The next item of business is a debate on motion number 10438, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on the Housing Scotland Bill. I would invite all of the members who wish to participate in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please. I call on Margaret Burgess to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around 10 minutes, but at this stage we have some time for interventions. I will start the debate by thanking everyone who contributed to the development of the housing bill, including members of all parties and stakeholders from across all sectors of housing. I am grateful to those stakeholders for their considered thoughts on the bill, both while the Government was shaping its policy and during Parliament's consideration of the bill. I thank the members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. I was pleased to bring forward a number of amendments at stage 2 in response to the committee's recommendations. I believe that the broad consensus for the policies in the bill reflects our commitment to working with stakeholders on its provisions. Following enactment, we will continue that dialogue as we draft guidance and take forward implementation. The Scottish Government published its strategy for housing homes for the fit for the 21st century in February 2011. It included a number of measures that required legislation, and the bill fulfilled that commitment. It will safeguard the interests of consumers, support improvements to the quality of housing and secure better outcomes for communities. It introduces greater flexibility for social landlords to manage their houses, and by ending right to buy, it provides social landlords with more certainty in planning to invest in those houses as well as investing in new homes. The committee and stakeholders had concerns that a three-year period was too long and I reduced that to two years. However, I believe that that balances the needs to stop social housing being sold at discount as soon as possible, while ensuring that those who have the right to buy and are able to exercise it have a reasonable opportunity to do so. Two years give them time to consider their options carefully and seek reputable financial advice without being rushed into a decision. Ending right to buy sits alongside this Government's target to deliver 30,000 new affordable homes in the five years of this Parliament. By 31 March 2014, we had already delivered 19,903 affordable homes, 14,294 of those for social rent, 71 per cent of our social rent target. We are therefore in track to meet that 30,000 target and have now committed £1.7 billion in the five years of this Parliament to deliver those vital homes. Yesterday, the First Minister announced that we would reach £1 billion spend, which is a substantial investment in housing. Not only is it an investment in housing, that spend creates and sustains 8,000 jobs in each year of that investment. James Kelly I thank the minister for taking an intervention. Does the minister realise that she is announcing a £1 billion spend, quoting the First Minister from yesterday? Do you recognise the fact that there has been a 29 per cent cut in the housing budget? As a result of that, we have seen the lowest number of completion since 1947. We see the effect of that in our constituencies. We are growing weightless, and that is the effect of the cuts in the budget. What I recognise is that this Scottish Government is investing more and building more social houses than any previous administration in this party—more council houses and more houses by registered social landlords. That is simply a fact. It cannot be disputed. We are doing that at the same time that we are investing in affordable houses in mid-market rent. We are committed to housing in this country, but there are still more houses per head of population being built in Scotland than there are in the rest of the UK, and we are building the houses. No matter what James Kelly is trying to say, we are outperforming any other place in the UK in building houses. We will also have to look at the private rented sector, which has grown significantly in the last 10 years, and that is why this Government consulted on and published the first private rented sector strategy for Scotland. The bill introduces measures that will strengthen the regulation of the sector. It gives local authorities increased powers to tackle poor conditions through third-party reporting to the private rented housing tribunal and the power to inspect a property. It gives local authorities new discretionary powers to tackle disrepair in the owner-occupied sector. It establishes a housing tribunal to deal with the private rented sector cases. What is the bill offering to tenants in the private sector that are facing rent rises of nearly 20 per cent? What is your answer to those tenants? What I would say to James Kelly is that this Government and what I am saying is that we are absolutely committed to those that rent in the private sector. We introduced the first private sector strategy for Scotland. The regulation of the landlord registration scheme was enforced to make sure that that has been enforced. We are also going to regulate the letting agency industry, ensuring that tenants get a fair deal. We are already looking at tenancy regime, and I will talk about that later in my speech. We were thinking about that and looking at that long before James Kelly ever talked about it. All of the measures that we have developed through consultation with stakeholders and I am clear that it will help to ensure that there are good standards across the private rented sector. There is broad consensus for the approach to regulating letting agents. I believe that the framework has been strengthened during the scrutiny of the bill. The Scottish Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders and others to develop the code of practice and to ensure that it delivers a robust regime. I hope that that answers Patrick Harvie's point from earlier, that when we are looking at the code of practice it will be a very wide consultation, and of course not just with the letting agency industry. Members from all parties have been keen to understand what the code will cover, so it is right that it should come back to Parliament for its consideration and agreement before being implemented. Measures to improve standards in the sector have been strongly supported. The new requirements in landlords to have regular electrical safety checks and install carbon monoxide detectors brought forward by Bob Doris and Jim Eadie have been welcomed by landlord and tenant organisations alike. There are those in the chamber who have been critical saying that the bill does not go far enough, that it should include measures on energy efficiency, increasing security to tenure and capping rent increases. The Scottish Government is taking forward work to develop energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector and will consult on those in 2015. The consultation will invite views on what those standards should be, as well as the timescale for introducing those standards. It is right that we take time to work with stakeholders to identify the right proposals and consult fully on those. The independent private tenancy review group published its report last month. I have accepted its recommendation for a new single private tenancy that would cover all future lets in the sector. We will develop detailed proposals for that and will consult on those in the autumn. Those measures deal with issues that were identified by the private rented sector strategy group and the Government's consultation on its draft strategy. That group, made up of stakeholders from across the sector, did not identify issues with rent levels or rent increases. James Kelly's proposals to cap rent increases would require major legislative change. In any such change should be based on a clear understanding of the nature and scale of the problem and what the options are for addressing it so that we can be sure that it has a positive outcome and avoids any unintended consequences. That should be done through discussion, consultation and careful drafting of provisions, if required, not by an amendment that gives ministers very broad powers and sets unrealistic timescales for introduction. We will be looking at that in our consultation on the tenancy regime in August in the