I open this meeting of the Committee of the whole Parliament to consider stage two of the cost of living tenant protection Scotland Bill. For the duration of these proceedings, I am the convener of the committee in dealing with amendments. Members should have the marshaled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any group of amendments should press their request to speak buttons or press R as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. Point of order. I wonder if I could seek your guidance, convener. I lodged amendments around section 2 of this Bill and the Parliament officials have said that I will not allow to submit them. Is it the policy of the Parliament that certain amendments are not acceptable which take out certain parts of the Bill once it has been passed at stage 1? That means that whatever the Parliament believes of a certain section of the Bill, it will always remain even if we vote against it. I thank Mr Balfour for his point of order. Rule 9.10.5C states that an amendment is not admissible if it is inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill, as agreed by the Parliament. That is if the amendment would reverse, substantially alter or render ineffective a principal purpose of the Bill, where a Bill is introduced with only one or two principal purposes and an amendment to leave out or substantially alter that purpose or one of those purposes would not normally be admissible. That is how the Parliament would then remove sections of the Bill. You cannot. For clarity, Mr Balfour, you can put an amendment in to remove a section unless it would be a wrecking amendment. I move on to operation of the rent cap and I call amendment 1 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 21 in the group entitled application of the rent cap is agreed to, then I cannot call amendments 22 and 27 due to preemption. Jeremy Balfour to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I move amendment 1 and amendment 32, which are both in my name. We had a very helpful debate yesterday afternoon at stage 1 and there was lots of evidence given in that debate that the way to control the right of tenants is not necessarily to control the rent that landlords can charge. We all understand that we are in a situation where there is financial hardship facing many people here in Scotland. Both landlords and tenants are facing difficult times. The methodology of simply saying that we are going to freeze our rent and have a control section as the Bill does will, in my view, in the opinion of most housing associations and experts on this, cause greater damage rather than less benefit. Jeremy Balfour says that my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Stephen Kerr give examples of what has happened in other countries, whether that is Dublin, Berlin and Stockholm. We have seen the situation in those three countries see more people becoming homeless, less housing available and the situation grow worse. That is why this amendment and amendment 32 goes to the heart of what this Parliament should be trying to do. We agree that action needs to be taken and we are disappointed that the Scottish Government has taken so long to do anything. Surely to do the wrong thing is not the answer. In fact, the minister and the cabinet secretary just a few months ago were arguing exactly what I am arguing today. What they were saying is that this is not the way forward. We need action from government. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Does he accept that this is a temporary freeze or rent cap that is only up to the end of March? That does not affect housing associations, but I accept that they are interested after April. First, the point that I was making was that ministers and cabinet secretary, the Government have changed their mind. If this bill goes through unamended today and tomorrow, 18 months, it seems to me not a long time. I know that the SNP likes to talk about generations being a few weeks, but for most of us 18 months is a long period of time. What that bill will do, in my opinion, and in my opinion of housing associations and of the experts if you have been listening to them in the emails that you have received, will force people to give up their properties and we will see more people homeless across our country. That is why I am asking members to support the two amendments in my name. Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 2 and other amendments in the group. If I could start with Jeremy Balfour's amendment 1, I do agree with Jeremy Balfour's comments that the Government has changed their mind on this. We welcomed that change of mind. We called for that in the summer floor. I am absolutely delighted to see the Government following where Labour has led and so would oppose Mr Balfour's amendment 1. The rest of the amendments in this group, all amendments apart from 1 and 32 in my name, are my attempt to be helpful to the Government in particular to be helpful to the First Minister. The First Minister in her programme for government in early September in that statement said that rents would be frozen from that day. That bill does not propose to freeze rents from that day. Rents can increase today, they can increase tomorrow, they can increase the day after that and for weeks and weeks and weeks up until 5 December for those tenants who live in the private sector. Those amendments are an attempt to be helpful for the First Minister to make sure that the statement that the First Minister made in Parliament can remain accurate. That is to change the dates in the bill from 6 September to 6 June. That means that any notice issued by a private landlord that has the three months to take effect will be ruled ineligible after 6 June. That means that the First Minister's statement that all rents were frozen on the day she made her programme for government statement can remain valid. On that basis, I ask members to support amendments 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 27. At the outset, I once again thank colleagues from across political parties, stakeholders and most particularly officials from both government and parliament for the incredible pace at which they have worked in bringing us to this point. Amendments 1 and 32, as Jeremy Balfour says, are very clearly intended to take away one of the principal functions of this bill. He says that we had a powerful debate at stage 1. Yes, indeed we did. Parliament agreed to the general principles of the bill. Even if those amendments are admissible, it seems to me that, at a political level, they fundamentally undermine the purpose of the bill itself. The Conservatives, of course, have a perfect right to disagree, but there is no ambiguity about those amendments. They are fundamentally opposed to the reasons why we are bringing this bill in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. We believe that an emergency response is necessary and tenants are particularly exposed to that cost-of-living crisis. That justifies a rent freeze. I would just add finally that we did not, absolutely did not, as Mr Balfour suggests, argue the case that he is arguing a few months ago. What we did then was to oppose an amendment which we were convinced would not be legally competent. That, Presiding Officer, is legally competent and will be effective at giving protection to tenants. In respect to the remaining amendments in this group, those would, as Mr Griffin says, have the effect of retrospectively applying the rent control measures contained in section 1 to 6 June rather than 6 September. The purpose of backdating those measures to 6 September, as I think the First Minister herself has made clear, is to avoid that programme for government announcement resulting in landlords seeking to avoid the effect of the measures by acting before we have time to bring the law before Parliament, in effect to avoid rent increase notices being issued in response to the announcement. Ensuring that this protection is given is accomplished by the bill, it's a necessary part of the package delivering protections for tenants and I think it gives a level of clarity to both landlords and tenants. I'm afraid I cannot accept the amendment to backdate this to June. We believe that that would run contrary to the need for the law to be fair and certain. It would result in landlords effectively changing the effect of them having been unaware of the intention to change the law months before that programme for government announcement was made and to do so would inevitably open up the legislation to challenge and cause a significant degree of uncertainty. Mark Griffin. I think the uncertainty was caused by the First Minister announcing at her statement for programme for government that rents would be frozen from that day. That has created uncertainty for tenants who would rightly have an expectation that their rents would be frozen from the time the First Minister made that announcement, not well into December. If the minister isn't going to accept these amendments, does he accept that the First Minister should change the record? Thank you. I do think that the First Minister has been clear. I regret the fact that the member is choosing to misinterpret in that way. It's very clear that the intention is to prevent rent increase notices as a response to the programme for government announcement and that is achieved by the bill as it stands. So, while I thank the members for their contribution to the debate on this group, I must ask Parliament to vote against all amendments in this group. Thank you. Jeremy Balfour to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 1. Nothing else further to add. I'm happy to move. Can I confirm that you are pressing amendment 1, Mr Balfour? Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division. This is the first division of the stage. I will suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Shona Robison. Just check that my vote was recorded. I can confirm that your vote was recorded. Oh, Stephanie Callahan does need a point of order. Point of order, Stephanie Callahan. I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Mary Gougeon. My page wouldn't load and I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 1 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 27, no, 89. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 1. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The committee is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 20, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 1. Mark Griffin, to move or not to move. Thank you. I move on to the group entitled application of the rent cap. I call amendment 4 in the name of Miles Briggs, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out that if amendment 21 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 22 and 27 in the group entitled operations of the rent cap. Amendments 23, 24, 25 and 26 in this group, due to preemption. Miles Briggs, to move amendment 4 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Can I start with amendment 4 in my name, which looks to remove the social rented sector from this bill and exempt it from regulations? We believe that the social housing sector should be exempt from the bill and that the sector is already highly regulated and has taken important steps in keeping increased rents as low as possible. Furthermore, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations have warned that unintended consequences of this bill with regards to social housing, the development of affordable housing and also potential costs around construction costs, which we have seen increase, net zero targets not being met. We therefore ask members to support amendment 4 and amendment 5. Amendment 23 in my name looks towards properties in the mid-market rates. Mid-market rates are an affordable housing tenure offered by housing associations. The homes for rent to households on low to middle incomes. Rent for MMR homes are generally set lower than private rents but higher than housing association rents for social housing. It is an important part of the housing mix to support those who may not be eligible or cannot access social rented homes but struggle to afford higher rents in the private sector. The issue here is that the tenancy type is a private residency, the same as homes rented by private landlords. We therefore hope that members will support amendment 23. My amendment 26 is with regards to rent increase notices to be sent out to tenants before the expiry of this legislation. The bill states that any rent increase notice served while the rent cap is in force will have no effect, which effectively means that no rent rise notice can be served upon any tenant prior to 1 April 2023, assuming rent freeze expires on the day before. In effect, that would mean that rent freezes will remain in place until the end of April, not the end of March, as ministers have outlined, given the requirement to give 28 days notice of any rent change in the social sector. We therefore believe that landlords should be able to provide this notice before 1 April. I call Willie Rennie to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group. I will speak to amendments 5, 21 and 25. My amendments are focused on the social sector but also on the mid-market rental properties in the charity sector. In short, I want to remove them from the provisions of the bill. My rationale is that it will not help. The majority of tenants in the social sector will not benefit from the cap as their rent is paid by universal credit. There are targeted funds to help those struggling for those who are finding it difficult to pay their rent, and rents in the social sector are about half of those in the private sector. The cap will not really help people with the cost of living, but the damage could be significant. It is the uncertainty that is most damaging. Although the rent cap may never have an effect on rents in the social sector, the uncertainty that it might has a massive impact on planning for the future. That means a cut to the house building and maintenance programmes. Even though they support the universal cap, there are several charities and organisations that I have lobbied today that have highlighted that particular issue. The minister recognises that there is a problem. To his credit, he has been working hard to reassure the sector. He has been committed to partnership working with him. He has indicated that the social and private sector may be decoupled post-march. I would suggest that it would be much easier to decouple the sector now by removing them from the scope of the bill. If that would continue to be protected by the sector, the uncertainty would be removed, planning could restart, new houses previously in doubt could go ahead, existing homes could have new bathrooms, kitchens, windows and roofs. We heard yesterday very wise contributions from Bob Doris and John Mason. They relayed the concerns of the housing associations. I am not going to support his amendments today. I wonder if Mr Rennie would agree that the statutory rent consultation process all housing associations have to conduct would be a useful tool in deciding whether those powers were ever used for April next year onwards. I would just state again, Presiding Officer, that it is a cap, not a freeze in principle. They could, in theory, be used sparingly, but my preference would be that they are not used at all. Do you agree that the rent consultation process could inform whether they are indeed ever used? I think that's