am asking for empirical data from them, specifically around average rent levels, the number of rental properties in the market and the level of rent arrears, but it goes on further this time. What I am asking Ministers to identify is that, if there is a notable decline in any of these metrics, and that is the key here, then amendment 89 asks them to come back to Parliament and say what they are going to do to address this. For example, if there is a notable reduce in the stock of housing available in the rental market as a by-product of the legislation we pass, what is the Government doing about it? If more people are being evicted for whatever reason, what is the Government doing to address that? If rent arrears are markedly increasing, what is the Government doing to address that as well? I hope that those are helpful amendments to the Parliament, because ultimately it will be all of us who will have to give consent to the extension of that in March of next year, and I look forward to hearing the Government's comments on those amendments. Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 83 and other amendments in the group. I will speak to all amendments in this group in my name. This bill is firmly about helping to alleviate the cost of living crisis by phasing rents, and, as it outlined yesterday, I support that bill. However, this crisis affects so many areas of our lives and so many people. In its midst we need wide-ranging and bold action, action that delivers help to the people who need it for all the things that they need help with, and people need to know that we as legislators are listening and understand the scale of the problems that they face today. As legislators, we must remain focused on the variety of measures that impact the cost of living crisis, and the Government must always be transparent about what it is doing to help. That is what I am seeking to do with my amendments today. In amendments 83 and 91, I am asking the Government to define the cost of living. Doing so is good legislative practice, and, as I strongly support the principles of this bill, I want to do all that I can to make it as robust as possible. If the Government believes, as I do, that the cost of living crisis is strong enough to demand emergency legislation, I think that it is only right that the act should say what it means by the cost of living, unless the various pressures on pockets this winter. Clear language makes for better legislation that is more easily implemented by the people responsible for making it work, and it makes it clearer to people in our regions that we understand the totality of their hardship. While the bill addresses a key factor by reducing the cost of living for people who rent, it will necessarily only reach one portion of the population, and it will only affect one of the many increasing bills that people will face. That is why, in amendment 91, I have set out a list of areas that are affecting the cost of living. Presiding Officer, crisis by their nature needs fast action, and that needs transparent decision making. In amendments 84 and 86, I am seeking to improve transparency on decision making by asking the Government to set out what action they have taken into account in prioritising action on cost of living, which I support, and what other action they have taken and will take to alleviate that cost of living on the basis of the various factors set out in amendment 91. That clarity is important, because people need to be clear about what the Government has done to help and why. We have heard some claims that the Government has spent £3 billion on this crisis, but we know from Spice that only one sixth of that is new funding. People in our regions need to know what we are all doing to help them. Parliament needs accurate and detailed information to be able to hold the Government to account on actions, particularly when they are taken in the midst of a crisis and at pace. Amendment 91 will help that by ensuring that the Government sets out clearly the actions that it is taking through this crisis. Lastly, amendment 90 is a procedural one that clarifies the process for social landlords during the passage of the bill. It creates an opportunity to allow the Government to set out when it will let Parliament know whether the rent freeze and other provisions in the bill are to be extended. I am moving this amendment on behalf of social housing providers who have been in contact with my party to outline how helpful it would be to know in January or February what the Government intends to do on extending the provisions or not for the purposes of their planning procedures, for example consulting with tenants over future rent levels. In the midst of a crisis, we need bold action and decisions that will help the most people. The Government can only do that if it sets out where action is needed and what action it has taken so that it can monitor it. We on these benches can only help them if we can see what they have done and what they are still to do. That is what all the amendments lodged today in my name aim to address, and I hope that the Government will take them in that good faith and support them. I urge members to back the amendments in my name and I move the amendments in my name. Thank you. I call Paul Sweeney to speak to amendment 85 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I stand to speak to amendment number 85 in my name following the Government's acceptance of my earlier amendment number 71 on provision of information and support for tenants. This second amendment would put a duty on ministers to report on their progress with regards to keeping tenants informed of their rights, as outlined in my earlier amendment. Thank you, and I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 92 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener, and I've been taken by the fact that there have been amendments lodged in this group, which all seek to achieve the same thing, which is to hold the Government to account as a result of this emergency legislation. We are all trying to work out what the effects will be and how those will affect not only landlords but also tenants and, therefore, housing in Scotland. I'm taken by Mark Griffin's comments, Pam Duncan Glancy's comments. I can't agree with all your amendments, but some of them, Jamie Greene's and Paul Sweeney's, I like them because they are making the Government answer the questions on the legislations they put forward. Therefore, my amendment, which is amendment 92, is to further hold the Government to account, and that is when it comes to section 