autumn. A crucial factor in driving up rents in the private rented sector is limited supply. The Government is working with a range of partners to deliver homes for mid-market rent through initiatives such as the national housing trust. That is some track to deliver over 2,000 much needed new homes in communities across Scotland. We are also supporting homes for Scotland in its work to attract new institutional investment into the sector by funding a dedicated Scottish private rented sector champion. They will be tasked with bringing developers and potential funders together to deliver new high-quality homes in the sector. I am not complacent and, as I said earlier and during the amendments, the consultation on a new single tenancy will also explore issues relating to rent levels in the private sector. The bill also introduces new rights for mobile homes, particularly many of them who are elderly people who live permanently in sites across Scotland and they will benefit from the provisions in the bill, the update legislation dating from the 1960s. Those measures will ensure that site owners are fit and proper persons and strengthen local authority licensing powers so that they can target those who are not complying with the law. The housing bill brings together a wide-ranging package of measures that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee concluded will make improvements across the social, private rented and owner-occupied sectors. Those measures were developed in consultation with stakeholders and have been strengthened by the scrutiny of this Parliament. I commend to them that I move that the Parliament agrees that the Housing Scotland Bill is passed. Thank you minister. I now call Mary Fee, who will be followed by Alex Johnson. Can I just point out at this stage that we have a lot of time in hand, so I will be as flexible as I can. Mary Fee is seven minutes or a wee bit upwards. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the housing bill and I can confirm that Scottish Labour supports the aims of the bill and welcomes many of the measures that it brings to the housing sector. There can be no denying that housing in Scotland faces some significant and complex challenges, and everyone in the chamber, I am sure, will agree that we want a strong and growing housing sector. While we are supportive of the principles of the bill, we feel that it is a missed opportunity and I will expand on that as I progress. This is the eighth year that this administration has been in control of Scotland's housing sector, and we are now about to pass the second housing bill. In the past eight years, the Scottish Government has failed to make housing a priority. Over 150,000 people are on waiting lists in Scotland. Many of those in houses that are unsuitably small in poor condition and many in the private rented sector are paying far more than they can afford. House building is at its lowest level since the end of World War 2, with fewer than 115,000 homes completed for the last few years. However, we can hardly be shocked at that figure when the capital housing budget was cut by 29 per cent between 2008-9 and 2011-12. Audit Scotland has estimated that Scotland will need half a million new homes over the next 25 years to meet demand. In the period from 2001 to 2006, there were 144,749 home completions under Labour, with a further 112,319 home completions between 2007 and 2012 under the SNP. It can be easy for both sides to assign blame, but it does not change the fact that not enough houses have been built. When key stakeholders across... I thank the member for giving way. When will she point out that the decline has been due to decline in the private house building sector but not in the public sector? There is a decline across housing in general in Scotland. I would like to remind the member that housing has devolved. It is this Government's responsibility. The budget has been cut, and we are facing a shortfall of 160,000 homes. I have carefully read the white paper, and I would be grateful if a member could point out to me on which page in the white paper it tells us how much more you will invest in housing to make it right and better when we are independent. No answer. It is relevant. I will make a little progress. When key stakeholders across the sector are saying that housing in Scotland is in crisis, we have to listen to them. The housing bill... I would like to progress. One minute, Ms Fee. You are at it again. Will the two of you just behave yourself, Mary Fee? Thank you. The housing bill was an opportunity to keep control of this crisis and start tackling the challenges that we face. We would have liked to have seen more progressive parts included and are disappointed that our amendments to create sustainable communities, cap yearly rent rises and ensure security for tenants in the private sector did not gain support. The abolition of the right to buy has been long overdue and needed to protect social housing, and we welcome that measure in the bill. However, we would have preferred that in line with the recommendations from the committee and the majority of those who gave evidence for the period to abolish the right to buy to be one year from the date of royal assent. Protecting social housing does not stop at ending right to buy, ensuring that everyone has a right to social housing that is suitable for their needs remains a priority for Scottish Labour. That is why we wanted the amendment on sustainable communities. That way we can consider sustainability by matching tenants to homes and hopefully build long-lasting communities. Living in sustainable communities benefits everyone. Our local authorities and housing associations working with community groups know best what their community needs, and working to make sure that people can sustain their tenancy and tackle antisocial behaviour is a priority for Labour. Part 3 of the bill in the transfer of power to the first-year tribunal is a practical move. Sheriff courts across Scotland are struggling to support criminal justice proceedings, and it is a step in the right direction to take housing-related issues out of those courts. However, careful monitoring is required to ensure that tribunals remain fair and representative. On the private rented sector, James Kelly brought forward amendments that would improve the bill with those amendments on rent reviews, increases and tenancy lengths. Indeed, the SNP's own expert working group on welfare said in relation to the private rented sector, that means looking at the nature of tenancies, for example giving tenants in the private sector longer-term tenancies than generally exist at present, as well as building into tenancy agreements that rent should increase in line with inflation but not above. Another feature of the bill is the registration of letting agents. We need a strong, well-regulated private rented sector with meaningful sanctions that give confidence and security to both tenants and landlords. I am pleased that the minister has recognised the merit of my amendments at stage 2 on triple STs, and I welcomed her own amendment, which ensures that tenants get more information as to why they are being transferred to an SST and what action will be taken in the right of appeal. At stage 1 and 2, concerns were raised regarding mobile home site owners, adding additional charges for utilities, and again the minister took on board my amendment and amended the bill. In conclusion, I can confirm that Scottish Labour will be supporting the passage of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the housing sector in Scotland faces some complex and difficult challenges going forward. It is disheartening that the bill does not contain any new or radical proposals, but that highlights the lack of vision on housing from this Government. In going forward, Scottish Labour's vision would be for a strong and vibrant housing sector. We would engage with key stakeholders across Scotland to build a policy that makes a real difference with a long-term strategy for rural and urban housing. We would seek to regenerate our town centres and to tackle the empty properties that affect all of Scotland. We would be innovative and have a long-term housing action plan that would tackle Scotland's housing crisis head-on. Thank you, Ms Fee. I now call Alex Johnson. Mr Johnson, five minutes plus. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's been an exciting afternoon. I can say that because sitting here at the front and dealing with the amendments does allow the time to pass rather more quickly than it does if you're one of the poor unfortunates who find themselves sitting back trying to do paperwork and watching the clock. However, it has been an exciting day. I have managed to do a spirited defence or the negative procedure, which sets me out as a minority in this chamber. Before we finished, I also managed to lead my party into voting against an amendment that was consequential to one that we had accepted earlier in the debate. It's been an eventful day so far. By the way, that was a mistake, Presiding Officer. These things happen. This debate on the motion that the bill be passed is one in which I have to cover a number of key issues. This bill does have some things within it that are of value. The work that has been done to bring the private rented sector into a position where those who are reputable working within it can succeed in providing housing for those who need it are commendable. The work that has been done between the Government and the private sector representative organisation, the landlords organisations themselves, is commendable. The bill also represents the first attempts to bring letting agents into line. Both the landlords and the letting agents are two groups that have an enormous amount to contribute to housing in Scotland in the long term. It's important that, by bringing them into the regulatory structure, we are able to ensure that, as I said before, all landlords do what the good landlords have been doing for ages. We in Scotland have a housing structure that is, at the moment, creaking at the seams. I know that I have been blamed for defending some of the issues that may have caused that, yet there is hope within the discussion that we have heard today. I believe that our obsession over social housing masks a fault, a flaw in the market here in Scotland. We seem to take the view that Government's responsibility, either at local or national level, is to deal with those who are in the greatest need by the provision of social housing. Implicit in that is the idea that everyone else can look after themselves. I do not believe that that is the case, and I believe that we need to think long and hard about the shape of the Scottish housing market. That is why I was particularly delighted to hear, in our opening remarks, the minister talking about efforts being made by the Government now to bring developers and investors together so that they can go on and build affordable houses in Scotland. I believe that the greatest pressure on our social housing houses today is the fact that there is no process by which those who are in social housing can move up the ladder. The way that we can provide the next rung in that ladder is to take the opportunities of investment that exist—and I know that they exist—to build affordable housing for mid-market rent in large quantities. The reason why we have such demand on the private rented sector today is our failure to provide some alternative in the centre of the housing market. I believe that what I have heard from the minister today indicates that we may get more effort on the part of the Government to achieve what can be achieved through private or institutional investment through developers who are in a position to build those homes and relieve the pressure in the market. Looking back once again at elements of the bill, there are positives in the provision of a move to first-tier tribunals in dispute resolution. Taking evidence on the bill, it was obvious that there is an appetite for that. In fact, those who saw the opportunities offered by introducing that for the private rented sector also wanted to extend it to the social rented sector. The minister has spoken about that in previous debates and I think that we can take heart from the fact that there is a view in Government that if the tribunals are a success in their current proposed form, the opportunity will be taken in future to look at extending the range of those tribunals so that we can get a more effective use of their powers. There are things, however, that I would wish to have seen in the bill that are not. The changes to allocations policy, which were in the original draft of the bill that would have allowed age to be taken into account in allocations, were removed by the minister herself at stage 2. I tried to put it back in today, but of course that attempt was rejected. I think that we do have problems in terms of allocation policy, which we need to address. I saw the inclusion of age as a criteria that could be taken into account as a small first step to dealing with some of the problems that we need to address. The failure of the Government to press on with the results of its consultation in that area, I believe, is a weakness in the bill. Another area that was contained in that original consultation, but I never saw the light of day in the public bill when it was published, was the concept of starter or initial tenancies. I proposed a detailed amendment at stage 2, which was rejected. What I would have liked to have seen in the bill is something that would have given us a specific tenancy that could be granted to those who perhaps have the greatest difficulties and required those who provided tenancies to provide the necessary support to individuals. I will bring it to a close. The key thing that I have to say about the bill relates to right to buy. I understand what I will have the opportunity to close on behalf of my party, so I will leave that part of my speech until later. I appreciate your efforts. We move to the open debate. At the moment, I can offer the opening debate speakers five minutes each instead of four. I am pleased to take part in this stage 3 debate on the housing Scotland bill. I spoke in the stage 1 debate and welcomed the general principles of the bill, particularly in relation to the abolition of the right to buy, which will result in over 15,000 homes in the social rented sector being retained over the coming decade. We need to remember that the right to buy led to a significant reduction in the number of houses that were available for rent. Over the years since it was introduced, it has greatly diminished the amount of housing stock of good quality that was available for rent for families across Scotland. We have a duty to provide homes of good quality for all families, including those who cannot afford to buy. The abolition of the right to buy will ensure that we will no longer have a situation where better properties in the more desirable areas will be sold off, reducing the amount of available homes for social rent. The abolition of the right to buy is therefore long overdue, which is why I believe that it has been widely welcomed across Scotland. That will enhance social housing and it will protect the investment that is made in social housing. I want to nail the lie that this Government's record is anything other than a good one. This Government is outperforming the previous Labour Liberal Democrat Administration's record on council house building. Since 2007-08, 4,618 new council homes have been completed compared to only six under the previous administration. In fairness to James Kelly, whenever this issue has been raised in the chamber in the past, he has always pointed to the fact that that statistic ignores the number of housing association homes completed. However, the record of this Government is also impressive. For 30,292 housing association homes have been completed since 2007-08, a rise of 12 per cent compared to the previous 27,000 homes completed under the Labour Liberal Democrat Administration. I believe that the bill before us has been greatly enhanced and strengthened by the improvements that we have seen during the passage of the legislation. We have seen that in a number of key areas where the Government has worked with key stakeholders and MSPs across the chamber to further strengthen the bill. The Minister for Housing and Welfare, Margaret Burgess, I believe, deserves credit for the positive way in which she has entered into a constructive dialogue on a range of issues. She has been willing to listen to and reflect on the arguments that have been presented to her. The bill, as I say, is now better as a consequence of the approach that she has taken. I am