right, and that's one of the benefits of the social sector. We've had those in place for many, many years, and that resulted in very low rents, half of those in the private sector. My argument would be that we should use those processes now, not just post-march, but I do accept the point that Bob Doris has made. It may be a mechanism for going forward. I think that they should be treated differently. Let's not fix what isn't broken. My three amendments have three purposes. Amendment 21 removes social housing from the scope of the bill. Amendment 25 gives a longer notice period on rent cap changes to allow the sector to consult and prepare for any changes. I also support Miles Briggs amendment 4. Amendment 23 is about mid-market rents. I support removing those from the scope of the bill for those in the charity sector. There are many organisations such as the Ganache Trust in Perth that provide excellent housing that are of high standard. In fact, I saw very new ones recently, which are of very high energy efficiency, and their rents are mid-market. I think that those rents are effectively controlled just now, so we're trying to control what's already controlled. Their planning could be interrupted for the future, and I would suggest in the same way as trying to remove social housing from the scope of this bill, we should also remove mid-market rents in the charity sector from the scope of this bill. I urge members to support 4, 5, 21, 23 and 25. Pauline McNeill to speak to amendment 6 and other amendments in the group. My first set of amendments in amendment 6, 16 and 24, address the question that landlords cannot raise rents between tenancies. Those amendments seek to prevent the landlord from raising the rent of a property between tenancies up to 31 March 2023. This applies to private rented sector short-assured tenancies and Scottish secure tenancies. There are a couple of issues that I had in my fair rents bill in the last Parliament that I would like to test in relation to this legislation, and this is one of them. I have a concern that, unless this is done, we may see a surge in either illegal convictions or illegal increases of rent. It is something that the third sector organisations have raised in their briefings to MSPs this week. Citizens Advice Scotland, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Poverty Alliance and Shelter Scotland are concerned about unintended consequences for tenants and landlords with low public awareness. They are concerned that it runs the risk of an increased number of evictions and unlawful rent increases with unclear options of redress. In the frame of the legislation, it is clear how it would operate if landlords operate within the law, what we do when there is a small minority who may not operate within the law. Between tenancies, of course, means that the tenant has already been evicted and the landlord can impose a new rent, which is not a rent freeze. The joint briefing from those organisations expresses quite sincere and widespread concerns about illegal evictions, so I ask ministers to address that. My other amendments, number nine and number ten, relate to the statement that landlords will make in relation to their application to increase the rent in the framework of the bill. Those amendments seek to ensure that landlords cannot insist that the proposed increases are done until after the rent officer or the first deal has approved it. Further to that, the landlord should make it clear in their communication to the tenant that the new rent will not be payable until it has been approved. The reason I wanted to explore that is that, at this point yesterday and in the stage 1 debate, I do not believe that we have the right balance between landlords and tenants in the legislative framework beyond that. Therefore, where possible, we must seek to balance what might be fearful tenants who think that because the landlord has applied, it will automatically be approved. I would like landlords to explain to their tenants that they are applying for it. I want it to be included in the statement, because, of course, the tribunal may not be satisfied that the hardship test is there. Last but not least, I did not want to comment much on the other amendments from Willie Rennie and Miles Briggs. I would like to make it clear that I recorded a register of interest yesterday that I have private rental housing. The problem is with first tier arbitration when it comes down to it. I was apparently told that the wait time is eight to nine months, and there is provision within the financial memorandum with this bill saying that there are sufficient funds there. There obviously isn't. I wonder if the members would reflect on whether the first tier tribunals, in order to comply with her wish, should have more money so that they could sit more regularly and give satisfactory answers quickly to tenants. It is difficult to disagree with the member, because, in anything I have ever said in this Parliament, I have always tried to strike the right balance between landlords and tenants. I do not think that it helps anyone to have an inefficient tribunal system, so I do not have any difficulty agreeing with that. What I am trying to achieve with my amendments is that I do not want tenants thinking that, because a landlord has applied, notwithstanding the point that the member makes, that it can take some time. That is not fair to the landlord. I totally accept that, but it is not fair to the tenant either. That is what I seek to do in those amendments. I just wanted to make one point to Willie Rennie about the question of universal credit. It is quite important to understand that, in the housing support sector, those who are not on universal credit but are on low pay who do not get support from the Government are incredibly hard to access hardship funds. I have argued this many times. I ask members not to discount those poor families, particularly in the private rented sector, where poverty mainly lies for families and children, to ensure that we are doing more to ensure that they have the support that they need to support their tenancies and that they have been able to, and have spoken long enough to allow the member to intervene. Willie Rennie. I have no great disagreement about poverty, particularly those in private rented tenancies. My simple point about support mechanisms is through housing associations with hardship grants that are available, perhaps not as much as we would like, but they are available and will help those who are struggling to pay their rent on top of those who receive the universal credit. I think that that outweighs the disadvantages that will be received if we have an inclusion of the social rented sector in the scope of this bill. Pauline McNeill. I thank the member for the intervention and he makes this point very well, but I hope that the point that I am making is not overlooked and it is this. If you operate support based on hardship funds by and large, many people will not meet the test. It is not universal and where we were in the middle of an acute, the most acute crisis on the cost of living, a simple thing is something to address further down the line that those who do not have government support need to have better ways to support their tenancies. It is just a wider point I wanted to make. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I call Alex Rowley to speak to amendment 31 and other amendments in the group. Presiding Officer, thank you. I'm pleased to raise this amendment 31 in my name as I feel there is a missed opportunity within this bill to extend the proposed protections to a group that have been overlooked within the legislation. Care home residents are an effect tenants in the same manner that students are, yet we see one group offer protection from the bill and one sideline. Care home charges fall under common law tenancies in a similar manner to student residential tenancies, for example accommodation, utilities, food and insurance. As such, my amendment mirrors the wording of the existing provisions relating to student residential tenancies in the bill to apply to eligible care home charges. Great effort has been put into the bill to ensure that students are included despite more complex arrangements potentially being in place, yet that same concern has not been shown to care home residents. The Parliament bills team, when looking at this, have advised that the independently funded supported personal contracts could be considered equivalent to student accommodation and therefore within the scope of this bill. I remember when Mercedes Villalba brought her amendment to the freeze rents to the Covid bill and the Deputy First Minister responded at that time by saying what was wrong with the amendments, where the weaknesses were. I intervened and asked him the question, but what are you going to do about the excessive rent rises being highlighted by Mercedes Villalba? I bring this amendment here today to try and raise those same types of issues. The excessive costs that people who are having to pay their own fees are filing being piled upon them. So today I am highlighting the plight of self funders in care homes and their families who say to me they are being fleeced and no one seems to care. I'm hearing from care home residents who are currently facing month on month increases in charges that they are paying. While safeguards are in place for many tenancies to stop rent increases from taking place more than once a year, that same protection does not get afforded to care home residents who are self funders. People are telling me that they are struggling to keep up with the continuous rises in fees and are seeing all their money disappear on these rises.  And it's worth restating. These are not people with major wealth. These are people who have worked hard all their lives, saved a bit and bought their homes. They now need support and care and are told that they have to pay for it. And as costs go up but local authority fees remain stagnant, they are the only source of additional income for private care home operators. I say again the residents and their families feel like they're being fleeced and they want the same protections as all other renters have. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say on this matter. As I say, this cannot continue. These people cannot be ignored and neither can the fact that the charges are continually being put up and it seems there's nothing they can do and nobody cares. Paul Edward Mountain. Thank you, convener, and I rise to speak in support of Willie Rennie's motion and Miles Briggs's motion. I don't think anyone really can argue the fact that housing associations and charities have worked extremely hard to meet the needs of their tenants and they've struggled over previous years with rent caps. One of the big issues with the cost of living crisis is the fact that houses are incorrectly insulated and that's why we need to invest on the insulation of houses. A servo in WIC alone that I carried out suggested there were 850 properties there owned by the council of which 530 were below EPCC, which would cost an excess of £21 million to get up to the correct level. So, we need to encourage landlords to invest in their properties and I, along with many other Highland MSPs this morning, will have received a disturbing email from a housing association who is going to have to review their future investment in properties as a result of this legislation. What they have done rightly so is agreed to rent freeze this year and we're looking to have a rent increase next year in line with inflation. That seemed to be sensible. They were helping the tenants this year in order to invest next year. Now they're in a position where they've helped the tenants this year, they can't help them next year by investing in the fabric of their buildings because they won't be allowed to address the issue of rents. That's why I think we need to remove housing association and charities out of the bill at this stage so they can address that issue and carry on with that investment because if we don't give them certainty into the future, let me tell you the supply industry as such that only works that might be allowed if this rent freeze doesn't continue, won't be able to programme because the materials won't be requisitioned early enough. That's why I support both of those amendments and I believe that the Parliament should too because it is not only helping tenants but it is addressing the problems of achieving insulated properties which is something that all across Scotland should be trying to achieve. Before I turn to the amendments specifically, can I just respond to those last points on energy efficiency? I think that this Government has given a very clear, not just indication but clear commitment of investment on energy efficiency right across our built environment but in particular in terms of social housing. Edward Mountain is quite right to draw attention to the critically important nature of that investment in reducing our emissions but also in reducing tenants energy costs. I would just refer him to some of the comments that came from the Energy Efficiency Association just recently who in giving advice to the UK Government said that they should follow the Scottish Government's lead on the support that we're giving on that area. So, if it's very brief. It is very brief and I do understand that Scottish Government's wish to invest in housing but old housing costs a lot of money. It's my estimate having been a surveyor and having properties that need insulation. It costs £40,000 to £50,000 to even get it up one level of EPC and that is nowhere near what the Government is promising for each of these social houses. I come now to the amendments themselves and in response to that last point I would remind the members moving amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23 that fundamentally the commitment to a 0% rent cap for the first six months has reduced the rental income of no social landlord in Scotland and no decision has been made about the future. We're working very constructively with the sector in order to inform those decisions. These four amendments, numbers 4, 5, 21 and 23, would have the effect of removing registered social landlords, their wholly owned subsidiaries and local authorities from the rent cap. Now, as we've set out and as we discussed yesterday, we've proposed applying that rent cap until the 31st of March in the first instance and having it separately variable between the private and social rented sectors in order to take account of the distinct nature of the sectors. That date was set with the social rented sector in mind because we're aware that rents set in this sector are generally not set until the first of April and will not increase before then. We did this specifically to ensure that these emergency measures do not immediately impact on the finances of the social rented sector without full consideration of the perspective of the sector. Willie Rennie is absolutely right about that, but does he not accept the broader point that there is huge uncertainty? I know that he's had good discussions with the sector, that there's a good partnership in place. He'll probably be given a bit of foresight about what's happened but he can't give them a guarantee that they can't won't extend beyond March. That uncertainty has a very long term effect on planning of building new homes and maintenance and all the rest of the package. He does accept that point about