8, is to ask after the expiry of part 1 that Scottish Ministers prepare a report on the cost and effect on landlords and tenants, and the cost and Scottish Ministers including the loss of income from taxation, which is not covered in the financial memorandum properly with this Bill. Therefore, I think, Presiding Officer, that if the four of us, five of us, got together and drafted an amendment to make a proper reporting procedure for this Government, there would be huge merit in doing that, but I do think that what the Government are saying they want to do, which is taking a review of the operations of provisions with part 1 to a review of considering whether they remain necessary and proportionate, is all they have to say is that they are necessary and that they are proportionate, and that is the end of their report. That, to me, is not sufficient. Before I come on to the amendments specifically, I just wanted to reiterate a point made by Patrick Harvie earlier on about the position of the social rented sector and to give assurance to some of the points that Mac Griffin and others raised. We have made it very clear throughout yesterday and today that the success and continued investment by the social rented sector is crucially important to the delivery of the affordable housing supply programme. That is why we have said that it has been received well by the sector, that we will work with them, that we have the structure already set up through the task and finish group. We want to do that at pace and certainly before the review period in order to make a judgment going forward about what happens from 1 April next year. We want to do that in partnership with the sector, so it is not about us doing it to the sector, the agreement will be an agreement with the sector. Miles Briggs. Does she recognise that the sector now is rewriting its 10-year business plans and cancelling affordable home projects, which we all want to see built? The sector is bringing forward affordable homes projects as we speak and they are delivering affordable homes. Miles Briggs does not like to hear that, but they are delivering affordable homes. The figures were just out yesterday that we have had 113,000 more affordable homes delivered, 79,000 for social rent since April 2007, way ahead of anything that the UK Government has delivered on affordable housing. What we need to do going forward, and the sector is wanting to do this, is to make sure that the agreement with the Scottish Government on what happens from April next year meets a number of criteria. One is that it continues to deliver affordable homes. One is that it ensures that tenants' rents are affordable going forward and that we make sure that the sector can continue to support tenants and tenants' welfare, because we know that that is what they do well. We will get on with working with the sector to make sure that all of that is delivered. Turning to the amendments specifically, amendment 80 requires that the Scottish Government to include information about funding. The statement will be much more comprehensive than that, and we will include all relevant information. For that reason, amendment 80 is not required, and therefore we do not support it. Amendments 81, 88 and 89, we cannot support those amendments for the following reasons. The statement of reasons is required under section 66, when Scottish ministers wish to extend the expiry date of the bill and report required under section 81, setting out why Scottish ministers believe that those measures remain necessary and proportionate in connection with the cost of living will be evidence-based. Just as we have set out the evidence for the bill in the accompanying documents, we have prepared and we would expect to be challenged if it were anything else. Amendments 81 and 88 are not necessary. I am content to support amendment 85 in line with our acceptance of amendment 71. Amendments 83, 84, 86, 90 and 91 conven and pam Duncan Glancy's amendments create a very tight definition of cost of living, which would restrict the ability to include other key economic factors, such as levels of income, which all have a key impact on the cost of living. Some parts of the definition that is set out in this amendment are not directly relevant to the protection of tenants through a rent cap and eviction moratorium and are not within the scope of this legislation. The ordinary meaning of cost of living is appropriate and does not require an amendment to the legislation. Further, the amendment includes elements that are outside the scope of this Parliament's legislative competence, such as energy. For those reasons, we urge members not to support those amendments. Amendment 87 will introduce a new requirement to consult before undertaking the reporting reviews that we have already set out in the bill. Given that we will consult with the persons and bodies that are set out by Mr Griffin on an on-going basis anyway, we are content to accept this amendment. Amendment 92, we cannot support ministers' will of course consider the impacts of this bill and, of course, this Parliament can debate those. To summarise, we have tried to accept where we can. I appreciate the cabinet secretary taking my intervention. I mean, summing up, it sounds like the Government is saying no to all of these amendments from a number of members from our across the chamber, which simply seek to enhance the levels of scrutiny that the Parliament can provide the extension of the measures. It seeks to expand the amount of data that is made available to us and that the Government must gather and analyse simply by saying that we will make a statement and it will all be fine trusters on it. I fail to see any coherent rationale as to why the Government is pushing back on all of these amendments. Surely there must be some give on this at stage 2. The Tory benches would listen to what is said. I have just said that I am accepting amendment 85 from Paul Sweeney and amendment 87 from Mark Griffin. To say that we are not accepting amendments if you just listen to what people say, you would perhaps not have to make interventions that are not a bit silly, to be honest. Anyway, I am content to accept, yes. Thank you, cabinet secretary, and forgive the length of time it has taken me to get to the point. I was looking to see which number of amendments in the list. Amendment 86 asks the Government to set out any additional steps that the Scottish ministers have taken to alleviate the cost of living. Although I recognise that defining something like the cost of living could be expansive and I welcome a potential