 Oes i chi mwynhau cymdeithasidd yw'r dweud o'r num Trickster 15365 yma yw dechrau i Margaret Burgess i ddweudio y Maeswn Cymru i ddweudio y Cymru? Yn ni'n ddweud, wrth gwrs, rwy'n credu'r cyd-dweud i ddweudio i ddweudio yma i ddweudio yma, a mi ddweudio i ddweudio y Maeswn Cymru i ddweudio yma, gael i ddweudio gyda'r ddweud i ddweudio panel on the principles of the private housing Tainincy Scotland Bill. I want to start by thanking the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and the stage 1 report on it. The committee published a report the past week, and I welcome their support for the general principles of the bill and for the Scottish Government's intention to create a clearer and simpler Tainincy regime for the modern private rented sector, I would also like to thank the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of the bill and for their contribution to the lead committee's scrutiny of it. I am grateful to stakeholders and members of the public for their response to the Scottish Government's consultations, which helped to shape the policy content of the bill and to those stakeholders who gave their considered views to the committee. The bill's main purpose is to introduce a new private residential tenancy, which will improve security and provide rent predictability for tenants, while providing proper safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. This is necessary as the private rented sector now plays a vital role in meeting Scotland's housing needs. It has more than doubled in size in recent years and is now home to around 700,000 tenants. We need a tenancy that reflects this change, is easy to use and that works in today's private rented sector. This Government recognised this when we published our strategy for the sector in 2013, which was the first strategy for private renting in Scotland and was developed in partnership with stakeholders. As part of that strategy, we have already undertaken a range of actions to improve private renting. Those include clarifying the existing law and the charging of premium fees so that tenants cannot be charged for getting a tenancy, setting up the tenancy deposit schemes in Scotland to protect tenants' deposits, legislating to create a new tribunal for private renting and legislating to regulate the letting agent industry and providing local authorities with additional enhanced powers to tackle bad practice where that occurs. To deliver better quality, more professional sector than we want to achieve, we need to do more than this. We need to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants to one that is fairer and that works in today's private rented sector. The new tenancy will be an open-ended tenancy. Tenants will no longer be asked to leave their home simply because the fixed term of the lease has ended. Instead, landlords will use new grounds for repossession, which cover all the reasonable circumstances that they would need. In addition to that, the bill also includes provisions to make rents more predictable, with adjudication provided where individual rent increases take a tenants' rent beyond the local market rate. Local authorities will also be able to apply for rent pressures' own designation, where rent increases in a local area are having a detrimental impact on tenants and on housing. I believe that the new tenancy and provisions on rents will provide a step change in improving the quality of private renting by changing that relationship. I'll take an intervention. I gave some questions during evidence about the rent pressure zone. The minister is aware that the rent increase would be limited to CPI plus 1 per cent, but the minister is aware that CPI does not reflect housing costs. Is that not a bit of anormally? Before you reply, I'm going to ask if we could have a sound check in the chamber, because I think that members are finding it difficult to hear some of the member's contributions, but please continue in the meantime. In relation to the intervention, it is absolutely correct that the points were raised by David Stewart during the scrutiny when I attended the bill. It is something that we are looking at. I think that he has made a point that, in the committee, he has also alluded to that in his report. As I said earlier, we were considering carefully the stage 1 report, and we will come back to that prior to stage 2, but, yes, it is something that I am looking at. We use the CPI because it is a national statistic. It is generally used in terms of recording, but we are looking at what was said during that stage of the debate, and we will come back to that. As I said, the new tenancy and the provisions on rents will provide the step change in improving the quality of private renting by changing that relationship. That is not just my belief. The Scottish Association of Landlords is supportive of the principle and need for this legislation. Crisis strongly welcomes the bill and Shelter Scotland has given its full support for the core principles of the bill. I recognise that landlords must also have confidence in their ability to effectively manage and regain possession of their property. If they do not have that confidence, there is a risk that some could leave the sector, and that is something that we do not want. That is why it is so important to ensure that the grounds for repossession will cover all the reasonable circumstances that landlords might need to recover their property. We have considered the grounds carefully, including whether the grounds should be mandatory or discretionary, and, as part of our consultation, we have increased the number of grounds from 8 to 16. It should be remembered, however, that in most cases it is tenants who end the tenancy. That is what happens now under the current tenancy, and I would expect that to continue. However, where a landlord brings a tenancy to an end—this is disputed—then the application will need to be made to the new first-tier tribunal, which will provide a more accessible, specialist form of redress. I want to make absolutely clear that landlords will need to provide evidence in support of an application, whether the ground is mandatory or discretionary. Where a ground is mandatory, the tribunal will still need to establish whether that ground has been met before it can grant an order for eviction. Sanctions will apply if a landlord misleads a tenant into leaving their home, or if a landlord misleads the first-tier tribunal into issuing an eviction order. Some of those are set out in the bill as they are specific to the new tenancy, but criminal sanctions such as for illegal eviction will also continue to apply. The Government will ensure that tenants are made fully aware of their rights. For instance, we will include information about tenants' rights and where to seek advice in the notices that the bill prescribes to the new tenancy. The new tenancy will sit alongside the other work that we are doing to improve enforcement in the sector. We will be publishing new statutory guidance for local authorities on landlord registration to deliver tougher, more targeted enforcement, and we will continue to work with our partners COSLA and local authorities to ensure that the PRS is regulated effectively and robustly. The committee's report contains a number of detailed recommendations and comments and calls on the Government to consider and respond to those during the later stages of the bill's parliamentary scrutiny. We are still reflecting on those at present, as I said, in response to David Stewart. I will set out our position in each of them in response to the report before stage 2. I want to take this opportunity to briefly touch on one of the recommendations made by the committee. The student sector featured heavily in the evidence presented to the committee, and I note the committee's recommendation that we consider options for enabling tenancies to be set for agreed terms in purpose-built student accommodation. As I said earlier, we are still reflecting on all of the report's recommendations, and I am happy to give the issue further consideration. However, I want to be clear that what we are proposing is an open-ended tenancy that should apply to all tenants in the sector. In the bill, as it stands, students who rent privately will still be able to end a tenancy after nine months if they choose to do this, and landlords will still be able to advertise their property well in advance if a tenant has already given their notice to leave. The bill sets out a minimum period for that, but there is nothing to stop that notice being provided earlier. That is about landlords and tenants communicating and engaging with each other. A tenant can give notice as early on as they wish that they only want to be there for a specific term, which will allow landlords to advertise their property, whether it be for holiday lets, festival lets or whatever. It is a different way of working that they will have to get used to, but there is nothing in the bill that will prevent that. The Government has undertaken extensive consultation and carefully developed this policy to make sure that we get the balance right. It is very much about getting that balance right. We have heard from some landlord organisations that we are taking it far too far, and from other organisations we are not taking it far enough, but we think that we have got the balance right. We want to create a better, more professional, private rented sector, and a new private residential tenancy that is set out in the bill. It is key to achieving that. I now call on Jimmy Dacus to speak on behalf of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. I am delighted to be able to speak today on the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee's stage 1 report on the private housing tenancy Scotland bill. Can I begin by saying that the vast majority of the evidence that we received as a committee was in favour of the reform of the current tenancy regime? While the Housing Scotland Act of 1988 brought about the present system, and I am sure that I am not alone in the chamber in thinking that 1988 seems like only yesterday, it is amazing how time flies when you are enjoying yourself. It was abundantly clear that it does not now reflect the requirements for a modern private rented sector. Although there was broad agreement on the need for reform, there were, however, a range of views on what the nature of that reform should be. I will use my time this afternoon, if I may, to highlight some of those areas and the committee's response. At the forefront of the committee's scrutiny was a focus on the Scottish Government's core aim of the bill, which was to rebalance the relationship between landlord and tenant. That included the balance between the rights of a landlord to regain possession of their property versus the rights of a tenant to feel secure in their own home, the balance between the rights of a landlord to recover rent arrears versus the rights of a tenant to take their case to an independent tribunal and the balance between ensuring continued investment in the private rented sector versus the rights of tenants to challenge an unreasonable rent increase. While the committee supported the general principles of the bill, we make a number of suggestions to help to ensure that the bill does indeed strike the right balance and to ensure that the proposals contained in the bill are in fact proportionate. A key area is, of course, the removal of the no-fault ground. That currently gives a landlord the right to end a tenancy once the initial rental period has ended. The new system will remove this arbitrary ground so that landlords will have to provide a reason to end the tenancy using one of the 16 grounds listed in the bill. While the committee recognised the concerns of landlords and their representatives, six of our seven members agreed with the removal of the no-fault ground. Twelve of the 16 grounds are classed as mandatory. However, for the other four grounds, the first tier tribunal has some discretion as to whether the tenant should leave the property or whether a different action is taken. In some cases, those mandatory grounds could provide people to leave their homes due to the fault of the landlord, such as their HMO licence being revoked, rather than anything that they may have done to put their tenancies at risk. The majority of the committee therefore called on the Scottish Government to give further consideration to either the balance of mandatory and discretionary grounds or to the degree of flexibility available to the tribunal. Of all areas considered, it is perhaps the issue of student and holiday lets that generated most interest, in part due to the significant role students and tourists undoubtedly play in the private rented sector. I also learnt a new acronym in our work, PBSA, or Purpose Built Student Accommodation. Its proponents were concerned that by giving students the same security of tenure as all other tenants are not entirely unreasonable proposition, the PBSA business model might be significantly weakened. We listened carefully to those concerns, as well as those of the landlords of more traditional student lets, worried about the perceived loss of flexibility in renting properties to students from autumn through spring with holiday lets in the summer. Although we appreciated the intention of having the same security of tenure for all those in the private rented sector, we have nevertheless suggested that the Government look again at those specific issues. I note the assurances from the minister this afternoon that the Government will indeed look again at those specific issues, while obviously indicating quite clearly its wish to maintain its commitment to an open-ended tenancy. The first tier tribunal will have responsibility under the bill for ensuring that tenants are provided with a tenancy agreement and specified information. The tenant will also have recourse to the tribunal where they believe that their tenancy has been wrongfully terminated by a landlord using one of the 16 grounds for eviction, referred to earlier, under false circumstances. I note that the minister wrote to the committee, via myself earlier this week, to outline that the tribunal is now expected to start hearing those cases from December 2017. The committee agreed that measures should be in place to ensure that landlords evidence on eviction through proper procedure and agreed that providing an opportunity to challenge wrongful evictions will assist security of tenure. Some thought that the three months penalty payment associated with wrongful termination may not be sufficient to deter wrongdoing by a landlord. Therefore, we called for the Government to consider whether that reflects the financial impacts elsewhere, such as the costs to local authorities for homeless applications, the need for the tenant themselves to pay a deposit elsewhere, as well as the obvious emotional distress that can be caused to the tenant. We also sought clarity from the Government on what support and legal assistance would be in place for those taking their cases to the tribunal, whether third parties would be able to take cases to the tribunal on behalf of tenants, and whether it would have the ability to adjourn cases. Our recommendation in the committee on this point asks whether that would be possible with the full involvement of the tenant themselves. In regard to proposals to apply restrictions in relation to rent, we welcomed measures allowing only one rent increase per annum with three months notice and the ability to challenge excessive rent hikes through rent service Scotland and the tribunal. In particular, the committee felt that that would assist tenants to plan finances to deal with future rent increases and prevent rent increases being used as a lever to evict tenants. In relation to the proposals to allow local authorities to apply to the Government to designate areas as rent pressure zones where rents are rising excessively and where local councils will have the ability to apply rent caps, the committee noted that the measures are intended to be a discretionary tool for local authorities to target problem areas. The committee, however, requested clarity on specific aspects, including how it will ensure that investors are not dissuaded from investing in rent pressure zones and how it would prevent landlords from making inflated rent increases between tenancies. I thank all those who provided evidence on the bill whether they were highlighting an issue on behalf of landlords or tenants. I also put on record my thanks to my fellow committee members. It was, as ever, a real team effort and a pleasure to work with all my colleagues on the committee. On behalf of the committee, I look forward to the Scottish Government responding in full to all our recommendations and setting out the further changes to the bill at stage 2. I commend the committee's report to Parliament. Many thanks, convener. I now call on Jane Baxter up to seven minutes, please. I'd like to begin by drawing members' attention to the entry in my register of interests. Then I'd like to say that, on behalf of Scottish Labour, I thank the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for its stage 1 report, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its scrutiny and all the various stakeholders and witnesses who have supported the process. This debate is taking place in the context of the housing crisis facing Scotland. With an independent report published last year by Shelter Scotland concluding that this country needs 12,000 new affordable homes every year if we are to meet housing need. Scottish Labour welcomes this bill because it is clear that the private rented sector has a role to play in meeting that housing need, but it is important that renters get a fair deal. Figures from the Scottish Government show that in 2014, around 14 per cent of households lived in private rented accommodation. That equates to roughly 330,000 households, some 290,000 of which rent from a private landlord and 40,000 of which rent from family and friends. Since 2001, the private rented sector has more than doubled in size while the proportion of owner-occupied housing has declined slightly. This may have been caused partly by the economic downturn and the difficulty and potential homeowners now experience in securing a mortgage, but there may be other factors such as job insecurity or the need to move around to find work that makes renting a more attractive option for some people. Younger households in Scotland are now more likely to live in the PRS than in any other tenure. The 2014 Scottish household survey reported that the percentage of households with a 16 to 34-year-old highest income householder that live in the private rented sector has increased substantially from 13 per cent in 1999 to 41 per cent in 2014, to