uncertainty, doesn't he? I'm going to come on to some of the arguments around Mr Rennie's amendments and some of the reasons why I don't think his approach would give certainty in the way that he suggests. We are firmly committed to working with the sector as well as supporting them to undertake meaningful consultations with tenants while that work continues. To drive that progress forward, we've established a short-life task and finished working group, bringing together officials from government with leaders from across the sector to identify and consider the options available. Every discussion that I've taken part in over recent weeks with the sector gives me great confidence that we can find a way through this that meets the needs of tenants in the sector who have had that same expectation of security for themselves that other tenants do, as well as meeting the needs of the sector and the wider social purposes of social housing. I'm not able to support those four amendments, four, five, 21 and 23, and I would ask the members responsible not to press them. I'll turn now to amendments 6, 16 and 24. I think that they are all in Pauline McNeill's name and raised a very substantive issue. The aim of the bill is to protect tenants, helping them to stay in their homes during the cost crisis, stabilising their housing costs. The average length of a tenancy in Scotland is around 18 months, so the emergency measures will provide protection to the large majority of tenants. The application of the rent freeze on this basis responds to the need to ensure that measures are proportionate. Pauline McNeill mentions the risk of illegal evictions. The additional penalties that are provided for in other parts of the bill create a strong disincentive for landlords to pursue unlawful evictions. She is quite right to raise the issue about raising awareness within the sector for tenants as well as landlords. There are other parts of the bill where we will debate that. Prospective tenants entering into a new tenancy will do so on the basis of an agreed rent and they will immediately have protection from any rent increase as the measures in the bill will apply to their tenancy while in effect. Was there a quest for an intervention there? Pauline McNeill, perhaps you have clarified at your last point but I just want to make sure. If a tenant's lease is due within the six months of the period of the bill then the landlord could just not renew the lease. Are you saying that they would get the protection of this bill that the rent would be frozen? If you are saying that then I am content but if you are not saying that then my point is valid which is between tenancies there should be a rent freeze at my point. Of course the majority of tenants do have security of tenure. It is possible that there may be aspects of this that we need to continue to discuss with Pauline McNeill over the course of the day. As I have said the enforcement of a rent freeze or rent controls. I just want to clarify under the latest legislation that the minister would know that he is saying that tenants' tenancies will end. That is not true because if that is what you just said that is wrong I just would like to clarify. I do not believe that as a point of order but it is a debating point minister. I do not believe that it is a point of order and I also do not believe that it is what I said. To return to the points raised by Pauline McNeill, in tenancy rent increases generally do not take place in the social rented sector either and most rents have been set annually from the 1st of April. I think in winding up on these particular amendments there are very important longer term arguments here about the operation of the rented sector. We will continue to address those in our longer term work on permanent changes to legislation but I am afraid in the context of this emergency bell I am not able to support the amendment to extend the bell to enter tenancy rent increases and so I would ask the member not to move those amendments and if they are moved I will have to ask Parliament not to support them. I am once again going to ask Pauline McNeill not to move those amendments but I think we all do want to make sure that tenants are well informed. I think that this amendment in particular is flawed in its references and it will require to be mirrored in respect of the provisions relating to the 1988 legislation, the tenancies under that legislation. However, in looking at those issues we would be content to bring back an amendment with the correct references addressing the points that Pauline McNeill seeks to raise in nine and ten, bringing those back at stage three tomorrow. Amendment 25, Willie Rennie says that he is seeking to achieve clarity. I do not believe that amendment 25 would do that. It would require a lengthy notice period to be provided by the Scottish ministers when laying regulations to modify the rent cap for social tenancies. Clearly, the Scottish ministers will, as I said, work closely with social landlords and tenants in social tenancies to discuss any changes to the rent cap. However, the amendment would remove the ability of ministers to react to changing circumstances in order to protect the interests of landlords, where the cap must be increased. Equally, any future decrease in the rent cap, if it has already been increased, could not be actioned quickly due to this amendment. There are existing procedural safeguards in the bill as the rent cap can only be increased via regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. In order to ensure that Scottish ministers can react quickly to changing circumstances, I cannot support this amendment and I would invite Willie Rennie not to press it if it is pressed, I urge members to reject it. Amendment 26, from Miles Briggs. We cannot agree with the amendment in its current form, but it raises an important issue. We agree that it needs to be addressed. Therefore, we will bring a stage 3 amendment to allow rent notice increases to be issued for the social sector if the cap is lifted one month before 1 April 2023 to allow social landlords to issue rent increase notices in time for those to take effect on 1 April. That is an important issue and, as I say, we intend to address it tomorrow at stage 3. I hope that Miles Briggs will accept that position. Amendment 31, I am afraid I also cannot accept, is a very understandable desire as we debate emergency legislation in relation to the cost of living to widen that debate out beyond rented housing. However, I am afraid that it is not something that we are able to do and this amendment very clearly does widen it out beyond the issue of rented housing. There are some really key differences between people in rented housing and a care home, which means that it is not appropriate to address this issue within this Bill relating to the protection of tenants. In a care home, the purpose of the accommodation is the provision of a service and therefore their charges are an amalgamation of services and accommodation. It covers food, heating care and support and other workforce costs, amongst other elements. Care homes do not offer tenancies. Instead, residents have a residency agreement that sets out, amongst other things, services that will be provided, payment fees and charges and notice and termination periods for the residency agreement. The Government recognises that care home fees can be high for independently funded supported people and that is why the free personal and nursing care rates have been increased by more than the inflationary measure for the last two years. We continue to work, yes indeed. Pam Duncan-Glancy. I thank the minister for taking an intervention on this point. Is the minister not aware that some of the reasons that care home costs are so high are because they have ancillary costs attached like the minister has just described, including rent? It is quite easy to subtract that from their usual bills. Minister. I am afraid that in the context of this amendment, I do not think that this amendment offers an easy way to disembagiwate those costs. We will continue to work with the UK Government to address the increasing energy costs that the sector is facing in order to mitigate any impact from that on increasing fees. Having said that, I am afraid that I must, if there is time for a final intervention. Alex Rowley. The real important point to bring in this amendment here is to raise the plight of those self-funders because one person wrote to me that their costs went up from 2669 to 2786 to 3221, all within the period of six months. Is the Government aware of the massive pressures that are being put on self-funders and the fact that they are the only people that seem to be asked to be paying the price because the Government and local authorities have not put up the costs for care home for people that are receiving state funding. It is simply these self-funders. Are you aware of that? The Government is, of course, aware of the impact of people in care homes and the issues that the member raises. I say again that I am afraid that those people go significantly beyond the issue of rented housing, which this bill seeks to address. I would suggest that the member engages in dialogue with the Minister for Social Care in order to address those issues further. I entirely respect the intention with which he has raised them, but they go beyond the purpose of this bill. I would urge the member not to move that amendment and, if he does, I must ask the chamber not to support it. I call on Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 4. It is my intention to press amendment 4 and ask members to support Willie Rennie's amendment 5. This is our one opportunity to try to remove the social rented sector from this bill, and members across the Parliament need to take that because the damage it will do, including them, and not seeing the future investment, which is so vitally needed for all our communities, is unacceptable. I hope that we will see them removed and members will consider that. I also will be moving amendment 23, but, given what the Minister has said with regard to amendment 26, I am happy not to move that one and take forward discussions, I hope, before stage 3 tomorrow. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The committee is not agreed. We will move to a vote and maybe we should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. There is some reason I do not be able to connect to the voting app that I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment 4 in the name of Miles Briggs is yes, 30, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Willie Rennie, already debated with amendment 4. Willie Rennie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, the committee is not agreed. We will move to a vote and maybe we should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Bob Doris. To the digital platform, I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Fiona Hyslop. My vote couldn't be cast. I would have voted no. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. Point of order, Liam McArthur. My app wasn't connected to the system either and I would have voted yes. Thank you. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 5 in the name of Willie Rennie is yes, 31, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 6 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 7 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 1. Mark Griffin to move or not move. Not moved. I apologise to you, convener, and the rest of the team that should have drawn members' attention to my register of interest as the owner of a rented property in North Anarchsford Council. I apologise for not doing so at the start of the debate. Thank you, Mr Griffin. We now move to the next group, Landlord Protection. I call amendment 8 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jeremy Balfour to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will not speak to amendments 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20. These amendments would allow the landlord to apply to the rent officer for a rent increase that would cover 100 per cent of any increased property cost. That will ensure that the tenants remain financially viable for the landlord and the increased costs associated to the property can be paid to ensure the on-going quality of the property. It will also have the positive effect of not making the tenant having to leave the property. As it stands, the Government has put in a figure of 50 per cent, but in my view, with the situation that we are over the next few months, that will still cause problems. That view was highlighted to me yesterday evening as I was going home on my bus. I was a bit surprised that one of my constituents had actually engaged and listened to the debates and decided to discuss it with me on my way home. Their example was this. They had a property here in Edinburgh that they had bought for relation with the mortgage. That relation has now died, so a tenant has gone into that property and is living there. However, the individual is not particularly well off. It is the mortgage and the other costs that the rent covers the person's mortgage. Without that rent, they cannot pay the mortgage and would then have to hand that back and sell the property. They are expecting, over the next couple of months, to see their mortgage go up. That will mean that, under the bill, they will have to apply... Minister. I wonder, as a number of members are already commenting, if the member would at least reflect and acknowledge what it is that is the cause of the increases that the member is referring to and where the political responsibility for those reckless choices lies. Jeremy Balfour. I do find this an interesting narrative coming from the Scottish Government. I was elected to this Parliament to represent my constituents and to make decisions. Mr Yousaf. Minister Yousaf. Minister Yousaf. I am happy to intervene to say that it is your constituents, my constituents, who are facing mortgage rises because of your party's economic vandalism. Through the chair, please, Mr Yousaf. No doubt the interest rates increases across Western Europe are what you do for Westminster as well. How many deniers? Let's listen to Mr Balfour. Thank you, convener. Can I come back to my constituents because, after all, they are here to represent them, not make cheap political points. My constituents have informed me, obviously the committee does not want to hear this, but my constituents informed me that any rise in mortgage, for whatever reason, will mean that they will have to go and use the section within the bill to show financial hardship and will have to then evict the tenant to sell the property. I suspect, and I haven't had several other emails as this debate has been going on this afternoon, from again constituents within Lothian, that they will not be the only one that does this. If the Government wants to carry on this policy, which, as we've heard from other parties, may well be challenged in court, and let's be honest, the Scottish Government getting bills legally right is not good. But if we are going to pursue this policy, let's at least protect the landlord from not having to sell property because of a financial situation that they have not created. We're not asking for profit, we're not asking that anyone goes and benefits financially from this, we are simply covering the cost. The Scottish Government cannot see that as a fair and reasonable thing to do. Mark Griffin. Jeremy Balfour makes the