 The Elizabeth и Kate The Elizabeth and Kate Okay. Good morning, everyone, I welcome you to the 14th meeting in 2014 of the infrastructure and capital investment committee. Can I remind everybody to switch off all their mobile devices as they do affect the broadcasting system? I don't think that some people might be using their tablets to consult papers, however, so I hope that's okay. Agenda item 1 is a decision to take business in private. I seek the committee's agreement to take agenda item 3, approach to the review of progress on the implementation of the 2012 homelessness commitment in private. Is that agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. Agenda item 2 is the Housing Scotland Bill. Today we're starting stage 2 consideration of the Housing Scotland Bill and we will go no further than the end of part 3 of the bill. I remind members that the minister's officials are here in a strictly supportive capacity. They cannot speak during proceedings or be questioned by members. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the first marshaled list of amendments and the first groupings of amendments. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak and move that amendment and speak to all other amendments in the group. I will then call the other members who have amendments in the group. Finally, the member who lodged the first amendment in that group will be asked to wind up the debate and press or withdraw their amendment. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention in the usual way. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, I must check whether any member objects to it being withdrawn. If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Any other MSP can move it but I will not specifically invite other members to do so. If no one moves it, I will call the next amendment. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill and so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We moved to the first marshal list of amendments for stage 2. The first section 1 is abolition of the right to buy. I call amendment 12 in the name of Alex Johnson grouped with amendments 13, 42, 43, 44 and 45. Can I draw members' attention to the preemption and direct alternative information on the groupings? Alex, can I ask you to move amendment 12 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 12 in my name. The right to buy has been one of the most significant drivers for positive social change in Scotland over the last 50 years. It has, over much of Scotland, created mixed tenures, sustainable communities that we can all be proud of. The positive aspects of the policy are widespread but include, as has been suggested in a recent debate by myself, the opportunity for wealth to be acquired by some of the less well-off in society. Property ownership is something that we should all encourage and the right to buy has had that role. It has had its opponents and many housing organisations continue to this day to oppose right to buy. The presence of this section in the bill indicates a success in that campaign. Yet, if we look at right to buy in recent years, it becomes fairly obvious that it was a policy that, because of neglect by successive Scottish Governments, was withering on the vine. The number of houses which were sold to their tenants in the last full year for which we have figures was only just over 1,500. In fact, the vast majority of these, nearly 1,200, were long-standing tenants who have the residual right to buy, not the preserved right to buy or the modernised right to buy that we have had for the past 10 years or more. The effect is that moving to a bullish right to buy will simply cause a feeding frenzy in the market. It will give an opportunity for all those who have the right today but are about to lose it to make the decision whether they will buy their homes or not. Although it suits my political perspective to encourage people to buy their properties, the decision to include the abolition of right to buy in this housing bill can only be counterproductive against the Government's policy intention. For that reason, I think that it serves my purpose and that of the Government if they do not move to a bullish right to buy at this time. Regarding the other amendments in the group, the main issue that they reflect is the suggestion that the three-year time limit brought in by the original bill should be reduced. It is important that a period of time is given for those who have the right to buy to decide whether they will exercise it. In fact, in all honesty, the reduction from three to two years proposed by the Minister, I believe, will have no significant effect. However, it is part of a trend and is alongside another amendment that proposes reducing it from three to one year, which would give me significantly greater cause for concern. I will therefore, on that principle, oppose those amendments when the opportunity arises. Regarding amendment 42, in my own name, which would have the effect of removing that time limit altogether, it is an amendment that stands along with my amendments 12 and 13. If 12 and 13 are not passed, I will not move 42. Thank you very much. Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 43 and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. The Scottish Government's policy is to end right to buy a policy that the majority of the committee supports, and I am grateful for that support. Ending right to buy will preserve valuable social housing, increase choice for tenants and those in waiting lists, and will help make social housing a vital part of vibrant 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 on the social housing sector. Social landlords have told us how ending the right to buy will help them with their forward planning and stock management. Yet, in the face of all this evidence, Mr Johnson continues to call for this outdated and unpopular policy to continue. I can understand his party's historic attachment to right to buy, but even he must surely accept that there is no longer a place for right to buy in Scotland today. The Scottish Government has a number of other schemes to support and encourage low-cost home ownership and help those in a low income on to the housing ladder, so there is no place for right to buy. I would ask Mr Johnson to withdraw amendment 12 and not to move amendments 42 and 45 when we reach that part of the bill. Amendment 13 seeks to remove a provision that has nothing to do with right to buy. Section 2 simply tidies up and clarifies two provisions which were amended by the Housing Scotland Act 2010 and which may have been open to misrepresentation. The bill seeks to clarify these until right to buy ends. One of these provisions makes clear that the right to buy of tenants moving to new supply, how homes and circumstances outwith their control is protected, and something I would expect Mr Johnson to agree with. The other simply makes clear that the new tenants exemption in the 2010 act applies to anyone who may have been living in social housing before the cut-off, but was not a tenant. We want to end right to buy, but while it's still in place, I think it's important to clarify the legislation in these two areas. And Alex Johnson's amendment 13 would prevent this, and I therefore invite him not to move it. I'll turn now to my own amendment in the group amendment number 43. I share the committee's wish and that of stakeholders to stop social rented homes being sold as soon as reasonably possible. But I believe that tenants who have a right to buy that they are allowed to exercise should have a fair and reasonable opportunity to do so. ECHR considerations are important, but I'm also thinking about the impact of the notice period on tenants. It's 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. And I think this is less likely to happen if tenants feel they're rushed into buying. Taking these factors into account, I believe that a minimum notice period of two years is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, I would ask the committee to support amendment 43. And for the reasons I've mentioned, I oppose Mary Fe's amendment 44, which would reduce the notice period to one year. I know that this amendment reflects what was in the committee's report and that of many stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee. They also took that view. But I want to start protecting social rented housing stock as soon as reasonable. That's