the extent that this is now the most common tenure for these households. Private renting households are more likely to be single adults or households with two adults compared with other tenures and just over a fifth of households in the PRS are families. A proportion has been growing in recent years. The figures also show that there are currently around 94,000 housing benefit claimants living in the private sector and this is one fifth of the total number of people in receipt of housing benefit. Figures from 2014 show that average weekly housing benefit award in the social rented sector was around £64 a week and around £89 a week in the private rented sector and this indicates a level of public funding which goes into the private rented sector from rents. The private rented sector is often the only option for homeless people. Crisis Scotland, in its evidence to the committee, recognised that the PRS can be a viable housing option even for vulnerable people with the right support and safeguards in place. At present, however, there are serious problems. The sector is not fit for purpose and there are long-standing issues around security, affordability, conditions and access. The provisions have the potential to significantly enhance the security of tenure for tenants and put in place measures to protect tenants from excessive rent increases. In a 2013 paper calling for greater security for private tenants, Shelter Scotland argued that there was a need to review the procedure for rent increases with consideration given to starting with an initial market rent increased by an inflationary index or contractually agreed points during the tenancy. During stages 2 and 3 of the Housing Scotland Bill in 2013, many amendments were lodged to introduce some form of rent control but those were not passed. James Kelly MSP lodged an amendment that would have required the Scottish ministers to make regulations specifying the maximum amount that rents could be increased by each review. In response, the Minister for Housing and Welfare Margaret Burgess MSP rejected the amendment and argued that the matter had not been consulted upon and that such measures would need full public consultation on the basis of clear proposals. Since then, the Scottish Government has consulted and has issued two consultation papers on proposals to reform the current private tenancy regime. The first consultation sought general views on rent levels and whether the Scottish Government should take some kind of action. The second consultation paper outlined the Government's intention not to introduce general controls on rents but sought views on whether there was a need to introduce limits on rent levels for sitting tenants in hotspot areas. In the context of this consultation process, campaign groups have been expressing opposing views on rent regulation. The living rent campaign has been campaigning for some kind of rent regulation to curb excessive rents, as they have argued. Decent affordable housing is an essential human right and policy around rents should reflect that fact. We believe that rents are generally too high, with Scottish tenants spending an average of nearly a quarter of their income on rent. In Edinburgh, the average tenant spends half of their income on rent. The number of Scottish households in poverty in the private rented sector has doubled in the last decade and high rents are one of the main reasons for the situation. The living rent campaign also points to practice in other countries that links rent charges to standards and housing quality. On the other hand, the PRS for Scotland campaign is concerned that the introduction of rent controls and the removal of the no-fault ground for repossession will carry a significant risk of hindering investment in the sector, while disincentivising small and large landlords from participating in or maintaining their properties to a high standard. The consequences of that will be a drying up of supply and a more limited choice for tenants, as well as depleting the quality of Scotland's housing stock. The bill seeks to introduce a new tenancy for private tenants, replacing the existing assured and short-assured tenancies. The new tenancy will apply to all future lets. In relation to rent increases, the bill proposes that rent reviews should take place no more than once in any 12-month period. Tenants should receive 12 weeks' notice in advance of a change in rent. If a tenant considers that any proposed rent increase would take their rent beyond rent's charge for comparable properties in the area, they will have the ability to refer the increase for adjudication to a rent officer at rent service Scotland. No national rent controls will be introduced. As the policy memorandum to the bill states, the bill could jeopardise efforts to improve affordability through increase in supply by discouraging much-needed investment. Under the bill's proposals, local authorities will be able to apply to Scottish ministers, requesting that all the part of their area be designated as a rent pressure zone. In making their application, a local authority would be required to satisfy ministers that rent increases for sitting tenants in the area to be designated, whereas rising excessively, causing hardship to sitting tenants and having a detrimental effect on the broader housing system. Ministers would be able to bring forward regulations that would designate a rent pressure zone and specify the percentage that should be used to calculate the rent cap. In conclusion, Scottish Labour believes that every person in Scotland should have a safe, warm and affordable place to live. We have argued for some time that the private sector in Scotland needs to work for everyone, therefore we welcome the Government's bill, which works towards that. We will continue to look at the bill closely as it progresses through Parliament to ensure that the system in place for private tenancies in Scotland works for everyone. The private rented sector, as a number of speakers have said already, has become a very important part of the rented sector in Scotland. It now produces the houses that are needed for many people who are unable to find them in the social rented sector or in other affordable tenancy methods. As a result, any change in the legislation must take into account the requirement to ensure that that sector remains of adequate size to cope with the demand that it has or, better still perhaps, is attracted to bring in the investment that is necessary to expand it, providing more availability of housing through that sector. For that reason, it is absolutely essential that, as we rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants—the words of the minister herself—we do not do so in such a way as to disincentivise investment. Everyone acknowledges right across the organisational consensus that there is need for the current tenancy regime to be overhauled. For that reason, when I spoke to representative organisations during the process leading up to the introduction of the bill, I always encouraged them to be as engaged as possible and to get involved in the consultation, because only by being involved could they understand the process that was taking place and, at the end of the day, ensure that we deliver legislation that suits the purpose of landlords as well as tenants. However, it is to my disappointment that we are at a point where this legislation, much needed though it is, is not quite in a form that I would be able to accept at this stage. The convener of the committee made it quite clear that, on the subject of no-fault ground for removal, one of the committee did not agree with the rest. I hold my hand up and admit that it was me. I think that a good case was made by those who came forward and gave evidence for the retention of the no-fault ground. In that case, we must be careful about how we understand it. No one is suggesting that he should simply be able to throw people out of a tenancy for no reason, but the no-fault ground has served both tenants and landlords well over the time that it has been in use. The reason for that is that it often covers for situations where it is impossible to achieve viable objectives by other means, and that relates specifically to a number of cases that have been drawn to my attention relating to antisocial behaviour. I am afraid that I have only got five minutes, so I will have to persevere. On the issue of antisocial behaviour, it is the case that we have a strong mandatory ground within the bill allowing us to use that effectively. Yet, in order to get someone evicted on the basis of antisocial behaviour, you require witnesses. On how many occasions is a neighbour willing to give evidence against someone who, if they are not successful, results simply in further antisocial behaviour and perhaps intimidation? No, thank you, not at this stage. I believe that the no-fault ground for removal has been successfully used in these circumstances and that by losing that ground, we will simply make life more difficult for many tenants who are already in difficult circumstances. Much has been said already about the issue of student tenancies. There is a quite specific investment model being used for the production of large amounts of additional student accommodation around Scotland, particularly here in Edinburgh at the moment. It is a grave concern of mine, as with others of the committee, that if we do not find a way to permit that nature of investment to continue, then we will have some difficulty attracting investment in future. I am very glad to hear that the minister is giving this further consideration and I look forward to hearing the outcome of that in future. There are a couple of areas where I share concerns of the committee, including, for example, the sanctions used for wrongful termination. I believe that three months rent is perhaps not adequate as a penalty for those who wrongfully use the rules that we have. I am prepared to give consideration to any changes that may take place in that area, so long as we ensure that they do not go the opposite way and become penal rather than over lax. For that reason, I have the rare opportunity in this debate to be able to speak again at the conclusion, and I will complete my remarks at that stage in the debate. Many thanks. I do apologise that we are already over time. Speeches of four minutes please, no more, and I am afraid that I will have to cut members off. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to hear that Mr Reidy has been enjoying himself from 1988. I have been enjoying myself for much longer than that. Before I go on, I must first draw members' attention to my register of interests, where they will know that my wife owns two houses that she rents to tenants who have lived there for many years. We do not think of them as tenants, but as neighbours and friends, and I am sure that feeling is reciprocated. As a tenant myself, I admire my flat and have managed and maintained and built property in my previous business life that I have experienced on all sides of this sector. I do not believe that he can consider this bill properly without first understanding the context. This is a context where the private rented sector has more than doubled in the last decade. It is a context where banks still are lending to many of those who aspire to home ownership. It is a context where banks have lent profusely to this profitable and therefore fast-growing sector. It is a context in which we must remember that we are dealing not with private rented property, but with people's homes. It is a context in which we must remember that a decent home is a fundamental necessity. It is a context in which we should consider that peaceful enjoyment of a decent home should be a fundamental right in any civilised society. Unfortunately, the data tells us that this is not always the case. Otherwise, why would more than 70% of tenants stay in their private rented homes for less than two years? Otherwise, why would more than 18% of homeless applications come from this sector? Otherwise, why would rents in some areas have increased so significantly when interest rates have never been lower? There cannot be a member of this Parliament whose casework does not include many instances where landlords are failing to maintain their properties at horrible standards and yet ignoring the requests of tenants to carry out vital repairs. Leaving tenants, for example, without heating over long periods of the winter, punishing those tenants who do complain with eviction or with threats of eviction, this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Equally, we must be mindful that it would not be helpful to disregard the needs of landlords because, as we have heard, that would run the risk of deterring necessary investment in providing much-needed housing. There is an overall and significant shortage of housing, which is why the Scottish Government has met its manifestal pledge of delivering 30,000 affordable homes in this Parliament. That is why the Scottish Government has already given its pledge to deliver 50,000 affordable homes in the next Parliament. I remember that there were some who doubted their ability to deliver 30,000 affordable homes. It is a testament to the competence and credibility of this Government that I hear nobody now doubting our ability to deliver 50,000. The bill then needs to strike a careful balance between the needs of tenants and the needs of landlords. I believe that it does so. Giving landlords the right to terminate tenants' inlegitimate circumstances, giving landlords the right to make reasonable rent increases and giving landlords and tenants the ability to take cases to the proposed trib when necessary, introducing the simpler and clearer private residential tenancy that affords benefits to landlords and tenants, providing the opportunity for councils to make applications to the Scottish ministers to introduce rent caps in rent pressure zones. I am winding up now. I am afraid that you must finish now your four minutes. I believe that the 20 aims of good investment and providing good homes are not mutually incompatible, and I support the general principle of this bill. I thank the minister for housing and welfare and the Government for bringing forward this debate to allow us to discuss the private house and tenancy Scotland bill. I was pleased to see the Government bring forward a bill related to the concerns of those in the private sector. It is right that the Government brings forward legislation to protect tenants, but also legislation that does not hinder landlords. I believe that the bill's principle has achieved that, but there are areas that it can be improved on. I speak having sat in the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee that reviewed this bill before the chamber today. Broadly, I welcome many of the proposals that are put forward in the bill and efforts to work towards a more cohesive relationship between landlords and tenants, but having heard the evidence from a number of interested parties during our committee's review, I would like to take those opportunities to say where I do not think that the bill goes far enough in protecting the rights of tenants. The bill proposes 16 grouts to allow landlords to recover their properties. Of the 16, 12 are mandatory and four are discretionary. One recommendation made that no fault removal ground is not one of them. I hope that tenants will be empowered to speak out about unsatisfactory property conditions without fear of repercussions. They will be more secure in the knowledge that they will not have to fear a short notice period at the end of their tenancy. Quite simply, it is wrong that a family could have their home and security pools from under them with no cause or reason. With the withdrawal of the no fault removal ground, it is incumbent that landlords and tenants alike can have confidence in the fairness of the new tribunal system proposed, and I know that the minister has said that that will be delayed until December 2017, and I would welcome further comments on this in the closing speech, because I think that this is key to if this bill is a success or not. I am surprised that it was not mentioned more in our opening remarks. By introducing such a system, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants are adequately advised while navigating it. When our committee took evidence in the bill, Shatter Scotland were right to ask what advice, assistance and legal representation would be offered to low-income and vulnerable tenants. Further more crisis Scotland asked what fees would be required to access a tribunal. As with accessing any other aspects of law, finances simply should not come into it. At the time of the committee's hearing, the minister did not offer an opinion on whether legal aid should be provided or confirm whether tenants would face financial charges for going to a tribunal. I believe that it is critically important that those questions are answered. In its contribution to our committee's investigation, the Scottish Government argued that the 16 grounds covered, and I quote, all reasonable circumstances for recovery of property. Yet our committee was not so sure, recommending that it consider whether penalties to deter landlords from terminating tenancies falsely are sufficient within the bill. Many advocates for vulnerable groups felt the grounds were unbalanced in favour of the property owner. The Govern Law Centre gave particular scaling evidence to our committee saying that the grounds were the equivalent of giving a tenant a zero-hours contract on their home. The living rent campaign also felt elements of the bill were skewed in favour of the landlord and suggested a hardship provision to empower tribunals to delay repossession of the property involved in a particular case to allow for alternative resolutions. Having spent some time on the Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee, it would be remiss of me not to mention the equality concerns brought forward during the discussion of the bill, our committee, in relation to the initial tenancy period of six months. Again, it was the living rent campaign who mentioned that tying tenants into a six-month contract may present serious equality issues, as being required to pay for a property that they no longer lived in could hinder attempts of those in loving abusive relationships to leave said relationship and property. In its recommendations to improve the bill, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee concurred encouraging the Government to allow those in abusive relationships to leave their tenancy without fear of financial penalties. It is my view that the bill before us today is a good start at tackling the problems inherent in the private renting sector, but I do not believe that it is in the interest of the bill and good governance to seriously consider the points put forward by both the committee and I sit on members from all sides of the chamber today. Many thanks. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Jim Hume. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the ICI committee, I would like to thank our convener, Jim Eadie, and the other members of the ICI committee and the clerks for their contribution and support during the stage 1 committee deliberations. I also like to thank the stakeholders who have given them both written and oral evidence to the committee that has informed and enhanced their deliberations at this stage. NUS Scotland, Shelter, Systems Advice Scotland and CityLets, to name but a few. However, I want to particularly highlight and thank the contributions from small landlords, some with maybe one or only a few properties, who have taken their time to express their concerns, but also their general support for the principles of the bill. This bill is all about balancing. It is a balance in a sector that is hugely important to Scotland's housing needs. I believe that we have moved some way towards a balance that is fair and proportional to both the tenants and the landlords and meets the overall aim of improving security of tenure for tenants while providing appropriate safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. I look forward to the Government's response when it comes to the stage 1 report. If I may highlight a particular area of concern that I have in relation to the six-month initial tenancy, which is in our stage 1 report, it highlights the plight of someone who has entered into this arrangement and then finds himself to be a victim of an abusive relationship. Being liable for a six-month period may have put financial pressure on someone to remain in a home where they are at risk. I thank the people who contributed to the evidence session in this area, particularly cosrepresentative Harry McGwigan, for highlighting that important area. However, I also believe that an exception in this area only could be open to abuse, and I ask the Government to consider what might be changed in the bill at stage 2 that would protect vulnerable people in this area. Life can often throw the most difficult and unexpected events at us. I am concerned that, not just in the area of domestic abuse but in other circumstances, the six-month initial tenancy could tie people into a property where, in their best interests, it would be whatever the circumstances to move. I remain interested in the six-month initial tenancy and look forward to the Government's response in this area, giving the areas that have been highlighted of concern by the committee. In relation to some of the concerns that have been mentioned in the chamber today, in relation to Alex Johnson's particular concern about the no-fault ending of the tenancy, I believe that if someone is conducting themselves in an antisocial behaviour and causing distress to neighbours and to the landlord themselves, then it is reasonable that that is the grounds on which they are evicted, not on a no-fault basis. I believe that the correct mechanism is held within the bill that will allow people to take forward those kinds of cases to the tribunal and ensure that, when they end a tenancy on that basis, that they are indeed within the terms and conditions in the bill and protecting the rights of both the landlord and tenants. The bill will improve security for tenants, which means that they cannot be asked to leave their home simply because the tenancy agreement has reached its end date. It is comprehensive and robust about repossession grounds, and the minister has already said how far she has moved in this area. It is an opportunity for local authorities to introduce rent caps. It is a very balanced bill, and I look forward to continuing with that. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to remind the members of my register of interest. I welcome the general principles of the bill. I also welcome the ICI Committee's stage 1 report. It highlights the need for more information and a wider, more robust set of data to be considered. Of course, I thank the committee and congratulate them and the clerks on all their hard work. I think that protecting the ability and flexibility of the private rental market to develop and improve must not interfere with the responsibility. We have to provide all the necessary safeguards and legal protection for tenants to improve their security of tenure. Before I discuss specific provisions of the bill, I want to highlight a key fact that I think is itself the driver of varying opinions on many provisions of the bill. That is the need for a sufficient supply of housing, which of course currently does not exist. Whether on the topic of rent controls, enough stable accommodation for students, holidaylets or the fact is that we are facing housing shortage. That is something that the ICI Committee noted. I strongly support the calls for updates by the Government on increasing housing supply across all tenures. While we all want to see an increase in the number of homes, it is our responsibility to bring our rules and laws up to date in the meantime. The removal of the no-fault ground is a progressive development, but it is replacement with 16 other grounds—mandatory, discretionary and one fully discretionary—should still be looked at more closely, I believe. Both for the benefit of the tenant and the landlord, Homeless Action Scotland notes that many of the grounds for repossession that are mandatory could result in a tick box exercise, which does not allow for anomalous cases to be handled in a sensitive and sensible way. I look forward to seeing what information the Government can provide as per the committee's recommendation for further thought as to which of the grounds for repossession should be mandatory and which discretionary. Similarly, on the topic of rent controls and rent pressure zones, I would be wary to adopt a measure that has proven harmful in the long-term in other cities around the world. Perhaps one of the most serious and intended consequences of applying rent controls could be actual inflation in rent costs. The removal investment in homes is, of course, and perhaps the removal of homes from the so-called market. We know that, in some areas, rents are expensive. We know that the seasonal variation in Edinburgh, for example, between summer and other seasons, has a free market effect on short-term rents, but restricting the ability of the market to self-regulate could reduce investment in the sector when it may be needed, which could result in the self-regulating towards higher prices. That could be a truly dangerous situation to manage. A very limited supply of housing on one hand and an inability of suppliers to set a market price on the other could lead to effects of experience in other places. More seriously, in places like Stockholm, San Francisco and Washington DC, there is evidence that rent controls can actually be inflationary in rent costs. The maximum annual rent rise becomes the standard annual rent rise. Of course, CPI plus one or plus anything, as is recommended, is naturally an above inflation rent rise. The Law Society highlights the appakeness of the consultation process, only where my evidence should justify the zone in their belief. I also welcome Shelter's view that tenants should be given a reasonable time to pay any rears accumulated. I would like to finish off by reiterating my support for the general direction of the bill. I want to see tenants in Scotland with extra security of tenure, but of course we still need to examine many provisions of the bill in more detail. Many thanks. I call James Dornan to be followed by David Stewart. As a substitute and ex-member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, I am delighted to get the opportunity to speak in this debate. My colleagues will have already and will continue to talk about the bill itself, but it gives me a chance to talk about the Scottish Government's record of housing and how the bill is an important part of continuing to improve the lives of those who live in rented accommodation, be it in a socially rented or private sector. As no coincidence, since the Tories began the sale of council housing 36 years ago, we have seen a marked decline in the volume of low-cost affordable housing. It is a shame that the following Labour Governments, both in Westminster and here in Holyrood, did nothing to address this issue, but thankfully the SNP Government have done the right thing and ended the destructive right to buy policy. That has helped local authorities across the country to have the confidence to build council houses once again. Since 2007, despite the extremely harsh financial climate and the on-going Tory austerity agenda, as has previously been stated, this Government has exceeded its target of 30,000 affordable homes to be built by March 2016. We have invested a record £1.7 billion in housing, delivering 20,000 homes for the social-directed sector, creating 8,000 jobs per year in the hard-pressed construction industry, and, of course, the SNP has made it clear, as was said earlier, that free elected will build 50,000 more homes, supported with a financial commitment of £3 billion, a proposal that Shelter Scotland and the SFHA support. We have well outperformed the previous Administrations, with £135 million being invested through the council house building programme. Since 2009, this Government has built 5,350 council houses. Let's compare that to the previous Administrations' last four years in power of six. We are also outperforming the rest of the UK in building affordable homes. We spend 85 per cent more per head on social housing than in England and Wales. The Cathcart is probably only behind Sandra White's Kelvin constituency, and the number of private landlords and tenants that I have. Although most landlords behave impeccably, there are without a doubt a number who take advantage of their position, and tenants who feel as if they do not have the requisite protections. This bill, if passed, should help considerably. I will give you just one recent example of someone who came to my surgery. He stays in a granny flat. He has got no hot water. He suffers from dampness and numerous other feelings. This constituent has learning difficulties, and it is only now that he has started to get the support that he needs. Thankfully, his support work has come, and we are now on the case, and hopefully that will be dealt with, but it will be much easier to be dealt with once this bill becomes law. We have also, in my constituency, a number of ambitious building programmes. The Cathcart and District Housing Association has repurposed the site of the old home lease school into social rented housing in the near future, a site that has lay empty for 15 years. The site of the old Victoria hospital is currently being disposed of by the NHS and the local community councils and the local community have already started to engage with the NHS about the type of affordable housing that they would like to see on there. I suspect that many of the tenants there will be in the private rented sector as well. Castle and Housing is another one that has been doing great work in our building in Casimal Eastchurch. I have very little time left, but I feel that I would be remiss if I did not mention the great work that has been done by our housing minister, Margaret Burgess. Her driving commitment is well recognised throughout the housing sector and beyond, and it is clear that her experience has gained in her previous existence in the third sector. I have made her determined to ensure that she does all that she can to help as many people as possible to live in housing fit for the 21st century. She should be congratulated for that bill, and on that point, I am delighted to support the private housing tennis bill at this stage. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and as a member of the ISI Committee, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. I clearly support the general principles of the bill, and I will not be standing that if there are a few issues that I would like to raise with the minister. As we have heard, this is a very significant sector with 330,000 Scottish households in the sector and around 85,000 children in the sector, but very significantly, 120,000 households are in poverty in this sector. It is very, very important that we discuss this today. As the Chartered Institute of Housing said, there should be no circumstance where a personal family can lose their home without reason. Within the very short time that I have, I want to cover three areas that I have a particular interest in. First of all, in tenants' rights, secondly in the rent pressure zones, and thirdly, an issue for my own region around farming and housing. Looking at tenants' rights within the bill's handling, the introduction of a less intimidating and added serial tribunal system rather than court is to be welcomed. I would encourage the tribunal's powers for reasonableness, a very important test. The current proposals would grant the eviction of a vulnerable tenant with a month's rent arrears after just three months. My personal view is that I would support an extension of that period from one month's arrears within a six-month period, and I would support the tribunal having more discretionary ability to adjourn cases and monitor vulnerable tenants' progress case by case. Perhaps the minister in her wind-up could kindly comment on those key issues. Furthermore, should a tenant be evicted by a landlord on false grounds, obviously breaking the law, the current penalty, as we have heard, is a maximum and not definitive sum of three months' rent, which, compared to the 50,000 penalty a landlord can face for falsely renting with an HMO licence, seems to me to be unbalanced and not proportionate. Turning towards the issue of the rent, I warmly welcome the changes that the bill proposes in allowing rent to increase only once during a 12-month period and the stability that it will bring to both tenants and the market. The introduction of a rent pressure zone has been met with mixed reactions, yet I support the bill's proposals. Local councils, who would trigger this off, are best placed to assess whether a zone should be an estate, a village, a city or indeed the whole local authority area. The zone restricts the limits in rent to CPI, the consumer price index, plus 1 per cent for sitting tenants, and I have already raised a technical issue with the minister whom she is responding to. However, I would contend that, in isolation, rent pressure zones policies are of course not the only tool in the toolbox. I refer members to best practice around the world in Stockholm, San Francisco and Amsterdam, where rent increases also tend to be linked with increases in quality in the housing, which makes a lot of sense. However, generally, in the sector and the evidence that I heard, there is consensus that the biggest issue concerning rent is the lack of social and private housing available. In our report, as the convener said, the ISI Committee heard that in certain German cities, rent pressure zones are effective due to having double the amount of properties that are available compared with the average Scottish city. The final minute. Thank you very much, convener. Very quickly, in the brief time that I have got left, there are some issues within the farming issue, where, if a farm property is needed for an employee, it is very difficult to supply that. I perhaps raised that technical detail with the minister in a bit more detail in writing. Finally, I agree with Unison Scotland, who argued that most of the grounds for repossession are mandatory and only three contain minimal tests of reasonableness, which would take the tenant. All grounds should be discretionary and subject to the tests of reasonableness with rights of appeal and adequate redress. Otherwise, as Gavin Losender said, the 16 grounds for repossession could form a kind of zero-hour tenancy. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in this debate as a non-member of the committee. Although I am supportive of the bill, I am mindful of the recommendations that the committee has outlined in its stage 1 report, which I welcome. During the course of this week, I have read the report of the Resolution Foundation on the State of Working Scotland Living Standards, Jobs and Pay, which includes an interesting section on housing mixes, showing that the biggest change in Scotland's housing mix in recent years has been the rise of private renting, showing an approximately twofold increase since 2001-2. It is right to recognise the importance of the sector and the need to review the system of tenancies. As the minister and members have already highlighted this afternoon, one of the Government's core principles of the bill is that tenants, including students, should have the same security of tenure. As a member for a constituency with a large university, I have to say that it is an issue. I have received a significant amount of correspondence from landlords and letting agents in St Andrews regarding their perceptions of how the bill will affect the student accommodation sector in the town, generally of a negative kind. They also argue that it is beneficial for many students to have accommodation arranged prior to the commencement of their studies, especially those who do not reside within the locality of the university. As I understand it, the new system proposes to preclude landlords from advertising properties until a tenant has indicated an intention to terminate their tenancy. However, I do understand the Government's view that landlords in the student rental market may need to adjust their approach to managing their properties as there may be a shorter window for advertising and letting property in the student market. I accept that. In addition, I accept the argument that effective engagement with tenants can help mitigate that, for example by agreeing the date at which the tenant intends to lead in advance of formal notice being given. Furthermore, I understand the Government's argument that only a small proportion of lets may continue beyond the expected end date as students are unlikely to want to pay for the accommodation unless they were planning to say over the summer. Of course, if students do stay over the summer, the landlords will still benefit from the rent incur. I am also mindful of the comment in the report from NUS Scotland that it is not in the student's interest to not say that they will be leaving because they do not want to get lumbered with loads of debt for rent that they cannot afford to pay. However, notwithstanding all of that, I think that there is still a war to be won in winning over some dissenting voices on this issue. I am pleased, however, that the committee has recommended that purpose-built student accommodation should be treated in the same way as university accommodation and that it could be exempted from the bill in the same manner. I welcome the comments of the minister on this issue earlier today. I believe that one of the arguments of some landlords who feared the removal of the nuker and fault is because they have had little confidence in using the court system. As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I understand concerns over delays and costs, and I understand those who have concerns about the court process being too adversarial. Accordingly, I welcome the proposal for a first-year tribunal, but I believe that there is a greater need for clarity on exactly how this tribunal is supposed to operate. I heard the reference to tenancies from December 2017. I have no doubt that in due course the Government will provide further information on this point. However, I think that we should be cautious about providing legal aid as a matter of course, and I think that the Government would be wise to think further about how best to deal with issues of third party representation. That brings me to the matter of grounds for repossession. As I understand it, the Government has listened to the concerns of landlords by extending the grounds for repossession contained in the bill from 8 to 16, 12 of which are mandatory and four of which are discretionary. I think that the balance is about right, and I also welcome the penalty provisions in relation to wrongful termination, but I take on board concerns from those who concern how this can be properly evidenced. In conclusion, I welcome the general principles of the bill, and I wish it well. To make primary objectives and to rebalance the relationship between landlord and tenant by ending the no-fault grounds for repossession and to take some action on excessive rents, which I certainly know all about here in Edinburgh. On the former, there are different views. The landlords are saying that it goes too far. Shelter, on the other hand, whose views I have often followed over the years, welcomed this as a step forward on tenants' security, and they say that it will enable the tenant to speak to a landlord without fear of retaliatory eviction, which is certainly a big problem now and in the past. The Government's law centre, in contrast, is arguing that there is little change here because all the grounds are in effect mandatory. I think that the balance of mandatory and discretionary grounds for ending a tenancy is a key area for further debate, and the committee recommends that the Government should take a further look at it. I am sympathetic to the view that all tenancies should be subject to a reasonable test. Much will depend, of course, on the effectiveness of the new tribunal and how easy it is to access. Legal aid is one of the issues that will have to be looked at in relation to that. The functions and operation of the tribunal will be in regulations and the sooner we see them, the better. Through changing, as I would like to see, I hope that local authorities will be able to make applications to the tribunal, as they can now to the private sector housing panel. I hope that there will be tougher sanctions than are proposed in the bill for illegal evictions, and I hope that there will be an abusive relationship amendment allowing early termination of a tenancy in that circumstance. The landlords, of course, have expressed concerns about that, and it is only right that we look at those and take them seriously. Some of their main concerns have been shared by the committee around students and holiday lets, and the committee recommends that the Government should look at those specific issues again. Given the complexities of that issue, it is quite right that that recommendation should be followed and there will be further discussion about that at subsequent changes. Moreover, some of the landlord's concerns may be shared by the wider public, for example that they voiced the fear of an unintended consequence that they and landlords more generally may be more selective in whom they take up as a tenant, so that is something that we would have to keep an eye on. I think that some of their concerns will be shared by the general public around antisocial behaviour, because we know that many of our constituents are concerned about the difficulties social rented landlords have evicting tenants in circumstances where there is clearly serious antisocial behaviour. The recommendation of the committee is that that should be reviewed post-implementation, but it may well be that it should be considered further during the course of the legislation. For the last minute, I move on to rents. I think that there should be a minimum of three months' rent arrears before there are any eviction proceedings, as recommended by Shelter. In terms of excessive rents, the Government proposals on rent changes to taking place only once a year is a good proposal and reference in that circumstance to the rent officer. However, there should be a power to refer initial rents to the rent officer, because there is no provision for new tenants or indeed sitting tenants to challenge the existing rent. The focus is only on the rent increase. Finally, on rent pressure zones, that should help Edinburgh and other places. However, there has to be good evidence before the designation, and there are legitimate fears that rents could still be put up during that period of considering designation, as well as between tenancies, because the other problem here is that the proposals affect sitting tenants only. That is a good start. It does represent significant progress, but I hope that there will be amendment during the course of the bill. Many thanks to our call, Sandra White, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that most people know that, obviously, I represent the area in the MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, which has Strathclyde University, Glasgow University, Caledonian University and Glasgow City College within its boundaries and lots of other further education institutions. I have a particular interest in student accommodation, and I am pleased that the bill is proposed and provides the same security for students in the private rented sector that is provided to other tenants. That is certainly something that looks upon and is very favourable. I also have a large amount of purpose-built student accommodation, which in the last couple of years has certainly mushroomed and has raised many, many concerns within my constituency in regard to the amount of private student accommodation that has been built and has been proposed to be built. I note the comments from the committee and also the convener, Jim Heer, who has mentioned the fact that they were looking at that and the recommendations that the committee put forward north of the comments from the minister. I would certainly be keeping a close eye on that particular one in regard to set tenancies for agreed terms. I wonder where that would lead to, as I said, in Glasgow-Kelvin, particularly in the hillhead area. Other areas around the air and the merchant city are absolutely boomed. We are talking about thousands of accommodation, so I need to think that I keep a close eye on that one. The private rented sector, as James Doran had mentioned, is also a large part of the housing sector in my constituency in Glasgow-Kelvin. I echo the living rent campaigns comments that the bill will strengthen the rights and protects for tenants, including provisions for the introduction of rent controls in high-pressure areas. I welcome the rent controls in high-pressure areas, and we will be interested to see how that is rolled out throughout the area. Another area that I wanted to touch on, as Malcolm Chisholn mentioned, is regarding repairs and where tenants can go to take their complaints to tribunials. So many times, certainly in the Kelvin constituency and others, I presume, people come to you living in horrendous conditions. As soon as they complain to the landlord, they put out their tenacy two weeks or three weeks a month. It is very good that they get the opportunity to take this to the tribunial. Basically, they can feel a bit safer than they can actually put out. Antisocial behaviour is another area that has obviously come into being in regards to tenants who are antisocial. I hear that it is being said by Alec Johnson in regards to antisocial tenants, but sometimes you have to work in both ways. People were put out for what you would not call antisocial behaviour, but I think that there is a point to be raised that there are good landlords and bad landlords, and there are good tenants, and there are bad tenants also, but I think that it covers the fact that they can go to a tribunial, they can go to arbitration, and I know that it is in rented accommodation. I notice that in socially rented accommodation, arbitration sometimes does certainly work. I think that it is a good idea, and it would be something that would be worthwhile looking at, and I am sure that it would be much better with the arbitration in the tribunial also. I welcome that as well. One of the other areas that I do welcome is the notice to leave, and I particularly welcome the extension of eating. I think that we need to suspend Parliament just for a moment until we get this sorted out. So, I now call on Patrick Harvie. I think that Sandra You had probably said enough for the time being. I thank you very much. You were just about to close. I now call on Patrick Harvie in the entry. Brutal, Deputy Presiding Officer. And after Patrick will move the closing speeches. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, though I do regret that we are doing so once again without having seen the Government's response to the stage 1 report. I recognise on this occasion that it is more to do with parliamentary timing than any Government delay. Nevertheless, I think that it is a bad habit for Parliament to be in, and we should correct that in future. Many people have talked about the importance of the private rented sector, the growing importance of the private rented sector, when many, many people find owner occupation unaffordable and social housing unavailable. I regret that so many people are left in that situation, but if the private rented sector is going to continue to grow, if it is of this importance, we have to recognise that it is more than just a normal financial transaction. Mike McKenzie described good housing as essential to life. Jane Baxter talked about it as a fundamental human right. I agree with both of those. If we are serious about it, we have to recognise that this is not just a financial transaction. The purpose of a house is to provide a home for someone, its role as an investment is very much secondary to that and is the means not the end. That being the case, all housing is social. All housing is intimately connected with people's quality of life, with their health, with their wellbeing. All housing is part of a community. All housing is essentially social and all owners have social responsibilities. I think that we are moving in that direction. This bill is not the first word and will not be the last word. I do hope that we will continue to debate making it stronger as it goes through Parliament. On the two points that I want to raise during these few moments of debating time that we have available, rent controls. The first time I discussed the issue of rent controls with the minister, I was told in no uncertain terms that the Scottish Government has no intention of introducing rent controls. We are just not going to go there. I very much recognise and welcome the fact that the Government has moved its position since those days. Many of us inside and outside of Parliament campaigned on that, pushed on that, made the case and I think that the case will continue to be made for a stronger version of rent controls than is currently in the bill. On the issue of the grounds for eviction and most particularly wrongful terminations that are made, there are some measures that are put in the bill that allow a tenant or rather a former tenant to complain that they have been subject to an eviction on one of the legitimate grounds, but where those grounds were misleading. For example, if a landlord has put a property on the market for a week at an absurdly inflated price and then just put it back out to rent again so that they can bump the price up. Or if a landlord has changed their intentions and no longer wants to move into the property themselves, which was their reason for ending the tenancy, where those wrongful reasons, this misleading reason is given, it shouldn't be down to the tenant or the former tenant to know that that's happened and to be able to produce evidence of it after the fact. There should be a stronger means of ensuring that such misleading uses of the eviction grounds do not become normal and the role of third parties may have a role to play here as it does in other parts of the bill and I hope that we explore that. Finally, among the final grounds for eviction that the landlord has ceased to be registered by the local authority, this is entirely a matter of the landlord's responsibility and I see no reason why a tenant should lose their home in such circumstances. It seems far more appropriate that a property of that nature be put subjected to a management order and that it be brought under the management of a responsible landlord such as a social landlord. Those are some of the various areas that I hope that we'll continue to explore changes that could be introduced to the bill during its further scrutiny. Many thanks now Colin Alex. Johnston, up to four minutes Mr Johnston, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Returning to where I was when I left off, I've come to the issue of rent control and Jim Hume covered quite a bit of the issue in the same way as I wished to as well, so I'll take this opportunity to back Jim Hume's concern. The fact is that rent or rent rises are perceived by some to be going on a pace in Scotland, yet if you look at the different statistics you'll find that rents are relatively stable across Scotland and in some areas are actually falling. Now, how do we get confused by this? Well, people measure different things in different ways and certainly if you want to look at figures that are rising, if you look at advertised rents for vacant properties then you may be able to identify an increase in the rents that are being demanded while in reality rents on the ground may be changing in a different way or at a different pace. For that reason, as was Jim Hume said, it is of concern that rents that have not been rising with sitting tenants may actually find themselves now with a legally-imposed agenda by which the rents will rise. The effect may be that rents that have been stable will begin to rise by that annual increment of, yes, very briefly. Mike MacKenzie The fact is that the rent that is being proposed could only take place after investigation to prove that there is in fact a significant rent rise problem. If rents are not rising to absurd degrees then no such card would be imposed. Alex Jules What I am suggesting is that rents that are not rising may now rise by the amount to which they are allowed to rise by and as such it may do a disservice to tenants. Briefly covering the issue of rent pressure zones and going back to what I said very early in this process about investment, you can be sure that if there is a shortage of housing or a shortage of private rented housing in an area significant enough to require a local authority to consider moving towards a rent pressure zone, then you can be absolutely sure that the minute that designation has been brought in that that area becomes an investment black spot, it will make things worse in the longer term, so it should be considered carefully what that impact may be. Another subject that was discussed in which I need to cover, although it has been covered by others, is the issue of freeing up property if required by an employee. That is one that has very specific applications in rural and in the farming industry of which I have direct experience. Many have expressed the view that if there is not a power to return or if we were to lose the power to get these houses back when required that it may actually have an impact on people in the rural community. However, the other thing that I have experienced—in fact, I have done myself, and I do not think that it is an ideal situation—is where houses are deliberately kept empty if you know that you are going to require them at some point in the future. If houses in rural areas are being kept empty as a precautionary measure and not being let, then we are missing an opportunity and we are losing houses that we could otherwise have the advantage of. At 5 o'clock tonight, the Conservatives will vote against the general principles of this bill, but that is not to say that there is not a possibility that we may come into line and support it at some time in the future. What the Government needs to do is be courageous. It needs to stand by the principles that it has set out in some areas, but it needs to have the courage to change the bill in other ways. This is all about balance. That balance is in danger. It has not been entirely achieved yet. It could be, but the Government must work for our support at stage 3. Thank you very much. I now call on Ken Macintosh. Mr Macintosh, up to six minutes, the lights will gradually resume, I am told. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank all colleagues for their contribution this afternoon. What has been quite a measured and relatively thoughtful debate, particularly thanks to Sandra White for her perseverance there and her willingness to take the less supportive comments of the Presiding Officer on the tune. We are here today primarily because of fairly dramatic changes to housing tenure in Scotland over the last decade and a half, dramatic changes that reflect an on-going housing crisis. Unfortunately, under the Scottish National Party Government, only 28 per cent of young people now own their own homes. That is down from 48 per cent in 1999. Many end up staying with their parents for longer, and far greater numbers end up renting privately. They cannot afford a deposit, and with 150,000 Scots on local authority waiting lists, the private rented sector is unfortunately not always a positive choice for many, nor just a transitional period before eventual home ownership. It is the most expensive, the least secure, but often the only option available. With more Scots relying on more expensive and less secure tenancies, it is perhaps—I will make a little bit of progress for me—it is perhaps not surprising that it is the most vulnerable who have been hardest hit. Students, those on lower incomes and the homeless. The living rent campaign points out that almost one in five of all homeless applications now come from the private rented sector, a rise of 38 per cent in the last five years, and quoting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, that a quarter of poor households now live in the PRS, up from 110 a decade earlier. I thank Shelter and the NUS in particular for leading the make renting right and the living rent campaigns, which have led us to today's bill. Their high-profile campaigning on behalf of vulnerable and often exploited individuals has made it impossible for the Scottish Government not to respond. It is also worth acknowledging, as my colleague Jane Baxter did earlier, the Labour Party's efforts on this issue, campaigning alongside the NUS, Shelter and others, flagging up the problem of rip-off rents in Parliament and presenting solutions in the form of legislative amendments, even if the Scottish Government and the Minister chose to reject that approach two years ago. I am pleased that the minister has now accepted the need to restrict rent rises in the PRS and to introduce a much more secure tenancy, finally ending the no-fault eviction, proposals that we can broadly unite around today. There are still several issues to resolve as we enter stage 2 of the legislative process, Jim Eadie, the committee convener and Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the committee's concerns with the balance between mandatory and discretionary grounds for eviction. Claire Adamson flagged up the serious worry that a six-month initial tenancy period may work against those needing to flee domestic abuse. I look forward to hearing the response of the minister to the committee's report. I must admit to being a little bit worried about the minister's approach when I heard that only an hour and a half was laid aside for this afternoon's stage 1 debate and, a bit like Patrick Harvie, we did not have the Government's response at this stage. That did not strike me as an accurate reflection of the importance of this sector to Scotland or the importance of this legislation. I was even more worried to find out just yesterday that one of the most important aspects of the bill, first-year tribunals, has not been postponed until the beginning of 2018. Like my colleague Siobhan McMahon, I was surprised that the minister did not spend more time on the issue in her opening remarks. Given how central the tribunals are to the operation of the bill and to the interpretation particularly of discretionary powers, does that mean that the bill will not now be implemented until that time, or just certain sections of the bill, for example those governing letting agents? Several speakers, including the committee, raised on-going concerns over the issue of students and holiday lets. The minister said that she will give this further consideration, but that she wants to be able to do so, while remaining with one tenancy type. I hope that I understood her right. I was slightly confused because Rod Campbell, when he, in his contribution, heard the same remarks. I think that Rod Campbell said that he interpreted that as meaning that there would be an exemption, as with university accommodation. I would welcome the minister's clarification there because, certainly from the Labour's perspective, we do not believe that students should be treated as a different category of tenant, but we do think that their interests in those of landlords should be met with further discussion and negotiation. Labour welcomes the move to limiting rent rises to once a year, but it is difficult to know what to make of the Government's proposals on rent caps in pressured areas. Clearly this is worrying the sector, who believe that uncertainty, lack of clarity and greater risk is putting off investors. I believe that the minister herself said that she wants to see a better and more professional PRS. It is not unreasonable then for the sector to ask for clarity on the data that local authorities will need to compile to use those new powers. For example, will it be collected over existing broad market rental market areas or using local authority boundaries? Investors want to calculate the risk, they want to know exactly or how likely it is that those new powers to control rents will be used. They are being assured that it is highly unlikely that they will be used, which leaves many of us wondering what the legislation is designed to achieve. Without sounding overly cynical, it does sound as though the Scottish Government want to look as though they are putting rent controls in place without actually doing so. To wind up, Presiding Officer, the bill today builds on proposals initially put forward by Labour, and we will support it. The answer to difficulties in the private rented sector, as with the answer to Scotland's housing crisis more generally, is a straightforward one. Build more houses. I would suggest to the minister that she now adopts more policies adopted by Labour and proposed by Labour. Build the 60,000 affordable homes required to meet assessed needs, not the 50,000 proposed by the SNP, make 75 per cent of those for social rent, and make the dream of home ownership a reality again with our £3,000 boost to savers. Thank you very much. It is very time for time now, Colin Margaret Burgess, to wind up up to eight minutes less. Would you be more, please? Okay, thank you Presiding Officer. I am grateful for members for their contributions to this afternoon's debate. I will start with the point that Ken Macintosh finished on there and say that there is absolutely no doubt and no disagreement. The answer is to increase the supply of housing across all tenures, and we are committed to doing that in our 50,000 houses. We have said 75 per cent of those will be for social rent. We have exceeded our 30,000 target in this current Parliament, and we have also assisted 20,000 people into a good percentage of those into low-cost home ownership and our help-to-buy schemes. We announced a further £160 million today to help people into home ownership. Let us not pretend that we want to help people into home ownership, but the bill is about security for people in the private rented sector. A number of people made the point that the bill is about someone's home. It is about landlords having to accept that what they are doing is providing a home for someone, and with that comes responsibilities. Tenants have a right to feel secure in that home. The bill is about rebalancing that relationship. We have heard Alex Johnson say that we are not taking it too far one way and suggestions from the other side that we are not taking it far enough. It is getting that balance right that we are doing. I am still listening and I have listened closely to some of the points that were made today. The point that was made on the student accommodation that I think Rod Campbell referred to and what I said is that we would look and I am considering about the purpose-built student accommodation and the investment in that. I am looking at that, but I made it very clear that in the overall student lets that we see that I very much would like to see an open-ended tendency that students should not be treated any differently in the private sector as anyone else. I think that that is a very important part of it. Landlords may have to adjust the way they engage with their tenants to that, but I think that that is important and has got wide support. I just want to be clear on that. I want to mention a couple of other things that have been raised here. One, a lot has been said today about the tribunal and its operation. I appreciate that people have some uncertainty about this because it is not up and running yet. I want to do all I can to ensure that we do get the tribunal system that it does work effectively. It is part of the overall tribunal Scotland system. It is not something that sits in it so just in this bill, so it is not solely within this bill or housing that the tribunal sits in. However, the tribunal is still being established. However, I would say that the tribunal will be an independent tribunal. We cannot seek to influence the decisions of the tribunal or issue instructions or guidance to that tribunal. However, we are aiming for a system where legal aid is not the norm. I think that we have to say that, because otherwise why would we remove it from the court to have a separate court? This is a system where it will be much more informal. It will be housing specialists that are in it, as well as legal specialists in it, that will be able to—people can go on their own or go with another organisation, another representative, whether it be a lay representative, and in some cases they may require legal representation. What I would say very clearly, and I have said it in more than one occasion, is that I would not be standing here talking about this tribunal system if I did not think that tenants could access it and access it affordably. That is not about creating a system and saying to tenants that we are giving you these rights, but here we have created this other system, but you cannot access your rights. I want to be absolutely clear on that. She knows that she has our support in introducing a tribunal approach to resolving tens of difficulties. Can I ask, though, if the tribunal itself will not be up and running until 2018, does that mean that the certain parts of this bill will not be implemented until that date? I would have to come back to the scale of the bill when it receives royal assent, when it starts to come into place, because off the top of my head, I cannot say that the legislation will be effective from a particular date. I will come back, and certainly at stage 2, to have that information for you. However, I can say that the powers that we transferred to the tribunal in the Housing Scotland Act 2014 will still be transferred, and it will be transferred in stages and certain sections into the tribunal. I do not see that being an issue for this bill, but I will certainly come back before stage 2 or come back directly to the member on that. We will be consulting more widely on the tribunal, and the Government will be on the tribunal system. I will take one other interview. I thank the minister very much for taking that intervention. On the issue of the tribunal, it is 2017, not 2018, but what I always want to ask is, when it comes to anti-social and people of social behaviour, will it be asked to go into arbitration before anything is done? As I said earlier in response, we cannot dictate or direct the tribunal what they need to look at in terms of evidence, but we are very clear in terms of anti-social behaviour that any ground whatever for repossession will have to be evidenced by the landlord. It will not be a tick box exercise on anything, and there is going to be discretion in terms of anti-social behaviour for the tribunal to look at what the behaviour is, the extent, the nature of the anti-social behaviour. Sometimes that can be subjective, so the tribunal will decide on the merits of each and every case. I think that it is appropriate that when seeking to evict someone from their home, including sometimes many families that rent privately, there should be a due process in doing that. It will consider a range of evidence, and it will not necessarily be in some instance that they have to call witnesses or neighbours or stakeholders, but they will determine the evidence that they require and decide whether it is sufficient enough to have that sanction of evicting someone. I think that that is why we have to have that element of discretion in it for anti-social behaviour. I think that the other grounds are looking at the robustness of the grounds. A few people have mentioned rent arrears and the one month in a three month period. I am looking at the committee's report very carefully on that, but we have to balance that with the fact that if someone gets into three months rent arrears, that is a considerable amount of money, and it is very difficult to repay that. I am very keen that people are told early on about where they can get assistance if they do fall into rent arrears so that they are not in a situation of losing their home because of rent arrears if it could be prevented. I know that that will become part of the stage two discussions on the bill. I think that we have discussed the student part. I am also looking at—we are talking to our rural stakeholders—the points that were made by, I think, Alex Johnson and David Stewart on employees. However, we have to balance that with, is it right to put a family out there home because we are talking about homes because potentially someone is coming in as an employee and a family in that rural area with their children perhaps at a rural school being asked to move because someone is coming in for a job. We have to look at that and get that balance right. At the moment, I am not being convinced that that is a ground for repossession, but we are still in discussion about that. I am very clear that I am running out of time and you are telling me to be quiet. I am encouraged by what I have heard today for the broad support of the bill. I will consider the recommendations and I look forward to further discussions as we reach stage two of the process. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on stage one of the private housing tenants in Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. However, before we do, I wish to apologise to Sandra White if I was less than gracious in my treatment offer. I also wish to apologise to the chamber for the poor quality lighting that we are enduring. It will gradually, I am told, restore itself over time and I intend therefore to press on with your approval. We now come to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15380, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on celebrating the success of Scotland's young people and youth work. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible, as members will understand that we are now extraordinarily tight for time and so you will be held to your time. Minister, if you are ready, I would be grateful if you would start making a speech as soon as you are. You have 10 minutes to do so. This debate is, as the motion suggests, an opportunity for us to highlight the contribution youth work and specifically youth wards make to our society and for our young people. We want Scotland to be the best place to grow up and to achieve that ambition, we must ensure that our young people, particularly those impacted by poverty and inequality, get the support that they need to develop their skills and aptitudes and to be successful, confident, effective and responsible citizens. The review of youth awards undertaken by Education Scotland makes clear that we have much to be proud of in our approach to youth work. Since the establishment of the awards network in 2008, we have seen a 273 per cent growth in participation and completion of youth awards in the past six years. That is a significant increase and it translated into figures for 2014-15 that represents over 73,000 completed awards. That is a fantastic achievement by our young people. Each one of those 73,000 young people is a successful, confident, effective and responsible citizen. Every one of them is an individual story of success and behind that figure of 73,000 awards will be thousands of hours of dedication and commitment by young people who have been inspired by youth work and youth workers. I am proud that the SNP Government established the awards network in 2008, a timely and creative response to curriculum for excellence. The development of the awards network since 2008 to the present demonstrates a high level of public policy innovation emerging from the first national youth work strategy. It was two years ago that we gathered in this chamber to discuss and debate and to thank all those who worked tirelessly to develop the national youth work strategy and all those who played our key role in shaping and delivering its implementation. Today we can see some of the fruit of their commitment and dedication as this review shows what has been accomplished to date. On that point, I want to say from the outset that we will not be supporting the Labour amendment not because we think that there is anything inherently wrong but because it is important that we recognise what youth awards deliver for young people in terms of curriculum for excellence skills. The idea of turning that recognition into a standalone formal qualification might put some young folk and volunteers off participation and negate the benefit derived from a different type of learning experience for young people. On that side, we want to continue the vocational qualifications and other parts of the education system to recognise youth awards in their own right. We will continue to take the spirit of what was intended through the Labour amendment and work with my colleagues to take forward some of that work. I recommend that members read the report and digest the key strengths of the youth awards that are articulated within it. Those strengths highlight the increased confidence that young people get through the youth work approach. The report also demonstrates the way in which youth work contributes to our wider ambitions to become a fairer society and a more prosperous economy. For example, youth awards support young people in their learning and to progress to further and higher education training and employment on leaving school. The evidence backs up this finding because youth employment in Scotland is now at its highest September to November level since 2005, and we now have record levels of young people in positive destinations after leaving school with two thirds in further and higher education. The skills that young people gain through achieving youth awards are vital life skills, enabling more of them to take up leadership roles and are contributing back into their communities and society by volunteering themselves. The report also signals the transformative change that can happen through young people's lives as a result of the youth awards. Highlighting that for those young people who are facing particular challenges, the youth awards can be life-changing. That is made plain by some of the reach that youth awards have. For example, in the Pullman Young Offenders Institute, young people are participating in Duke of Edinburgh awards, as done by the youth bank. From one young person, the dynamic youth awards have helped me to become more confident and I have expanded my knowledge. I have experienced things that I would not have done. The review findings, the data from elsewhere and, most important of all, the stories and experiences of young people themselves