amendment at stage 3 if the Government were willing to look at what that could look like, but if the Government is not minded to define the cost of living, which I have to say I find odd in a bill that names the cost of living, would the Government consider at least reporting as part of the mechanism within this bill so that we can understand across this chamber all of the measures that the Government has taken to alleviate the cost of living during the period that the rent freeze is in place, not just so that we can help to scrutinise the legislation, but also so that other people outside this chamber can understand that the Government appreciates the totality of their hardship? On the general definition of cost of living, it covers the general cost of goods and services viewed as necessary to maintain an average or minimal standard of living. That is the common understanding of cost of living. The point that Pam Duncan-Glancy makes about what action this Government is taking on cost of living—we have set out already now that we can debate the point that she made about the £3 billion—the point that I have made to Pam Duncan-Glancy previously is that something does not have to have been announced last month in order to be impacting positively on the cost of living of household incomes. If someone requires a prescription next week, it is a prescription that they are not going to have to pay for, whereas they would be paying £9.25 per item if they were based in England. Of course, that helps with household incomes. We have to look at the package of cost of living support in the round, and we will continue to do that. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for this and to other members of the chamber, because I appreciate that it is late. The point that I am making about the £3 billion is not asking to compare what the Scottish Government is spending in Scotland in terms of prescriptions in comparison to what is happening in England. I am asking for the Scottish Government to set out what it is doing now that the cost of living crisis is biting, which is specifically about getting us through this cost of living, rather than packaging all the measures together that we expect in Scotland, and some of which we are putting in motion by a Labour Government in Scotland. The point is that it does not matter when they were put in place, they are impacting positively on household incomes to help people with the cost of living. It would be ridiculous to only count things that were announced in the last year that impact the cost of living. That would exclude so many important elements that actually help with family budgets. Of course, we always want to look at what more we can do. We have made a commitment to look through the emergency budget review to look at what more we can do, but it cannot always be about what is just newly announced. It has to be looked in the round of everything that is being done. £1 billion of that £3 billion of support is only available in Scotland, so that is resources that this Government has put in place not available anywhere else. Of course, that has to be counted. Coming back to the points on the amendments, we have tried in this set of amendments to support those amendments that we think will help to get to the point of the nub of what members are looking for. That is why we are content to accept amendment 85 from Paul Sweeney and amendment 87 from Mark Griffin, but we cannot accept the remainder of the amendments in this grouping. I urge the members not to press them. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments and support for amendments 85 and 87 in this group. I have a degree of sympathy for amendment 81 in the name of Jamie Greene in the sense that it gets to the heart of the issue that has essentially plagued the housing market for longer than we have been here, in that there is a lack of data on rents and on rent increases within tenancies. There is just a dearth of data within that sector for us to come to a reasoned assessment of whether a policy position is right or wrong, and I appreciate the motivation behind that amendment. On amendment 80, I think that it is fair to say that the subject of the impact of a cap on the finances of housing associations has been one of the key points raised in the debate, not by me, not just by me, but right across the chamber, an amendment looking specifically to assess the financial impact on housing associations and particularly their funding for the affordable housing supply programme. I think that that would be key. It is an example of the Government taking good action work that we support in the short term to get us through the cost-of-11 crisis, being at odds with our long-term ambition to boost the number of affordable houses that are built. I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the work that was on-going and I welcome that. I also heard what the cabinet secretary said about the measures that I am suggesting being included in a comprehensive review that would be carried out anyway. I just gently say that if it is going to be carried out anyway and included in that review, then there would be no harm in supporting it. Given that assurance across the chamber that it will be the financial viability of registered social landlords will be seriously taken account of, not just in here, but give comfort to the sector as well and press amendment 80. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 80 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 50, no 63, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 81 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 80. Jamie Greene to move or not move. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Sharon Dowey. I would have voted yes. Thank you, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 81 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 48, no 66, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 74. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. The question is that section 6 and section 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 83 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 83 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 21, no 93, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 84 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Finlay Carson. I was unable to connect to the voting system, I would have voted no. Thank you, we'll ensure that that's recorded. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. I don't think my vote's gone through, I would have voted no. Thank you, we'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 84 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 20, no 92, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Paul Sweeney already debated with amendment 80. Paul Sweeney to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 86 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 86 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 21, no 94, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Mark Griffin already debated with amendment 80. Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 88 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 80. Jamie Greene to move or not move. I call amendment 89 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 80. Jamie Greene to move or not move. I call amendment 90 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 90 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy is yes, 50, no 66, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 91 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. My apologies, let's just rewind very slightly. The question is that section 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 91 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy already debated with amendment 80. Pam Duncan Glancy to move or not move. I call amendment 92 in the name of Edward Mountain already debated with amendment 80. Edward Mountain to move or not move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed, we'll move to vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 92 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 28, no 85, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to the group entitled ensuring resources for tribunals and I call amendment 93 in the name of Miles Briggs in a group on its own. Miles Briggs to move and speak to amendment 93. Thank you, convener. My amendment 93 looks towards providing additional resources for tribunals.  We already know that tribunals face an eight to nine month waiting time and backlog of work, so what we're doing today is calling on Ministers to provide resources, financial resources and assistance to our tribunals including grant, loans, guarantees and indemnities over and above the current financial year settlement should first hear tribunals or tribunals see a significant increase in the numbers of cases coming forward. I hope Ministers will look at this as an important part of making sure that the system will work for any landlords and tenants as well. Thank you, Mr Briggs. I note that Edward Mountain would wish to intervene. Mr Mountain. Thank you, Deputy Convener. I just tried to speak on this point because I think it is seriously important that first-tier tribunals are up and working properly because it will prevent problems getting worse. Now, my colleague Miles Briggs has mentioned about getting correct resources there. I think it would also be extremely helpful and I think the Government should look at reporting on the efficiency of first-tier tribunals. I've asked questions on this in the Parliament before and they haven't been able to tell me how long the waiting list is on first tribunals. I'm told today in Glasgow, as I've said earlier, it's between six and nine months. That frankly isn't good enough. I do believe that the Government should be conceding to Mr Briggs' request here. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I call the Minister. Thank you, convener. As Miles Briggs sets out, amendment 93 placed a requirement for Ministers to ensure adequate resources are available for the first-tier tribunal should the provisions in part 1 result in a significant increase to the number of cases being heard. I don't believe this amendment is necessary. Where a change is made to a case type in the housing and property chamber of the first-tier tribunal, the Scottish Government fully funds the cost by end-year transfer based on a spending forecast agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service. Once caseload has reached a settled state, a baseline transfer of cost is agreed. This is a standard approach across all first-tier tribunal chambers. Private rented sector case costs have not yet been baselined. We expect to meet the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service shortly to agree a transfer of cost for the remainder of this financial year, including those as a result of the legislation via the spring budget revision. That process is adequate to meet the needs of the tribunal, and I don't believe that amendment is necessary. I urge Mr Briggs not to press it.  I hear what the minister says. Given that the Government is now proposing a review before March 31 date, I'm not sure he necessarily said whether or not the potential additional work that tribunals will face if this is extended beyond March 31 and how that will then be financially supported. Will that be on a six-month review or for the next financial year if the Government gives resources from April? I'm grateful to the member giving way. What I've attempted to do is give a description of how it is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service reach agreement about the funding of these processes every year. That process will be unchanged. I fully understand that. My concern is given the additional work that tribunals could face, and given the fact that they already have an eight to nine-month waiting time and backlog, this is not going to help the system if they're financially not in a good place. I tend to press the amendment and hope that ministers will take on board the need to make sure that the tribunal system has to work or that the system will just collapse. I know that Mr Briggs isn't trying to press the amendment. The question therefore is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 93, in the name of Miles Briggs, is yes, 50, no, 65. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 9 is agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I now move to the next grouping, open market rent. I call amendment 94, in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 95, 97, 98 and 100. I call on Edward Mountain to move amendment 94 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do move amendment 94. The point of these amendments are that, at the conclusion of this emergency legislation, the first tier tribunal is taking into account the market value of rents. That is the whole point of the legislation in the 84, 88 and 16 act to allow the market to set the rent. A lot of people would say that rents have got inflated in some areas. I have to say that that is not my experience of 35 years in the market of working in the highlands, where it has certainly been a definition of an open market rent, would be the best value achieved with a willing landlord and a willing tenant. Both sides have to be willing to enter into the agreement. My fear, convener, is that by the Government not including this and by saying that they will determine what matters need to be taken into account, they will be distorting the market, which will then cause houses to be taken out of the rental sector, which has been alluded to by my colleagues in earlier conversations. If you cannot get a rent that covers the cost for a property on a long-term let, which I have to say in my case is what I try and achieve because I think there are values in long-term let, then you have to look at other vehicles such as short-term let and Airbnb. Frankly, I do not think that that is going to help people to live in communities. I know that the Minister has views on that, some of which I support. I am asking that the Government consider including the word open market rent when this emergency has passed, which at the moment they have specifically excluded. I am grateful to the member for being clear about his intentions behind that. I have to say that there are some issues he raises that relate to the longer-term arguments about the future of the rental sector. I would have to say that, from my experience as a regional MSP for Glasgow, I would say that there are a great many people who would disagree with him that the market is not leading to inflated rents. Indeed, I have many constituents who are paying more for a rental property than they would for even a repayment mortgage on the same property, even though the rights and security of tenure and so on that they have as a tenant are less than a homeowner has. I think that there is a long-term argument very clearly about whether the open market rent approach is one that secures what the Scottish Government wants to secure, which is that human right for adequate housing to be met for everyone. However, as I say, some of this is a longer-term discussion and will be taken forward through the work that we are doing under the new deal for tenants and permanent legislation in the future. As for this emergency legislation, it is very clear that if and when circumstances change and we reach the view that the emergency measures are no longer proportionate and no longer justified by circumstance and necessity, we will have to move away from them. It is essential that we have a bridge away from that process rather than just a direct return to open market rents. All of the amendments in this group would essentially remove the ability to modify the rent adjudication process so as to prevent a cliff edge. If we took that approach, there is a genuine possibility that the ending of the emergency measures would lead to a frankly unsustainable possession for a great many people right around the country, not just in areas like Glasgow and Edinburgh, but including in areas that the member represents. It is not enough in my view to say that a tenancy that is agreed at whatever rent is agreed freely between the landlord and the tenant, because a great many people in our society are unable to afford owner occupation because of the inflated house prices that we see. The reason why the Scottish Government is so determined to press ahead with the increase in provision of social housing is that a great many people have found that unavailable. The private rented sector for far too many people is their only choice. They have no freedom to make a different choice. They have only the option of accepting what the private rented housing market offers them. For many people that is good quality housing at an affordable price, but for far too many others it is housing that is of poorer energy performance standards than the rest of the housing stock and is unaffordable. The emergency measures that we are taking are about these current circumstances, but it is absolutely essential that we retain the power to modify the rent adjudication process again on a temporary basis as a bridge out of the emergency measures. I strongly urge Parliament to reject all of the amendments in this group.  Thank you very much, deputy convener, and I'll keep this short. What I'm feared is that we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and we are making huge decisions on generalised comments in relation to some parts of Scotland to other parts of Scotland. I think that's why we need to consider what the open market rent would be. I don't think my amendments suggest that it has to go to an open market. I'm just saying that they should be considered. The danger, of course, Minister, as you well know, is that if we don't give some stability to the housing market and the private rental market, we will see the lack of investment in that market. There is certainly a very large builder who is located close to Elgin, who has already put on hold development because of the legislation that's going on in this Parliament today. Presiding Officer, I will press my amendment and I concluded that. Thank you, Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast the votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote in amendment 94, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 28, no, 86. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 95 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 94. I call on Edward Mountain to move or not move. Deputy convener, on the basis that all of these amendments are linked to one specific point, I don't intend to press any of them, so I will not move amendment 95. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I call amendment 96 in the name of— Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I have gone ahead of myself. I would now turn to the next grouping, which is additional scrutiny of draft regulations. I call amendment 96 in the name of Miles Briggs, grouped with amendment 99. I call on Miles Briggs to move amendment 96 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Before we reach Mr Cole-Hamilton's crowning glory today, I wanted to bring forward an attempt to get some additional opportunity for Parliament to look at the unintended consequences of this legislation, because Jamie Greene's amendment 81 was incredibly important to provide real-world data on the impact that this will have. We know that the sector is talking about unintended consequences of this bill. We want the Scottish Government to look towards providing this information as soon as possible as well. That's why my amendment looks towards this being provided before the end of this year, so we can look at the actual impact and the data that decisions will be taken under by Ministers, including around the extension of this legislation, or to increase the cap further than the current March 31 date, and also when the emergency powers will finally end. We believe that a draft of the plans Ministers will develop around this should be published before the end of the year, and we are asking that to take place so that Parliament can properly scrutinise future plans, what data will be used by Ministers to take decisions to then increase people's rent in the coming parts of this bill. I hope that Members will look towards how that will provide far more scrutiny around the regulations for Parliament. The effect of these amendments is to require a draft of the proposed regulations three months before the expiry of the bill, and regulations made under the current schedule three are subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that they will be subject to 54 days of parliamentary scrutiny before they are made. Given that the provisions of schedule three will apply in anticipation of the expiry of the emergency measures, it is envisaged that any regulations made under schedule three would be introduced 54 days before the expiry of those measures. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary. In addition, it may not be possible to fulfil the requirements of this amendment, because we do not know when the emergency measures will expire. I am sure that the Conservative members will be keener than anyone. If circumstances change and the Government is no longer able to demonstrate the ongoing necessity and proportionality of these measures, they will want us to expire them as soon as that becomes possible. It would not be appropriate to place that additional requirement for advanced publication of a draft, given that it may not be possible to do that in time for expiry in those circumstances. I do not believe that that would be workable, and I urge the member not to press this amendment. I would want to stress that we are keen to make sure that the decisions and policy development around those regulations are transparent. I can commit to publishing a draft for consultation and working with Parliament and stakeholders on their development and ensuring that opportunity is as significant as possible. I cannot support the specific measures in this amendment. I call on Miles Briggs to wind up and depress, or withdraw amendment 96. I have heard what the minister has to say. Certainly from the work of the local government and housing committee, we are concerned at the total lack of data around this, and the real need for us to develop that. I have heard what the minister has said, and I am happy to withdraw those amendments, but I hope that the minister has understood the views across Parliament that we need to see how this future decision around this will actually be taken with real-world data and the unintended consequences which potentially this is going to have. It is very important that Parliament is not taking future decisions without that data across parties being provided. Miles Briggs seeks to withdraw amendment 96. Does any member object? The amendment is withdrawn, but it should now be tresored whatsoever in amendment 97. In the name of Edward Mountain—I am ready to discuss amendment 94, it should be moved by Edward Mountain— audiences should not move. 19규un yrfelfwrdd Agnion Mhreo Gun Ymarferd mwy o'r tuelwyr ammembledd a fywr ond o Biيرة fo bolwindchang. D badly Ng oас o gyda y dylai'r 800 diwannewh incorrecto gyda'r niwn mewn rebail dwy ardayaeth y maen nhw pan weigio led hyd yn sgleddiadol. draws dialectic 23.rede 20 y gall자 nearly y隊f'? 19irteen rydw i'r delog. 21.rede 22.rede 23.red superficial 22.rede Bull represents the first for this Parliament but also for our new king, dengot is the first whole piece of legislation to transit through the Scottish Parliament to which the signature will be a fix. Last year the Guardian in collaboration with the Scottish Liberal Democrats uncovered that the monarchs lawyers had vetted at least 67 pieces of legislation that affected crime property and powers. Before the summer, a Scottish Government memo indicated that it was, quote, �almost certain draft laws were quietly changed to address Cron concerns and to secure its approval. We don't know what changes were made or even which bills were amended. Now, looking to the future, this is the first bill which requires Cron Consent under King Charles III. This is the first time that new procedures introduced by the Presiding Officer and Scottish Ministers of Peace will have been applied to a bill. As a result of those changes, it will be confirmed that Crown Consent has been sought and agreed. That is expected at stage 3, where I presume Dwi'r ddwygriffau gwahanol yng Nghymru maen nhw ddwy judgement yn fwy teimlo, ond rwy'n defnyddio hynny ddim yn olu'r ddweud cyhoeddfeyddol o'r lleiw'ch cymaint fryd a'r gyflus ddunig mewn bod yw'r ddweud roedd o'r gweld o'r willy bai yna wなeddaf o'r oes o'r llwyte i'r cyfan o'r llwythiaeth. Mae ymddiad yn ymddiad o'r lleiw'ch cyfan o'r lweid ymddiad o'r cyfan o'r llwyte o'r three things or covering three things, a summary of any discussions, details of any changes requested and the Government's response to those requests. The period of three months allows the Parliament to reflect on the content of this report prior to any potential extension of powers in March 2023. The language also, you'll notice, my amendment reflects that contained in rule 9.11 of standing orders. I think, Deputy convener, that people deserve to know if changes to law are being discussed or agreed. I want to end by wishing the new king well. He carries within the goodwill of the country and our party, and with that, too, the goodwill and the expectations of his own stated hope for modernisation and transparency in this amendment, we will help him to do exactly that. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I now would ask Minister George Adam to respond. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, it's been a long afternoon and longer evening. I'm going to try to be brief and, at the same time, try to make sure that Mr Cole-Hamilton's concerns are addressed. I fear I may fail in both right enough, but I'm going to try. So, as all members are aware, the Scotland Act 1998, the UK Act which provides for the current devolution settlement, has required the Scottish Parliament and Governments since 1999 to seek crown consent. If the same bill would need such consent where it passed in the UK Parliament, as required by the Scotland Act of Scottish Parliament's standing order, set out the rules for determining that for each bill. Crown consent is required where a Scottish Bill impacts the private property or interests of the sovereign. Where that requirement is identified, the Scottish Government is required to obtain that consent. That is not a choice being taken by the Scottish Government. As that bill contains provisions affecting private residential tenancies, which could affect residential tenancies on his Majesty's private estates and those on land forming part of the Scottish Crown estate, crown consent is required. In order for the necessary consent to be provided, a copy of the bill has been shared with the palace. As required by standing orders, the king's consent to this bill is expected to be signified to Parliament ahead of the bill being debated at stage 3. That process has not changed and is the process that has been followed by each Scottish Government since 1999, including previous Labour Liberal Democrat Governments. However, to make matters more transparent, Parliament was made aware in windy that the Scottish Government will, from now on, make clear in a bill and bills accompanying documents how provisions in the bill apply to the Crown and why the Crown consent is required. We are the first Scottish Government to make that additional information available to Parliament on a bill's introduction. That will ensure that MSPs have full information on the introduction of a bill to enable them to scrutinise and debate that throughout the passage of the bill. It has always been open to MSPs and committees to raise questions as to whether the Crown consent is required during any of the bill's parliamentary passages. That has not changed. Members will also be aware that it remains Scottish Government policy that legislation should apply to the Crown in the same way as it does to any other person. I would like to confirm that the bill applies to the Crown in the same way as it applies to anyone else. That amendment seeks to require the Government to report on various discussions that have been held and discussions that have been taken after the bill has passed. I would like to make clear that bills before they have been published may change for all sorts of reasons, based on different discussions with stakeholders. It is difficult to see the purpose of that by requiring the Government to provide a report on those matters in relation to the King after the bill has passed. The question for the Parliament on this bill and in future bills is whether it is content with the way in which a bill applies to the Crown. In this case, whether the Parliament is content that the bill applies to the Crown in the same way as anyone else. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 101. I do remember not to press to vote. I now call Alex Cole-Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 101. Thank you very much, Deputy convener. I listened to the minister's remarks. I was not making a partisan point. I think he thought I was. This is about scrutiny and transparency. It is not about who is in charge at any period in history. Transparency and scrutiny are pillars of our democracy. They have indeed been championed by our new king. Parliament has the opportunity tonight to agree upon a principle. I believe that people have a right to know when changes are made to the laws of our land or agreement struck, particularly when those have happened because of discussions between ministers and the Crown. I believe that that should apply whether changes are made before a bill arrives in Parliament while it is passing through our committees and chamber or when adjustments are made in the years to come through secondary legislation. With the bill, which marks the first in a number of respects, the Scottish Government could agree to produce a simple report and, with it, a signal that supports the principle that both Parliament and the public deserve to know how their laws are made and who is influencing them. I move the amendment in my name and I wish to press. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 101, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 22, no, 93. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that sections 11 to 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration and I would notify members that the amendment deadline for stage 3 will be 9am tomorrow, Thursday, 6 October. Given that the stage 2 consideration of the bill has now concluded—that one concluded sometime ago—this meeting of the whole committee of the Parliament is now concluded and I close that meeting and there will now be a short suspension before we move on to the outstanding items to be dealt with tonight.


a warm welcome to the 28th session in the fourth module in signals and systems. In the last couple of sessions, we have been dealing largely with the Laplace transform and we have been looking at what in the system function or the Laplace transform of the impulse response determines stability. In fact, we saw that the region of convergence of the Laplace transform is central to stability analysis. So, one contour is the most important in determining stability namely the imaginary axis in the S plane. Now, it is natural for us to question what would happen for the discrete independent variable case namely, if I have a discrete system a system where all the independent variables are discrete and if the system is linear in shift invariant and if the system impulse response has a z transform. Then what is the z transform determines the stability or otherwise of the system? For causality we have already analyzed. The extreme contour mod z tending to infinity needs to be included in the region of convergence for causality. So, what is a similar condition for stability? Can one look at the region of convergence and come to a conclusion about stability or otherwise? First, to complete the discussion let us again convince ourselves that it is the region of convergence which is going to be central to the analysis of stability. So, let us make the point very firmly here. So, essentially the context is we are looking at discrete independent variable systems. So, we have an input x of n and output y of n. The system is linear shift invariant and we shall also assume it to be rational. That means the impulse response h of n has a z transform capital H of z with the region of convergence r of h where h of z is a rational function in z. Now, what we need to convince ourselves is that it is r h which is central