point that a landlord shouldn't face hardship because of costs outwith their control, and they should be allowed to then sell that property to recover those costs. Why should a tenant be made homeless by a landlord selling a property because of costs and things happening outwith their control? Jeremy Balfour. I don't think that we are members of respect, quite understand what we're trying to do. We're trying to stop that. We're trying to stop the tenant having to leave the property because the landlord simply can't afford to pay his or her mortgage. That is the situation that will happen because if that doesn't happen, the bank or building society will come and take the property off them. My constituents on the bus will then have a negative credit bearing and the tenant will still be evicted. It's a lose-lose situation. I believe that this is a reasonable amendment that will protect tenants and landlords for the next six to 18 months and will allow people to plan with certainty that they will not lose their property. For that reason, I ask the committee to support this amendment. Mark Griffin speaks to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. Groups 3, 4, 5 and 6 create a number of amendments that work across the groups that are linked together. The amendments in this group and the following groups ensure that exceptions related to substantial arrears in the financial hardship on part of landlords can only apply where a high test of financial hardship applies as a result of those substantial arrears. We are saying that landlords shouldn't just... We have a brief suspension while I check the papers here. Apologies to the committee and in particular to Mark Griffin. We tried to style it out, I thought, commendably. My mistake. I now call Murdo Fraser to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group. That is a perfect illustration of what happens when you try to rush legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny and consultation. Before I come to amendments in the group, I should remind members that that is my first contribution of my register of interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland and I have an interest in two properties that are let on a long-term basis. I have three amendments in this group. My amendments 28 and 29 cover essentially the same point. The bill, as it is presented, provides that in the private rented sector landlords are able to increase rents to cover up to 50 per cent of increased costs, for example, finance costs or insurance premiums increasing. However, that provision only applies to the private rented sector. It does not apply, as the bill stands, to the social rented sector. What my amendments 28 and 29 seek to do is extend that particular measure to also cover the social rented sector. We heard in the stage 1 debate yesterday, a number of members from all different political parties speaking about the importance of the social rented sector. I think that that is a view widely shared across the chamber. Therefore, I hope that there will be some sympathy for social landlords who will face similar pressures to private landlords in terms of increasing costs, whether that is in terms of finance or insurance premiums and elsewhere. Those two amendments from me seek to give social landlords that additional protection that already applies in the private rented sector. Amendment 29 is my preferred amendment. It provides that social landlords would have 100 per cent protection from increased costs, but an alternative that members might find more amenable is my amendment 28, which restricts that protection to 50 per cent in line with what is provided for private landlords. I would simply observe that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, in their briefing for the debate this afternoon, have expressed support for my amendment 28, and I would encourage members to listen to what they have to say on this particular point. My third amendment, amendment 30, deals with a slightly different point. The rent freeze that is encapsulated in this bill relates to any sums that are paid by the tenant to the landlord. In some tenancies, the cost of utilities, such as gas or electricity, will be charged separately and will therefore be caught by the rent freeze. As drafted in schedule 1 of the bill, the rent freeze would also apply to utility charges arising from the tenant's use, except where those are deemed to be excessive. Where a landlord sees a large increase in utility costs, as it stands, they are not permitted to pass that on to the tenant unless the tenant's use of these utilities is excessive. My difficulty with this, convener, is that we do not know what is meant in this bill by the word excessive. Perhaps the minister in responding can tell us what is an excessive use of utilities. There is nothing in the policy memorandum that indicates what that might be, the cost. Would it be 10 per cent above the norm, 50 per cent above the norm, 100 per cent above the norm? What is the definition of excessive? It does seem unreasonable that the landlord is not able to pass on any increase in utility costs except where it is excessive when we do not know what excessive means. My proposal is to remove the word excessive, which is not defined, and that ensures that the tenant who is using the utilities pays for the utilities and the tenant who is using the utilities is not billed to the landlord, which seems to me as what happens in terms of the bill as drafted. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Mr Greene. Thank you. I'll only speak to my own amendment, convener. I feel like the odd one out, because I've got no interest in declaring rental properties. Thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone. It seems to me the SMB benches have more of them than I do, but there you are. I'm not pointing at anyone. The third row up on the right. On a serious note, I do want to say that I do have an interest in the proceedings today. That interest is that my mother lives in a housing association home, and I have quite grave concerns about the state of it. The necessary upgrades that she and many of her neighbours and many in my community will need, particularly around issues around insulation, vital upgrades to their heating and windows and doors, all necessary upgrades which will help insulate the homes, make their heating costs lower and help our whole country meet our net zero targets. I think all of that is clearly at risk given how we've just voted on amendment 4, and the name of my colleague Miles Briggs who I commend for bringing that forward. Housing associations are on the record. We've all had correspondence from them, and I hope that we've all read them, are on the record as being explicitly clear about the risk to those vital upgrades and investments in current stock property, not new property in current stock. Much of it is old, ageing and dilapidating. I know that because I've seen the insides of many of them, as I'm sure we all have. I want to talk to my amendment 72 here, because it's based on the following quite simple assumptions. The first is that what the Government is doing today is seeking to use the law to cap the amount of rental income that a private landlord can charge. Two, many landlords not all will have used buy to let mortgages to fund the purchase of those properties. That is a fact. Three, there is often a very direct financial correlation between the amount of rent received from that rental property and the amount of the mortgage income. In fact, for many it's a simple pass-through between the rental income and the outgoings of the mortgage payment. There's not often or always even profit involved from any small landlords. Four, and this is the point of my amendment, is that if the rental income as a result of a cap that the Government has induced is less than the amount of the mortgage that is payable on that property, then I believe that that will cause financial issues for the property owner, potentially putting them at risk of defaulting on the debt and at worst case put the property itself at risk. Why? Because mortgages are contracts, big financial contracts between a borrower and a lender, and the borrower runs the very same risk as anyone else of falling foul of such a contract for non-payment or if they cannot afford to make the payments. In that exact circumstance you outlined, the real issue is section 24 of the 2015 Finance Bill in Westminster, which means that those costs can't be offset as a legitimate business expense. Perhaps you should clarify for everyone here. In other words, Westminster legislation has greatly contributed to that situation. I remind members to talk through the care. Jamie Greene. I'm not sure if I should declare her interest at the beginning of that intervention, but it's really scraping the barrel here. What we're talking about is her front bench introducing legislation, which is capping the amount of revenue that can be charged for a rental property at the same time that same landlord who may only have one property also has a mortgage to pay in that property. It's a direct correlation that's the correlation that I'm pointing to today, and that's the point of which my amendment is all about. If the member wants to listen carefully, I will share my philosophical view about this. If the Government introduces a policy that caps rental revenue, it should pay for it, not the wider public and certainly not those people who will be affected by the policy that they have to give away again. I just want to make sure that we're understanding this amendment and the purpose of it clearly. As we know, and it's been referred to by other members, the UK Tory government has literally trashed the economy. One of the results of that, as Jamie Greene knows, is a massive rise in interest rates, putting people's home at risk and putting up the mortgage costs of landlords, which is the point of his amendment, the cost to landlords. The Scottish Tories are now coming to this chamber with an amendment that wants to put Scotland's public finances in place to pay for that Tory incompetence by having to pay for any rise in interest rates for landlords' mortgages. That's what the amendment says. It wants a scheme to be set up using public money to pay for any increase in the interest rates for landlords' mortgages in order to cover that, which, of course, is directly related to the economic folly of the Tory government. I think that that is quite an incredible amendment for the Scottish Tories to come to this chamber with, and it would be good if Jamie Greene could clarify if that's exactly what his amendment is trying to do. There is an opportunity for any member who wishes to press their button to speak in this debate, so interventions should be interventions rather than speeches, Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. The member is welcome to participate in the debate in one second, colleague. The member is welcome to participate in the debate and not give lengthy grievance-rattled speeches about Westminster. Tory Governments, Tory this, Tory that. We've heard quite enough, Minister. We've heard quite enough. The point I'm making, and I'm happy to answer your question directly and then I'll take another intervention, is that this is this Government's policy to introduce a cap on the amount of revenue that can be gained from rent. It is this Government's policy for whatever the rights and wrongs of it and we can have a debate about that, but if that means that that puts the property at risk, which it very well may do, and I'm going to come on to the evidence based behind that in a second, if the minister wants to listen, then that is a problem. I'm simply saying that why should the public pay the price for that policy and not the Government because it is the Government's policy to induce that cap and not the publics. I'm happy to give way to Mr Briggs. I listened to the flawed logic of the cabinet secretary there. What she is basically saying also applies to the social rental sector. In other words, it is this SNP green Government which are trashing the social rental sector in Scotland. The sad truth, Mr Briggs, is that you are right. If we are in a scenario where, as a result of the cap, social housing providers cannot put the vital investment that they need into degrading housing stock on their heads, be it. We do know, Presiding Officer, that we could be in a situation where landlords simply cannot afford to pay their mortgages or other costs. There is some provision in the bill around that. I accept that, but I simply don't think it goes far enough. We don't want to see them getting into difficulties. What we certainly don't want, as a byproduct of legislation, is for the property market stock to reduce, because therein lies some real issues. That's a point that I think will be made over the course of the debate today. I also just want to close by just in the interest of time—we will be here all night—that I did get an email from a landlady in my region who wanted me to pass on the following to the Government. She said, I am a landlady with only one rental property, which is my only source of income. Not being able to put up the rent or, indeed, evict non-pairs could put me into a difficult situation or near bankruptcy, I'm already near that stage, she says. She wants me to make this point to the Government. Not all landlords are big portfolio owners. Not all landlords are big portfolio landlords with lots of money.  