highlight their impact and the importance to our society and our communities. We have, through the report, an evidence approach that is delivering for young people in Scotland and its impact cuts right across portfolios throughout government and society. Quite recently, in this chamber, we gathered to consider what more we can do to close the gap in educational attainment and tackle inequalities in our society. The youth awards report points to the potential and effectiveness of youth work as a key way to contribute to and collaborate with efforts to raise attainment. The report states that, for some young people, staying in education as a result of their participation in youth awards means that, if their attendance is up and that they decide to stay and remain engaged with education for longer, it can lead directly to increased attainment. Moreover, the report describes that, for some who are disengaged from education participation, an award is a first step towards personal achievement and an increase in their self-belief and sense of ambition. The awards are crucial in capturing and recognising young people's successes and achievements, particularly if aspirations are low. Those awards can also change lives in unexpected places. Some of our most vulnerable young people in secure units, care homes and young offender institutions, now have the chance to have their positive achievements recognised and to take the opportunity to change their lives. The impact that that has on re-offending and building positive relationships with trusted adults offers a positive route out of destructive cycles of crime and offending and benefits society as a whole. Therefore, the report confirms what we know that youth work builds confidence, capacity, resilience and skills in young people, and that strength needs to be continually harnessed in our endeavours to reduce the attainment gap. The review highlights that there is need for evidence-based research to explore the role of youth awards in raising attainment. I am happy to confirm today that I will take that recommendation forward and consider how we ensure that we understand the impact with a view to ensuring that youth work and youth awards in particular are able to contribute effectively to collective efforts to raise attainment. The diversity and the range of awards offered by the awards network enables young people to choose which awards suits them. Young people can achieve, regardless of their background or ethnicity, their faith or experiences, all of them can find a place to belong and to participate. That is why it is important that we continue to invest in youth work in a range of sectors and settings. In December last year, I was pleased to announce the allocation of £12 million in funding through our children, young people families, early intervention and adult learning and empowering communities fund to support the work of more than 100 charities. That included funding to empower communities and organisations with a sole focus on youth work. Since 2008, our cashmack for communities programme has contributed £75 million to improve the quality of life for our young people. By harnessing the proceeds of crime, the programme has significantly contributed to youth work by opening up opportunities for young people to explore the arts, culture and sport and creating diversionary youth work projects. We remain committed to investing in youth work in all its forms to enable young people to achieve their potential and to make a wider contribution to our ambitions for our society and our communities. The report also makes clear that young people contribute significantly to their communities through volunteering while participating in youth awards. Scotland leads the way in the UK through a report on behalf of the Cabinet Office seeking to determine the proportion of young people aged 10 to 20 involved in social action. It showed that 49 per cent of young people were involved in meaningful voluntary activity in Scotland compared to 39 per cent in England and Wales and 36 per cent in Northern Ireland. Further more, the recent OECD review of Scottish school education noted that the links between schools and their communities is strong and that youth volunteering is one of the ways that that link is maintained. That international recognition is to be welcomed. That means that there is a strong contribution by young people both in and out of school to community development. Participation in youth volunteering prepares young people to be active and responsible citizens. That community activism and determination to be involved in society was evident in the recent referendum where 16 and 17 roles were given the opportunity for the first time to have a say in the direction of our country. The young people were entrusted with that and grabbed that opportunity with both hands. Now, as of this year, we will have the opportunity to shape the shape of this parliament. That is something that we all welcome. That is another reason why we want to celebrate young people and we will do so in 2018's year of young people. Further to the evidence contained in the report about the value of the youth work award network, Scotland has a strong evidence-based to draw from, which is unique within the UK, in that youth work is recognised and reported upon through inspection. 200 learning community inspections over the past seven years have shown us that the impact on young people and communities is now very good or better since 2013-14 in over 80 per cent of learning communities. That covers every local authority in all the main youth work agencies. Inspection also shows that the sector has a very good track record on partnership working. There is recognition at the highest level in government in the national improvement framework of the valuable contribution that community learning development partners, including youth work, make to delivering on national and local outcomes. The national improvement framework noted on the role of youth awards in improving educational outcomes for children and young people. One aspect for further development, highlighted by the view, is the need that we need to have more strategic planning to increase access to assess the impact of youth awards. Again, I am happy to confirm that we will explore fully how that can be achieved through community empowerment measures and community planning partnerships in particular. Moreover, the view highlighted the potential scope for an increased focus on using youth awards to address prevention and early intervention. That, to me, clearly suggests the role of youth work in getting it right for every child approach. We have a very good story to tell, but there is clearly more than what we can do to push forward the potential of youth work. I would like to put on record my thanks to the youth workers, the volunteers and particularly the young people themselves who are contributing to our society. I hope that we will be able to support that work as it continues to develop and grow and enhance and contribute to our society. Many thanks and well done. I apologise to you for the many distractions going on during your speech. I am pleased to open the short debate for Scottish Labour. I would like to join the minister in welcoming the success of Scotland's young people and Scotland's growing youth work sector and not welcoming to the significant growth that has been in the participation and completion of youth awards. That is great news because the awards network has a key role to play in improving the life chances of young people in Scotland in supporting our communities and ensuring the effective implementation of the curriculum for excellence, especially in our high schools. It is moving us towards the aspiration that we all share of helping our young people to become successful, confident, effective and responsible citizens and of making Scotland the best place to grow up. For some young people, youth awards and youth work more generally do not just equip them with greater confidence, motivation and skills. It can be life changing. The young people's increased participation is a great bonus to our communities as the minister outlined. Volunteer Scotland recently found that young people are much more likely than adults to volunteer with 45 per cent of young people volunteering compared to 27 per cent of adults. That is good news for the future of Scotland. I hope that that will continue when the young people become adults themselves. Scottish Labour welcomes the increased participation in youth work and the key role that plays in supporting young people's personal and social development and in offering access to learning opportunities outside the formal classroom environment. Across Scotland, more than 80,000 adults work with young people through youth work as both paid employees and as volunteers, reaching over 380,000 young people across the country. The majority of them, 92 per cent, are under the age of 17. Youth Link Scotland estimate that 53 per cent of young people in Scotland are benefiting from youth work. All of that adds up to almost 13 million hours of volunteering a year, so that is a record to be proud of. I was very pleased to have the opportunity, like other MSPs, to meet with some of my constituents who are keen to share the positive experiences of youth work and to highlight their national call to action, challenging politicians of all parties to better support our youth work sector. The young people that I met with access to youth work activities at the excellent Towerhouse Youth Hub in my Dynfirmland constituency enjoyed it so much that they went on to train to become youth workers themselves. One of the young people that I met with Liam was referred to Towerhouse because he was refusing to go to school. He is a transgender young person and he told me that how his involvement in youth work did not just change his life, it literally quite saved his life. Each of the young people that I spoke to embodied what can be achieved through effective youth work, enabling young people to develop and build positive relationships and to allow them to make a difference not just to their own lives but to the lives of their community. In particular, the young people that I met were very keen to see much better links between formal education and youth work. Tackling the attainment gap is quite rightly at the top of the political agenda. I think that the one way that we can make inroads here is to ensure much better recognition of the value of achievements gained through engagement in youth work in informal and out-of-school learning activities, ensuring that young people can learn in a way that inspires them most in helping to end the cycle of disadvantage that affects too many of our young people. I think that if we are going to close the gap and help those most at risk of under achievement, then a real partnership between formal education and youth work is essential. That is why Scottish Labour's amendment today calls for the adoption of a universal Scottish graduate certificate encompassing academic, vocational and voluntary achievement, pretty similar to what has been delivered in Wales quite recently. I know that there are already arrangements in place between some youth groups, such as the Scouts and with schools, but the SQA is looking at ways to develop and recognise wider achievement. We think that we need much more formal recognition of the value and diversity of achievements both in and out of the classroom. That is especially important in the senior phase, which right now is focused too much on measure and success by SQA exam results. I just wanted to put on record the willingness to work with her and others on that, because we want to make sure that we are capturing all the achievements that young people take from the youth awards. Perhaps the way in which it is articulated in the motion does not necessarily fit, but it does not mean that we do not want to continue down the route that the member suggests. I very much welcome the minister's comments. We are not talking about a standalone certificate as possibly our amendment would imply, so I hope that the minister will consider our proposals and look at what is happening in Wales in the way that it is ensuring that a diverse range of achievements and talents of every young person are recorded. I think that that fits in well with the vision outlined by the chief executive of YouthLink, Scotland, Jim Sweeney, who has said that if we are really going to tackle the education attainment gap, we need to realise that not all young people respond to formal education. They need another path, another approach that engages them and keeps them on the learning journey. A solid partnership with formal education would ensure that all our young people can learn in a way that inspires them. In the briefing for today's debate, YouthLink Scotland also highlighted the need for financial investment in longer-term funding arrangements. If we are going to ensure that the youth work and youth awards success story continues, that is vital. Ambition is great, but it has got to be backed up with resources. At a time when our councils are facing significant cuts to their budgets, it is vital that we continue to highlight how investing in youth work and in the preventive agenda make sense. It is worth highlighting once more research, which has found that a return of around £13 for every £1 invested in youth work. In the past two years, local authorities through activity arrangements co-ordinated and supported by YouthLink have helped more than 7,000 young people into positive destinations. Those are the young people who are furthest away from the job market and from college, so investing in youth work now can help to deal with future budget challenges. I have noticed that I am running out of time, so I will skip on my speech. I have spoken to the workforce youth workers. I know that we are very stressed about where future funding is coming from. They would very much welcome longer-term funding packages from the Scottish Government. We really need to make sure that there is more sustainable funding that youth workers are better supported and that the contribution of volunteers is fully recognised. Our society is constantly changing, and so too are the aspirations, interests and hope of our young people. However, youth work and youth awards will have a key role to play in improving the life trances of our young people and ensuring that young people can play a positive role in shaping Scotland's future. I am excited to what the minister has said about young people. 16 and 17-year-olds have the opportunity to vote in May. I hope that young people make the most of the opportunity. It is vital that the Scottish Government and local authorities continue to invest in and support Scotland's youth work sector in order to ensure that it can continue to change lives both now and in the future. I move the amendment in the name of Ian Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome this debate. Scottish Conservatives fully support the youth awards in Scotland, helping young people to be successful, confident, effective and responsible citizens. We also very much welcome the 273 per cent growth in participation and I personally welcome the benefits in terms of employability and opportunities for future. It is not all about formal qualifications. It is interesting to note in the Government's motion the link with attainment that employers, colleges and universities will undoubtedly take into account a young person's participation in awards from the Duke of Edinburgh, Boys Brigade, Scout and Guide movements to Princess Trust and so many others. Given that youth awards are gaining more participation and recognition, it may be that the amendment that Labour has put down today should be recognised by the education system through the adoption of a universal Scottish graduate certificate, which we actually think merits further consideration. However, given the lack of detail at this time, we will not be supporting the Labour amendment, but we acknowledge the principle and we also acknowledge in the report that there is a commitment to do much more work on this issue, so whilst we welcome it, we think that there is more work to be done. I also welcome the briefings that we have today and too many to mention, but youth link is stating the skills gained to young people, confidence, interpersonal skills, team working, leadership and employability, as well as being supported in their learning to progress to further and higher education and training. I thought the comments by the chief executive of youth link relating to educational attainment acknowledges that not all young people respond to formal education and that we do need another approach that engages them and keeps them on the learning journey. Very much the words of Ian Wood in the vocational training, which I know we all welcome in this chamber. As the minister said, I am too consensual for my own good today really, but I have too many welcomes here. I do welcome the cash back for communities, giving more than £9 million to over 1700 projects benefiting over 315 people. Really, surely there can be no better investment for this money than into developing and supporting our young people in the communities they live in and where they most need it. The Princess Trust, I thought, had a great story to tell and in Scotland helping 3000 young people to get a job in a year, £600 to start a business and £1,700 to reconnect with education. It is an example of an excellent partnership targeting at those that need it the most. When you look at those that need it, it is not just minor problems, many of the difficulties compounded by drug and alcohol misuse, crime and homelessness. Those are complex issues for young folk to take forward on their own, and they may not always have the family support that they need. It is an initiative to make sure that no young person is left behind, and it is one that, on this side, we certainly endorse. The new wolves and centre in Glasgow partnership between the council, Skills Development Scotland and Job Centre Plus certainly brings everything together, and I hope that, once it is up and running, it can be rolled out elsewhere in Scotland. I thought the case study for Tommy from Angus was excluded from school, then excluded from college, and his future was to be in a secure unit. To then have that turned around by an education programme and support from the Princess Trust is an opportunity that should be open to all children at this age, at this time and in this situation. The report that we are debating today acknowledges problems, measuring levels of confidence, resilience and social attributes. However, the fact that we are debating these issues today and that Education Scotland is looking at young people