particularly grateful to the minister for meeting with me and my colleague Alec Rowley to discuss the issue of temporary accommodation for homeless families. We were both concerned as a result of representations that we had received from Shelter Scotland that, while the number of homeless families being placed in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation had reduced significantly since changes to legislation were introduced in 2004, there were still a number of families, particularly pregnant women and children being placed by some local authorities. By no means all, an accommodation that, quite frankly, was not suitable for human habitation and unacceptable in a civilised society. The outcome of our discussions is that the Government will now amend the homeless person's unsuitable accommodation order 2004 to include a reference to wind and water tight. The amended order will provide further clarity to local councils regarding their provision of temporary accommodation. All people, regardless of what type of accommodation they find themselves in, have a right to enjoy their lives in comfort, safety and dignity. I now look forward to the amended regulation coming into force by the end of this year to achieve just that. I very much welcome the progress that has been possible during the passage of the bill. I am grateful to Alec Rowley for his support and to Shelter Scotland for its expertise on the issue. I was also grateful for the opportunity to meet the minister along with Sarah Boyack to discuss a number of issues on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council. As a result of that meeting, the Government brought forward further changes that will allow local authorities to determine a repayment period of between five and thirty years and provide a right of appeal for any person who is aggrieved by the period of the charge in relation to the recovery of costs under a repayment charge. The final area where I believe progress has been made is that of making carbon monoxide detectors mandatory in the private rented sector. Again, I am pleased to have worked with Shelter Scotland to bring about this change and I am glad that this Parliament has acted to address this issue so that all private tenants can feel safe from the threat of this so-called silent killer. In the stage 1 debate, I welcomed much of the bill and said that the problem was the issues that were missing from the bill. I think that that is still the situation at the end of stage 3. In between, of course, some amendments have been accepted and I welcomed that, but I regret the several that have been rejected today and which would have been useful. I came at this bill, I suppose, from two points of view, because of the problems that constituents bring to me about housing on a regular basis. Secondly, because of the issues that are highlighted by the City of Edinburgh Council, and Jim Eadie referred to that in his speech just now in the stage 1 debate, he and I raised some of the issues that the Labour SNP council on Edinburgh had brought to our attention. Although it is true to say that the council will be pleased that there has been some flexibility around the 30-year repayment period, it is fair to say that it will be disappointed that none of the other proposals that it has brought forward have been accepted. Today, I thought that the issue of maintenance plans was a very reasonable proposal from Sarah Boyack. Modifying the original position was rejected by the Government. Of course, all the amendments that I brought forward, which were all based on the submission from the council, were rejected as well. I do not think that the City of Edinburgh Council will be very pleased that the main issues that they highlighted for the bill have not been progressed. Over and above that, as I said, I was very much coming at it from the point of view of constituents. I am sure that all of us at our surgeries get housing issues on a regular basis, so I will pick up on four of the issues that I regularly get asked about. Supply is obvious. We all know about housing supply issues. The abolition of the right to buy, as far as I am concerned, is not something that I object to, but I think that there is a danger that we will overstate its effect on housing supply. It is not the most important measure that can be taken to improve supply of housing in the social rented sector, but I certainly do not object to it, although it would have been better to accept the amendment in terms of one year, which Mary Fee moved at committee. The second problem, in relation to supply, the more significant issue in terms of supply is, of course, the housing association grant, because the figures are all quoted about the number of houses, social rented houses being built, but the problem is that they are on a declining trajectory. A lot of the kind of half-respectable figures that are presented to us are based on the higher-hag levels of the early years of the SNP administration, so we are going to have increasing difficulties keeping up the number of social rented homes because of the high levels. They were changed slightly by Nicola Sturgeon in the summer last summer, but there is still a problem. All the housing associations tell us. The second problem that constituents bring to me—and I am sure that everybody else—is anti-social behaviour, so, hopefully, the short SST will help there. Again, Mary Fee was quite right, of course, at committee to get an amendment passed about more information about those, so that there are all the safeguards there that we require. Obviously, we have a very small number of tenants who cause problems, but we all have examples of massive problems being caused by a very small number of people. I personally welcome the increased availability of the short SST, and, hopefully, that will make it easier to evict the very small number of people who, unfortunately, require to be evicted because of their behaviour. Again, it would have been better around anti-social behaviour if the holiday lets amendment from Drew Smith had been accepted. I also feel that, in general, we could do more about beefing up the landlord registration system in order to get more effective action by landlords in the private sector, but, in general, it was the private sector, where there were most missing parts, as it were, in the bill. Repairs have already touched on briefly. My own amendment was about common repairs, and even Alex Johnson and his colleagues were almost going to support it, which I was very encouraged by, although I do not think that they pressed the right button at the end of the day on that one. Obviously, he and his colleagues were recognising that there is a very big problem here, and people bring it to our attention all the time. It is a pity that my amendment was not accepted. Equally, the electoral safety checks is a step forward, but what about all the existing tenancies? I do not know why the minister did not take the amendment that I suggested on that. Time is nearly out, but, obviously, one of the most important amendments that was brought forward today, possibly the most important one, was James Kelly's on capping rent rises. Again, the minister used the standard response of, oh well, that it is very complicated. James Kelly's amendment said to bring forward regulations. The work could have been done in the context of the regulations, and it is deeply regrettable that James Kelly's proposal, which is also the proposal from the SNP's working group on welfare, was not accepted today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. It is an important bill and one that I hope will begin to make the private rented sector more fit for purpose. The sector has experienced extraordinary growth over the past decade, with more than 300,000 households now renting privately. It is little wonder when you consider that, since March 2007, more than 11,000 properties have been lost from social renting, housing stock, and the ever-increasing length of waiting lists has driven people towards the private sector. It is long time before we ensure that standards in the sector were improved, and I reiterate my support for the regulation of letting agents. Introduction of a tribunal system 2 and, of course, inclusion of basic safety measures and the scrapping of right to buy. It is for those reasons that I and the Liberal Democrats shall be voting in favour of