This blanket policy does not fairly consider the thousands of landlords across Scotland who also are struggling. She's absolutely right. Why are we not listening to them? Yes, happily. Jamie Greene makes an important point. It was absolutely for that reason about the landlady that Jamie Greene refers to that the safeguards are in this bill for that very scenario. I hope that he will reassure her that those safeguards are there for exactly that type of scenario, because that is important that we all reassure our constituents where we get the opportunity. I'm glad that the Minister mentions the safeguards. As far as I can see from section 33a, they are capped at 50 per cent of a rising cost, and the rent can only go up by a maximum of 3 per cent if I'm wrong on that, I'm happy to stand corrected. That's actually, for many, may not simply be enough, which is why my amendment still stands. All I would say in closing is that this is a choice of the Government's own path of choosing. As I said, whatever the rights and wrongs of it and people have different views on it, I'm simply saying they should pay for it. Or at least be honest with people and say to landlords, if you disagree with my amendment, be upfront and clear with them and say to them, we're asking you, in fact, we're expecting you to pay for our policy. Be honest and be upfront about that. That's all I have to say on the matter. Mark Griffin Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wasn't planning to speak in this group until you called me by surprise, but since the debate has continued in this way, I feel like I have to come to speak to amendment 72 in the name of Jamie Greene. I absolutely cannot believe that a Conservative MSP would table an amendment which would give public subsidy to a private landlord struggling with their mortgage, which is a direct fault of his Government. I cannot believe that, not at the moment, I cannot believe that the Conservative party's priority is to protect landlords from rising interest rates, but I have no plans whatsoever. I have put forward no proposals to support the many thousands of households, hundreds of thousands of households, who are paying the price for his Government's ineptitude in interest rates and mortgage rates skyrocketing. Clearly, this group has opened up the opportunity for some of the fundamental differences in approach that were debated yesterday again to be heard. It's obviously welcome to have that robust exchange of views. We have very divergent opinions. I suspect that it's very divergent opinions between the Conservatives and the rest of us in this chamber on the fundamentals, even if other colleagues may disagree on some of the details. I think that we're mostly on the same page on the fundamentals. In addressing all the amendments from Mr Balfour, I want to look back to some of the last comments from Mr Greene about balance. In crafting this bill, we have had to ensure that there is a balance of interests between landlords and tenants. That is the purpose of the package of safeguards that we built into this bill, precisely to recognise what Mr Greene says, that not all landlords are hugely wealthy, hugely profitable businesses with very extensive property portfolios. Some are, but some are the kind of person that Mr Greene describes. The package of safeguards in this bill is precisely designed to address that. Indeed, the Scottish Association of Landlords have recognised that. John Blackwood on the radio this morning said, We all support the idea that tenants do need protection, and he went on to say, certainly we do welcome the mitigations in the bill. On several occasions, Mr Blackwood has, outside of that interview, recognised the work that the Government has done to produce a balanced package. Indeed, if we hadn't produced a balanced package, we would not have been able to satisfy ourselves or satisfy the Presiding Officer that this bill is within competence. It has to achieve that balance in order to be within competence, and it does a giveaway. First of all, I thank the Minister for acknowledging that I bring forward the amendment in good faith as a result of the feedback that I am getting, but it is also recognised that the same John Blackwood also was explicitly clear that, with these challenges, some landlords will soon find themselves in financial difficulty and ultimately having to make that decision to take action by either selling the property or exiting the sector. That is surely something that none of us in the chamber want. We do not want to see that reduction in the private stock, because it is needed whether we like it or not. None of us want to see anybody in this country facing financial hardship, and I only wish that both Governments were acting with due regard to that risk. I will come on to Mr Greene's amendment, but I wanted to address those wider points about balance first of all, because they relate to Mr Balfour's amendments. I am speaking first of all to amendments 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20. Mr Balfour clearly once again sets out quite fairly, and it is within his right to do so that he is fundamentally against the measures in this bill. He does not support the measures that we are taking to protect tenants, but I urge him as well as others to recognise the comments that Scottish Association of Landlords have made about the balanced package of safeguards that exists. He is concerned about people facing costs outwith their control, but he seems only to be concerned about landlords facing costs outwith their control. I think that Mr Griffin was right to pick him up that we should be concerned about landlords and tenants. It is that balance that this 50 per cent figure seeks to recognise to ensure that, if there are increases in prescribed limited costs, there will be balance between landlord and tenant. Jeremy Balfour, did the minister concede and accept that if the landlord cannot pay his mortgage, the tenant is very likely to face eviction? That is not just about supporting the landlord. The consequence of the landlord not being able to pay a mortgage will be that the tenant will be evicted. Without getting into the politics of the reasons behind that rise in interest rates, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the majority of private rented tenancies in Scotland do not have a mortgage set behind them. Many of those who do will be on a fixed rate, which will not be due to change in the immediate period ahead. The approach that we have taken is, as I say, balanced and recognises that, where there are increased costs, there needs to be some degree of flexibility, but it needs to work in a way that is balanced. I turn to amendments 28, 29 and 30. In many ways, 28 and 29, in the first instance, will cut across the work that we and the social rented sector are committed to doing collectively and collaboratively through that short-life working group that I mentioned earlier. I get a sense that there is a real willingness to work in that collaborative spirit to ensure that there is a way forward that protects tenants as well as the providers of social housing. The amendments proposed at 28 and 29 would not be the way that the protection for the social rented sector would work. In fact, I think that it might undermine and pre-empt the work that we intend to do. We intend to take that forward with momentum. Amendment 30. In relation to student tenancies, it is important to recognise that they are structured differently. We have the desire to offer a parity of protection, but student tenancies often include energy costs. We have defined rent for the sector to make it clear that rent includes the sums payable in respective services, repairs, maintenance or insurance. Where utilities are included in the rent and a student makes excessive use of them, it is right and fair that an accommodation provider can seek recovery from the tenant where that tenancy allows it. Mr Fraser's amendment would create a loophole that would allow providers to circumvent the rent freeze by increasing the utility of the rent even if it is being used normally rather than excessively. In terms of the questions around definition that Mr Fraser raised, this is part of the contract. It would not be appropriate to apply a global definition of those issues within the legislation because it is provided for within individual contracts governing purpose-built student accommodation. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to the minister for the explanation that he has just given, but he has just said that it will be a matter for the contract. As he is saying, it is a matter therefore for the accommodation provider, the landlord and the university. There might be a private company that has developed student flats. For example, to specify what would be excessive use. If they said that it is 5 per cent above the trend, that would be acceptable. Minister. The existing contracts stand and generally speaking the existing contracts allow the providers to charge extra fees for excessive use and the provisions would be interpreted in that context. I will turn finally to amendment 72. Amendment 72, the cabinet secretary, was quite right to challenge the fundamentals, the idea that the public pass should pay for people's mortgage cost. Perhaps even the cabinet secretary was a little bit kind in this instance, referring to interest. Because the amendment from Jamie Greene, I am going to quote for it, Scottish ministers make a scheme or schemes for the making of payments to landlords who are able to demonstrate that their monthly mortgage payments exceed the rental income. So not just the interest, but the repayment mortgage payments would be covered by this amendment. What Mr Greene is arguing is that, while he says that those costs should not fall on the wider public, that is precisely who those costs would fall on. The Scottish Government holds the public purse. The Scottish Government holds money on behalf of the wider public and he is asking for that to be dipped into to repay the personal debt of landlords, not to service their interest payments but to service all of their monthly mortgage payments. The idea that we use public funds in that way is astonishing. It is astonishing from somebody on the right of the political spectrum. It is certainly astonishing to the rest of us. I think Mr Harvey fails to acknowledge or accept that this is his policy, this is his Government's policy to cap rents, to cap the amount that can be charged. I am simply making the point that that may be fine when those two numbers match, but when the payments by the landlord are higher than the cap that his Government have introduced, then it is his Government's policy which is undermining the borrower's ability to keep up those payments, and it is his Government's policy that I am asking him to pay for, not the wider public. I might take this argument seriously if it had come from the kind of tenants rights campaigner who would say that it was unacceptable at a time when mortgage payments were less than rental income, that that should be repaid to the tenant or repaid to the public pass. I do not think that is Mr Greene's position in relation to how private renting ought to work. The idea that we have public payment for people's repayment of people's mortgages in these circumstances is astonishing. We have seen unfunded tax cuts coming from the Conservative party recently, but the idea of unfunded repayment of landlords' mortgages is astonishing. Who would end up repaying? It would be those who benefit from the services that this Government would have to cut in order to fund this uncosted bill. Who should be paying for that? Should we pay for that by scrapping the Scottish child payment? Should we pay for it by scrapping free prescription charges? No. This Government has brought forward a balanced bill that reflects both the interests of tenants who need protection from rising rents in these difficult times and landlords, not all of whom are in the same circumstances. This bill is balanced already. This amendment would unbalance it fatally. I urge members to reject all the amendments in this group. Jeremy Balfour, to wind up, people restore amendment 8. I will be brief. In the last 20 to 30 minutes we have seen this bill simply collapse. We have seen it collapse by the Minister's intervention and his speech. Did you notice, convener, how often he meant, since the word, that this is legally competent? Let's wait and see a few months in regard to that. I have a lot of respect for Mark Griffin. I generally think that he is hopefully dismissing the point on this. The issue is that we are trying to protect the tenant from being evicted from their property. Without the 100 per cent guarantee for that, as my colleague Murdoff Fraser and Jamie Green have said, we will end up with more people being evicted from property. I wonder if the member thinks that reinstating universal credit cuts and operating benefits by inflation would do more to protect tenants from eviction than your lousy amendments? Through the chair, please. I think that Mr Doris would be better than Mark Griffin's intervention. I think that he might want to stand for the Westminster Parliament if he is so keen. We have a Scottish Parliament and we are doing this bill here today. Maybe he should concentrate on this bill rather than, if he wants to go to Westminster, go and do that. I think that what we have seen in regard to the responses to this amendment is political dogma over pragmatism. What we have seen today from the minister and the cabinet secretary is frankly a party that is happy to go with dogma even if it means that more people are homeless. That, my friends, is where this Government has got to today. I move amendment 8 in my name, convener. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed or we are agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members should vote now. That is the vote closed. The result on the vote on amendment 8 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 27, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 9 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? Not moved. That amendment is not moved. The question is that amendment 10 in the name of Pauline McNeill already debated with amendment 4. Pauline McNeill to move or not move? Not moved. That amendment is not moved. The question is that amendment 11 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 4. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move? Not moved. That amendment is not moved. I call amendment 12 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 8. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move? That amendment is not moved. If it would be helpful, amendment 13, 18, 19 and 20, I will not be moving. That may be helpful. Unfortunately, they are not in a row and therefore I am not able to take up your kind offer. That amendment is not moved. The question is amendment 13 be agreed. No, no. See what you have done now Jeremy Balfour. The question is amendment 13 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 8. Jeremy Balfour to move or not move? Not moved. yn y nifocl yw Willie Rennie oedd yn bwysig wedi'i gyfnod gyfer y Llywodraeth 4 a Llywodraeth 1 hwn yn ddod ddim wedi gwirioneddau cyhoedd. Mae'r cwestiynau yn ystod, i fynd i'r amvyn, 21, wrth gwrs, yn ddweud, ond mae'n gwneud cymdeithasol 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 a 27. Rwy'n gweithio, mae'n cwestiynau yn ddweud, 21, mae'n ddweud, roeddwn yn gweithio? Mae'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio, ond mae'n gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio, wrth gwrs, mae'n gweithio. Dwi'n ddweud arweithio, gwnaeth gael i chi'n ddweud. Rwy'n gweithio, mae'n ddweud ar y cymdeithasol 25, i'r byw yw Wili Wrenny, ond mae'n gweithio, ond mae'n gweithio, dwi'n ddu, nid o'r busen sy'r mogheil, ac mae'n gweithio yn direct gyrfaeth. Ieithio, yw ar y y deithasol 26, i fod yn mynd i ni, yn cyfrifiadau am yr amdiemlu 04. Yr dyma'r cymdeithasol three ryw fydd yn symud? Yr dyma'r cyfrifiad yn cyfrifiadu 25, i fod yn cyfrifiadau 57. I would move on now and I call the group operation of evictions moratorium. I call amendment 33 in the name of Murdo Fraser, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Murdo Fraser, to move amendment 33 and speak to all amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. I'll just speak to amendment 33. I'll others speak to their own amendments. Schedule 2 paragraph 1 deals with the issue of protection from evictions seeking to protect those who have evictions that have served on or after 6 September 2022. I understand why the Government has brought this particular measure in. I also understand why it has been backdated to 6 September, which was the day that the First Minister intimated that eviction ban would come in, and that has been introduced as an anti-avoidance measure. Subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 makes specific mention of eviction notices served on or after 6 September 2022 not being valid in effect because they are caught by the eviction ban. It is inferred in the bill. Therefore, eviction notices served before 6 September 2022 will not be caught by this. However, I think that it would be helpful if that was put upon the face of the bill. What my amendment 33 seeks to do is to make it explicit that any eviction notice served before 6 September will not be caught by the eviction ban, and that protects those who had to take action to remove tenants for various purposes, perhaps for a long period of