being supported to gain social outcomes is all good news going forward. I very much welcome the need for an evidence-based research exploring the role of youth awards in raising attainment. It is attainment so much on our agenda, but we have never spoken about the link between youth awards and attainment. I just say when my son and daughter were at the high school of Dundee, some of the best times they ever had, and their fondest memories were in the combined cadet force. I hope that that will also be rolled out, not just to private schools but to give people in state schools the opportunity to enjoy as well. We now move to the open debate. I call on Linda Fabiani to be followed by Drew Smith up to four minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a really interesting subject. I think that every one of us who has the privilege to represent people in Scotland could reel off loads of examples of where young people in our communities have been volunteering for years, irrespective of whether or not awards can be gained at the end of it, whether it be in organisations that have already been mentioned or local churches or through their local schools. However, what I have really enjoyed seeing over the past few years is a recognition generally across society about just how important that volunteering is. I am really pleased to see, too, a review of the youth awards in Scotland, because there was some scepticism when they were introduced at the time as to whether that could be as successful as it was being put forward by the then ministers. It is good to see this report from Education Scotland that, since the establishment of the awards network in 2008, the significant growth and participation and completion of youth awards fairly major. It has confirmed what so many of us feel about volunteering for young people in all walks of life—the skills that can come and the confidence of winning something in recognition. It is huge that you are a vital part of interpersonal team-working leadership. Of course, employability through participation in youth awards is so important that we link those things up. I am interested in a couple of the key strengths and how it relates to the aspects for further development that have been mentioned. One of the key strengths that is noted is that, for some young people, facing additional challenges, participation in youth awards is life-changing. That is absolutely superb to hear, but it has to be linked to the aspects for further development and a recognition that sometimes it is not always those who could perhaps benefit most who end up in such schemes. When you look at page 8 of the report that we are discussing today, it says that there are few examples of partnerships taking a well-planned strategic approach to increasing access and impact of youth awards. There is scope for an increased focus on using youth awards to address prevention and early intervention. I do not take that as a criticism. I think that it is marvellous that we have a monitoring situation further down the line. I am quite happy to talk in the dark because I am not sure if you would like me to carry on. We will see if there is room again. We are expecting them to kick back in. I do not consider it a criticism that such things are mentioned as aspects for further development. It is an opportunity that we can take forward and try very hard to make sure that we are able to take the best opportunity that we can to reach as many people as we can. I am terribly good at rabbitting on, so it is okay. When you also look at the aspects for further development, I can see this. It does say that there is an incomplete statistical picture that details the totality of participation, progression and completion in the full range of youth awards. I think that we have to look beyond that, too. Although we are doing wonderful work in aiming at youth awards, we sometimes miss the follow-on stuff or the stuff that can happen around that. There are some wonderful examples in my area of schemes that are funded through the cashback communities that try to get a hold of people and give them a different path in life, which is about the prevention agenda. However, I sometimes worry that all of a sudden they are not deemed to be youth anymore and they are suddenly left with no other kind of support. It is far too easy to fall back the way. I would like to see more of a build-up on the follow-on from the youth awards. I would also like to see more of a focus on perhaps building stuff around the youth award work that is there for those who choose for whatever reason not to participate. In my area, again, there is a smashing youth club called The Key that is run by Universal Connections in South Lanarkshire. There is also a skateboard park next to it that is very well used by another group of youngsters, and it is like never the twain shall meet. I am not convinced that that is the healthiest way to be going around things that we should try and draw people together. Last point is that there has been very good work done. The young people have been fabulous, the organisation is fabulous and the staff, the professionalism of the staff who are running these youth awards and youth work generally is marvellous. We have loads to build on and I think that that is a good story to tell, but we could make it better. Well done, valiant effort and extraordinary circumstances. Mr Smith, if you can see, please, four minutes please, all thereby. I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer. I read the report from Education Scotland with interest and I did wonder if I should declare an interest as a past recipient of the Rotary International Youth Leadership Award way back in the last century. Going even further back than that, the report itself highlighted a lecture given in 1958 by John McMurray, an educational lecture, which I thought a few members might refer to this afternoon, because the title of that lecture was learning to be human. That seems a simple and powerful place to begin. It is part of learning, obviously, to make mistakes just as and life, but that is most basic. The object of teaching children to become adults is probably the most important task that we each undertake, either as parents or as part of the village, the community that surrounds our young people and supports and raises each one of them. It is also a task, of course, which individually we take responsibility for ourselves. What kind of person do we want to be and what contribution do we seek to make? It is a task that we face not just when we are young but a process of learning that never ends. The thing is, with never-ending tasks, as we all know, is to break them down into milestones, objectives and achievements, not just to rack up achievements and awards but to strive to improve on them. For me, that should be at the heart of our ambition, continually improving the opportunities for our young people and consequently for society. The report highlighted many strengths of the youth work sector in Scotland, rightly crediting the range of awards that young people are achieving. If the challenge of our job in here sometimes is to assist our constituents when things are not going so well for them or to seek to improve their lot, then surely one of the greatest rewards and privileges that we have is the many opportunities to engage with those who give outstanding service to others, who achieve great or, in some cases, sometimes simple things for themselves and for their communities. Certainly many times in the past five years, in my experience here, I have had the opportunity to acknowledge those achievements, particularly by our young people, whether it is, as the minister herself referred to, engaging with young people during the referendum campaign. More recently, it was mentoring young people on a Commonwealth parliamentary association programme, which was grateful to the CPA branch here for allowing me to do, judging, debating competitions, sometimes presenting awards. However, more importantly, it is probably just listening to our young people and young people thinking particularly of the Save the Children young ambassadors, and that programme talks about the challenges in their lives and their efforts to overcome them. Whether it is sport, music, citizenship or care, the range of achievements do need all to be recognised and rewarded. Many of the most amazing things that people do are done quietly, sometimes out of necessity. For many young people who live in more difficult circumstances, it is recognition of those achievements, which is perhaps hardest to find. The award programme that I mentioned was specifically targeted at young people who might not otherwise benefit from youth awards. Taking part in it, I remember being somewhat overwhelmed by the range of opportunities that some of the other young people I met had had. That is an experience that many of us who had the opportunity to attend university will recall when first arriving. I think that you are gesturing to me through the darkness to hurry up, but I might have a bit of leeway since I cannot quite see you. The minister will be aware of my previous involvement with the children's panel and a whole range of the groups of young people that she referred to in her own speech. I would certainly encourage every effort to widen the information that is available so that as many young people as possible can take up in those opportunities. I will end by commending all the good work that has gone on. I can certainly commend the minister. I am sure that she is aware of many others herself, but many organisations in my region of Glasgow do an awful lot to teach our young people how to be human. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Well done, an excellent speech in very difficult conditions. I now call on Tavish Scott to be followed by Graham D, Mr Scott, for a minute. I am pleased to be speaking in the dark, and it is literally true this afternoon. Drew was quite right that it is difficult to see the Presiding Officer, which gave Linda Fabiani great latitude to make a four-minute speech last five and a half minutes, which is commendable to her. I want to make to recognise what you said about volunteering in particular, because one of the genuine most enjoyable aspects to this job is presenting awards and being part of the celebrations that take place in every area of Scotland. Certainly, over the years, it has been my pleasure to do a lot of that in Shetland and to recognise young people, no matter their background and no matter what they have done for the role that they have played that has been reflected in the speeches that we have heard right across the chamber this afternoon. I wanted to reflect in a more positive way the In Gray amendment, because while I absolutely take the Minister of Mary Scanlon's points about the detail, and I am sure that they are right about that, it seems to me that In Gray's amendment has something quite strong and important about it, and indeed the Minister and Mary Scanlon's remarks, I thought, reflected that. That is that the very awards that we are talking about and some of the others that have been mentioned as well, members have given considerable lists this afternoon, are not always recognised in the school point systems that reflect on individual pupils' futures. Were that to be the case, and I recognise that that may be more of a formal system, and it may need some work that Ian Gray nodot will come on to describe, but were that to be more recognised, then the very type of learning experience that we are seeking to achieve for our education system, particularly in terms of the employer's recognition of that, might be more so were the formal approach that Ian Gray's amendment to be followed. I take the Minister's point about the detail, because as she and others have made clear this afternoon, and as Jim Sweetie's excellent briefing makes clear for this debate, some young people do, of course, find formal educational qualifications simply hard to achieve. That was the very nature, after all, of the Ian Wood commission's report, and that is what we are on a cross-party basis, all very strongly supportive of. It seems to me that the learning partnerships in the senior phases of our high schools in particular, between youth work and schools and teachers themselves, is part of that approach. The priority of esteem argument seems to me particularly important, and we should possibly see that as a change that would provide the positive benefits of the blended learning that we are looking to achieve. The other point that I wanted to reflect on in terms of the Minister's comments, the wider comments, are what I suppose some might describe as the current barriers to youth workers playing a greater role in schools, which I think would be very positive indeed. There is some work already that shows how effective that can be. After all, youth workers are trained, are professionally qualified in this whole area, and I think there is much to be gained for our education system, not least of which because of the introduction and practical implementation of curriculum for excellence, if the Government would take forward that in the best way that they possibly can. That may need some further work and consideration, and there is research that the Education Scotland report touches on, but it seems to me that putting skilled youth workers in schools working with teachers to benefit pupils is very much what we are after. That is why I want to recognise in my own constituency the work that Shufflelands Council youth service plays in terms of the positive destinations for young people, again, from all kinds of backgrounds that are so important. Cara Hylton makes the right point about the wider pressure on those youth services budgets in every local authority area in Scotland. I am sure that the Minister is working hard to win that internal argument about resources that are necessary for that. There are two other organisations that I want to mention. One is the Dame Kelly Holmes Trust, because it just does great work with young athletes. That is 10 seconds per minute and a half, I guess, based on the young athletes transitioning and transforming the lives of disadvantaged young people. That is a very important initiative now being taken forward in conjunction, and this is the point, Presiding Officer, with employers like BP and local authorities. It seems to me the very kind of partnership that people want. The last point that I wanted to make, Presiding Officer, is about Mind Your Head, because the one point that has not been made so far in this debate is about mental health in young people. I really do think that it is essential that organisations, a voluntary organisation like Mind Your Head in Shufflelands that promotes mental health are supported because of all the work that they do with youth volunteering and the essential positive impression that they bring to a very difficult issue. Those are the kind of organisations that young people benefit from, as well as the awards that the Minister has rightly raised this afternoon. Thank you very much. I am now calling Graham Day, after which we will move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and whilst acknowledging absolutely the success of the awards network and formal youth work in general, I want to focus my contribution. I will make a curtail contribution again at the clock, principally on individual young people and the role models that they provide and the contribution that they can make to shaping services. One young constituent of mine, Michael Hans, is a fantastic example of both of those. Michael, who is visually impaired, recently travelled to Brussels to participate in the European Commission's Day of Persons with Disabilities event. Last year's conference focused on children and young people with disabilities, their access to education and how it contributes to the equal participation of children and young people with disabilities in society. Michael has also been appointed to serve as a member of Education Scotland's young ambassadors for inclusion programme. The ambassadors will share their views and experiences of inclusive education and act as a voice at national level. I applaud Education Scotland for launching this initiative, in which Michael and other participants are well with it. It is young people like Michael who, by their actions, make the voice of young people heard, and so do I. I remind all of us of the kind of good citizens we are raising, as the minister referenced earlier. It is young adults like Laura Burden and other my constituents that demonstrate that the upcoming generation is just as capable as we were of carving out careers and in so doing act as an example to their peers. Laura Burden from Curnoostie was named both SDS apprentice of the year and higher apprentice of the year for 2015. After starting her job at a hotel in the town, Laura was quickly promoted, undertook qualifications and is now working for a global hotel chain as a meetings and events co-ordinator, another young person from Angus and another young Scot to be proud of. The young people that I come into contact with as an MSP weave me with every confidence in the next generation. Some have had their achievements marked by awards. Many others contribute in largely unrecognised ways. As the first part of the motion title says, we should, in all its guises, publicly recognise or not, celebrate the success of our young people. I thank you for your brevity. I do appreciate it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say that this has been quite a debate and it has what I imagine been full of all the atmosphere and of excitement of a Barry Manilow concert at times, at least what I imagine that to be. I pay you the compliment, Presiding Officer, of saying that you look so much more electable with the lights out. Can I compliment the opening speeches on the briskly challenges that they made? There have been a number of strategies launched in Scotland over the past few years concerning young people's employability and skills development, the wood report, the youth employment strategy being the most high profile, and I compliment all those, including the Scottish Government, for the support and encouragement and leadership that they have shown. Therefore, the debate this afternoon has proven useful to discuss the wider context in which young people develop these capacities, and there is a welcome opportunity to congratulate the sizeable number of young people and adults involved in youth work in Scotland. I noted with interest that figures in the youth link briefing, which said that national youth work organisations are engaging with over 380,000 young people in Scotland who are supported by some 80,000 adults, many of whom do this work on a voluntary basis too. This is a