the bill later on. Since I last had an opportunity to debate the policy measures contained within the Government's bill at stage 1, there have been a series of interesting amendments, which have come to the fore. Many of them are amendments that I genuinely believe enhance the package of measures that are laid before us by the Government, and I am pleased to see some, although not all of them are included in the final bill that we will vote on later. I was disappointed when my amendments were defeated at stage 2, particularly my amendment that sought to clarify the position regarding legal representation for tenants participating in the new tribunal process. I felt that it was important to reintroduce it at stage 3, and, as I said before, following discussions with the minister and Homeless Action Scotland on this matter and the minister's positive words earlier in the proceedings, I am satisfied that this matter is now in hand and that a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. I am grateful to the minister for her words on that. Like many colleagues, my inbox has been inundated with emails from landlords over the past week and even throughout the process of today. I understand their concerns, and there is no doubt that the majority of landlords are diligent, fair and do provide a good level of service. However, there cannot be a doubt that a minority operates in a predatory fashion and prey upon the vulnerability of some tenants, so I believe that we need to weed those people out of the sector and I appreciate that the letting associations agree with that. I had some sympathy with the proposal to introduce more secure tenancies. Had amendment 50 passed, a landlord would still have retained the ability to terminate a tenancy after the first six months for antisocial behaviour, accruing of rent arrears or if the landlord planned to change the use of the property and even use it for his own living accommodation or hers. The amendment afforded the tenants two months notice to vacate a property, which I believe to be a fair compromise given the upheaval and inconvenience such an event causes. However, while I appreciate that there are many tenants in the private rented sector struggling with unreasonably high rent increases, I could not support amendment 49, which concerned rent control proposals. That represented such a significant new duty that could not have been reasonably introduced without the sector having the opportunity to comment on it first or, for that matter, have full parliamentary scrutiny. Although I reiterate that there are those who struggle with what can be extorbrant rent increases and the housing minister must reflect on that and consider how she can assist this in regard to the future. At stage 2, I did have an amendment which I did not bring forward. I think that it was an important one, but one that was not supported by any other party that was one on section 5 referrals, the fact that local authorities don't always use section 5 referrals when they have a homeless family or person. I think that that would be something that the minister should maybe consider in the future to keep an eye on at least. We did get the usual S&P rhetoric regarding that they built more houses than us and asked more houses than them, but I would like to remind them, as Mary Fee has said, that completions of social rented houses are at a lifetime low. And again, we have heard the change of language from the 6,000 social rented houses that were promised. That has been changed to affordable, and we all know that there is quite a difference. I welcome the passage of this bill, although still, I believe that it could have been enhanced for the— I am sorry, your time is up, Mr Hume. Maureen Watt, followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I feel honoured to have had a part in taking this bill through this Parliament, and I look forward to it being passed at decision time this evening. For me, and I am sure for many in this Parliament and the wider Scottish society, this is landmark legislation. Abolishing the right to buy socially rented housing will have a very positive effect for all those involved in the sector. It will protect and enhance social housing and protect the public investment that is made in social housing over generations. Since the right to buy was introduced, around 455,000 properties have been taken out of the social sector. The continuing depletion of social housing stock is unsustainable in the face of continued high levels of need for social housing in Scotland. As a representative from Shelter said, the right to buy is like trying to fill a sink without the plug-in. As David Bookbinder of the Chartered Institute of Housing said, and I paraphrase when he was before the committee, he said, The key benefit is supply. The certainty that abolishing right to buy will give local authorities, landlord local authorities and housing associations with regard to their strategic and business planning roles. They will also know how much rental income they will have and how much stock they can use for allocations and homelessness, and all that will be a huge benefit. By removing right to buy, social landlords will have greater confidence to build new homes and 15,500 social houses will be safeguarded for future generations. We also know that many right to buy properties end up in the private rented sector with high rents and access higher benefit claims. The protection of the social rented stock together with the Government's commitment to building new social housing is welcomed by the sector. There have been 30,292 housing association homes completed since 2007-08, a rise of 7 per cent in the previous seven years. 101,324 council houses were completed in 2013-14 alone, a far cry from the six built in the last four years of the Labour, Lib Dem administration. So abolition of the right to buy together with other aspects of the bill will increase the flexibility that social landlords have when allocating homes to allow them to better respond to the needs of their communities and make better use of affordable rented housing. I would like now to turn to the legislation regarding mobile homes. I have a number of mobile homes in my constituency and I welcome the strengthening of the protection for those who live in mobile homes. While those in my area who contacted me regarding this legislation seemed to be content with the way in which their site was run, I was really surprised how little they knew about the existence of organisations representing those who live in park homes. Many homes, as I said, are well run but there is definitive evidence of unscrupulous landlords. So giving local authorities more powers in this area is very welcome and I look forward to seeing the new model standards for mobile home sites reflecting up-to-date and best practice. I cannot conclude without commenting on the cynical stance of the Labour benches on this bill. Mary Fee said that right to buy was long overdue. They had eight years to abolish the right to buy but did not. James Kelly said that he spoke about rents when it was debated in one of his own debates in December. I cannot recall that but why did he not then support Patrick Harvie's amendment, which specifically called for rent controls? Nor did his members on the committee ask any questions of witnesses or stakeholders with whom the committee engaged during its consideration regarding rent controls. They had to wait until Ed Miliband, Mr Kelly, I am sorry, the members in their last 30 seconds. They had to wait until Ed Miliband gave them the lead from down south. Their conflating of private and public housing building is typical of them but they are not believed by the sector and indeed the public, who are much more savvy than Labour gives them credit for. You need to end, Ms Watt. Alex Johnson mentioned the initiatives that the Government is taking, making sure that private sector and public sector get together to build more houses. It is my great pleasure in supporting the bill. Alex Rowley, followed by Patrick Harvie. I begin by thanking the minister for meeting me, Jim Eadie, myself and Shelter, and for the positive response that we did get. I certainly will be supporting the bill that goes forward today because, as Sarah Boyack and others have said, there are a number of positive measures in that bill. Although it would have to be said that it would be