 nhaid i gyd? Felly ei chael pwyntio i gyd yn fawr i'i fawr gwaith i gaddodwch ei fod. That ends portfolio questions, and we now move to the next item of business, which is Stage 3, proceedings on the Housing Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the Bill as amended at Stage 2, the martial list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, and thereafter I will allow voting period of one minute for the first division after debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the martial lists of amendments. We start with group 1, which is abolition of right to buy. I call amendment 38 in the name of Alex Johnstone, group with amendments 39, 71, 72 and 73. I draw members' attention to the preemption information on the groupings. Alex Johnstone, to move amendment 38 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 38 in my name. The purpose of amendment 38 is to remove section 1 of the bill. The effect would be to remove from the bill the attempt to end right to buy. The right to buy of council houses in Scotland has been the greatest driver for social change in 50 years. It has created strong mixed tenure communities that remain to this day examples of how we can do that within many of our towns and cities across Scotland. It has driven the aspiration for home ownership and it has been a positive in many areas. The pressure to end right to buy has existed in Scotland for some time and has been manifest within this Parliament. Yet the notion that we should somehow be protecting social housing is one that has not been consistent through the discussions that have taken place. Indeed, the notion of social housing is something that was in effect created by the 2001 housing act and, as a consequence, only since that day have we been able to divide social housing from other rented forms of tenure. The so-called loss of social housing is something that I would deny is really happening. The fact is that of the 1,400 houses that were sold in the last full year for which information is available, only 347 of those houses were sold under the modernised right to buy. However, 1,173 houses were sold under the pre 2001 preserved right to buy. Those were people who had been tenants of their existing property for more than 12 years, many for significantly longer. I maintain that those who exercised the right to buy were long-term tenants who would, had they not decided to buy, have remained long-term tenants. Therefore, by removing the right to buy, houses will not be freed up. In fact, the suggestion is that, in the first year, as few as 30 houses may be freed for new tenancies as a result of this change. Contrast that with the effect of this bill and its move to end right to buy. Provisions within the bill give a two-year period in which those entitled to exercise the right will have to make up their minds whether they should choose that right. I presume that, in an independent Scotland, rights will not be removed instantaneously from our people without compensation, so I presume that that opportunity to exercise an existing right will be maintained. The effect of this attempt to remove the right to buy will, I believe, be a feeding frenzy in which the Government may lose rather more houses than it expects to save. I believe that there is a mistake to move forward with the abolition of right to buy at this time, and I believe that, by the Government's own criteria, that will prove to be counterproductive. I thank Mary Faye to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 72 in my name. This amendment would seek to reduce the period of the abolition of right to buy from two years to one year. That follows on from the recommendation from the investment at the ICI committee and the majority of evidence that the committee received. That would enable right to buy to be removed as quickly as possible. While I am sympathetic that the minister wishes to allow as much time as possible to allow people to take up the right to buy before it is abolished, that is an issue that has been in the spotlight for a considerable amount of time. Those who wish to exercise that right have had a decent amount of time in which to do so. One year from the passing of the bill is a fair and equitable time period. I do not support amendments 38, 39, 71 and 73 in the name of Alex Johnson, which would seek to retain right to buy. I once again put on the record my support for the abolition of the right to buy and oppose Alex Johnson's attempt to remove that section from the bill. Alex Johnson makes the case that the abolition of right to buy will not, like a silver bullet, magically transform things overnight. Of course not. I do not think that anybody suggests that. I think that everybody proposing the abolition of the right to buy recognises that its benefit will be achieved as a long-term measure and its benefit will be maximised if it is accompanied by investment in new-build social housing. I support it on those terms. Alex Johnson also tells us that the right to buy has driven the aspiration for home ownership. I would go further. I would say that it has contributed to the stigmatisation of other forms of tenure in our society. If we want mixed communities, we should be aspiring to a situation where all forms of tenure—owner occupation and social rent and the private rented sector—are seen as options that are respected and which people can choose to live with dignity, rather than the idea that only owner occupation is the tenure of choice to which everybody ought to aspire. I will be opposing Alex Johnson's amendments in this group and supporting the amendment to reduce the time period to one year. The Scottish Government's policy is to end right to buy, a policy that the majority of stakeholders support. I am grateful for that support. Over 450,000 homes have been sold under right to buy, and that has been a major cause of housing shortage in many areas. There are lots of people who choose to rent in the social sector, while for others it is their only option. We want to do everything possible to ensure that social rented housing is protected for those people and for future generations. Ending right to buy will preserve valuable social housing, increase choice for tenants and those in waiting lists, and help ensure social housing's role in mixed tenure communities that people want to live in. Again and again, stakeholders have told us that they support this policy. Tenants have told us of the damaging impact right to buy has had in the social housing sector, and social landlords have told us how ending right to buy will help them with their forward planning and stock management. In the face of all the evidence that right to buy has had its day and has no place in Scotland that we want to build, Mr Johnson continues to call for this outdated and unpopular policy to continue. That can surely only be because his party's historic attachment to right to buy, but surely even he must accept that it flies in the face of what is best for landlords, tenants and the community as a whole. Ending right to buy does not mean that the Scottish Government does not support home ownership far from it, but we do not have to keep losing housing stock to help people in the housing ladder. We are committed to helping people into home ownership in other ways and support a range of schemes to achieve that. I therefore invite Mr Johnson to withdraw amendment 38 and not to move amendments 71 and 73 when we reach them. Amendment 39 seeks to remove section 2 from the bill. Section 2 has nothing at all to do with ending right to buy. It simply clarifies two of the provisions in the Housing Scotland Act 2010. It protects the right to buy of existing tenants who move to new supply houses in circumstances outwith their control. It also makes clear that people who lived in social housing before 2 March 2011 and who later became tenants should be treated as new tenants. That was always the intention of the 2010 act, but it could be open to misinterpretation. That is simply the first legislative opportunity that we have had to tidy those areas up. Amendment 72, proposed by Mary Fee, seeks to reduce the notice period before right to buy ends from two years to one. I share Mary Fee's wish to stop social rented homes being sold as soon as reasonably possible, and most stakeholders told us that that was what they wanted to. That is why I tabled an amendment at stage 2 to reduce the notice period to two years from the three years that we originally proposed. I know that Mary Fee does not agree, but I simply do not consider that one year would be fair to tenants. If the notice period is reduced to one year, I believe that there is a real risk that tenants could be rushed into buying and doing something that they cannot afford and that is not right for them. It is important that tenants should have time to read the guidance that the Scottish Government will produce to consider their options and to obtain reputable financial advice. When thinking about the notice period, I want to raise one more thing, and it is important to take ECHR considerations into account. Tenants have to be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to exercise their right to buy before it ends. I believe that a minimum notice period of two years is fair and reasonable, and for those reasons I cannot support amendment 72. Alex Johnson, to wind up and press a withdrawal of his amendments. I will be pressing amendment 38. The right to buy is a significant and positive influence in the way communities have developed in Scotland in recent years. This attempt by the Government to remove right to buy in Scotland is, I believe, driven by political rather than practical aspirations. It is one of those things that whoever is right and whoever is wrong, time will tell, but I will, I determinedly, dig in my heels today and defend a policy that I believe has contributed positively over large areas of Scotland. Before closing, I refer specifically to Mary Fee's amendment 72. The removal or the reduction from a three-year to a two-year period, which took place during the stage two amendments, is something that I did not oppose, because I believe that two years and three years were largely similar. The further reduction to a single year, I believe, will have a significant role in limiting the opportunity for individuals to take up an existing right, and consequently I will be opposing amendment 72. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division, and as this is the first division of the stage, Parliament is suspended for five minutes. Oh, sorry, we are beyond that. We had not agreed to amendment 38. So you are now voting on amendment 38, and this will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 38 is yes, 12, no, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 39, in the name of Alex Johnston, already debated with amendment 38, and I ask Alex Johnston to move or not to move. Not moved. The member has not moved. That then brings us to group 2, allocation of social housing and creation of short Scottish secure tenancies, and I call amendment 1, in the name of John Lamont, which is grouped with amendments 40, 2, 41, 42 and 4, and I ask John Lamont to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Well, thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. My amendments 1 and 2 seek to introduce a local connection criteria for social landlords to consider when allocating houses. One of the biggest issues that concerns my constituents is the frustration that local people cannot always secure social housing in their own communities. People are often forced to apply for and take housing in some of the larger settlements in the borders, which might be several miles away from the rest of their family and community, as well as being some distance away from their place of work. Such an approach is not consistent with the aim to encourage cohesive communities. The purpose of amendment 1 is therefore to enable social landlords to give extra priority to applicants who have a local connection. I initially proposed my amendments at stage 2 of the bill, and the minister kindly said that, while she was sympathetic to my aims, she did have concerns that my amendment did not require the applicant to have an unmet housing need. I have taken on board the minister's comments and bring forward a redesigned amendment today that ensures that housing need remains a priority for social landlords. Amendment 1 will give social landlords discretion about how they define particular connection to meet their needs. In rural areas such as the borders, local area might be a particular town or village, whereas in a city it might be a particular street, it might be even more Pacific than that. Amendment 2 simply clarifies that and confirms the intentions behind my amendment 1. All political parties have paid lip service to the notion of supporting local housing allocations policy. Indeed, the Labour Party said in its 2011 manifesto that it wanted to reform the allocation system to ensure that sufficient weight was given to meeting the needs of local people. I hope that the Parliament will support my amendments today. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 40 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 40 and speak to others in the group. Amendment 40 is supported by a number of housing bodies, Homeless Action Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Scottish Church's Housing Action, Crisis and the Legal Services Agency. Essentially, amendment 40 places a requirement on Scottish ministers to include a definition of unmet housing needs in guidance. I am very grateful to the minister for meeting with me following stage 2 and for her subsequent letter setting out her intentions, which I will return to. However, my concern is centred on consistency of approach. The whole area of reasonable preference appears to rest on the decision of each social landlord on whether someone's housing needs could indeed be met elsewhere. It is a bit vague. It is definitely subjective with regard to how that assessment should be made, at what point it should be made and how social landlords will be held to account, particularly if they were not giving appropriate priority to allocating properties to people in housing need. I recognise the minister's intentions are good, but I am sure that she would agree that removing the burden of making subjective decisions from social landlords would ensure consistency, and that is certainly a desirable outcome. The amendment also seeks to protect the role of social housing so that it is not seen as the option of last resort and goes on to link allocation policies to strategic housing priorities. The minister's letter helpfully addresses the points raised, and it would be useful to supplement the response that she gives today if it could be published in SPICE. In her closing remarks, could she also clarify that, as the guidance is statutory, that would mean that there will be oversight by the Scottish Housing Regulator? Before drawing to her close, I want to make a couple of brief remarks about John Lamont's amendments 1 and 2 on local connection. As homeless action Scotland and positive action in housing have pointed out, giving priority to people who too have a local connection excludes those who are migrants and those who are refugees. If you look at the experience of black and minority ethnic households in England, where social landlords have now introduced local connection, the allocations to those communities have dropped by a quarter. Changes to allocations policies clearly are adversely affecting diversity, and I would therefore urge opposition. Finally, my amendment on succession for carers was not selected, which, of course, is the right of presiding officers but is nevertheless disappointing. There was substantial support for the amendment from carers and carers organisations across Scotland, as well as from a plethora of housing organisations. I hope that the minister will agree to continue her dialogue with me and those organisations to provide practical reassurance about the implementation of the new restrictions on succession to ensure that the fear of a negative impact on carers does not materialise, in fact. Alex Johnson to speak to amendment 41 and other amendments in the group, please. Amendment 41 has the unusual effect of trying to put back in something of its own that the Government took out at stage 2. The consultation in the first draft of the bill contained this section, which allowed age to be taken into account as a criteria in allocation policy. The measure was removed by the minister at stage 2 following a campaign that argued that it could lead to widespread discrimination against younger people. I believe that the campaign was based on scaremongering and I am aware of no evidence to support the claims about discrimination. The minister argued that age in itself was not an indicator of housing need, but the five organisations that have given me input have never claimed otherwise. The case is based on the argument that, in considering how best to make a particular allocation to someone in significant housing need, it should be possible to consider age as a secondary factor where lifestyle or related issues needed to be taken into account in order for a sensible, sustainable let to be made. I believe that this section should be reintroduced to the bill and that would be the effect of my amendment. Regarding the other amendments in the group, I support the ideas put forward by John Lamont and have significant experience in my own mailbag of difficulties within certain rural areas where local people find it impossible to find a house locally and that bringing in an opportunity for local connection to be considered will have a significant role in bringing together significant communities. Jackie Baillie's amendment 40 is one of those amendments that seems to centralise and standardise old decision making. My concern is that it would actually have the opposite effect of allowing local considerations to be taken into account, whereas Mary Fee's amendment 42 would have some significant value if John Lamont's amendments or my own amendment were not to be successful. Therefore, they will support amendment 42. Many thanks and I call Mary Fee to speak to amendments 42 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 42 in my name and would like to speak to amendments 41 and 4 in the group. Amendment 42 would allow sustainability of communities to be a factor in housing allocation. My amendment would allow local authorities and RSLs the flexibility that they told us they wanted while giving evidence to the infrastructure and capital investment committee. Local authorities and RSLs know best what is needed both for their communities in order to build and sustain them. It would allow for housing allocation to be done under a more holistic approach and take regard as to what is best for their communities, the individual and also allow RSLs and local authorities to build and sustain strong communities. For the reasons that I have just explained, I feel that my amendment deals with the issue of allocation in a more appropriate manner and a manner that would not be discriminatory to any group while still allowing flexibility. For that reason, I will be abstaining on amendment 41 in the name of Alex Johnson. I briefly move to amendment 44 in the minister's name. I am pleased that the minister has taken on board the points that I raised in my amendment at stage 2 in regard to SSST. I am happy to support that amendment. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. I wonder if, before she finishes her contribution, if she could talk about the concerns raised by the Glasgow and Wester Scotland Forum of Housing Associations about her amendment 42, which they suggest implies that there exists a legal prohibition in taking certain issues into account, which they do not think does exist, or also shelters concerns that housing needs should be the primary issue. I just wonder if Mary Fee would respond to those concerns about her amendment 42 as that is the only chance to do so. I thank the member for his intervention. I think that the amendment specifically addresses the issue of housing needs. Housing needs should always be a paramount concern, but local authorities and RSLs need to have the flexibility to build and sustain communities, and the amendment would allow them the flexibility to do that. If I can just briefly finish my comments in relation to amendment 4, amendment 4 would ensure that any tenant being moved to a SSST would be told of the action that caused that move and what support would be available for them, and their right of appeal. I welcome that amendment from the minister. Many thanks, and I now ask the minister to speak to amendment 4 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you. I will begin by speaking to amendments 1 and 2. As I said at stage 2, I understand the wishes of communities to see priority given to the housing needs of local people, but as I have previously explained, landlords can already take account of the fact that someone lives in a particular area and can already give priority to local people, and some landlords do so. Amendment 1 would require all social landlords to give reasonable preference to applicants with a local connection, regardless of local circumstances. I believe that it is better for landlords to have the flexibility, as is the case at the moment, to take local connection into account if they consider that it is right for their area. The more flexible approach is very important to those landlords who provide housing for a particular client group, such as housing for elderly people or housing for veterans, where local connection is not always a relevant factor in making allocations. Those examples illustrate that making local connection a reasonable preference category in legislation would remove a flexibility that is necessary in some cases. Turning to amendment 2, this would allow landlords to take the length of time an applicant had been resident in an area into account when they were allocating social housing. I said that I understand the wish to see the priority given to the housing needs of local people, however, that has to be balanced against the needs of all applicants. Landlords can already take local connection into account and consider how long an applicant has been in the housing list. I am concerned that taking the length of time an applicant has lived in an area into account could make it more difficult for people to move when they have good reasons for wanting to do so. Overall, I think that there is sufficient flexibility in the current arrangements, and I do not think that those amendments are the right way forward. I therefore invite John Lamont not to move amendments 1 and 2. Amendment 40 from Jackie Bailey would remove the definition of unmet housing needs from section 3 of the bill and require, instead, that the circumstances for unmet housing needs should be prescribed in guidance. As Jackie Bailey said, the committee considered an identical amendment at stage 2, and I argued at the committee that having the definition on the face of the bill makes clear that allocations should focus on addressing cases of unmet needs, and that a landlord's reasonable preference categories should give priority to that, and that remains the Government's position. As Jackie Bailey said, I met her to discuss this and other points that she raised. We discussed the steps that we can take to ensure that there is reasonable consistency in the way that landlords assess unmet housing needs. Jackie Bailey and Homeless Action Scotland argued that tying the assessment to local housing strategies would help to achieve consistency. After the meeting, I wrote to Ms Bailey confirming that section 4 of the bill requires social landlords to have regard to the Government's guidance on allocation policies. The guidance is statutory. I also advised that section 4 requires a landlord to have regard to local housing strategies in developing its allocation policy, and that the Government will use the statutory guidance on allocations to highlight that duty. Jackie Bailey was also interested in how the impact of the new provisions and allocations will be monitored. The independent Scottish housing regulator is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the performance of all social landlords. It does so by reference to the Scottish social housing charter, which is where the Government has set the outcomes and standards that landlords should meet, including outcomes and housing options and access to social housing. The Government will use the regulator's reports for evidence of how the new arrangements are working. I hope that what I have outlined reassures Jackie Bailey and that she is content not to move amendment 40. If she presses, I invite the chamber to reject it. I turn to Alex Johnson's amendment 41, which would reintroduce section 5 into the bill. That would allow landlords to take age into account in the allocation of social housing. I explained in detail at stage 2 my reasons for bringing forward an amendment to remove section 5, and my position has not changed. Section 5 provoked a strong reaction. Landlords were keen to have flexibility to manage their stock effectively. Others such as Scotland's commissioner for children and young people were concerned about the potential for discrimination against young people. I discussed the conflicting views with stakeholders and, having carefully weighed up all the arguments, I decided to remove section 5 from the bill. I was concerned about the possibility for some groups such as young people being unintentionally discriminated against and they simply were not prepared to run that risk. I am very aware that antisocial behaviour can cause nuisance and distress to neighbours and communities. That is why I am introducing measures through this bill that will provide landlords with additional tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. As I said at stage 2, I think that there is more scope for sensitive lets to be used by social landlords. Officials will work closely with landlords to develop guidance to provide more advice on how sensitive lets can be used effectively in allocations. I think that removing section 5 was the right thing to do and I do not support this amendment to reintroduce it. I now speak to Mary Fee's amendment number 42. Again, this amendment was discussed at stage 2 and I understand completely what Ms Fee is trying to achieve and why, but it is not clear, however, how this amendment would work in practice to deliver the outcomes that Mary Fee is seeking. The amendment refers to effects on the sustainability of particular localities or communities but does not define what is meant by sustainability. I am concerned that, with no proper definition, it will mean different things to different people, placing landlords in an almost impossible position when they have to interpret and apply it. Different landlords through different interpretations could end up applying in very different ways, leading to highly inconsistent and potentially unfair outcomes for people seeking housing in different areas. I do not believe that that is what Mary Fee is seeking, but it is what is likely to happen. Moreover, Lan, I will take an intervention. Briefly, please, Mary Fee. The minister very briefly mentioned sensitive lets. Does the minister not agree with me that the core of my amendment is the same principle of sensitive letting? That is what local authorities want to be able to do. Minister, I would be grateful if you could begin to draw your match to her closing this section. I will cover the point that Mary Fee raised there, but I think that there is a problem with landlords having to reconcile those conflicting interests. The fact that the main stakeholders are divided and Patrick Harvie mentioned over the merits of the amendment all suggests that it is unlikely to achieve what Mary Fee is looking for. SFHA supports Shelter and the Glasgow West of Scotland Forum of Housing Association's opposite, but landlords can take account of the overall circumstances, including an individual's housing needs and the housing options that are available when making allocations. I said earlier that we will work closely with the stakeholders and landlords to ensure that that is included when we are making guidance on sensitive letting and local letting initiatives. We will develop that in consultation and illustrate the flexibility already open to landlords. I believe that that is a more effective means of achieving what Mary Fee and all of us want. Amendment 4, in my name, I raise because of an issue that Mary Fee raised at stage 2. I was happy to bring that forward at this stage because I agree that it is right that tenants should have enough information to challenge a landlord's decision to convert their tenancy if they want to do so. Amendment 4, in my name, provides for that by requiring social landlords to set out a number of things in the conversion notice. Firstly, details of the behaviour of the tenant or other person, which the landlord has taken into account. Secondly, the reasons why the landlord is serving the notice and, finally, information about the tenants are right to appeal. Therefore, I was pleased to take that on board from Mary Fee's stage 2 amendment. I now call John Lamont to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The minister states that she believes that the current flexible system is adequate, but it is very clear from the correspondence that I get from my constituents that the current system is not adequate and that local families are not always able to stay in the local community of their choice. I just want to deal with some of the remarks that Jackie Bailey made with regard to my amendment, including some misunderstanding about what my intentions are behind my amendments. Clearly, those who are homeless or other priority groups will still get priority under the amendment proposed by myself. My amendment will simply ensure that, where all other factors are equal, local connections will count more than they currently do. In relation to ethnic minorities being disadvantaged by my proposal, it is often the case that ethnic minority groups also want to live close to family members and as part of their own community. They would also be able to take advantage of this amendment, so I give way to the member. Jackie Bailey Very briefly, could he explain what has changed about the process in England where they have changed to local connection policies and a quarter fewer houses are allocated to ethnic minority communities than there were before? John Lamont My amendment is not the same as what has been introduced south of the border. I am proposing my amendment, which will hopefully deal with the concerns that I am getting in my mailbag, but I am sure that she is also receiving in her mailbag from her constituents regarding how local social housing is allocated. I will be pressing amendments 1 and 2. With regard to the other amendments in this group, we will not be supporting Jackie Bailey's amendment 40, as we prefer this to be left to the discretion of local authorities. Clearly, we will be supporting Alex Johnson's amendment 41. We also wish to support Mary Fee's amendment 42, which we believe will give further discretion to local landlords with regard to the allocation of social housing. Mary Fee Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is, yes, 13. No 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 40, in the name of Jackie Bailey, has already been debated with amendment 1, and I asked Jackie Bailey to move or not to move. In light of the minister's comments, I am happy not to move. Many thanks. In which case, I call amendment 2, in the name of John Lamont, already debated with amendment 1, and I asked John Lamont to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question then is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. This will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 2 is, yes, 14. No, 103. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 41, in the name of Alex Johnston, already debated with amendment 1, and I asked Alex Johnston to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question then is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 41 is, yes, 14. No, 70. There were 33 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 42, in the name of Mary Fee, already debated with amendment 1, and I ask Mary Fee to move or not to move. The member has moved. The question therefore is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 42 is, yes, 47. No, 70. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 4, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 1, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. Before I turn to the next group, I have to say that we have passed the agreed time limit under rule 9.8.4a. I consider it necessary to allow the debate on group 3 to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with a right to speak on the amendments in the group to do so, and that is Jim Hume and the minister. My free time is very tight this afternoon, and, as you will appreciate, we are now over our time limits. So we turn to group 3, right to representation at the First Year Tribunal. I call amendment 3, in the name of Jim Hume, in a group on its own, and I ask Jim Hume to move and speak to amendment 3. Please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be able to speak to my amendment. I was disappointed that the amendment did not receive the necessary support at stage 2, but, as I said to then, I was always minded to table the amendment again at stage 3, due to how important I believe that this is. The First Year Tribunals are a welcome addition in this bill, and they will be dealing with some sensitive and important cases, none more so than the eviction of a tenant. I therefore believe that it is important that we ensure that a tenant can obtain legal representation to make the best possible case at this tribunal, due to the seriousness of the matter. I accept the rationale that the tribunal will provide a more relaxed setting in which to resolve disputes, but evictions are serious and require serious representation. I am keen to ensure that the introduction of such a new system is not done without a clear understanding of how tenants can access justice. That is why I propose that those affected will be afforded legal representation, either through legal aid or an equivalent, assuming that the necessary eligibility criteria has been met. The minister asked me to withdraw my amendment at stage 2, although she did accept that some people may require legal representation, that absence of a guarantee from her ensured that I was forced to press the amendment and reintroduce it again today. I do, though, thank the minister for meeting with me and Homeless Action Scotland earlier this month to discuss the issue further, after stage 2, of course. I hope that the minister has taken the time to reflect on this matter and consider how best the Scottish Government can ensure that tenants before a tribunal, facing the distressing prospect of losing their home, have the ability to present the best possible case. I believe that my amendment can achieve this and I hope that colleagues will support it this afternoon, if moved. I agree with Jim Whom that this is an important issue and I will take this opportunity to further clarify my position. However, I still believe that the amendment is not required for the tribunal to balance the interests of landlords and tenants. Firstly, people taking cases to the tribunal will be able to be represented if they wish. That could be by a friend, family member, lay representative or by someone legally qualified. Nothing either in the bill or which will be set in the operational detail of the tribunal will affect this. Tribunal committees will also have a legally qualified chairperson who will have expertise to ask questions and seek further information to help parties to make the best of their case. The intention is to set up a system where most people do not need legal representation by I am absolutely conscious that some people may need assistance to present their case effectively and I am also aware that some cases could raise very complex issues and that the subject matter is of a serious nature, particularly when someone could result in losing their home. We will consider the most appropriate form of support for parties as part of the operational detail of the tribunal and those issues will be taken into account. However, I will say that access to justice is at the heart of this and allowing people to access the tribunal system. We expect that there will be delivered through the provision of funding, could be for legally qualified representation or it could be the provision of some form of lay representation. When we are setting up the tribunal, how it operates, we will certainly do that at that stage. However, there is nothing in the bill that prevents legal representation for people and it is clear in my intention where it is required that it will be available. Thank you, Jim Hume, to wind up and indicate if you intend to press a list. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There can be nothing more galling to face eviction and it is difficult for us to believe that a tenant facing eviction would always be the best person placed to put their case forward. That is why I believe that it was necessary to get a clearer understanding of how tenants can access justice. That is why I proposed this very amendment today with the help of Homeless Action Scotland. I think that we have heard words that believe for me that the tenants will be able to get such help. Therefore, I shall not be moving this amendment. The member seeks to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object to that? No. In which case, we turn to group 4, Landlord Registration Letting Code. I call amendment 5, in the name of Patrick Harvie, in a group on its own. I ask Patrick Harvie to move and speak to amendment 5, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Consistently, during the discussion on this bill, I have welcomed the Government's intention to produce a code of practice for letting agents. I have sought to bring amendments during stage 2 that explore some further detail that might be included in the code of practice. We will have the chance to debate those suggestions again this afternoon at stage 3. Although the Government was not persuaded of the specific inclusion of those issues for the code of practice for letting agents, the minister did say that those issues would be addressed in the code. Now, if that happens, we will end up with a welcome situation where letting agents have a code of practice but individual landlords do not have a code of practice setting out the management standards that they need to qualify. I think that if we are going to take the whole of the private rented sector seriously and improve standards across the board, which I am sure all of us including the Government wants to do, we should not have a situation where those who pay their rent to a letting agent can expect a higher standard but those who pay their rent to a landlord cannot expect that same higher standard. Now, since 2006, when the previous housing act inserted a change to the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2004, the Government has had the power to produce a code of practice to be known as the letting code, making provision about the standards of management of any relevant person who enters into or seeks to enter into a lease or occupancy arrangement by virtue of which an unconnected person may use a house as a dwelling and any other person who acts for such a relevant person in relation to such a lease or occupancy arrangement. It seems to me that the use of that pre-existing power to issue a letting code could have ensured that the Government could address both landlords and letting agents in the same way, perhaps different approaches relevant to those different industries or different parts of the industries, but in a way that address the needs of the tenants of landlords as well as the tenants of letting agents. I do hope that the minister in responding to this will indicate why that route was not taken and what the Government's intentions would be to protect the tenants of landlords to the same standard as the tenants of letting agents. I move amendment 5. Many thanks. I have two members who wish to contribute. I'm afraid that contributions must be brief. Mary Fee to be followed by Alex Johnstone. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will be very brief. I support amendment number five in the name of Patrick Harvie on the letting code. A letting code is an important part of the legislation, and letting agents and landlords need a clear and unambiguous code. This amendment is a sensible addition to the bill that will strengthen the private rented sector and I support its amendment. The system that we are putting in place today will lie for its success on the understanding that exists between landlords and tenants. What we are trying to do is to make the good landlords and letting agents, for that matter, do what—or make all of them do—what the good ones have been doing for years. When we are doing that, it is sometimes we have to think in terms of carrot and stick. I simply believe that this amendment is too much stick and not enough carrot. As Patrick Harvie said, at present there is the issuing of letting codes. It is a discretionary power. The power to issue a code was created in 2006, and no code has been issued. Currently, there are no plans to do so. The relevant legislation would require ministers before issuing a code to assess the effectiveness of existing obligations and voluntary arrangements relating to standards of management, and in particular the effectiveness of landlord registration in dealing with harassment, unlawful eviction and unlawful management practices. Those important issues will be considered as part of our on-going commitment to consider the effectiveness of the enforcement of the landlord registration, but, at present, we do not consider that a code is needed to address such issues. There have been significant changes to the regulation of the private rented sector since 2006, including those proposed in the bill. The regulation of letting agents will have a positive impact on letting and property management across the sector. However, let me reassure Mr Harvie that I remain open to issuing a letting agent code at some point in the future if that would genuinely enhance the existing controls that are in place, and I would invite him to withdraw amendment 5. I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate if he intends to press or withdraw. Thank you. I am sorry that the minister does not see the opportunity to commit now to producing a letting code. She talked about the need to review the effectiveness of landlord registration. By the time that amendment was passed, it kicked in and required action from Government. There would have been well over a decade of the operation of the landlord registration scheme more than ample time to review its operation. I think that most members, including those like myself, who supported the creation of that landlord registration scheme, would recognise that it has not achieved everything that was hoped for from it, not just because of the legislation but because of the resources available for it. Finally, in reply to Alex Johnson, I spent about 10 years as a tenant in the private rented sector. I recognise the big bag of carats that I gave to my landlords every month. Landlords get paid rent. That is their carat. It is our responsibility to regulate to ensure that the provision of housing meets the needs of tenants, and that is why I would like to press this amendment. Many thanks. In which case, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a one minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 5 is yes, 41. No, 77. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That brings us to group 5. Houses let for holiday purposes and a call amendments 45 in the name of Drew Smith, which is grouped with amendments 48 and 67, and I ask Drew Smith to remove amendment 45 and to speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments in group 5 relate to housing let for holiday purposes, and specifically an issue that many MSPs will be aware of that of very short-term letting of residential property, so-called party flats. Amendment 45 seeks to extend the scope of landlord registration to encompass such properties in order that records can be kept of individuals who operate these businesses. That will have the effect of making it easier to trace landlords responsible should disturbance to neighbours become an issue as a result of very short-term letting, and it will also mean that landlords who seek to operate holiday businesses in what are otherwise residential buildings will be subject to a fit and proper person test. By way of just very brief background, my motivation for those amendments has been the experience of many of my constituents in Glasgow City Centre, who have had the enjoyment of their homes severely limited by the letting of neighbouring flats, which results in severe and sustained anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and problems in maintaining common areas. I meeting with members of the Beresford residents committee on Monday, I was told of how some guests at these properties seem to be under the impression that the residents concierge was in fact the hotel porter, and in itself that might not be a very serious issue, but it does illustrate the point that many of the guests who book such properties are entirely unaware that they are in fact hiding rooms in a building in which others have their homes. None of those amendments, which I am proposing, seek to ban very short-term holiday letting, but I think about a sensible level of regulation that ensures that the use of one person's property on indeed a number of properties does not have an impact upon others which restricts their ability to enjoy their home and which results in police being regularly called. That takes me to amendment 48, which was previously rejected by Government members at committee, and that seeks to extend the power of closure over party flats to local authorities. The power to close is not a new one. Clear-eyed criteria already exist as to when such a last resort action is appropriate. Those are persistent issues of anti-social behaviour relating to a particular property and where the authorities think that continued operation is likely to result in further nuisance to neighbours. At present, that power resides only with the police. In my proposal, it was simply to extend that to include councils that are likely to be better informed about the issues that are occurring regularly, to the extent to which landlords have been prepared to help to resolve them. Crucially, councils have more time to take proportionate action in support of long-term solutions rather than simply address the situation as it exists. When a police officer is called, amendment 67 is straightforward and consequential and I would not take up Parliament's time on it, so I would simply move amendment 45 at this stage. Thank you, ma' blige, since we have little time. Alex Johnston, very briefly. Very briefly indeed, I thank Drew Smith for bringing the issue of party flats to my attention and the attention of others when it was discussed at the committee earlier. However, I do have concerns about those amendments, given that they specifically address houses led for holiday purposes. I am not reassured that those would not have an effect which significantly oversteps that, which he seeks to achieve. I understand the problems that can be caused by anti-social behaviour in properties that are led on a short-term basis, but I consider that it would be disproportionate response to require every house used for holiday purposes to be registered as proposed by amendment 45. That would mean that properties, led even for a short period of time, would have to be registered, placing a significant additional burden on property owners, local authorities and the tourism industry of Scotland more generally. Landlord registration was not introduced for this purpose. Local authorities already have powers to tackle anti-social behaviour in properties led for holiday purposes. For example, under part 7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, etc. Scotland Act 2004, local authorities can serve an anti-social behaviour notice on a private landlord where an occupant or visitor engages in anti-social behaviour at or in the locality of the house. In a landmark case last year, the City of Edinburgh Council successfully used existing legislation to apply for a management control order for two-party flats in Grove Street. That enabled them to assume all landlord responsibilities for a period of 12 months, and I would expect other local authorities to use the existing legislation to take similar action where anti-social behaviour in holiday lets is causing difficulties. Amendment 48 is the same as the amendment that Bruce Smith lodged at stage 2. I explained then that the Scottish Government introduced an order in March 2011 that gives local authorities the powers to deal specifically with the problem of anti-social behaviour in properties led for holiday use. I have already highlighted the success of the City of Edinburgh Council in using existing legislation to tackle the issue, and I do not consider that amendment 48 is necessary. Local authorities have a range of powers, and they should use those to deal with anti-social behaviour in holiday lets. They would not support Mr Smith's amendments 45 and ask him not to move amendment 48 and 67. Many thanks, Drew Smith, to briefly wind up and indicate if you intend to press a withdrawal. I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. I understand that the minister's principle objection is that the law already exists for most of those problems to be resolved. I would simply say to her that if that was the case, I would not be having the meeting with members of the public that I had on Monday, where they are telling us that the home life can be made alive and held by the inappropriate use or inconsiderate behaviour of others. They were actually very complimentary of the action that has been taken by, in their case, Glasgow City Council, when they recognised that the council had been instrumental in reducing the problems that they had faced. They made clear to me that the issues remain where uncooperative landlords are unwilling to engage in finding a solution. Officials from the council and Parliament today recognise that their amendments could result in more work, but it is work that they are willing to do to restore the quality of life for those affected. None of the amendments that I am proposing are prescriptive. Amendment 48 simply enables the Scottish Government to provide for closure regulations if they see fit and evidence is forthcoming from councils that it would make a difference. Just in response to Alex Johnson's point, amendment 45 on registration leaves it up to Scottish ministers to define precisely who would be affected. Regulations under the 2004 anti-social behaviour act mean that the types of dwellings that would actually be registrable remains entirely in the gift of ministers. I think that the concern that it would be too broad could factor into the guidance that was produced if the amendment was successful. The amendment simply removes the current blanket exemption from homeslet for any holiday purpose, and I would seek to press amendment 45. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 45 is yes, 41. No, 76. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Sorry about that delay. We now move to group 6, private rented housing, the repairing standard, under call amendment 6 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 7, 46 and 47. I ask the minister to move amendment 6 and speak to all amendments in the group. Amendment 6 proposes to remove the transitional provision in the electrical safety inspection regime for private rented housing, which was inserted in the bill at stage 2 by an amendment proposed by Bob Doris MSP. The transitional provision in section 22b would give those who are already landlords at the time that the regime comes into force a period of one year to undertake electrical safety inspections. There are two difficulties with this. It will only give one year from the commencement date to arrange inspections and it will not recognise any inspections carried out before the provision comes into force. That would cause practical difficulties for landlords and electricians and would be likely to discourage landlords from carrying out any planned inspections in the period prior to commencement. That would be worse for tenants and contrary to the intention of the original amendment. A transitional provision will still be required but I intend to use the general power in section 855 of the bill to include this. This is the commencement order for section 22b. That approach will allow time to work with stakeholders and develop a provision that will avoid delay, protect tenants and be fair to landlords. I have written to Bob Doris about this amendment and he has indicated that he supports that approach. Both the Electrical Safety Council and the Scottish Association of Landlords, two of the key stakeholders whose submissions encouraged me to support Bob Doris' original amendment, have also indicated their support. Amendment 7 seeks to introduce a provision on energy efficiency standards in private rented sector properties. Claudia Beamish introduced a similar amendment at stage 2 and acknowledged that she has sought to address one of the concerns that I expressed then in this new amendment. However, there are still several issues that mean that this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Scottish ministers already have powers to introduce minimum standards for energy efficiency in private sector housing under the Climate Change Scotland Act and the Energy Act. We have made very clear our commitment to improving energy efficiency to help to address fuel poverty and to reduce carbon emissions from housing. Central Government spend in Scotland in the last financial year, for example, is higher than elsewhere in the UK. An average of £36.48 for each low-income household in Scotland, compared with only £3.52 in England. We are working already with stakeholders, including environmental, fuel poverty, local authority, private rented sector and consumer interests, to identify proposals for minimum energy efficiency standards for consultation in spring 2015. Although amendment 7 extends the timescale that would still constrain the time available to understand properly the issues that the working group has identified, in particular on what level of regulation is technically feasible and appropriate and to conduct supporting research. Consultation on the Scottish Government's sustainable housing strategy also strongly indicated the need for a sufficient lead-in time for the sector to prepare for minimum standards. My amendment accepted at stage 2 to enable the repairing standard to be amended by regulations provides the means to vary the repairing standard if, after appropriate consideration and consultation, that is the most effective