really significant number of people and demonstrates the importance of getting national strategies for youth work right. I also like the volunteer Scotland study that found that 45 per cent of young people volunteer compared to 27 per cent of adults. Would that this fact acted as an incentive to many whose voluntary contribution as adults, if made, would be valued whatever their age? Much of this is helped by lottery awards, including Young Start, which has funded 393 grants, with awards totaling over £1.16.5 million. Of course, it is always true to say that there will always be demands for more. This afternoon, we have also heard many examples from Kara Hilton and others of how youth work can be transformative for young people, which I think all members have experienced and which is one of the more energising engagements we have in our role as MSPs. This can be challenging to capture at a national level without quantification, yet there is a tension and I wish to avoid the youth work being seen as any kind of box-taking exercise. To a certain extent, quantification can be shown by the growth in numbers of young people, achieving awards. I was impressed to learn in the Education Scotland report that the Duke of Edinburgh award has grown by 82 per cent in the last five years. That is one of the most well-known, deeply respected and long-running extracurricular awards that a young person can gain. Additionally, the number of John Muir awards gained has increased by 68 per cent, no doubt because of their efforts to reach out to pupils in a wide range of schools and their information booklets and how the award can complement many parts of the curriculum for excellence. However, I know that my colleague Liz Smith raised a similar issue to this when the national youth strategy was launched in 2014, when she said that hard and fast evidence was needed on what works for youth work policy in order that resources are channeled in the most effective way. I am not sure if we are any further forward with having that actual information to hand. Moreover, there must be a focus in ensuring that employers have a full awareness of the outcomes and what is involved in order for a young person to achieve those awards if those awards are to be meaningfully contributed to employability. However, let us not forget that many of the highest awards are gained at the same time as the most challenging academic years in a young person's schooling. I only want to finish with one observation and that was to express, a slightly truckier note, to express my dismay with whoever the clown was within the administration who categorised participation in cadet schemes as being preparation to be cannon fodder. I am sure that that is not a sentiment that is either shared or would be expressed by either of the ministers present in the chamber this afternoon. As someone who was educated in a school that was a war memorial trust, can I say that quite the opposite effect in me gave me a life-long appreciation of volunteering and also determination in life to ensure that anybody who serves in the armed forces is never ever put in the position of being cannon fodder. Many thanks. I now call on Ian Gray up to six minutes, Mr Gray. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Colleagues will know how keen I always am to find opportunities to celebrate the success of Scottish Government initiatives. Although I struggle to do it on many occasions, not today, because I think that the youth awards is indeed a huge success. The numbers tell us that a 273 per cent increase in five years, as the minister said, amounts to 73,000 youth awards last year. I think that success has been reflected in the debate by members from all sides of the chambers, as far as I could see for most of the debate who it was that was contributing in the dark. Most of them have also taken, as you would expect, the opportunity to give examples from their own constituencies of youth work. Cara Hylten did that, Linda Fabiani, Tabush Scott did that and Graham Day as well. I think that I am entitled to do that myself because East Lothian is pleased to say single doubt in the review of youth awards that says on page 13. In East Lothian, there is an effective level of leadership in the development of youth awards. A good range of opportunities are available in all six secondary schools in the authority and within community groups and uniformed organisations. I am entitled to mention one or two of them. I want to start with the recharge in Trinent, which recently celebrated 10 years of work with the youth in Trinent, as origins, lying in the social inclusion partnerships some 10 to 12 years ago, funded by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive. Still working and still strong, indeed, last year, 5,000 visits by 500 young people to their drop-ins and other evenings. That means, frankly, that almost all young people in Trinent engage with recharge. The secret of its success—this is quite important—is the youth manager system, whereby young people who have been attending the youth work of recharge become managers of the programme themselves. Many of them indeed go on as adults to become volunteers there, too. East Lothian Council can claim some credit to run a very successful East Lothian youth council. Currently, the youth council is producing a documentary on the impact of poverty in East Lothian, in which they are scripting, filming and producing themselves. I want to take the opportunity to tell colleagues that they will be showing their documentary in the Parliament at a reception on 10 February. I hope that we will try to attend that. The other awards just mentioned by Jackson Carlaw that I feel obliged to mention are the John Muir awards, which are very successful, with 68 per cent growth in five years and, of course, inspired by the life and example of John Muir from Dunbar in East Lothian. One of the most enthusiastic participants in the awards is not surprisingly Dunbar primary school. I want to take a couple of minutes to say a little more about our amendment, because although the response has not been entirely negative from the minister, I am slightly disappointed, because this is an attempt to look at the success of the youth awards and to see what the next step of building on them should be. Indeed, the review says that this work is required. It says that the awards network has limited capacity in its current form and funding model to improve and increase its scope further. Here is a success, but the review is saying that it needs some support to move on. I thank Ian Gray very much for giving way. It is just to express the concern that I personally had when I read the amendment and to perhaps ask for Ian Gray's opinion on it. When I first read the amendment, I was a wee bit concerned about a young person at school who could not, for whatever reason, participate in voluntary work and could end up being disadvantaged somehow for the future by not having this on a certificate. Let me address the point. The proposal is based on work done primarily by the educationalist Danny Murphy and the example that Kara Hilton mentioned of Wales. The idea is to create not just comprehensive schools in the senior phase but a comprehensive system in which not just exam results but also things like vocational and skills achievement and involvement in the kind of award schemes that we are talking about here is given some parity of esteem and proper recognition. It is not about giving particular cognisance to one kind of attainment and achievement over another. It is exactly about balancing that up and making sure that people get recognition for what they do. It would also be a great way in which we could do what Tavish Scott suggested, which is to bring school and youth work much closer together so that in school, people who currently do not get some of the benefits from youth work in these schemes would have more chance of doing that. Indeed, there are places in Scotland that have tried to move towards this already—North Lanarkshire with their diploma and Renfrewshire with their certificate of achievement. Our amendment is simply to try to take the stepping stone of the success of the Scottish Government scheme and move it on to something bigger, better and even more effective for our young people. Many thanks. I now call on Minister Eileen McLeod, Eileen Campbell, to wind up the debate. Eight minutes please, Ms Campbell. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank all the participants in what has been a really interesting and very positive debate. I also lend my thanks to the briefings from what others have also described as our fantastic youth work centre. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. I also want to touch upon some of the comments that have been made by many of the members. I start off with Kara Hilton and appreciate her positive remarks and the description that she had of Towerhouse in Dunfermline. That very powerful story of that transgender young person who described how youth work saved his life, and I think that the power of that demonstrates and captures the significance that we need to attach to what youth work can achieve. Kara Hilton also recognised the role of youth work and its potential to reduce the attainment gap. That is absolutely the territory that we are in. The report acknowledges that youth work can keep young people engaged in education for longer and that youth work can enthuse and inspire young people who are often furthest from attaining school qualifications. That is absolutely where we want to take this debate further. I appreciate Kara Hilton's remarks and her comments. Mary Scanlon also rightly pointed out the benefits of youth work in terms of employability, and rightly pointed out the other social policy areas in which youth work has an impact in terms of homelessness and health. That is the beach of youth work. It is vast, so we must harness that potential fully, but we must also be vigilant to understand its impact in an evidenced way. Linda Fabiani also recognised the positive outcomes for young people, and I can reassure the member that we will continue to build on what we have in a responsible way to recognise what youth workers are doing right across the country. Drew Smith also spoke about and raised the importance of listening to young people and engaging with them in an appropriate way. There is nothing worse than adults assuming that they know what young people want, so that is an important point that we must always be continually vigilant to engage with young people and take a nice sense of their views. He also spoke about his own experience of youth work. For myself, as a former member of the Girls Brigade and attendee of the CanRossie youth club, which was supported by Youth Scotland, it would be of interest for me and the youth work sector in general to understand just how many people's lives in this chamber have been impacted upon by youth work, and it might be an interesting project in itself. Tavish Scott also pointed out correctly that youth workforce is trained and professional and should be respected for the skills that they have, and that is an important point to always reiterate. The distinctive way in which they can engage with young people is something that is valued and can add value to our wider educational approaches. Alongside the reach of youth work that Mary Scanlon described, Tavish Scott also recognised the reach of this workforce into tackling mental health, and it is an important point that we should also take notice of. Game Day in that same vein described how inclusive youth work is in children and young people with disabilities. It is important to remember that we only get one shot at childhood, so the happy memories that youth work can provide by being so inclusive is absolutely priceless and something that we should always add and attach value to. In his summary, Jackson Carlaw also mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh and rightly noted its impact, and I am sure that we will all unite in the Parliament to join to wish the Duke of Edinburgh a very happy 60th birthday, which they will be celebrating this year. He also rightly pointed out the dangers of assessing the impact and that descending into a box-ticking exercise. We absolutely want to avoid that, and we will be driven by gathering the richness of youth work activity right across the country. However, he also mentioned the point around cadets. Among some of what had happened over the weekend, there is an important point that has been missed. In my engagement with the UK Government, what they want to do is apply as one-size-fits-all approach through the cadets system. We need to make sure that they need to take cognisance of our youth of work approach in Scotland, which demonstrates good results and good impacts. We want to make sure that, when we are working collaboratively with the UK Government, when they are coming into devolved areas of policy that we do not lose sight of, in Scotland we have something that we should be proud of and that the UK Government should take cognisance of that. That, I hope, clears that and clears the fact that we, as a Government, appreciate the role of the cadets service in Scotland. In the few minutes that I remain, I want to make sure that we acknowledge fully the role of youth work. What we have had through our comments today is a sense that the youth awards network looks very positive in its future. I note that the inclusion of the awards and the opportunity to explore a wider range of awards has been outlined in the new national improvement framework. That shows our commitment to making sure that we design and achieve a systematic means to recognise confident individuals' responsible citizens and effective contributors, as well as the qualifications that recognise successful learning. If we can do that, we will be global leaders in recognising the full contribution that young people make to our society. That recognition would have significant implications for employers and pathways into work. I know that organisations such as investors in young people's Scotland are looking at how companies can better understand the skills that young people bring, because the youth awards are important in demonstrating the soft skills and the interpersonal skills that employers tell us are so important for tomorrow's world of work. The Scottish Government is also looking at how we can raise awareness of those awards around our employers. We must also explore how youth awards can link to the careers education standards and the work placements that young people undertake in S4, and how they can enable young people to demonstrate the soft skills that they have gained through the awards programme. The last passage of her speech constitutes an argument for a Scottish graduation certificate exactly as we described it. In my remarks between Takara Hilton, I also said that I do not think what he has in his amendment articulates the case that he has put forward. I made a clear indication that I would work with him and others about how we try to make sure that we build from the youth award, the clear success that we have, but make it appropriate for the youth work world, which I do not think his amendment does. I think that we all agree on the principle that we want to build on this in a responsible way, but I do not think that his amendment captures that. That is why we unfortunately cannot accept his amendment today. The other point that I want to raise is that this youth work can also help in the transition from P7 to S1, which is another key area that we need to focus on when we are trying to raise attainment. To conclude, we have a good story to tell—a 273 per cent increase since 2008 of participation in youth awards and 73,000 stories of young people endeavouring to do what they can for their communities, but also contributing to the wellbeing of our society. That is something that I think that we should be proud of. I am glad that the Parliament unites behind that, and I look forward to building on that in the future to make sure that many more young people can contribute to society but also get lots of rich experiences through the work that youth work can bring to them. That concludes it today on celebrating the success of Scotland's young people and youth work. The next item of business is consideration of motion 15276. In the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution of the private housing tenancies Scotland Bill, I call Margaret Burgess to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of the parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask John Swinney to move motion number 15371, 15390 and 15391 on committee membership and substitution on committees on block. Question on this motion will be put at decision time. Before we turn to decision time, I want to update members on the issue with the lighting in the chamber this afternoon. We experienced a brief interruption to the power supply to the building twice this afternoon. This affected a number of services across the site, including lighting in the chamber. The cause of the interruption has been investigated. It is an external problem. We will have further investigations. In the meantime, I apologise to members and the public for the disruption that it may have caused. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is on motion number 15365, in the name of Margaret Burgess. On the private housing tenancies Scotland Bill, I will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members to cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15365, in the name of Margaret Burgess, is as follows. Yes, 8 to 8. No, 13. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 15380.1, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend motion number 15380, in the name of Aileen Campbell. On celebrating the success of Scotland's Young People and Youth Work, I will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members to cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 15380.1, in the name of Ian Gray, is as follows. Yes, 31. No, 67. There were three abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15380, in the name of Aileen Campbell. On celebrating the success of Scotland's Young People and Youth Work, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15276, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the private housing tennis of Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 15371, 15390 and 15391 on committee membership and substitution on committees. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected. Therefore, the question is at motions number 15371, 15390 and 15391, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on committee membership and substitution on committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.