non-payment of rent, perhaps for antisocial behaviour, perhaps for other purposes had to take action to remove a tenant before that date. It is very clear from the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, paragraph 42, that there is no intention that this bill should catch eviction notices prior to 6 September. Therefore, I would hope that this particular amendment would have the Government's support, and I move that amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Sorry, convener. I'm afraid that, once again, we're making bad law, by the way, that we're rushing this through all the stages of legislation today. I'm astonished that so few members in this place seem to read the business pages of any decent newspapers so that they could understand that interest rates are not simply rising here but across the entire advanced global economy. This amendment, which is number 34, and I also speak to number 44, is on the basis that I believe that universities should be able to evict students who have breached tenancy agreements. Tenancy agreements will often contain terms and conditions to ensure students aren't disruptive to others and aren't committing antisocial behaviour. University of Scotland has specifically made it clear that universities have to retain the power to remove students from accommodation, where they pose a risk, violent or sexual to other students. They highlighted this in their briefing as a particular problem in university halls. I wonder if the member might recognise that the briefing came before the bill was fully published. I recognise that, but nevertheless the briefing is still largely relevant, particularly in relation to this amendment, because the bill states that students can be evicted for a relevant conviction, which means an offence committed by using or allowing the use of the let property for an immoral or legal purpose or any offence which was punishable by prison. The bill defines antisocial behaviours doing something which causes or is likely to cause the other person alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance, but this may not cover all students who pose a risk to others. The reason that I am bringing this amendment is that I believe, as does University of Scotland, that it is necessary to give universities the power to evict students who pose a risk to others. That is a very reasonable and reasoned amendment. My amendment will simply allow institutions the ability to make judgments on evicting people from purpose-built student accommodation. For me, the amendment is primarily about trust, and it is about protection. It is about protection of young people, some of whom can be very vulnerable as they take their first tentative steps away from home. Maybe some of us in this chamber can still remember our own sense of vulnerability when we first went to university, probably the first time that we had stayed away from home on an extended basis. The other thing is, and I would be astonished if someone disagrees with this, Scotland's universities take their duty of care for their students very seriously. The uniqueness of purpose-built student accommodation should be recognised by the minister in the context of the amendment that I am proposing. If members think that universities do not move heaven and earth to protect their students, I would suggest that they spend some time with Scottish universities. There are members here who have had their entire political ambition shaped by their experience at university. This is an occasion that I hope I can say this with recognisable authenticity, for us to put down our megaphones and to rationally consider what this amendment does in terms of protecting students. The behaviour that is covered by the briefing that University Scotland has provided goes beyond the criminal and antisocial behaviour that is mentioned in the bill. I am also pretty sure that all of us, as members of Parliament, will have had the experience of dealing with cases where constituents have felt threatened by someone whose actions are not criminal but, nevertheless, pose a risk to others. This amendment is about risk and protection, and the universities in Scotland need to have the freedom to be able to evict people who are posing a risk to others. This happens now and is handled discreetly and with great care by university accommodation managers up and down the country. It is subtle and allows professional housing managers to take action to prevent problems before there is a criminal accusation, a criminal charge and a criminal conviction. This is sensible management. This is a sensible approach to often a very difficult and sensitive problem. What this bill does is remove the ability of those professionals to do their job in the interests of all of the students in their care. My amendment would put a reasonable and controlled amount of responsibility into the hands of those who are closest to the issues that I am describing that require sensitive management. I am very firmly of the view that this legislation that we are rushing through this Parliament this week is going to be a disaster in terms of increasing homelessness and in terms of choking off the supply of available property for accommodation for rent. However, let us put that aside for a minute. Threx, neighbourhood disputes, disruption, drug-taking, loud parties, abusive behaviour in our communities are a scourge, and they are responsible for so much misery. There is no need for that to be tolerated within the confines of purpose-built student accommodation. 700,000 of our fellow Scots report having been victims of antisocial behaviour in the past three years, according to the community safety group Resolve. To protect the minority of perpetrators, the Government seem to be prepared in the context of purpose-built student accommodation. The Government seem to be prepared to be content to leave the lives of the majority of students in halls miserable, because nothing can be done. It is imperative, convener, that we do not allow this to happen. It is imperative that we trust the professionals. It is imperative that we give them the power, the flexibility to run the institutions that they know best how to run, to protect the people that they know how best to protect. In discussing the amendment, it is simply a common-sense-based proposal that allows universities to operate without this restrictive and disproportionate piece of legislation that will restrain them and leave our young people without adequate protection. I will not surprise you that Mr Harvie and I do not agree on many things politically, but the one thing that we agree on, and I think that everyone in the chamber agrees on, is that we want as many homes as possible available for people to live in, and we do not want empty homes lying empty over a number of months. At this point, I declare that I am a member of the Church of Scotland. My amendments 35 and 40 would give churches that would give property tied to religious settings an exemption from this legislation. This is done purely on a pragmatic way. It was introduced previously by my colleague Murdo Fraser, and I am hoping maybe that the Scottish Government has time to reflect on that. Here is the practicality of where we are in Scotland today. There are many religious organisations, churches in particular, that have empty property because they do not have a minister or someone else to lead their particular denomination at this time. I will take the example of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland, at the moment, I understand, has a fairly well blanket on no church being able to call a minister. That means that if a church is vacant, it will remain vacant for the foreseeable future. That is an empty property that could be let out to somebody within that community. However, when that church is allowed to call a minister, it clearly needs that property back so that the minister can live there and then carry out his or her role within that community. What that allows is for the church to let out its property, but when a minister is called, that can then go back to the church. That would seem to me allowing over this particular winter period an opportunity for more homes to be used without the church never getting it back. I would be interested if the minister, if he speaks within this section, could tell me why that is a bad thing at all. I am grateful to Mr Raffer for giving way. He will recall that, as he acknowledged, I raised those issues in relation to the previous Covid bill legislation, which addressed similar points. At that point, I said that the concern here was that there would be an unintended consequence that churches would refuse to rent out empty mansas, which would then lie without anybody living in them. That is now happening as a consequence of that legislation. This is an opportunity to put that right and bring those properties back into use. I hope that the Government will take it. As always, I simply follow in the members' footsteps and, absolutely, he has got this right. As a former minister myself, I say that you do need somewhere to live when you are in that job. However, as somebody who recognises that there are empty homes at the moment, why not let them be left out? Why not help, particularly in areas where we need that housing? I would move on to amendments 36 and 54, in my name. That deals with another area that would allow individuals to release property, particularly over these winter months, and allow them to be used for local people. I am sure that we are all away that there are seasonal workers who will come on to agriculture and rural businesses to tidehousing, but we only need them in the spring and summer times. Often, they will then lie empty over the winter period because we only need them back for the next season. We are stopping local people within local communities being able to benefit from that housing even on a short-term basis. Again, I would generally welcome to know why the minister thinks that we should not be releasing these types of property on to the market. The reason why we are holding back is that we know from evidence that churches and other people in rural and agricultural areas are holding these properties back because they will need them at some point. Move away from dogma. Be pragmatic and support those amendments. I have a series of amendments in groups 4, 5 and 6. I lodged them to probe with the Government. I understand the minister's ambition to make sure that this legislation is balanced in terms of the right of landlords and of the tenant, but amendments in these three groups just gently probe as to whether the balance has gone slightly too far in favour of the landlord as opposed to the tenant. In particular, in this group, amendments 37, 38, 41 and 42, those ensure that exceptions related to substantial arrears and financial hardship on the part of the landlord can only apply when a high test of financial hardship applies as a direct result of those substantial arrears. The hardship reported must be as a result of the arrears experienced. Secondly, I wanted to come on to the level of arrears. Moratorium on evictions is what we are legislating for, and exceptions for substantial arrears provide, I feel, too wide an exemption for that moratorium. Hence, those amendments remove that exception entirely. Regarding the social sector, Shelter advised that the average arrears for evicted tenants in 2019-20 was around £9,000. In context, the bill sets the thresholds far too low, I feel, to be considered a substantial level of just over £2,000. Due to town constraints, what the substantial rent arrears definition has been removed from the list of exemptions, but the detail still is retained in the bill and is my intention to come back at stage 3, but I ask members to support the amendments in my name in this group. My amendment 39 is in relation to landlords having the right to decan to evict tenants. In the case of essential work in demolition, which I think is something that has not been discussed, essential work, such as the removal of asbestos, can be dangerous to occupants. Therefore, we believe that landlords should be able to decan tenants from properties that are undergoing essential maintenance. Furthermore, landlords should also be able to evict tenants when buildings are to be demolished. Demolition could occur because the property is too old on safe for occupants. Therefore, we try to put the amendment forward to look towards keeping tenants safe. My second amendment with regard to amendment 43 is in relation to landlords having the right to evict unlawful occupants. An unlawful occupier is a person who lives in a property without the consent of the homeowner. That could include people who were not initially agreed upon when the lease was signed, therefore landlords should have the right to evict. A landlord is unable to charge those occupants rent, as they are not the tenant. If the landlord is unable to evict, then, due to the moratorium, it would represent a significant financial loss. That ground is already used commonly to evict tenants who have ended their tenancy, but where the tenant has not notified the landlord and then not moved out. I hope that the Government will consider those in the light that we have brought them forward as workable amendments. I would like to draw amendment 39 first of all, which Miles Briggs spoke to a moment ago, which exempts demolition of or substantial work on property within the social rented sector from the moratorium on evictions. We are keen to ensure that tenants are protected from eviction, but we recognise that being able to refurbish large accommodation will help many tenants, and we would expect tenants in these circumstances to be supported through that process, including being provided with alternative accommodations. Amendment 39 is one that we intend to support. I thank Miles Briggs for bringing it and encouraging Parliament to vote for it. In terms of some of the other amendments in this group, some are attempting to reduce the protection for tenants by increasing the exemptions from the moratorium, and others are attempting to remove some of the safeguards that we believe are needed, in particular, around substantial rent arrears. Again, we come back to this theme, which has come out of several of the groups around balance. We need a bill that achieves the level of protection that tenants need, but also has safeguards within it. We believe that the bill as presented achieves that, and we will not be supporting the other amendments in this group. Some of them, which seek to increase the exemptions from the moratorium and therefore reduce the level of protection, seem to be predicated on the idea that the Government is holding properties back from rent. That is very clearly not the case. It would be possible for us to remove all tenants' rights and protections altogether, and that would work in the interests of those who want to become landlords but have complete flexibility working on their side. That would not be appropriate. All organisations that seek to become landlords have to accept that tenants who are moving into those properties become their home, and that home needs to be respected. Their rights and security at home need to be respected. I give way. I accept that it is not something that he wants, but that it is happening, is that people are holding back property that could be used. I accept that it is an unforeseen circumstance, but that has been shown that what has happened in the last few months is that people are not putting property on the market, which could be used because they are not getting the fear that they will not get the property back. It is not better to have someone in a home, even for a short period of time, rather than having them homeless. The problem of empty homes has been one that has existed for a long time and successive Governments, not just this Government but previous Governments, including the Labour Lib Dem Administration, have continued to increase the effort that is being put into bringing empty homes into use. There is always going to be work to do, and I am sure that there is more that we can do to create the right incentives for empty homes to be brought into use, but I do not think that that should be achieved by reducing the protection of tenants for whom those properties would become home. In the case of amendments 37, 38, 41 and 42, which attempt to remove or weaken some of the safeguards that are needed around substantial rent arrears, I recognise that the provisions on rent arrears are one of the controversial areas. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I thought long and hard about how and whether we present those measures as part of the package of safeguards. I believe that the support that tenants facing rent arrears and substantial rent arrears really need is not necessarily the same as the support in other areas. It is direct support, and that is coming through discretionary housing payments, and that is coming through the tenant grant fund, and it is coming through the work that we are doing to raise awareness of tenants' rights and make sure that people are able to exercise those rights. I do think that those particular amendments would weaken the package of safeguards to the point of not having a bill that strikes the appropriate balance. I will be coming on to Mr Kerr's amendment in a moment, but if he wants me to give way first. In relation to amendment 44, I will give way. Bob Doris. I was just on the level reached at for rent arrears by which evictions could potentially still proceed. Can I just get some assurance that that won't undermine the other protections that exist for tenants through pre-action protocols and pre-action requirements in the case that we still have to appear in court, and if the landlord was not seen as being reasonable it would be thrown out by a court. Minister. Yes indeed. The measures on pre-action protocols, which have been a requirement in the social rented sector for a long time, and earlier this year the Parliament agreed to make those permanent measures in relation to the private rented sector, that will not be bypassed in any way, and indeed if an eviction measure goes to the tribunal, the requirement to take all circumstances into account and the test of reasonableness is still very important. In relation to amendment 44, if this was accepted, evictions could still go ahead as they do now, negating the point of including college university halls of residence and purpose built student accommodation within the moratorium. It also places a new duty on the first year tribunal to consider whether a student tenancy has failed to comply with the tenancy agreement and determined whether it's reasonable. Not only would that have an impact on the workload and the costs of the tribunal, but it would represent a new type of tenancy agreement for them to consider. Mr Kerr quite rightly says that universities have a serious responsibility at a duty of care, and they do take that responsibility seriously, including in situations where one student may pose a risk to others. However, moving to eviction is a very serious measure, and it requires a high bar of evidence around that risk. Mr Kerr's amendment gives me serious concern that any breach in the tenancy agreement—even a very minor breach in the tenancy agreement—could be used if we accepted the amendment that the most minor breach could in theory be used. Even though that test of reasonableness would be applied if the case reached the tribunal, students in that situation would not have the security of knowing that, if they breached their tenancy in any very minor way, they would not have the security of knowing that they couldn't be evicted. Stephen Kerr? Thank you. If the minister is concerned about the scope of this measure in relation to the way it's been written, will he work with me in order to tighten it up so that the way that I've described it in my remarks to support the amendment that that objective is satisfied? Would he be willing to work with me in order to achieve that? I think that this is a worthwhile thing to work together on. I would say that I'm not currently persuaded that the concerns that Mr Kerr outlines are need a requirement to change the bill, but I'm content to have my officials contact him and explore what other approaches might be viable to meet his concerns. I don't believe that those concerns are validated at the moment in terms of the bill as we have it, but I'm perfectly content to have that discussion between my office and his before the amendment deadline for stage 3. Stephen Kerr? Of course I would be happy to engage with his officials, but surely the minister accepts that University of Scotland do know what they're talking about, and when they are focusing on this sort of an amendment, then that does add weight to the importance of it. They're the ones that have been dealing and constantly dealing with these issues in purpose-built student accommodation. I hope that he would accept that. Minister. Well, I think it was Mr Fitzpatrick who may have mentioned that the briefing came out before they had seen the text of the bill. As I say, I'm not persuaded at the moment that there is a serious issue here that requires the amendment to the bill, but I'm happy to have my office and Mr Kerr communicate about that and explore whether any change might be justified before the stage 3 amendment deadline. Having said that, I would remind the chamber that I would urge members to support amendment 39 but will not be supporting the other amendments in this group. Thank you, minister.  Thank you, Presiding Officer. I didn't actually hear any comment from the minister on amendment 33, so I'm not entirely clear if there's any particular reason why the Government is not supporting it. If Mr Howie would like to intervene on me, I'd be happy to take an intervention. Minister. I'm happy to intervene. My general comment that some of the amendments we're seeking to weaken or undermine the protections against evictions are not amendments that we would support. Other amendments are seeking to undermine the safeguards, and we don't support those either. Frankly, it doesn't seem to understand his own bill, Presiding Officer, because my amendment does none of those things. It simply seeks to clarify on the face of the bill that the eviction ban will not apply to notice this served before 6 September 2022. It's very clear from the policy memorandum that that is in line with the Government's stated intent. I'm really surprised that the minister is claiming that it means something else entirely. I'm totally confused by that, so I will press that particular amendment. I would just say briefly in relation to other matters that I welcome the fact that the Government will support my colleague Miles Briggs's amendment 39. In relation to amendment 35, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, I think that Mr Balfour made a very strong case there. Like Mr Balfour, I'm a member of the Church of Scotland. I'm aware that there are Church of Scotland properties currently lying empty that are not being offered up for rent, and will not be offered up for rent, because if the concern that the church has, if they offer them for rent, they will not be able to resume possession should they be required for the purposes of hosting a minister or a pastoral worker. The minister said in response to Mr Balfour that properties are not being held back. That is simply not true. The minister hasn't done his homework. He hasn't engaged with stakeholders. He hasn't listened to those who have an interest in this particular field. If he had, he would know that he is talking balderdash in this chamber. It is not true that properties are not being held back. All he has to do is pick up the phone to the Church of Scotland or any other church, and he will hear the truth. He needs to start doing the work as a minister and stop being so lazy. Shocking. Okay. Excuse me. Hello. Could we not have set entry conversations across the chamber, please? The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and therefore will move to a division. Okay. The vote is now closed. Members, could I call you all to order, please? That includes every member in the chamber. The result of the vote on amendment number 33 in the name of Murdo Fraser is yes, 31, no, 81. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 34 in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 33, Stephen Kerr, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and there will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 34 in the name of Stephen Kerr is yes, 29, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 35 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 33, Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Rose McAll. Yeah. My apologies. My vote didn't go through. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms McAll. That will be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 35 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 29, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 36 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 33, Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 36 in the name of Jeremy Balfour is yes, 28, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 37 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 33. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 37 in the name of Mark Griffin is yes, 19, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 33. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. I call amendment 39 in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 33. Miles Briggs, to move or not move. This might represent the most important part of my work this week. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of Jeremy Balfour, already debated with amendment 33. Jeremy Balfour, to move or not move. I call amendment 41 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 33. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. I call amendment 42 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 33. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. I call amendment 43 in the name of Miles Briggs, mysbriggs... Y cwestiy навodyleremiah 43 yw'r aeddyliaw ein gweithio'r holydydSonol, da, dweud y flyny o le, rydyn ichon cyfodol mae y termogol d talking hwn. Felly, sut gofyn, hynny'ya gymuned ben o Könthraff yn y mae'r cyllys yng Nghymru? four in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 33, Stephen Kerr to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, there will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote in amendment number 44 in the name of Stephen Kerr is yes 29, no 86. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move on to the next group, which is safeguards for landlords financial hardship. I call amendment 45 in the name of Pauline McNeill, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings and Pauline McNeill to move amendment 45 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Ms McNeill. Thank you very much. I speak to amendments 45, 50, 56, 58, 65 and 66 in my name, and they are all related, the right to apply for a wrongful termination order. So these amendments seek to flag that a tenant can apply for a wrongful termination order if a landlord fails to take up the occupancy of the property. So if you look at the bill as drafted, if you look at the first section it deals with landlords to intend to sell the property, but I'm dealing with the second half of that, so paragraph 4 is in the eviction ground that the landlord tends to live in the property to alleviate financial hardship, the suffering hardship tends to alleviate that hardship by occupying the let property as a landlord's only or principal home, nothing wrong with that. I have had many cases under current housing law, in which there are 17 grounds for eviction and I have seen many cases where the landlord says you are being evicted because I intend or my family intends to move into that property. Now I appreciate that this provision is narrower than that. However, I want to seek to probe this question because there's nothing here which provides that there's any evidence that the landlord has moved into the property. Now can I say for the purposes of probing this, I've come up with this suggestion, which could be three months of council tax which we'd expect to pay if you're actually living in the property. I think it's important when we're doing, especially because it's emergency legislation, it is quite rushed to make sure that we haven't left any loopholes in relation to this, although you may think that these cases are few and far between and it may be that you think you can't resolve it because the tenant is already evicted, but I would say that these amendments seek to discourage landlords who decide to use financial hardship for the grounds for eviction to say that they need to move into the property that they're renting out to evict a tenant but subsequently do not move into that property and a new tenant moves in. As I say on the basis of constituency cases, which I dealt with at the beginning of the pandemic, where there were many people who had to move out of their property just simply because of a statement made by the landlord, I'd like this property, thank you very much. All I'm seeking to do is to flush out Erion landlords who may seek to do that, and I realise that it might be a tiny minority, but if we're doing this legislation properly, I'd like to probe that issue, thank you. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group. Mr Griffin. This group again continues on the theme that I feel in the Government trying to strike a balance between landlords and tenants so as to not face challenge that they've perhaps gone a bit too far in the balancing of rights toward the landlord rather than the tenants. Those amendments in my name in this group say that a tenant should not lose their home because a landlord intends to sell or live in the property if they have no cause in the financial hardship of the landlord. It doesn't seem fair to me that a tenant should be forced out of a home through no fault of their own. That would mean that the exception can only be used where keeping a tenant who had been building up in arrears in the house until the, if they continue to build arrears up until the end of the eviction ban would then cause the landlord's significant financial hardship that that should be allowed. In saying that, it would only be fair that that exception could be applied if the hardship was called directly by the tenant themselves. Also, as an additional burden on the landlord's amendment set out that they must provide the tribunal with an affidavit of their intention to sell or live in the property, as well as evidence of their undertakings to sell and the confirmation from a financial or money advisor or chartered accountant. Again, it feels that perhaps we have gone too far in terms of the balance between landlords and tenants and those amendments trying to pull that back more in favour of the tenant. I can only accept one amendment in this group, but there are a number of other amendments in the group in which I am sympathetic to the intention but can't sit and offer the opportunity to work with colleagues. Amendment 45, I can confirm that the existing protections against wrongful termination will apply to the emergency measures. Given that, I do not believe that this amendment is required. Amendment 46 seeks to link the definition of financial hardship to substantial rent arrears. Mark Griffin sets out some of the reasons why he thinks that that is justified. It is clear, though, that financial hardship can arise as a result of other factors that are also outwith the landlord's control. In order to strike that balance, we believe that we have to recognise that a landlord who may have lost a job or a separate business has failed and they have ended up with debts that are unmanageable may need to take action, not because of factors within their control, but also not because of factors within the tenant's control but because they have the prospect of financial hardship and the only option that they may have is to sell or move into a property. In order to meet the test of proportionality and balance, we believe that we have that right and we don't think that it would be appropriate to link the definition of hardship to the rent arrears. Amendment 47, 49, 55 and 64 all seek to require landlords who are seeking an eviction on the basis of one of those new grounds of financial hardship to provide specific types of information to the tribunal to evidence their hardship. Landlords must evidence that hardship, but the information that is required will depend on the circumstances of each case and the tribunal is best placed to determine what specific information they see as necessary to determine whether the landlord is in financial hardship. I don't think it's appropriate therefore for us to mandate the specific information outlined by the amendment, but there are of course good examples in the amendment of the information that the tribunal may wish to request, so while I can't support this amendment today, I have spoken to the member and I hope to be able to be in a position to support amendments addressing this at stage 3. I am pleased to support amendment 48, as this includes an affidavit from landlords that they intend to live in the let property as examples of the evidence that could be provided to the tribunal as part of an eviction case. Amendments 50, 56 and 65 all seek to require landlords to provide three months' worth of council tax statements to evidence that they have moved into the property that has been repossessed. Those two seek to address an area that I am also concerned about, however, the tribunal does not have a role in ensuring that a landlord has moved into the property except where a tenant makes a wrongful termination application. It's therefore not appropriate to require landlords to provide this information to the tribunal and I can't accept these amendments. Amendments 53, 57, 62 and 63 all seek to require the first-year tribunal to consider whether the tenant has been informed about all the support before being granted an application for eviction. I agree that this is vital support for tenants, but the pre-action protocols for rent arrears that we made a permanent requirement during the Covid recovery bill already ensure that landlords are required to do this. The extent to which the landlord has complied will be taken into account by the tribunal when they determine whether it is reasonable to grant an eviction. I therefore don't support this amendment. Amendment 58 aims to ensure that a wrongful termination in relation to where a landlord fails to live in the let property would be considered an unlawful eviction. Unlawful eviction requirements provide protection for tenants where a landlord has not used the correct legal processes to end a tenancy. However, wrongful termination applies where they have used the correct legal process but have misled the tenant and the tribunal into ordering an eviction. I don't believe that it's appropriate to combine those two separate processes. Amendment 66 creates an offence where a landlord repossesses a property under the 1984 act but then fails to move into the property. Again, while I'm sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, it would not be appropriate to create a new criminal offence through temporary legislation. In addition, there are existing protections, both criminal and civil, for these circumstances, so I can't support this amendment. Amendment 67 again links substantial rent arrears to financial hardship and, as I said, in relation to amendment 46. That would substantially reduce the safeguards that are part of the balanced package that we're presenting today and I therefore can't support that amendment. So, in summary, convener, I do support amendment 48 but not the others in this group.  Thank you, Presiding Officer. I had wanted to intervene in the minutes you may have heard me in relation to his statement that in relation to amendment 45 that existing protections will apply but he didn't say what they were. I'm not clear what those protections are because I don't think I'm the only member who's had cases where the landlord provided that hardship test. I'm not talking about the hardship test. What I'm talking about is the statement that the landlord then requires it to live in the property. It will never be tested and I don't really understand in a layperson's terms what the difference is between wrongful termination and an unlawful conviction, because if you wrongly terminate the contract because you see you're going to move into the property and you don't do it, surely that must be unlawful. Andy Wightman, who brought to the chamber in the last discussion that we had about evictions during the coronavirus, said that there are 17 grounds and it is relatively easy provided in this legislation that you pass the hardship test to see you're moving into the property and you don't. I have to express a bit of disappointment that that point is not taken on board by ministers. I would probably have guessed what you would say about the remainder of the amendments that I openly said. I'm not suggesting that my amendments are the best way forward in order for the landlord to poop, but I stand by what I'm saying today and that is that, as the law stands, it's quite easy for landlords, passing the first test, to see they're moving into property and no one will ever check if they've done that. Unfortunately, the poor tenant is already out of the property. I don't know if you want to come back. Minister? I don't disagree for a moment and I hope that my remarks recognise the substance of the issues that Pauline McNeill is raising. I don't disagree for a moment that there are substantial issues here. I suspect that those are best addressed in the longer-term review of the repossession grounds, which the Government is already committed to in terms of making permanent change to the law. I don't think that it's best addressed through these temporary measures in relation to emergency legislation. I'd be very happy to make sure that officials get in touch after we've finished with this legislation with Pauline McNeill and other colleagues to make sure that our longer-term work is well informed by the concerns that she raises, and, like other members, I recognise some of those issues through my local postbag as well, and I suspect that there's great scope for working together on some of that longer-term work on this, but I don't think that the emergency legislation is the right place for it. Pauline McNeill? I thank the minister for that answer and I accept that there are wider reforms needed, but I do want to get the substantive point on the agenda now, albeit for—I'm going to push amendment 45 for that reason, but I will indicate that I will not be moving the other amendments when you come to ask me. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms McNeill. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed that there will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 45 in the name of Pauline McNeill is, yes, 21, no, 90. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 45. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed that there will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 46 in the name of Mark Griffin is, yes, 19, no, 96. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 47 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 45. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Unlike the minister's comments, not moved. Not moved. I now call amendment 48 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 45. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. We are not all agreed, beg your pardon, and therefore there will be a division. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 48 in the name of Mark Griffin is, yes, 85, no, 29. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 49 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 45. Mark Griffin, to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 50 in the name of Pauline McNeill, already debated with amendment 45. Pauline McNeill, to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. We will now move on to the next group, which is safeguards for landlord's substantial rent arrears. I call amendment 51 in the name of Mark Griffin, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Mark Griffin, to move amendment 51 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Mr Griffin. Thank you, Premier. This is the third grouping where, again, I've lodged amendments to attempt to rebalance rights more in favour of the tenant than the landlord. The first example of that is the amendments 53 and others that are similar to state that a landlord must show that they have taken all steps 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 feel that that's a sensible measure that, before the substantial rent arrears ground would be granted that a landlord has done all he can to point their tenant towards the support packages that are out there to alleviate the burden of those arrears, both on tenant debt and also a landlord. Again, I think that the hardship test should also be linked to the result of the arrears, as a result of arrears from that particular property. So, again, don't feel it's fair for a tenant to be evicted as a result of financial forces elsewhere and that a landlord should have to prove that the hardship that they experience is a direct result from their arrears built up through that tendency and ask members to support all amendments in this group in my name. I now call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 52 and other amendments in the group. Before I speak on amendments 52, 61 and 68, I'd like to correct an error I made earlier this afternoon by chiding the minister for not understanding that a PRT was not for a fixed term. It is actually for an undefined period. That was actually in result to a comment that Ms McNeill made. I thought it was made by the minister. The minister, however, did not correct her, which gives me some concern, but he set my apologies for... No, it is a substantial point. And when you're wrong, I always think it's worth admitting it. So, the amendments that I... Sorry, is somebody trying to make a point of order? No. Mr Mountain, would you like to continue? Sorry, Presiding Officer. I couldn't hear what was being said. I want to speak to amendment 52, 61 and 68 and these relate to the period of time where substantial rent arrears could occur. Currently in the legislation, it is six months and I'm suggesting it is three months. Now, I'd like to make clear why I'm doing this. First of all, there seems to have been a conception pedal that all landlords are bad landlords. That is not the case. Most landlords are struggling to let their properties and want to do it at a fair rate. And you should bear... Yes, of course, minister. Minister, I'm grateful to the member for giving way. I wonder if he could just point to who it is during any of our debates or scrutiny on this Bill who has said what he's just accused people of saying. Will he recognise that the Government's position consistently is to recognise that not all landlords are in the same financial circumstances and that it's a minority of landlords who behave in abusive or exploitative ways? Edward Mountain. And I thank the minister for that helpful clarification of the Government's position. And it dispels some of the comments that have been made by other people. And I would say not him or the Government. Now, what I would like to say is that landlords struggle to keep their properties let. And the reason for doing that is they want continuation of a tenancy because every time a tenant moves out of the property, there are costs incurred. For example, carrying out an inventory, pat testing, gas testing to name but a few, advertising the property. And those costs could be in excess of £800 per property. Now, that's an interesting figure because that figure relates and correlates to the figure that is in the financial memorandum with this Bill which says that the average rent for properties in Scotland is about £780 in the region of £780. Now, that's an interesting figure as well. Because if you take that as a figure and say that rent arrears for three months would equate to over £2,000, rent arrears for over four months would be £4,000. If you then allow those rent arrears to build up, you are building up a problem for the tenant because they will have to repay that. And my concern is that the longer that takes to come to a definition or a conclusion, the tenant's bills could be struggling or he or she could be struggling further. So, therefore, addressing the problem at the three months actually might not be a silly thing to do. It gives a chance for the tenant and the landlord to get together to try and find a solution. Because the problem with going with a first tier tribunal, evidence that's been given to me today suggests that it is six to nine months in Glasgow. Could mean that by the time that if it is six months as proposed under this legislation, it could be 15 months before the problem is resolved. Now, if you repay the rent arrears at £50 a month, which seems to be a reasonable period, that means that the tenant could be paying those £50 a month for over 15 years. That's an incredibly long period of time and that causes me concern. I also would suggest that the longer the tenant is in arrears, the more difficult it is for the landlord to make the improvements. I've made this argument earlier during the course of this debate. We all have an obligation to ensure that properties are properly insulated and costs are kept down. To give the Minister an idea, I'm sure he knows these figures, replacing a boiler's probably about £4,000 on an average house. Double glazing could be in the region of a normal house of £6,000 to £7,000. An insulation just for the house alone without including the floor could, by the time you redecorate it, be in the region of £15,000. So every time the landlord loses money, we are delaying the point to net zero. Now, I would also say I've made the point, I think, about landlords working with tenants. There's been no mention or no acknowledgement of the important part that the landlord's registration plays at local government level. So landlords that don't measure up, landlords tha