way to regulate the private rented sector. For those reasons, I do not consider that the amendment is necessary or that it would achieve the desired purpose. Amendment 46 seeks to make landlords in breach of the repairing standard if they fail to pay for their share of work to common parts. It also makes that failure a criminal offence. Private landlords are already required to meet the repairing standard, and that can be enforced by an application to the private rented housing panel by a tenant and under the provisions introduced by the bill by a local authority on behalf of a tenant. In addition, an owner of a tenement can already enforce a majority decision of owners on repairs against any other owner under the tenement management scheme. The amendment would also make repairs that are not required under the repairing standard matters that can be brought before the private renting housing panel, for example, repairs to common entry systems or inadequate common public lighting, but it is not in serious disrepair. I do not think that it is appropriate to widen the remit of the panel in this way to adjudicate and dispute between owners rather than in matters that are set out in legislation on behalf of the tenants. Amendment 47 in the name of Malcolm Chisholm seeks to specify two additional types of persons who may apply to the private rented housing panel for a determination in respect of the repairing standard. The bill, as it stands, will enable local authorities to make such applications. New powers for inspection as part of the provisions for third-party reporting support the strategic role that local authorities play in ensuring that properties right across Scotland meet the minimum standards. The bill enables ministers to make an order extending the range of bodies that can make applications in the future if that is considered useful. However, I believe that it is important to first allow local authorities time to exercise the new powers that are in the bill to tackle poor standards in the private sector. Consideration of the effective use of third-party reporting powers by local authorities once the provisions that are implemented will indicate whether there is any justification for expanding the powers to additional types of persons. I believe that the bill strikes a right balance in allowing local authorities to make the applications but granting a power to ministers to broaden access to the private rented housing panel through secondary legislation if that is considered necessary and appropriate in the future. Amendment 6 I invite Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 7 and other amendments in the group. I would indeed like to move and speak to amendment 7, which seeks to allow Scottish ministers to create regulations on energy efficiency standards, which would be included as part of the repairing standards in the private rented sector. That would also establish a system of inspection and enforcement. During stage 2, as the minister has highlighted in her speech just now, the minister put forward reasons for not supporting the amendment, which I intend to address now, even though some remarks have already been made. Firstly, as highlighted today, the minister felt that inclusion was unnecessary because of the Climate Change Act, which did introduce powers of minimum standards of energy efficiency. However, while that is the case, I would still argue that the phraseology of section 64 of the Climate Change Act is different and less focused than that that I am suggesting today. It requires ministers to set regulations to provide for the assessment of energy performance and greenhouse gas emissions, while also requiring owners to take steps to improve them. That may or may not be realised through minimum standards, which is what I am proposing today. It also does not specifically address the standards where a house forms part only of a premises, which my amendment does. Another argument against this amendment put forward by the minister was that there is a working group already tasked with reporting back on measures to improve energy efficiency in the domestic housing sector. Again, I am supportive of the reasoning behind the setting up of such a group and wish it well. However, I do believe that there are energy efficiency issues that this amendment highlights, which are best placed in this housing bill as one of the provisions relating to repairing standards. I know that organisations such as the Royal Institute of Chartered Survey and the City of Edinburgh Council and Friends of the Earth Scotland agree with this approach. Others may disagree and would like to wait for some, as yet not defined, piece of legislation in the future. If and when this legislation does come before the chamber, there is no reason why it cannot make reference to this amendment in the housing bill. I see no reason to wait and to actively oppose this amendment. Tenants are suffering from fuel poverty now in multi-ownership houses, and it is important that this is addressed now. The final criticism put forward by the minister at stage 2 was in relation to timescale, and, as the minister has acknowledged today, I have altered the timescale. I believe that that should help with the possibility of accepting the amendment and taking forward the regulations. I hope that the minister, even at this stage, will reconsider. Many thanks. I now ask Malcolm Chisholm to speak to amendments 46 and other amendments in the group as briefly as possible, please. Amendments 46 and 47 deal with our massive problems in Edinburgh, which is why the substance of those amendments was supported by the Labour SNP Council on Edinburgh in its submission on the bill. Amendment 46 deals with the problem of landlords not taking part in paying their share of common repairs. 46 says that it would be a breach of the repairing standard if a landlord failed to pay the landlord's share of the cost of repairs. Under the amendment, the landlord could be referred to the private rented housing panel, and if not contributing to common repairs could be found guilty of an offence and face removal from the register. It is time that we use the register to put pressure on landlords and not just use it as a bureaucratic exercise. That could be one important example of using the register. The minister referred to the Tenement Act, but it can be a disincentive for some people because of its complexity and the time that it sometimes takes. 47 would allow owners of an adjoining property and organisations providing advice services to report breaches of the repairing standard to the private rented housing panel. In other words, the amendment says that it should not just be the local authority—certain people may not want to go to the local authority—or, indeed, the local authority presumably could decide not to report. We should give that power to adjoining residents. Again, that is a problem that is often brought to me in surgeries. I know that my constituents would expect me to press the amendment. The issue of advice services is also relevant because some residents may prefer to access support through an advice agency rather than through the local authority, either because it is conveniently located in the local community or because they have some special relationship with it. I think that we all are on the side of the house minded to oppose the minister's proposed amendment 6 about removing the obligation for a landlord to ensure that an inspection is carried out within 12 months of the housing act coming into force. I listened carefully to the arguments that she put forward, but if she identified such a problem, why did she not move an amendment saying that it had to be one year from the commencement date unless an inspection had been carried out in the intervening period? That would have been the absolutely simple and obvious thing for her to do if the reason that she gave was the real reason. Many thanks. I have two members' wishes to contribute. As briefly as possible, please, Bob Doris, to be followed by Alex Johnstone. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will try to breathe and stick only to amendment 6. I am content that the general power under section 855 would be adequate in relation to commission order in relation to section 22b, which was added to the bill at stage 2 by myself. I should stress that the vast majority of section 22b remains fully intact and have all but a requirement in all private landlords to make sure that all fixtures, fittings and appliances have relevant electrical safety checks every five years. That is a new burden and responsibility on the private sector. Amendment 6 is merely an implementational and consequential amendment to make sure that there are no unintended consequences. I would point out to Malcolm Chisholm that, at Electrical Safety 1, the organisation that worked with me to bring amendment 2 to the Parliament is content with those provisions. I also have the Scottish Association of Landlords, who are critical in relation to that. It is not very often that they come to the chamber and put an additional burden and an additional responsibility on landlords. Landlords step forward and say, yes, we are up for that, it is the right thing to do. That is what is happening here this afternoon, and we should welcome that and support amendment 6. I would like to put my thanks on record of Electrical Safety 1 and the Scottish Association of Landlords, and ask the Parliament to support amendment 6 here this afternoon. I support the minister's amendment 6 and accept her position on amendments 7 and 47. However, I have to confess that I have some attraction to amendment 46 in the name of Malcolm Chisholm. I heard what the minister had to say in that process was available by other means. I seek further assurances from the minister that the means that she described to deal with those circumstances are not the kind of means that are effectively excluding people through onerous process. Thank you very much. Members will note that we have passed a great time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4a to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. Minister, would you wind up, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would say in response to Malcolm Chisholm that I accept that it would be preferable to have had the transitional rules set out in the face of the bill. However, as I think Bob Dorris raised, we want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and have been considered the views of stakeholders. I think that we need further engagement to develop a solution that will protect tenants, be fair to landlords and avoid unnecessary delay in bringing this measure into force. It will be brought into force. In energy efficiency standards, we are taking a proportionate approach. We are examining how to take forward this issue with active participation of stakeholders, and it is only sensible to continue that process looking at all private housing, not just the rented sector. There are already statues of powers available— Excuse me a moment, minister. I am afraid that the noise in the chamber is becoming rather loud. If, after the Scottish Government's planned consultation on energy efficiency, it is considered appropriate to vary the repairing standard in relation to energy efficiency, then this can be done through regulation making powers. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I will call that vote again. Can we have any objections to amendments that are shouted out loudly, please? The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 6 is yes, 82, no, 33. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. Amendment 7, in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 6. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 7 is yes, 4 to 1, no, 74. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. Amendment 46, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 6. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 46 is yes, 4 to 1, no, 75. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. Amendment 47, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 6. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 47 is yes, 4 to 1, no, 75. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. Amendment 48, in the name of Drew Smith, already debated with amendment 45. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 48 is yes, 39, no, 75. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed to. That brings us to group 7, private rented housing, rent reviews, rent increases and security of tenure, and I call amendment 49, in the name of James Kelly, which is grouped with amendments 50, 68 and 69. I ask James Kelly to move amendment 49 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I rise to move amendment 49, in my name and speak on the other amendments in the group. There is no doubt that the biggest problem that we face in Scotland in relation to housing is one of lack of supply. That is partly because we have got the lowest number of completions since 1947, and that is witnessed in the social housing waiting list of 155,000. One of the consequences of that has been the massive growth in the private rented sector, which is doubled in size and is now 300,000, and contains people who have not been able to get houses either in the social sector or in the private purchasing sector. There is no doubt that the resultant rise in the private rented sector has placed too much power in the hands of landlords and letting agents, and as a consequence, we have seen unacceptable rent rises in some parts of the country. That can be witnessed by the recent City of Leth's quarterly report. Thomas Ashton of City of Leth said that urban hotspots are providing great returns for landlords, and there is no doubt that that is true. If you look at some of the examples, the postcode EH8 in Edinburgh rises year on year of 8.9 per cent, DD1 in Dundee 17.5 per cent, and G2 in Glasgow 21.5 per cent. Those inflation-bursting rises keep misery on many of the families who are struggling in the private rented sector. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reckoned that there are 120,000 households that are in poverty. 40 per cent of them are having to cut back on heating, and a third cutting back on food. However, it is good enough to simply talk about Parliament, and this bill this afternoon has the opportunity to do something about it by supporting Labour's proposals to cap rent rises, by making sure that rent reviews are no more regular than once a year and capping the level of rent rises. We are not proposing a specific scheme. We are asking Parliament to agree to the principle and for the Scottish Government to come back and lay regulations before Parliament by 1 April 2015. That would allow the Government in proper consultation to work up a proper scheme and to cap rises at an acceptable level. That issue is also linked to tenancies. As the size of the market has grown, there is a growing number of short tenancies. It was reckoned that there are 74 per cent of the tenancies in the market are short tenancies, and short tenancies drive up rent. They also result in pressure being put on vulnerable tenants who sometimes have to deal with housing problems, not being repaired and lack of quality housing. Therefore, we would propose a three-year tenancy, given tenancies the ability to terminate notice with a one-month notice and landlords to be able to terminate contracts with a two-month notice. With regulations being laid before Parliament by 1 April 2015. Finally, I would say to the Government that the recent welfare expert group recognised the issue and supported longer tenancies and also supported capping rent increases. Surely I think that this issue is good enough for the Government's expert group, then it should be good enough for it to be included in the housing bill. I would urge Parliament to support its amendments. Do not disagree with James Kelly's analysis of the cause of the growth of the private rented sector. In fact, it is only fair to say that the demand created by other pressures within the system is demonstrating how supply and demand works within a marketplace. Although I would have to say that there are areas in Edinburgh and areas particularly within Aberdeen where the rental market operates in a system that is quite divorced from the one that we are describing here. However, I disagree with James Kelly when it comes to solutions. The reason why the private rented sector has grown so much is because there is a demand. The reason we have seen the private rented sector satisfy that demand is the fact that the market has supported it. If we seek to intervene in the market by capping rents or intervening in other ways, then the simple effect will be that the private rented sector will begin to melt away. After all, if a private landlord sees a lack of return from his property, then the option remains for that landlord to simply place his property on the market, shrinking the private rented sector as a result. I believe that there are definitely problems here, and James Kelly has identified those problems, but I do not believe that he has identified the appropriate solution. Alex Johnson attempts to portray a picture of a well-functioning market. I do not believe that we can afford any more to regard the private rented sector as just a free market exchange between equals. As James Kelly has said, the private rented sector has doubled in 10 years. There are some in the sector who seek to see it doubling again in the coming years. This is a growing proportion of our population for whom there is no other housing available. Our society is not making social housing available. The economy is not making owner-occupation affordable, so it is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It is left dependent on the private rented sector only, and it is far too open to exploitation. The security of tenure in particular I want to support. I will be supporting both those amendments, but security of tenure underpins pretty much everything else that the Government is trying to achieve in relation to the bill. It underpins every area where, at the moment, tenants are vulnerable to exploitation by landlords who are willing to exploit the position of power that they have at the moment. The Government has indicated previously that it is not looking to accept amendments on the subject in this bill, but that they are open to the longer-term argument. I hope that the minister will have something to say about the timescale on which