a fairly dire situation if you brought forward a bill in housing at this particular stage and you did not address some of the concerns that are out there. It is fair to say that in terms of the bill, will it be judged as something that grasped the issues of the time and will be remembered for trying to tackle the many problems that we have out there? I think that it will not. I think that it lacks that levelling ambition. What I can say to Margaret Burgess is that the next Labour Government elected to this Parliament in 2016 will cap rent increases because it is the right thing to do. Hiding behind technicalities is not an excuse for not doing the right thing. I remember in the 1980s and the 1990s the poverty trap and the number of people that were caught in the poverty trap and unable to therefore progress and take employment and move forward. The excessive rents in the private sector right now are creating that poverty trap again and are holding many people back, being able to try and get into work and take jobs that are not necessarily the best-paid jobs, but the excessive rents in the private sector is a major factor and leads to the poverty trap that is there. However, the truth is—and I have said it before—in terms of the bill, and we can have the facts, Mary Fee mentioned the Audit Scotland report on housing in Scotland, which says that among the major challenges is a 29 per cent real-terms car and capital housing budget from 2008-9 to 2011-12. We also acknowledge that the number of new homes in the private sector in Scotland is more than half in recent years and the pressures with an ageing population that are there. However, the fact is that there are less rented affordable homes now than there was in 2008, 2010 and 2011. As was said by one of the other speakers, Jim Hume, you can have this one fight where it was us, it was them and we built more houses in them. However, in terms of the people out there that come to mass surgeries, in terms of the people and families that are homeless right now, it really does not matter who did what. The fact is that we have a major crisis in housing in this country, in every community, the length and breadth of this country, and we are not bringing forward any type of radical proposals here to begin to tackle that. That is why I certainly intend to work with Shelter Scotland over the next year or so to highlight why its policy to 10,000 houses a year is the right policy to begin to tackle some of the issues that are out there. The private sector, I do not believe, can meet the housing crisis that we actually have. It is a flawed strategy that believes that private rented market can tackle the housing crisis that we have in this country. I certainly am not ideologically driven by public versus private, but in this particular sector we need to build council housing, we need to build housing association housing and we need to start to do that and do that at a much greater rate and faster rate and be able to do that now. There are many families across Scotland, there are people who are trapped in housing that are not suitable for them, there are families that are massively overcrowded. Every MSP in this Parliament, I would have thought, must have a massive caseload of housing, must be engaged with the local authorities and I would make the point also to the minister. A lot of the council housing that is being built right now is being built by councils up and down the country who have been quite innovative in working with tenants to raise money to actually build houses. So, when we are giving credit for the houses that are being built, we should give that credit to the local authorities. I will conclude by saying that, while I support this bill, we have a real housing crisis out there. That does not begin to address that crisis and that is what we need to do. The private rented sector is not just a market. A tenancy agreement is not just a transaction. A home that is available for rent is not just an investment, it is somebody's home, it is where somebody lives. That is its primary function in public policy terms. It is not an investment, it is a home. If the private rented sector wants to continue to grow, wants to manage more of our country's housing stock in the future, it needs to recognise that meeting somebody's housing need is not just about giving them the keys. It is a much more complex job than that and there are landlords and letting agents who get that. There are landlords and letting agents who understand that their responsibility to a tenant is not just to give them the keys and rake in the cash but it goes much deeper than that. It may be that we should be seeking to support and cultivate social enterprise to get involved in the private rented sector, the kind of people, the kind of organisations who understand more than just a financial bottom line. It may be that we should be supporting the landlords and letting agents who do understand those issues. However, there are many, and I would even suggest most, who do not, who regard their property merely as an investment and are interested not in meeting somebody's housing need but simply in gaining the profit from that investment. If we continue to see the private rented sector growing in future and if at the same time economic recovery leads to a period again of rising house prices, rising property values, we are sowing the seeds of greater inequality in the future. In the long run, we will continue to see people spending their money on rent that makes somebody else wealthier and we will see that rising inequality. I think that we need to recognise the responsibility that we have to regulate the private rented sector in terms of the public good, particularly at a time when so many and a growing proportion of our population do not just spend a year or two in the private rented sector while they are student or while they are moving from one job to another but increasing proportion who have no other choice, for whom we have made no social housing or not enough social housing available and for whom we have allowed economic conditions to make owner occupation unaffordable. There is more to welcome in this bill, not only the abolition of the right to buy but I want to say a few words about it. It is true that the abolition of the right to buy will only deliver its maximum benefit in the context of increased investment in supply, but supply of social housing is not just about how much money the Scottish Government is spending from its budget each year. That is a big part of it but not the whole of it. I encourage members and ministers working on housing issues to look again at the land reform review group. It had to say about the affordability and availability of land is crucial if we want to improve the affordability and availability of housing and make it easier for developers, whether in the private sector or the social sector, to build more housing of the type that is needed. I encourage members to take a look at that. There are three areas where there is work to do that the Government has committed to. Security of tenure, a code of practice for letting agents, and I again welcome the clear fixed timescale that has been committed to on that and energy efficiency. What to do in the current term of the Scottish Government? Opportunities to influence those pieces of work to ensure that they meet the public good and there will be pressure needed. I will continue to advocate for that pressure and the ICI committee will have a role to play there as well. I have welcomed the opportunity to engage with that committee over recent weeks and months. I know that the political atmosphere is charged right now, but, frankly, I was dismayed at the level of hostility on display in that committee between the two larger parties. The committee must understand that they always have a responsibility to hold Government to account, not to go into bat for ministers, and large parties' opposition and Government have a responsibility to come together once our atmosphere is less charged in a few months' time and find common ground where they can work together for the common good. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many of us in this chamber come from a diverse range of backgrounds and arrive here with political priorities, which differ greatly. Our responsibility is to serve those who put us here, in effect, but to serve the Scottish people as a whole in addition to that. Those political principles often mean that individuals in this Parliament or parties within it will hold to a philosophy that sets us out on a limb. Nowhere is that more obvious than the Conservative Party's steadfast support for right to buy. The aspiration to own property is something that many people in Scotland have, and we have a responsibility to understand and support where appropriate. The fact that we understand that a house is not just a house, it is a home is something that we all agree on—it is something that Patrick Harvie said just a few moments ago. However, the right to own the house that you live in is an aspiration that I believe is appropriate for Scots to have and one that we should be willing to support. Now many of us are lucky enough to be in a position to be home owners through choice. We are able to participate in the marketplace and use the resources available to us in order to buy our home and then live in it. That is a privilege, a privilege that we should all consider ourselves lucky to have. Should it be a privilege that only the most wealthy within our community have, the right to own your own home is something that we should aspire to supply to everyone in society who is willing to make the sacrifice necessary to achieve that objective. This Government appears to understand that. It has gone some way towards introducing shared equity schemes and other opportunities that will allow people to become home owners. However, the problem is that, as yet, we have failed to find an alternative way to achieve that objective on scale compared with right to buy. Many people who use the first right to buy were long-term tenants. As we have seen from the figures that are available from last year, the vast majority of those who continue to seek to exercise their right to buy are themselves long-term tenants. By ending right to buy, we free up very few houses, but by ending right to buy, we end the opportunity for many to become home owners. It is an essential part of our responsibility to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to allow people to aspire to property ownership. The housing minister herself has, in recent speeches in this chamber, talked about the need to ensure that people can accrue wealth. For many, the only opportunity to accrue wealth in a modern society is to borrow against the value of a house and then pay it up over time. We need to make mortgages more affordable. We need to make the opportunity to buy homes more available to those on lower incomes. The Conservative Party, through its support for right to buy, has changed the dynamic of Scottish housing. It has turned us into a country where we are home owners, not simply home renters. It has turned us into a country where people aspire to improve themselves. There is much that is good in this bill, less so than there was when it was published at stage 1. However, as a result of the decision of the Government to end right to buy through this bill, at decision time, the Conservatives will vote against it. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to sum up on this afternoon's debate. The Labour Party's Mary Fee said that, in our initial remarks, we will be supporting the bill at quarter past seven in recognition that some of the progress and some of the issues that are addressed in the bill will improve issues within the housing sector. However, Mary Fee and Alex Rowley gave a very accurate portrayal of some of the issues that are faced within housing in Scotland. The pressures in relation to supply the consequences of that in terms of lack of affordable housing, the growth in the private sector and the rent levels that people are having to endure. There are wider issues that need to be addressed aside from the issues that are being taken in the bill. I was a bit disappointed in terms of the process of the bill. I feel that Labour interacted quite positively with the bill in terms of submitting an awful lot of amendments. On the whole, many of those were rejected. It also strikes me that, in listening to the minister during the debate, we have a plethora of consultations and working groups. The minister herself said that the Government's housing strategy was launched in February 2011, and therefore it has taken three years for the bill to come to fruition. We seem to have a lot of talking shops, but what people really need on the ground is the need for action and practical support. In terms of some of the issues in the bill, clearly the headline issue that the Government wants to promote is abolishing the right to buy. We have supported that. It was the right thing to do. However, I do not think that the impact of abolishing the right to buy will have the grand consequences that the Government envisage. Even on the figures that Maureen Watt quoted, more than 15,500 over 10 years are certainly welcome, but when you have 155,000 people on social housing waiting lists, the impact of that is minimal. On action on letting agents and landlords, as a number of speakers have spoken about, there has been a real growth in the private sector, the private rented sector, and therefore there is a real requirement for proper regulation. There are many responsible letting agents and landlords, but there are a number of unscrupulous individuals. It is for that reason that you need proper regulation. The terms of the bill do improve that, but I think that if some of the amendments had been taken on board, they could have improved it further. It is similar when you look at the issue of maintenance plans raised by Sarah Boyack and also electrical safety. Those issues could have been strengthened. Clearly, I was disappointed that the Government did not take on board my amendments in terms of trying to control rent increases and also introducing longer and more stable tenancies. What did disappoint me particularly about it was that from stage 2 to stage 3 I changed the amendments to give more time. I was really looking for the Government to lay regulations before the Parliament by April 2015, giving nearly 10 months to work up proposals. I thought that that was quite a reasonable way forward. To merely suggest that it was too onerous or too difficult to do, I do not think that it was a satisfactory response. I think that in drawing to a close, in those debates there is always a lot of trading of statistics to back up your argument, and I do that myself. I acknowledge that, but in terms of housing, in a lot of ways I do not need to look at the statistics.  I go round there and I see people that come to my surgeries almost on a weekly basis who are staying in overcrowded accommodation and they cannot get adequate access to adequate housing. I see houses that have been in that constituency since before I was born that are beginning to fall into disrepair and people still stay on them. We have real issues about people trying to get on the housing ladder, about people getting access to social housing and about people staying in accommodation. Can you start bringing your remarks to a close? Therefore, I am bringing my remarks to a close. The real challenge for this Government and for all political parties is to come up with a plan for housing that addresses the supply issues and does something for the people on the ground that do not stay in quality accommodation and that are struggling to find a house. Ultimately, there is a responsibility on all of us to try to improve the lives of our constituents and people throughout Scotland, and that is what we should bear in mind when bringing forward legislation and also plans for housing in Scotland. I think that the debate has in some ways had a lot of consensus in some areas throughout the debate, and clearly there will be areas that we still disagree on. I want to reiterate what I said earlier that I very much appreciate the stakeholder support that we have had for this. I would say to James Kelly that it is not about talking shops, but we are talking to our stakeholders and listening to our stakeholders and working up the bill in consultation with them and along with them. That is why the bill has so much stakeholder support for many of the areas that we are introducing in it, and I think that that is an important thing to say. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. All those discussions with stakeholders were the issues around excessive rent levels and the length of security of tenure. Were they raised with you? What I said earlier when I was moving the amendments is that during those discussions, rent levels were not raised with us other than by Patrick Harvie. Security of tenure was mentioned to us by Shelter early on, but the bill had progressed through a stage. We did discuss that, and that is why we set up the review group to look at the tenancy regime in the private sector. That tenancy regime group is not a talking shop. That group consists of a variety of stakeholders—19, the chair Douglas Robertson and 18 other stakeholders—made up from landlord associations, letting associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Council of Scottish Local Authorities, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Scottish Poverty Federation, Shelter Scotland. Those are Homeless Action Scotland, Edinburgh Fife Tenants Action Group. That group came together to discuss the tenancy regime, and I have said today that we will take forward their recommendation. We will be consulting on that in the autumn, and as part of that we will be looking at rent levels. I will say a bit about that because it was mentioned by Alex Rowley and Mary Fee talking about the capping of the rent levels. What I would say is that, absolutely, we are keeping rent levels under review. We are aware that, in parts of Scotland, in particular Aberdeen, that rising rents are an issue. However, I will repeat that it is important to be clear about the nature and the scale of the problem and what the options are for addressing it, so that we can be sure that any action that we take has a positive outcome and avoids any unintended consequences. I stand by that. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported recently that households in Scotland spend a smaller share of their income in housing costs than in England. The same report also found that poverty rates in Scotland are also lower than they are in England across all housing tenures. However, the Scottish Government is not complacent about this matter, and that is why we continue to support affordable rents, mid-market rents and work with the housebuilding industry to increase institutional investment to build new homes for private rent. I think that that is the right way to take on something of the magnitude that James Kelly is suggesting. I think that the right way is to consult with the stakeholders, take evidence from the stakeholders, work up proposals and bring them through the full scrutiny of this Parliament. That is what we intend to do, and that is the right way to do it, not to parachute in at stage 2 of the bill when it was not part of the bill initially. What James Kelly was doing, if we tried to give more powers to Scottish ministers, he would be absolutely criticising us for that. I find it strange that we have been criticised for following due process and something that is important. Importance is getting it right and getting it right for all the tenants across Scotland. Patrick Harvie was absolutely right. It is about people, and it is about their homes. Yes, there is a lot of political to-ing and fro-ing going on in among it, but within all that, we are, as a Government, committed to housing and improving the housing stock and also increasing the housing supply. We have heard from Opposition members about banding and about figures to use ourselves, but we cannot get away from the facts. This administration has built more houses for social rent and for registered social landlord and council houses in previous administrations in Scotland. During a recession, we are still more private houses for private sale getting built per head of population in Scotland than there is in England and Wales. That is a fact, but we are working to increase that supply. We know that we need to increase the supply, and that is what we are working to achieve. We are doing that with our stakeholders across the sector. We have got help to buy in Scotland. Thank the minister for taking the intervention. Will she still accept, though, that social rented completion houses are all-time, lifetime low? No. I think that if I say that we are building more than we are in previous administrations, then it is not at a lifetime low. We are building social houses. I would also take the point that Alex Rowley made that councils are now building houses, and we very much appreciate the contact that we have with our stakeholders in the way that councils and RSLs have got together to help with building the houses. A part of that is due to the fact that we abolished the right to buy for new supply in 2010, which allowed local authorities to continue building and start building council houses again and giving them the confidence to do it. I think that, in more in what use the words, this is a landmark bill. I think that it is for a number of ways, not just in what we are doing in right to buy, but in what we are doing in right to buy is the right thing to do, and it is the right time to do it now. We are supporting many other schemes to encourage people and to help people on to the housing ladder, and we will continue to do that. But right to buy has seen its day in Scotland, and we are taking the right action in that. I think that all of the chamber are supporting us in that, except for the Conservatives, and that does not surprise me. However, the bill also introduces other landmark things, first things. The Tribunals for the Private Rented sector is to ensure that there is fair and easy access to justice in the private sector. That is something that I think is new. It is a landmark. It is something that we have been asked to do for some time, and we have worked it up. I think that that is an important thing, and tenants will very much appreciate that. It is also the regulation of the letting agents. It was good to get the support of the letting agent industry and the landlord's organisations for that. We got that because we worked with them and we worked together. We listened to what they had to say. We took on board some of what they had to say, but we made it absolutely clear at the outset that we intended to regulate, and that regulating would have teeth, and that is what we will do. When we are working up the code of guidance, our view on that will not change. The regulation that the private sector will have teeth, and they welcome that as well, because they do not want— Can you bring your remarks to close, minister? Oh, sorry, I did not hear that. Finally, what I would say is that I would ask the members to support this bill. It is something—to move my amendment debate—to support this bill as we take this forward. I think that what we have done today is something that we should all be proud of in this chamber. We have got there working together, and I hope that that continues. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on the House of Scotland bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 10442, in the name of Josephus Patrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau sitting at a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak by now, and I call on Josephus Patrick to move motion number 10442. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10442, in the name of Josephus Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of seven parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Josephus Patrick to move motion number 10443 to 10448 on approval of SSIs on block. Thank you. Motion number 10449 on designation of a lead committee. And the question on these motions will be put a decision time to which we now come. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 10438, in the name of Margaret Burgess on the House of Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 1048, in the name of Margaret Burgess, is as follows. Yes, 93. No, 12. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the House of Scotland bill is passed. I now propose to ask a single question on motion numbers 10443 to 10448 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects, the single question will be put, please say so now. Nobody has objected to the next question as it motions number 10443 to 10448, in the name of Josephus Patrick on approval of SSIs, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10449, in the name of Josephus Patrick on designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.