to the analysis of stability. So, towards that analysis let us take an example as we did for the continuous independent variable case. Let us take the example of 1 by 1 minus half z inverse with two different regions of convergence. In fact, we know how to put these regions of convergence down. So, we have the z plane, we have the point half, there is a pole there, you draw a circle passing through this pole, center at the origin and now we have two possible regions of convergence. One interior to the circle and one exterior to the circle respectively shown in red and green. Let us invert the Laplace transform in each of these regions of convergence. In the red region of convergence the inverse Laplace transform is minus half to the power of n u of minus n minus 1 and in the green region of convergence the inverse is half to the power of n u. Now, clearly this is not absolutely summable and therefore, the system would be unstable here. If this were to be the region of convergence for the system function this would not be stable. In contrast, this is absolutely summable and the system would be stable. So, essentially we have the same expression, but the region of convergence makes it stable or unstable. So, this substantiates our argument that it is the region of convergence which determines stability or instability. The expression of course has an indirect role. You see, what is that indirect role? Let us look at now another expression and look at the two possible regions of convergence. Let us look at h of z being equal to 1 by 1 minus 2 z inverse. Let us go through the same exercise here. We draw the circle with radius 2 centered at the origin passing through the pole. We once again identify the two possible regions of convergence. The red region of convergence and a so called green region of convergence respectively interior and exterior with respect to the pole. We can write the inverse in each of these regions. So, the inverse in this region now is minus 2 raise to the n u minus n minus 1 and the inverse in this region is 2 raise to the n u n and clearly in this case, this is absolutely summable and the system is stable. In contrast, in this case, this is not absolutely summable and the system is unstable. You saw that it is of course, again the same expression, but with two different regions of convergence and one of them made the system stable the other one made the system unstable, but now the roles of the regions of convergence were reversed. So, that is the indirect role which the expression plays. I changed the expression. I had 1 by 1 minus half z inverse first and then which region of convergence corresponded to the stable system changed. Now, again this particular example points to what we are trying to get at in this whole discussion. Like the case of the continuous independent variable, is there something central to the region of convergence which allows us to choose between stability and instability. We have to look for something specific and to answer that question, let us look again at what is it that made the system stable or unstable in each case. So, for example, let us look at the previous system again. So, here you notice that the pole had a magnitude less than 1. So, there is a pole at z equal to half. If I took the region exterior to the pole, the green one here, the corresponding sequence that resulted for the impulse response was a right sided sequence. And if I took the region interior to the pole, the corresponding sequence was the left sided sequence, this one. This is right sided and this is left sided. And that is true for this next example as well. Here also the pole is at z equal to 2. When I took the region exterior to the pole, that is this region, you got a right sided sequence. That was 2 raised to the power of nu n. When I took the region interior to the pole, I got a left sided sequence that is minus 2 raised to the power of nu minus n minus 1. And the question was whether the left sided sequence was absolutely summable or the right sided sequence was absolutely summable. So, you see in either case, you saw that we have a poly-exterm like before. Here the poles were simple. So, the poly part was trivial, it was just a constant. The exponential part was non-trivial. The left sided exponential was decaying if the pole was exterium with a magnitude greater than 1. So, remember it is the magnitude of the pole which is central. That is not surprising because the regions of conversions are essentially between poles. So, you see what kinds of regions of conversions do we have in the z plane? We are familiar with that. How do you determine all the possible regions of convergence? You draw circles if you are talking about a rational system. So, for a rational system, you would draw circles passing through all the poles. Let us put that down. Let us put down the steps. What are the possible regions of convergence? So, we draw circles centered at z equal to 0 passing through each pole. We begin from z equal to 0 and move outwards. Identify all clean discs between these circles. Clean means no poles inside. Each such disc is a region of convergence. So, now you have identified how you can get each possible region of convergence. Now, you also know that any particular region of convergence is such that a given pole is either to the exterior of that region of convergence or to the interior. Now, you know you are going the other way. You are saying now I have fixed my region of convergence. The pole can either be to the exterior of the region of convergence or to the interior. Now, how does the situation change? So, for a given region of convergence with the same expression, take a given pole. It is either to the exterior or to the interior of the arrows. Now, write a partial fraction expansion. Identify terms for that pole. Invert terms for that pole. So, you know if you focus on one pole, you can clearly invert the terms knowing whether the pole is exterior or interior. If it is exterior to the region of convergence, it contributes left sided terms. And in general, if the pole is repeated, you get a poly-X term. There is a polynomial would be non-trivial, there is a polynomial in N. So, you would get a poly-X term with degree more than just a constant if the pole is repeated, but it would be a left sided exponential. In contrast, if the pole is to the interior of the region of convergence, you get a right sided exponential with a polynomial in N multiplying it. Now, this is close enough for us to determine how that pole influences stability or otherwise and we shall talk about it in the next section. Thank you.