they intend to take action, even if they do not support those amendments today. On security of tenure and rent reviews, we are not looking for anything dramatically radical. We are only looking to join the European mainstream, where some degree of rent control and some more secure model of tenure is the norm and something that enables tenants to have the ability to live with a bit of dignity in the private rented sector. When we debated the same amendments from James Kelly at stage 2, I said at that time that they would impose potentially onerous regulations without any consultation and without any clear understanding of their impact on tenants or landlords. The issue was not raised to me by anyone during the evidence sessions or the stakeholder events other than by Patrick Harvie. The matter was not raised. It did not come out in evidence at the ICI committee. Many stakeholders also expressed their surprise at this late addition to the bill, noting their concerns about the lack of proper consultation. In contrast to Mr Kelly's last-minute intervention, the Scottish Government has been looking at reform of the private rented sector tenancy as part of its wider strategy for the sector. We commissioned an independent review of the tenancy regime last year and received the report of the review a few weeks ago. The review recommended that we should introduce a new tenancy regime. We will consult on that in the autumn and, at the same time, we will explore issues relating to rent levels. That will allow us to understand the nature of the problem across Scotland, including in hotspots such as Aberdeen, and to identify in consultation with tenants and landlords what might need to be done to ensure that tenants in the private rented sector are getting a fair deal. That is the right way to develop legislation on complex matters and to minimise the risk of it backfiring on tenants and landlords, as I fear Mr Kelly's amendments would do. Turning to amendment 50, that would place a duty in ministers to introduce regulations to establish the new type of tenancy that I spoke about. Like amendment 49, it introduces significant new duty on ministers in respect of matters that formed no part of the bill in introduction. Consecretly, I have the same objection principle to it as I did with amendment 49, and I have already outlined what we are already doing in terms of a new tenancy within the private rented sector. Mr Kelly, you wind up and press a withdrawal of your amendment, please. I intend to press the amendments. First of all, let me deal with the minister's statement that those are somehow last-minute amendments. I made it absolutely clear when we debated housing in December in response to a speech that Patrick Harvie made that we were going to look at the issue of rent controls and tenancy at that time. I also made it clear at stage 1, so those are not last-minute issues, and they are issues that are happening on the ground just now, and it is incumbent on the Government to address those. Alex Johnson makes the point about the markets merely reacting to demand, and landlords are entitled to a fair return. However, if you look at some of the figures that we are seeing, the City Let's report speaks about 16 per cent rises in Dundee in Aberdeen. Those are massive returns that landlords are getting, and it is a pressure. The minister complains about the amendments that would be too onerous in terms of landlords and letting agents. What about the onerous burdens that those who are in poverty are having to endure? Those who are having to make decisions about paying their rents or cutting back on their fuel bills are the onerous demands that we should be addressing. Why are you launching another consultation? That is what we have heard all afternoon in response to amendments brought from different parts of the Parliament. You are going to launch a consultation. The Government has three years to consult on the housing bill. You should be getting it right now, and we are bringing forward real amendments that would make a real difference on the ground that would help tenants in the private rented sector. It is time to consider what would make a real difference, support those benefits and help tenants in the private rented sector. I think that we will move to a vote. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 49 is yes, 37, no, 80. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 15, in the name of James Kelly, Mr Kelly, to move or not. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote in amendment 50 is yes, 42, no, 75. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 8, and I call amendment 51, in the name of Drew Smith, group to the amendment 70. Mr Smith, to move the amendment and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in group 8 provide for the creation of enhanced enforcement areas. The principal amendment in the group is 51, which I now move. Amendment 70 ensures that the detail of regulation provided under 51 would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. The argument for enhanced enforcement areas has been made in the briefing that has been provided to all members by COSLA. However, in a nutshell, areas where enhanced enforcement powers should be available are those where local authorities and indeed local communities have identified persistent problems in the rental sector that are otherwise difficult to resolve and which require a range of measures rather than one-off or discrete policy solutions. There are areas where a number of rogue private sector landlords are contributors to wider problems such as multiple repair and management failures, which affect not just their tenants but the wider community in which their businesses operate. The power that is proposed is discretionary, it is time limited and it is targeted. Enhanced enforcement is not about a broader increase in regulatory power but rather a recognition that, in some places, exceptional circumstances exist which justify a response that would not be considered proportionate if it applied everywhere. I have no expectation that anything other than a small number of applications for enhanced enforcement area status would be forthcoming and it would be for Scottish ministers to determine if it should be granted. The kind of enhanced provisions that I have in mind in which COSLA has discussed with the Scottish Government previously include criminal record checks on individuals seeking to register as landlords, powers of entry and powers to inspect documents. In my amendment, I have left the exact detail of what powers could be granted and what circumstances to the Scottish ministers to determine because the amendment is all about responding to exceptional circumstances. Housing should provide a home for individuals and families that should not be a source for exploitation of tenants or for other criminality. Members who represent Glasgow will be aware that Governhill is one such area where a range of problems relating to housing exist and concerted effort is needed to make change at the community level. Glasgow members will therefore also be aware that those amendments are supported by COSLA and also explicitly by Glasgow City Council. Glasgow City Council have told me that the decision of the minister not to include enhanced enforcement areas in the bill, as previously promised, restricts its ability to support the community in Governhill and to achieve a better quality of local environment, decent and safe homes for the people who live there, and I would ask Parliament to support amendment 51. As we are falling behind, I invite Sandra White to speak briefly. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise to support this amendment. I think it will tackle the very serious problems that Drew Smith has mentioned, but also in previous amendment regarding party flats, I believe that people within the Benesford building and other areas within the Glasgow city centre of my constituency will benefit from this amendment from sales and anti-social tenants also. I thank the minister for meeting with me and others as well. I look forward to supporting this amendment. I understand why this amendment has been brought forward, but surely when we pass this legislation into law it should be enforced fairly and equally across the whole of the country. Let's say yes that I do believe that there should be enhanced enforcement areas, but I believe that those people outside the enforcement areas should have the same level of protection. For that reason, I believe that we should not have enforced protection areas. I appreciate the concerns from members across the chamber regarding local authorities' ability to tackle poor management and condition. That is why we included further powers in the bill for local authorities to tackle those problems, including a new power of inspection where a local authority believes that the repairing standard is not being met and third party reporting rights to the private rented housing panel. That is throughout Scotland However, we recognise that. I think that Drew Smith said in his remarks that this will be an exceptional circumstance that he would anticipate that this being used and that the power to designated enhanced enforcement areas might not be used by many local authorities but, in practice, it would be there for some circumstances where local authorities would find it helpful to tackle acute problems in their area. On that basis, the Government is happy to support the amendment and to invite the chamber to support my amendments 51 and 70. Thanks. Mr Smith, to wind up and press your amendment, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I suppose what I would say to Alex Johnson that his argument was perhaps for an extension of the extent of enhanced enforcement areas and perhaps he could take up the issues that he was concerned with in the local areas that he represents. I say both to Sandra White and to the Minister that I am very grateful for her comments in the debate and the Government's support for the amendment. I very much hope that it will lead to a continuation of the partnership that I hope and believe exists between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to tackle the very serious issues that are faced by a number of our member's constituents in the Govanhill area. I hope that some of the lessons learned from that area will also be of assistance to the communities that are represented by other members. I would intend to press the amendment. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. When we now move to section 9, I call amendment 52 in the name of the minister group with amendments 53, 8 and 9. Minister, if you would like to move amendment 52 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. I will speak to amendments 52 and 53. The Scottish Government is giving full and careful consideration to a recent Supreme Court ruling that mandatory disclosure of all previous convictions, including spent convictions, is contrary to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those amendments to the fit and proper test for letting agents are in response to that ruling. They retain the policy intent to be able to check the accuracy of the information disclosed but clarify that that does not include spent convictions. Amendment 53 changes the existing level of disclosure for letting agent registration that may be required by Scottish ministers where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that material falling under section 30.30 paragraph 2 of the bill is or has become inaccurate. That will now be at the basic disclosure level. Amendment 52 further makes it clear that spent convictions do not fall under the material set out at section 32. Amendments 8 and 9 are also in my name. Both amendments will modify section 35, which deals with the revocation of a registration. At present, section 35 allows Scottish ministers to deregister a letting agent if they or care personnel are no longer fit and proper. Amendments 8 and 9 also allow that where the letting agent or key person is not fit and proper. For example, if a mistake had been made or information had been withheld at the time of application, the Scottish ministers may find that the applicant or key person had never been fit and proper and subsequently looked to remove them from the register. Amendment 9 also provides the power to revoke a registration where a change of circumstances under section 33 triggers a failure of the fit and proper person test, where the key person transpires not to be or no longer be deemed fit and proper. I move amendment 52. I wish to support amendments 52 and 53 in the minister's name. They make good sense in terms of their consistent with current employment practice and ECHR in relation to spent convictions not being taken into account on the fit and proper test. I wonder in relation to amendment 53, which deals with the inclusion of the criminal conviction certificate if the information that has been collected as a result of section 30 of the bill is not accurate. I wonder what checks can be introduced to ensure that the information in section 30 is accurate and can flag up any inaccuracies. What monitoring is going to be in place as a result of section 30? Including those amendments now will ensure that the accuracy is there within the bill. I am not quite sure what Mr Kelly is looking to further to that. We are retaining the policy intent to be able to check the accuracy of information disclosed, but we are clarifying that it will be based on a basic disclosure and not the enhanced disclosure, as was previously indicated. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 53 in the name of the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Excellent. I move to group 10. I call amendment 54 in the name of Mary Fee, group of amendment 55. Mary Fee to move amendment 54 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move amendments 54 and 55 in my name. As both amendments are fairly simplistic, I am sure that we will be pleased to know that I will be fairly brief. Both my amendments would require landlords to register on an annual basis— Members leaving the chamber do so quickly and quietly. Please, Ms Fee, please continue. Thank you. On an annual basis, instead of the three-year proposed in the bill, my amendments would tighten up the process of the legislation and lead to greater confidence and security for tenants as it would allow for problems to be caught with and dealt more quickly. There is nothing to suggest that the process of registration would be an onerous one after the initial registration is done. Therefore, it makes sense to require landlords to re-register on an annual basis. In conclusion, I move amendment 54 in my name. As it stands, Scottish ministers are able to consider a breach of the fit and proper person test or the code of practice at any time during the three-year period of registration. Section 35 provides Scottish ministers with the power to revoke a registration if the agent is no longer a fit and proper person test. I consider the three-year registration cycle to be a proportionate approach that safeguards clients without placing an onerous burden on the industry. Anything less than three years would be disproportionate. I therefore do not support amendment 54 or 55. Mary Fee, to wind up and press a withdrawing amendment, please. The minister makes the presumption that registration will be lengthy and onerous, and we place a burden on the Government and letting agents. There is no evidence to support that. On those grounds, I will press my amendments. So the question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a one-minute division. Please vote now. Twenty seconds remaining. The result of the vote on amendment 54 is, yes, 39, no, 73. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 55 in the name of Mary Fee. Mary Fee, to move or not move. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 55 is, yes, 37, no, 74. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister to move formally. So the question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 9 in the name of the minister and minister to move formally. So the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I will now move to group 11 and call amendment 10 in the name of the minister group with amendments 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16. Minister, if you would like to move amendment 10 and speak to all the amendments in the group, please. Thank you. Presiding Officer, currently the bill has no specific provision to allow a letting agent to voluntarily terminate their registration, for example if the agent retires. Amendment 10 provides a mechanism for a letting agent to apply to Scottish ministers to terminate their registration and requires Scottish ministers to comply if they are satisfied that the agent has ceased to operate and that it is otherwise appropriate to do so. Should Scottish ministers decide to refuse an application, then they must provide their reasons for doing so. Alex Johnson's amendment 11 seeks to establish a mechanism for the removal of a registration and application. However, that amendment would require Scottish ministers to be satisfied that the letting agent has made adequate arrangements with respect to the business, but it is unclear what those arrangements would be. Given that Scottish ministers would be required to assess the adequacy of them, I cannot support that amendment. Therefore, I ask Alex Johnson not to move it. Amendment 12 in my name will prevent a letting agent who has been deregistered at their own request from seeking to recover costs and charges incurred for work done after the date of deregistration. In other words, it will discourage that letting agent from continuing to operate. Amendments 14, 15 and 16 are linked to amendment 12. They clarify what is meant by the relevant date for deregistration and confirm that costs incurred by a letting agent before the date of their deregistration are recoverable. I move amendment 10. Deputy Presiding Officer, amendment 11 is a resubmission of an amendment that was submitted and debated at stage 2. As you can see by the consecutive numbering, it may have crossed in the post, so to speak, with the minister's own amendment. Having read through the minister's amendment, I believe that it achieves the objective that was set out in my own amendment at stage 2 and again here today at stage 3. Consequently, I am inclined to support it. The only area that I am somewhat concerned about is provision 2 in the minister's amendment, which suggests that application must be accompanied by a fee of such amount, if any, as Scottish ministers determine. I will seek reassurance from the minister at this stage that this fee will be reasonable and will only be designed to cover the costs of such a process. If that reassurance is given, I will support the minister's amendment number 10 and the others in the group and not move my own amendment number 11. I rise to speak to amendments 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16, and as I am supporting all the amendments, I will speak to them as the group. I support the amendments in the name of Margaret Burgess and Alec Johnson, because they are all sensible and practical additions to the legislation that would offer a straightforward solution to agents that wish to be removed from the register and would allow the register to be kept up-to-date. All of the amendments would have the consequence of tightening up the sector in the RTOB welcome. Thank you minister to wind up, please. No comment other than to give Alex Johnson the assurance that he seeks that any fee would be appropriate and not anything else. Excellent, thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Is a no, I believe? Was it an intentional no? I'll call the amendment again. Question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There is a no, so we are not agreed. There will therefore be a one-minute division, please vote now. As a result of the vote on amendment number 10 is yes, 110 and 10, no six, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Now call amendment 11, in the name of Alex Johnson. Mr Johnson, to move or not please. Not moved. Thank you. So we'll now move to group. Now call amendments 12, 14, 15 and 16, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I'd invite the minister to move these amendments on block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? As no member objects, the question is that amendment 12, 14, 15 and 16 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Thank you very much. Which takes us to group 12. I call amendment 17, in the name of Patrick Harvie. Grouped with amendments 18 to 22, 56 and 37. Mr Harvie, if you'd like to move amendment 17 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. At stage 2, as I mentioned earlier, I moved a number of amendments seeking to explore the detail of what would be included in the code of practice which the Government is intending to produce in relation to letting agents. I'm again seeking to explore specific issues which the code of practice could and I believe should address. The minister at stage 2 didn't agree with my amendments but did give a commitment that those issues would be addressed in the code. I do hope that, even if she's not persuaded that those amendments would help to set that out on the face of the bill, I hope that she'll be able to give some further indication of the means by which those issues will be addressed. Specifically, I'm asking that issues around the level of advance rent, level of deposit and so on are addressed. Members will be aware that there are letting agents who are seeking work-arounds to the provisions that we've put in place in the past around advance rent and around deposits, finding other ways of describing them, pretending that they're not advance rent or pretending that they're not really deposits. Even when advance rent is called advance rent, as members will see from the CAB report that's been circulated to all members, situations in which some people are being asked not just for one or two months, but three months, even in some cases six months advance rent. Another issue that I'm seeking to have addressed is the socioeconomic discrimination and discrimination against benefit recipients. The term no-DSS will be very familiar to anyone who's looked at the private rented sector. The minister has said that she wants to see an end to the use of that term, but I'm seeking an end to the practice itself, regardless of the use of the term. Discrimination against people because they're in receipt of benefits basically undermines the provision that the private rented sector is seeking the right to manage on behalf of our society. Housing has to be available not just to those that individual landlord or letting agents consider to be good, reliable, dependable tenants. This housing has to be available to those who need it. That means ending discrimination. If we consider those two issues in concert, discrimination on grounds of benefit recipients and three or six months advance rent, it can be pretty clear to anybody that someone who finds themselves given notice to quit one property and seeking to find another on benefits having to come up with three months advance rent, six months advance rent, it's simply not feasible. Also, I'm seeking to end discrimination on grounds of immigration status. I think that this does connect to very wrong-headed provisions that have been put through the Westminster Parliament in the most recent immigration bill. Again, I ask the minister to take this opportunity to address the interaction between that reserved function of immigration and the devolved function of housing. How can we ensure that we use housing law to prevent any undue discrimination against migrants and immigrants who are in need of housing in Scotland from the private rented sector? Finally, I acknowledge that amendment 56 is an alternative means of addressing some of those issues. I look forward to hearing the argument for that. Finally, amendment 37. I am on-ground that the Government will be more comfortable with on that one. At stage 2, I moved an amendment to require the code of practice for letting agents to be laid before Parliament within a year. The minister explained that that was a wee bit too much. She said, I share Patrick Harvie's wish to see progress being made to develop the code, but I want to assure that the code is drafted with proper consideration. She went on to say, I wish to reassure Mr Harvie about my commitment to progressing development of the code, which I expect to be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the bill's enactment. My new version of the amendment gives that 18 months. I am sure that the minister can find no reason at all on that basis to object to amendment 37. For the moment, I move, I move, amendment 17. I now call on Mary Fee to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 56, in my name, which would strengthen the code of practice. It would require deposits to be paid into a tenant deposit scheme, prohibit letting agents from charging fees to the tenants or prospective tenants before or after a tenancy, and prohibit letting agents from discriminating against those who are in receipt of benefits. The amendment would have the aim of strengthening the private rented sector, and it is a sensible amendment that gives more safety and security to tenants. Moving on to amendments 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 37, in the name of Patrick Harvie. I support all of the amendments in Patrick Harvie's name, as again they will all strengthen and enhance the code of practice. All the amendments would seek to protect tenants from overcharging and discrimination from letting agents. Falling on from the initial group amendment 37, it makes sense that it sets out a timetable for the code of practice to be published. Thank you. There is an old story that the traditional definition of a croft is a small piece of land surrounded by legislation. The amendments in this group take us to a point where it might be some danger that a private let will be defined as a property surrounded by regulation. There is a significant danger that if we regulate over-honorously in this area, that what we will create is a set of regulations that are unenforceable and simply creating a situation that is worse than the one that we would have described by Patrick Harvie under the bill as it currently stands. I believe that it is important that regulation should be capable of implementation and be capable of policing. I am not convinced that if we pass all the amendments in this group that we will get to a stage where that is actually possible. Presiding Officer, I will begin by speaking to amendments number 17 to 22 in Patrick Harvie's name. All of those amendments were already debated at stage 2 and were rejected by the ICI committee. I understand Patrick Harvie's intention here to prohibit letting agents from discriminating against a prospective tenant on various grounds, including socioeconomic receipt of state benefits and immigration status. I sympathise with people who are struggling to find affordable rented property, while receipt of state benefits and those whose immigration status is uncertain. The whole issue of discrimination and barriers to access to housing is something that we will take up with the letting agent industry through the process of developing the code of practice. I welcome this amendment, as I had intended as I indicated at stage 2, to lodge a similar amendment, but Patrick Harvie beat me to it. I certainly welcome that amendment. I am happy to support it. With regard to Mary Fee's amendment 56, that has already been debated and rejected by the ICI committee at stage 2. I said then that Scottish ministers have already clarified the law to make it crystal clear what is allowed and it is unacceptable for a letting agent to flout the law on charging of premiums. As I said in my response on numerous occasions to Patrick Harvie, the amendments 17 to 22 will discuss issues and equality issues with the letting agent industry in the context of developing the code of practice. The other amendments that he has put forward are all appropriate issues to be discussed when developing the code of practice, which will be consulting on which is right and proper, and the right and proper thing to do, but I invite Mary Fee not to move amendment 56. Patrick Harvie? My excitement knows no bounds at hearing that an opposition member, I think for the second time, maybe I have slightly undercounted that today, is going to see an amendment agreed. I thank the minister very much for the commitment to the amendment, which sets a clear timescale for the development of a code of practice and laying that before Parliament within 18 months. I am very grateful for that. I do understand the position that she is taking on the other amendments, although it disappoints me, I understand it. I am sure that she intended to say that she would consult not only with the letting agencies and the industry bodies, but with a wide range of other organisations, including those who represent tenants, as well as equality organisations themselves and anti-poverty organisations. I am sure that she intends to consult with all of those. Having said that, I would like to press amendment 17. If it saves time, I suspect that the level of support for all of the amendments 17 to 22 will be the same. Can they be moved as a group? No, they all have to be moved individually, but thank you anyway. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one-minute division. Result of the vote on amendment number 17 is yes, 43, no 74. There are no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 18 in the name of Patrick Harvie. So the question is amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. They will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 18 is yes, 43, no 74. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 19 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie to move or not. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. There will be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 19 is yes, 43, no 74, no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 20 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Mr Harvie to move or not. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. There will be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 20 is yes, 43, no 72. There are no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 21 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Mr Harvie to move or not. Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 21 is yes, 42, no 73, and there were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 22 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Mr Harvie to move or not. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 22 is yes, 43, no 73. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now I call amendment 56 in the name of Mary Fee. Mary Fee to move or not. Thank you. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, they are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 56 is yes, 42, no 75. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We now move to group 13, and I call amendment 23 in the name of Patrick Harvie. Group with amendments 24, 25 and 26. Mr Harvie, if you would like to move amendment 23 and speak to all other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendments 23 and 24 make one relatively simple change to section 43. Section 43 introduces the procedures for the application of first tier tribunal in relation to the enforcement of the letting agents code of practice. I think that all members have acknowledged that there is a great deal of strength in this process and that we welcome the general trust of the bill as it stands, but at the moment the applications can only be made by a tenant or by a landlord, those two being the individuals or bodies who would be seen to have a complaint against a letting agent being the go-between, as it were. My amendment simply seeks to broaden that to ensure that a third party can make an application on behalf of a group of tenants. The minister has previously said that she is perfectly comfortable with the idea that tenants could be supported in the process. I am sure that there will be tenants who are every bit articulate enough, know what they are doing, have the confidence and the articulacy to make that application on their own behalf without support. There will be others who do not have the confidence, who may feel that they will be under pressure or threats from their landlord or their letting agent if they make such an application or simply do not feel that they know how to go about it. For an individual to be supported in that situation may be enough, but I am concerned about groups of tenants, for example in a student community where a large number of tenants are in rapid turnover in short-term tenancies and do not necessarily feel that they have the motivation or the confidence to take a complaint to the tribunal about a letting agent's behaviour. That may be a situation in which a single letting agent is the source of a number of complaints that are affecting a whole community or a large group of students. It seems to me entirely reasonable that we allow the student rights organisation or another welfare rights adviser or housing adviser to make the application on their behalf. That may be a long-term problem for that student community, but it is only a short-term problem for any one individual tenant or even a particular household. It would be reasonable to allow third-party applications on behalf of groups of tenants where that is the only way for the issue to be addressed by the tribunal. Amendments 25 and 26 address the issue of compensation. It seems to me unreasonable that tenants should be expected to pay rent during a period in which their letting agent is in breach of the code. That code is there to protect tenants as well as to protect landlords. If a tenant is not being given the standard of service that they are entitled to under the code, I do not think that they should be paying rent. I did seek to raise that in stage 2. The minister said to me that the amendment was not appropriate because the letting agent could simply pass that cost on to the landlord, even though the reason for the breach of the code may not be the landlord's responsibility. In that amendment, I am suggesting that compensation should be given to the tenants in respect of the rent that they have paid during the period in which their letting agent is in breach. However, compensation should be paid for by the letting agent. I hope that there will be some greater willingness to address those issues on behalf of the minister in the form that I have brought to him this time. I move amendment 23. Many thanks. Brief contributions, please, from Mary Fee to be followed by Alex Johnston. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to support amendments 23, 24 and Patrick Harvie's name. As the member has already expressed most of the reasons that I would have given for supporting them, I will be very brief. Amendment 23 and 24 would allow for third party representation to a tribunal for groups of tenants to be properly represented. It is only fair and right that groups of tenants who may otherwise be prohibited from going to tribunal can be represented by a third party and take their complaint to tribunal. It is a sensible approach and a good way forward. Amendment 25 and 26, in Patrick Harvie's name, while I have a great deal of sympathy for what he said when he was moving amendment 25, I cannot support either amendment 25 or 26. In relation to compensation that would be paid to a tenant if a landlord did not comply with the code, I am concerned with the way that it is drafted. It may not be just inequitable and could be open to abuse as a tenant could delay proceeding to accrue compensation. On the subject of amendments 25 and 26, I agree with Mary Fee's position, which she just took. With regard to amendment 23 and 24, I have some concerns about the ability of third parties to act on behalf of groups of tenants. One of the things that we are trying to achieve during the legislation is a better relationship between the tenant and the landlord or letting agent. I believe that we need to work hard to ensure that that relationship is genuine and direct, and that the introduction of third parties acting on behalf of groups of tenants has the potential to turn relationships into adversarial positions, which are not helpful to the long-term outturn of the legislation. I will speak firstly to numbers 23 and 26 in the name of Patrick Harvie. When he requests for first-year tribunal representation by a third party, I have some reservations about that. The arrangements for representation would be a matter for the tribunals' rules in due course. There is nothing in the bill to stop a group of tenants seeking support from a third party and assisting them with progressing their complaint. I would have concerns about a third party proceeding with the sort of class action that I believe that Patrick Harvie has in mind. The Scottish Government can take an action to the first-year tribunal on behalf of a group of people, as already indicated in the bill. However, given that there are complexities in it with other third parties doing this, it would be unwise to rush it through without giving proper consideration to the consequences. For example, if a third party advises the tribunal that he or she is acting for a particular group of tenants, how would the tribunal know that all the group of tenants have agreed to be part of this action? What happens if one of the tenant changes his or her mind or drops out? There is also—I will give way— Patrick Harvie. The part of the argument in favour of that is that there will be situations in which not all tenants have the motivation, the concern or the desire to raise a case. However, where the breach of the code—potential breach of the code or an alleged breach of the code by a letting agent—is a long-term problem for others who will be in those properties—for example, I mentioned students because very often those are short-term tenancies a year or six months. How is the code going to be enforced in relation to those letting agents when tenants may have no motivation to take an issue because they know that they are going to be moving on soon? As I said in my earlier remarks, the Scottish Government in those circumstances can make an application to the first-year tribunal in situations such as Patrick Harvie outlined. We also have—the tribunal can also order an inspection of the premises. That is already covered. I do know what Patrick Harvie is getting to, but it starts to become—when you look into the detail of it—it is becoming incredibly complex. I am well aware that other tribunals, such as the homeowner housing panel, can deal with conjoined cases where a number of complainers have lodged an application against the same person, and that tribunals will often allow a third party to support a complainer or a group of complainers. However, what Patrick Harvie is proposing goes further, and amendment 24 allows a third party to act for a group of tenants complaining about, in some instances, multiple letting agents. I would prefer that we allow the new legislation time to bed in. We can then reassess the position if the Scottish Government making application is not going to be sufficient. We can reassess the position with the benefit of experience and time to reflect on the complexities that the amendment generates. I invite Patrick Harvie to withdraw amendment 23 and 24. I turn to amendment 25. Although Patrick Harvie's amendment is well-intentioned, I believe that it is flawed because there is no requirement in the bill for landlords to comply with the letting agent code of practice or an enforcement order made by the tribunal. There are already a number of enforcement measures that can be taken if a letting agent doesn't comply with the code. The tribunal is able to award compensation on a proportionate basis. The tribunal may also inform Scottish ministers of the failure to comply. In the event that a letting agent was considered to be no longer a fit and proper person, that could result in the letting agent's registration being revoked. It is also an offence to fail to comply with an enforcement order and that could result in a fine upon conviction. On the basis that other witnesses exist in the bill, I can't support those amendments and would ask Patrick Harvie not to move them. Many thanks. I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw. Without wanting to labour the point, I think that the minister may find some of us seeking to hold her to the commitment that the Scottish Government will be raising these applications on behalf of tenants to the tribunal, because there will be cases where tenants don't wish to do it, but where the issue needs to be addressed. I am sorry that the Government isn't persuaded of those amendments, either of the need for third-party applications or of the need to protect tenants who will still be left paying rent to a letting agent or through a letting agent when that letting agent is in breach of the code. Having said that, I pressed amendment 23 and will do so also with 25 when the time comes. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palamence is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 23 is yes, 42, no, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 24 in the name of Patrick Harvie. I already debated with amendment 23 and I asked Patrick Harvie to move or not move. That then brings us to amendment 25 in the name of Patrick Harvie. I already debated with amendment 23 and I asked Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Question then is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Palamence is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 25 is yes, nine, no, 106. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 26 in the name of Patrick Harvie. I already debated with amendment 23 and I asked Patrick Harvie to move or not to move. I know when I'm beat, not moved. That then brings us to group 14, meaning of letting agency work. I call amendment 27 in the name of Alex Johnstone, which is grouped with amendment 28. I draw members' attention to the preemption information on the groupings. If amendment 27 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 28 because of a preemption. I invite Alex Johnstone to move amendment 27 and to speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm sure we'll be okay with that preemption. Amendment 27 is a resubmission of an amendment that is submitted at stage 2. Amendment 28 was submitted at about the same time for debate at stage 3 and seeks to have the same effect. The problem was that section 51, paragraph 1b, seeks to define the meaning of letting agency work. While it was fairly obvious from the discussion that took place previously that the drafter of the bill knew what they meant by the terms in that paragraph, I'm not convinced that that's what it actually meant. As a consequence, I submitted the amendment to remove paragraph 1b completely. The minister has come forward with an amendment that seeks to clarify the definition carried in that paragraph. As a consequence of that, I believe that we have a wording now, which is far more effective and will have mostly the effect that we desire. However, I'm not convinced that redrafting the paragraph is the right way to go. I think that it would be better off, as I suggested in my amendment, just missing section 51, paragraph 1b out completely. As a consequence, I will move amendment 27, but if that fails, I will be prepared to support amendment 28 as a fallback position. Many thanks. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group, please. During stages 1 and stage 2, some stakeholders noted, as Alec Johnson has pointed out, about the definition of letting agency work. They felt that it might inadvertently cover those who repair or improve a landlord's property, roofers, painters and other contractors. That would unintentionally bring them within the scope of letting agent regulation. Amendment 28 clarifies the position by amending the existing definition of the property management aspect of letting agency work to make clear the range of management activities that the Scottish ministers intend to be within the scope of letting agency work. Those activities include collecting rent, inspecting the house and arranging repairs, maintenance, improvement or insurance. That amendment will make clear that those people who solely provide building services to the private rented sector are not intended to be covered by the letting agent regulatory regime. Amendment 27, lodged by Alec Johnson, simply deletes all the section 51, 1b. That would remove property management from the scope of letting agency work and narrow the scope of the regulatory regime, a consequence that I cannot support. In light of my amendment 28, which clarifies the position, I would ask Alec Johnson to withdraw his amendment. James Kelly Thank you, Presiding Officer. Both the amendments in this group seek to deal with the discussion that took place at stage 2 when it was clear that there was some confusion about the wording of section 51 in terms of letting agent work. Having studied the amendments and listened to the contributions, I am convinced that Alec Johnson's solution is the best way forward. However, if that is defeated, we would be supportive of the minister's amendment. Many thanks. I invite Alex Johnson to wind up and please indicate if he intend to press or withdraw. Very briefly, I think that we have come to a reasonable solution on this and I will press my amendment 27 but commit my support to amendment 28 should 27 fail. Many thanks. The question then is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 27 is yes, 46. No, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. And I call amendment 28 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 27, and I ask the minister to move formally. Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 15, mobile home sites with permanent residents. I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 58, 30 and 31. I ask the minister to move amendment 29 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Amendment 29 makes explicit that a local authority must, when running the fit and proper person test, take into account any issues around the site owner profiteering from providing utilities to residents. They reflect amendments proposed by Mary Fee during stage 2 of the bill. There were some technical issues that we wanted to consider after stage 2, and I am happy to say that we have worked through those so that amendment 29 addresses issues raised by Mary Fee's stage 2 amendments. Amendment 58 clarifies that, when a site licence applicant provides details of convictions in their application, that should only cover unspent convictions. That is a technical amendment to put me on doubt that it is only convictions that are not yet spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which are required to be disclosed. Any spent convictions that a person has will not require to be disclosed, and this amendment ensures that the bill is clear in this requirement. I will now speak to amendment 30. One of the measures in the bill will allow a local authority to take emergency action on a site where there is imminent risk of serious harm. That is an important measure. It allows a local authority to quickly take action and fix a significant problem where someone could be seriously harmed. However, the bill, as drafted, includes three requirements that have to be met before a local authority can take emergency action on a site without a licence. One of those would mean that a local authority had to establish that the person in control of the land was causing or permitting the land to be used as a mobile home site with permanent residents. Amendment 30 would remove that requirement. The key issue in such a situation will be that the site exists and that there is imminent risk of serious harm. It will be irrelevant whether or not someone is causing or permitting land to be used as a site. The power for a local authority to take emergency action is for use when there is a dangerous situation that needs to be urgently addressed. We want to avoid a local authority having to go through unnecessary stages before they can take that action. Finally, amendment 31 provides that where an offence has been committed under part 5 of the bill by a corporate body and it can be proved that a specific individual played a role in committing the offence. That person also commits an offence and can be punished accordingly. It will mean, for example, that unscrupulous site owners cannot evade legal responsibility for their actions by setting up companies to own land and hold site licence. It reflects the position in other similar licensing regimes, including the new mobile home licensing regimes in England and Wales. It provides a useful additional measure to tackle unscrupulous site owners and I would ask members to support it. I move amendment 29. I would like to speak to amendment 29 and amendment 30 on the minister's name. As the minister said in the opening remarks, amendment 29 reflects an amendment that I brought at stage 2 regarding reaches of gas, electricity and water agreements by mobile home site owners and the ability to take them into account when doing a fit and proper person test. I am grateful for the minister's agreement to take the amendment forward and I am happy to support it today. Amendment 30 on the minister's name again, I am happy to support it and I welcome the additional clarification that I received from the minister today. I had concerns around the wording of section 2 on page 53, but given the additional comments that the minister was able to give me, I am happy to support amendment 30. My concern was around the way that it was drafted and whether it would be too broad or curtail things, but I am happy to confirm that I will support it. Many thanks. Can I invite the minister to wind up, please? I think that we have already covered issues in the bill that local authorities should have regard to all the circumstances. I was pleased to take Mary Fee's amendments forward as she raised them at stage 2 about profiteering. The other amendments have moved, I have nothing further to add to it. Thank you minister. The question then is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 58, 30 and 31, all in name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move those amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? Since no member objects, the question then is that amendments 58, 30 and 31 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 16, Tenement Management Schemes, and I call amendment 59 in the name of Sarah Boyack, which is grouped with amendments 60, 61, 32, 33 and 34. I ask Sarah Boyack to move amendment 59 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Under section 72, 4 of the bill, a local authority will be required to notify an owner if it intends to pay a share of scheme costs on that owner's behalf. Amendment 59 seeks to ensure that the bill is sufficiently clear regarding this process in circumstances where the reason for the local authority intervening is an inability to identify or find the owner in question. When I raised this at stage 2, I was directed to section 30 of the Tenement Scotland Act which states that where an owner cannot be identified, a notice will be deemed to have been sent if it is delivered to the property and addressed to the owner, the proprietor or similar. It may seem like a trivial point, but I am very clean that we are clear about what that means. I want to tease out from the minister whether the current requirement in the bill to notify an owner is consistent with the issuing of an official notice under the 2004 act, and I think that the amendment I have laid would remove any ambiguity over this point. Amendment 60 would require the Scottish Government to publish guidance about the operation of section 4 of the 2004 act on Tenement management schemes and the new section 4A regarding the power of local authorities to pay a missing share of scheme costs. Section 4A introduced significant and welcome new powers to minimise delays and assist owners who would take their maintenance responsibility seriously to get repairs moving. Getting the powers right, though, was one thing. Ensuring that they are being used best to fit is another challenge. The requirement for the Scottish Government to produce guidance and consultation with local authorities and other stakeholders will help to ensure that all parties are aware of the provisions and the scope that they provide for ensuring that common repairs are taken forward timmously. That would also allow for a review of any existing guidance available to local authorities and others on the operation of the Tenement management scheme to ensure that, 10 years on from the act, the legislation is operating effectively. In talking to local authority colleagues, it is clear that the existing legislation is complex and it is not necessarily being used to best effect, so I think that it would be useful to bring together the new legislation with existing legislation. Alongside official guidance for professionals, I would welcome the minister's comments on whether, in the light of the bill, the Government will revisit and update the common repairs common sense booklet to assist consumers and residents to navigate the amended legislation that we are going to pass tonight. Amendment 61 acknowledges that registered social landlords would benefit from having a discretionary power to recover their costs from private owners by repayment charge along the same lines as that introduced for local authorities. I was first made aware of this by constituents who sought support from the local housing association to help with getting repairs carried out where the housing association owns one or more properties but the housing associations wouldn't act. When I raised the issue in evidence sessions on David Stewart's defective and dangerous buildings bill, there was a strong mood that we needed to act on that. I am very pleased that, in this bill, the ministers listened to the arguments that I made on the issue at stage 2. I am also grateful for our assistance in crafting a revised amendment that I hope we crafted in such a way that we can pass happily this afternoon. Housing associations are expected to ensure that the properties that they let meet a minimum standard set out in the Scottish housing quality standard but, in some cases, they cannot do that because they cannot get owners' consent in other parts of the building to carry out common works. They have right as co-owners to carry out work internments where the owner majority flats or can secure the support of a sufficient number of owners to form a majority but they cannot force those other owners to come to the table and that is left up to civil remedies which is not successful because it is protracted, it is hugely costly and it is not a route that housing associations choose to go down. We have a clear problem here. In order to carry out some of those works, if registered social landlords had a discretionary power to recover them costs from private owners by repayment charge along the same lines as that introduced for local authorities in section 72 of the bill, that would transform the situation. The amendment creates a regulation making power and, before using it, the Scottish Government would be required to carry out a consultation and consider the use of stakeholders. I think that that would be critical because it would bring everyone the opportunity to comment on the detail of how that might be done. If we put it in the legislation today, it means that it will happen but the details need to be sorted out and enabling the minister to bring forward the regulatory powers would be the right way to do that so that the Parliament could scrutinise it. I am aware that housing associations have been forced to take properties out of their letting pools as they cannot afford to cover the necessary common repairs. That is reducing the availability of social housing where we have already got a challenge and a shortage of housing, so I think that provision would be crucial in enabling housing associations to play their part in ensuring that buildings are kept not just wind and water tight but up to the Scottish housing quality standard. It also provides protection for vulnerable homeowners who might be adversely affected in their views by a registered social landlord's decision to recover costs because there would be a right to appeal to ministers included in this amendment. I move amendment 59. I think that those amendments in this part of the bill are a crucial part that will strengthen the bill when it is passed tonight. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 32 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 32 replaces the current fixed 30-year period for the repayment of the debt owed to a local authority in connection with work done to repair and maintain private homes with a flexible period of between five and 30 years to be determined by the local authority. The recovery power will also apply to the new missing share power for tenement buildings introduced by section 72 of the bill and will provide local authorities with an effective tool to secure repayment of their costs in paying a missing share. Amendments 33 and 34 make a similar change to charging order powers under the Housing Scotland Act 1987. Amendment 59 changes the wording of the duty to notify owners before using the new missing share power introduced by section 72 of the act. Section 30 of the Tenement Scotland Act 2004 and rule 9 of the Tenement Management Scheme contain and schedule 1 to the 2004 act, make provision on what giving notice means and balance. I am happy to support the amendment by Sarah Boyack to make it as clear as possible what is meant by the new provision. Amendment 60 would require the Scottish Government to produce guidance on the operation of the Tenement Management Scheme and the new missing share power by local authorities. The Tenement Management Scheme provides a framework for collective decision making by owners of tenements. It helps them to take responsibility to work for common parts of their own homes and allows them to enforce majority decisions against non-cooperative owners. Although the new section 4A provides a power for local authorities to intervene to support majority decisions, that is intended to be a last resort, and the operation of the Tenement Management Scheme is primarily a matter between owners in which the local authority would normally be a party. It is not obvious what purpose would be served by publishing guidance to local authorities about the operation of section 4. The Scottish Government, as Sarah Boyack mentioned, provides non-statutory guidance to homeowners in the leaflet common repairs commonsense, which we took over from Consumer Focus Scotland last year. We will be revising it and bringing it up to date. We also provide guidance for local authorities on their role in providing assistance to homeowners under the 2006 act, and we will also be revising that guidance to take account of the other changes in the bill. Amendment 61 seeks to address an issue that was raised during the stage 2 debate, and together with my amendments in this group, this amendment will provide a powerful debt recovery tool to support registered social landlords who need co-operation of private owners to carry out work to address poor quality tenements. Since stage 2, as Sarah Boyack mentioned, I have discussed the concerns with her and considered the views of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and it is important that there should be protection for vulnerable tenants, so I am pleased to note the scope from the appeal procedure in this amendment. In conclusion, I would ask members to support amendments 32, 33, 34, 59 and 61, and I would invite Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 60. Many thanks, Alex Johnson. The amendments that appear in this group, I am happy to support amendments 32, 33 and 34, because they make valuable improvements to the bill. Regarding the amendments in the name of Sarah Boyack, I am happy to support amendment 59, and in all honesty, I am happy to support amendment 60 as well, which simply requests clarification from the Government by publishing the guidance to which it refers. Amendment 61 has been accepted by the minister, but I still have some concerns regarding this amendment. It extends the scope of the provisions for the recovery of expenses from local authorities to registered social landlords. I would contend that local authorities and RSLs are rather different in their operation and their perspective, and as a consequence it would be irresponsible of us to assume that the same legislation could act effectively for the same purpose. The proposal that Sarah Boyack made is that we should legislate today and then enter into a consultation. I am more cautious on this and have concerns that we need to get this right. Therefore, I have to say that, while I understand the requirement or the suggestion that we should extend this to RSLs, I am not convinced that this is the right way to do it, and while I will support any process that leads us in this direction, it would be premature of us to support this amendment today. Many thanks, and I invite Sarah Boyack to wind up and indicate if he intends to press her with jaw please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted with the support that the ministers have given to amendment 59, as I understand it this evening. In relation to amendment 60, I agree with the minister that the tenement management scheme should be the first port of call, but I am really concerned that for many, many residents it simply is not. It is partly lack of guidance and it is partly lack of the local authorities' power to concentrate minds. I think that what we have in this bill when it is completed tonight will enable us to have more powers for local authorities to act. When we get to the next section, there will be a further discussion on that. The element section 60 in amendment 60 tonight will strengthen those powers further. There are very complex provisions in the legislation, and most owners, where it is difficult, simply walk away from sorting out the problems that they have. That leaves us a major public safety problem. It leaves us a major problem in terms of the maintenance and repair of our buildings. The new framework that we will have tonight will improve matters hugely, but I am keen that the Scottish Government is as proactive as possible to make sure that local authorities and owners know as much as they can so that the difficult parts where people are forced to pay up are the last backstop and it is not the first approach. We have not mentioned the statutory notices problem that we had in Edinburgh. That was principally because owners were not working together. The legislation will help because it will say to owners that, if they do not work together, the local authority will step in and they will still have to pay, but the work will definitely go ahead. For that reason, it is a huge step forward. To Alex Johnson, I would say that it would be a huge missed opportunity not to address the issue of registered social landlords. They have to be part of this picture. Where they can act, where they are ready to act, it would improve the situation significantly. The point about having the regulations dealt with separately is that, by establishing the principle, we know that it is the right thing to do, but it is only right and proper that the detail comes through the regulations. I think that many people have argued that on different issues in the past in this chamber, so I think that it is important that we support all those amendments. They are a package alongside the measures that the minister has proposed. They will strengthen the bill and they will make sure that it delivers on the aspirations that we all have for it. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. In which case I call amendment 60 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 59, and it asks Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The question then is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 60 is, yes, 51. No, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 59, and it asks Sarah Boyack to move or not to move. The question then is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 61 is, yes, 100. No, 13. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. We now turn to group 17, maintenance orders report on the exercise of powers, and I call amendment 62 in the name of Sarah Boyack in a group on its own, and it asks Sarah Boyack to move and speak to amendment 62. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the previous grouping, I spoke about the distinction between getting the provisions of a bill right and ensuring that they are used effectively, and amendment 62 stems from an instance that demonstrates that point effectively. At stage 2, Jim Eadie lodged an amendment that would have required owners to prepare maintenance plans to cover common repairs with a view to encouraging responsible home ownership. Under the amendment, failure by owners to complete a home maintenance plan would constitute grounds for the local authority to consider that a house was unlikely to be maintained to a reasonable standard for the purposes of issuing a maintenance order. The amendment had its origins and evidence given to the infrastructure and capital investment committee by the city of Edinburgh council. In response to the amendment, the minister argued that local authorities already have the power to require owners through a maintenance order to drop a maintenance plan. We have a situation where local authorities are calling for measures to promote more responsible home maintenance by owners, while the minister states that existing powers are sufficient. Amendment 62 aims to dig into the operation of existing power by requiring the Scottish Government to report regularly on the use of maintenance orders. If accepted, the amendment would require the Government to produce a report on a variety of issues regarding the use of maintenance orders by local authorities from the time that they came into force to the present day. The amendment would also require subsequent reports on a three-year basis. I believe that such a report would give us really useful insight regarding how those powers are currently being used. Based on the findings that such reports would provide, we would be in a much better position to assess whether the powers that are currently constituted are actually achieving their purpose or whether further work is needed to support local authorities to use them effectively. The law of the tenement was passed in 2004, and there have been several bills relating to housing since. It is important that the effectiveness of our legislation is monitored by the Scottish Government and that the Parliament carries out its own post-legislative scrutiny. I believe that the amendment will help us in providing reporting mechanisms to assist in that objective so that the provisions in this bill and in previous housing legislation are actually used by local authorities and put into effect, as intended, by this Parliament. I move amendment 62. We often come across situations where local authorities have powers that they did not know about. When a similar amendment was launched at stage 2, the minister's defence was that those powers already existed for local government. I was content with the explanation at the time and remained content with that explanation. However, as we progress towards the end of this stage 3, we will look forward with interest to hearing the minister's explanation at this stage. Amendment 62 would require the Scottish Government to produce a report on the use of maintenance order powers by local authorities. Those powers were brought into force on 1 April 2009, and I know that local authorities have made less use of them as originally expected, and that that is because they find the administration of the process onerous. In response to those concerns, I have made a number of changes to streamline the process, and those are set out in sections 74 and 75 of the bill, and they were supported by most local authorities during the Scottish Government consultation. One of those changes is to move information on maintenance plans from the land registers to the building registers that are held by local authorities. That will reduce the cost of using maintenance orders, but it will mean that there is no central point of information for some of the details that that provision seeks to require the Scottish Government to obtain. I am happy to engage with local authorities on the use that they make of the powers that we provide them, and I am happy to seek information on numbers from the keeper of the registers of Scotland and from local authorities as required. The amendments in the bill demonstrate that we are listening and making changes to improve the use of the maintenance powers, but I do not think that the proposal to formalise reporting on the numbers of orders and plans helped with that, and I therefore cannot support amendment 62. Many thanks. I invite Sarah Boyack to wind up and indicate if she intend to press or withdraw. I would like to push the amendment, notwithstanding the comments that the minister has just made. Many thanks. In that case, the question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. I will agree. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 62 is yes, 36. No, 71. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendments 32, 33 and 34, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move those amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? The member has objected, therefore the question is that amendments 32 to 34 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are. That brings us to group 18. First tier tribunal and private rented housing panel membership parliamentary procedure. I call amendment 35 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendment 36. I ask the minister to move amendment 35 and speak to both amendments in the group. At stage 2, the Government amended the bill providing ministers with powers to very certain tribunal qualifications. Amendments 35 and 36 changed that procedure from negative to affirmative. That response to an issue raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Although those powers relate to quite straightforward ministers of matters, I am content to amend the powers to affirmative procedure, as recommended by that committee. James Kelly Briefly, Deputy Presiding Officer, the qualification from the private rented housing panel was quite a serious matter and should get appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. Therefore, I think the minister's amendment makes good sense to change from a negative to an affirmative procedure. Alex Johnston I was not going to say anything, but I decided to stand up merely to defend the negative procedure. I think that it is much maligned within this Parliament. Often committees argue that an affirmative procedure is preferable to a negative one, but I find the negative procedure a very attractive one, a very responsive one, and one that we should be proud of and use with pride within our parliamentary process. Notwithstanding that comment, I support the amendment that the minister's name. As the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am delighted that the Government has responded to our suggestion. The question then is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 67, in the name of Drew Smith, already debated with amendment 45, and I ask Drew Smith to move or not move. Not move, Presiding Officer. In which case, I call amendment 68, in the name of James Kelly, already debated with amendment 49, and I ask James Kelly to move or not to move. I then call amendment 69, in the name of James Kelly, already debated with amendment 49, and I ask James Kelly to move or not to move. I now call amendment 70, in the name of Drew Smith, which has already been debated with amendment 51, and I ask Drew Smith to move or not to move. The question then is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I am going to call that again, and if someone wishes to shout no, they should do so loudly. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 70 is yes, 97, no 12. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. I now call amendment 36, in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 35, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 37, in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 17, and I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not to move. The member has moved, therefore the question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed to. I now call amendment 71, in the name of Alex Johnstone, already debated with amendment 38, and I remind members that if amendment 71 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 72, since there is a preemption. I ask Alex Johnstone to move or not to move. The member has not moved. In which case I call amendment 72, in the name of Mary Fee, already debated with amendment 38, and I ask Mary Fee to move or not to move. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 72 is yes, 37, no, 71. There are no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 73, in the name of Alex Johnstone, already debated with amendment 38, and I ask Alex Johnstone to move or not to move. The member has not moved, and that therefore ends consideration of amendments. Members are leaving the chamber. Please do so quickly and quietly.