why I have a tabled amendment 43 to reduce the notice period from three years to two. But there are other things to consider. As I already said, tenants have to be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to exercise their right to buy before it ends. ECHR considerations are important, but they're not the only reason. I simply don't consider that one year is fair to tenants. I don't want to see tenants rushing into doing something they can't afford and that's not right for them. And I think that there's a real risk of this if the period is reduced to one year. I don't believe that a shorter notice period will necessarily stop more houses being sold. It's just as likely that a spike in sales would be much more marked in one year than in two. For those reasons that I've outlined, I can't support amendment 44 and invite you to agree to... Thank you, convener. Mary Fe, can I ask you to speak to amendment 44 and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Amendment 44 in my name would amend section 85 and would abolish the right to buy in one year. Much of what I was going to say has already been said in relation to the abolition of the right to buy. The abolition of the right to buy, its time has come, we need to remove the right to buy. And my amendment reducing the time frame to a year reflects the evidence we heard in committee. And indeed it reflects the majority recommendation of the committee in its report. I do not unfortunately support amendments 12, 13, 42 or 45 in Alex Johnson's name, which would retain this section and would retain right to buy. So I cannot support any of your amendments. Amendment 43 in the minister's name, as she has just explained, would reduce the time period in the abolition of right to buy from three years to two. And while I have sympathy with what she said, people who have the right to buy have known for a considerable length of time that they have the right to buy. And I do not believe that shortening the period to one year for the abolition will necessarily mean that people will be under pressure or may be victimised or taken advantage of in any way. I think one year is an adequate time frame for people to get advice, read the guidance and come to a conclusion of whether buying is right for them or not. So I cannot support the minister's amendment and I am disappointed that the minister did not agree with the recommendation of the committee, which was two years after we had heard a considerable amount of evidence. So I move amendment 44 in my name. Alex, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment? Very briefly, convener. The purpose of my amendments are to completely remove reference to the right to buy from the bill and completely remove part one of the bill in particular. The amendment 12 is the key amendment on which the issue will hinge and as a consequence I will press that amendment. So we move to vote. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. So can I ask for those in favour of amendment 12, please show one. Those against, please show six. So the amendment is defeated by six votes to one. So can I ask a call amendment 13 in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 12. Alex, to move or not move? So the amendment is not moved so the question is that section 2 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We move to reasonable preference and allocation of social housing. I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 1, 46 and 2. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 14 and speak to the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I want social landlords to be able to manage their stock effectively and to house tenants in the most appropriate size of property. I want tenants in social housing to be able to move to properties that suit their needs and that they can afford. This amendment extends the previous provision in the bill so that social landlords must give reasonable preference to the tenants of any social landlord, not just their own, that they are considered to be under occupying when they are allocating houses. I believe that this amendment will improve the provision in section 3 of the bill and give landlords more flexibility to manage their valuable housing resources to better meet tenants' needs. Turning to amendment 1, lodged by John Lamont, I recognise that social housing is a valuable resource and that many local communities and social landlords want to take local connection into account in the allocation of social housing. However, social landlords can already take local connection into account and some landlords are already doing so. Landlords can take account of the fact that someone lives in a particular area and can give priority to local people. This amendment would make it a requirement for social landlords to give reasonable preference to applicants with a local connection. I would rather that landlords have the flexibility, as is the case at the moment, to take local connection into account if they consider it right for their area. I am also concerned that this amendment does not take housing need into account so that landlords could be required to give reasonable preference to applicants who had a local connection, but who did not have housing need. This does not fit in with our approach that need should be the key factor in allocating social housing. Amendment 46, as proposed by Jackie Baillie, would remove the definition of unmet housing needs that section 3 of the bill provides at present and require instead that the circumstances for unmet housing needs to be prescribed in guidance. The definition makes it clear that a person has unmet need if a social landlord concludes that they cannot meet their housing needs through the options available to them. In effect that they require the assistance of the landlord to meet their needs adequately. Having the definition in the face of the bill establishes clearly that allocations should focus on addressing cases of unmet need and that a landlord's reasonable preference categories should be given priority to this. Without it we would be relying solely on regulations to achieve the same effect and in my view that would be a weaker and less robust approach. I'm aware that some stakeholders have asked for further explanation of what is meant by unmet housing needs. We will issue guidance and priority for allocations and interpretation of unmet housing needs will be covered in that guidance. The guidance will be developed in consultation with stakeholders. I don't want to pre-empt that guidance but as a general principle I expect that in considering unmet housing needs landlords will consider the alternative housing options in their area for the applicant. And whether those options are accessible to the applicant. For example this could include consideration of whether an applicant's needs could be met in their current property with suitable adaptations. I therefore think it's right that this definition should remain in the bill with further explanation in guidance. Moving 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're allocating social housing. And I've got some concerns about this amendment. It could disadvantage applicants who've not lived in an area for long but who have a housing need. In addition we haven't consulted on such a proposal and I do understand the motivation behind this amendment that it should be possible for landlords to consider local connection and housing needs of local people. However this must be balanced against the needs of all applicants. As I have already explained landlords can already take local connection into account and give priority to local people and landlords are able to consider how long an applicant has been in the housing list. Overall I think there's sufficient flexibility in the current arrangements to enable landlords to take local connection into account and I don't think this amendment is the right way forward. I would invite Mr Blamant and Miss Bailey not to move their amendments but if they do I would ask the committee to reject all three. In the meantime I move amendment 14 in my name and would ask the committee to support it. John Lamont, can I ask you to speak to amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group please? Thank you convener and I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 in my name. One of the biggest issues that concerns my constituents is the frustration that local people cannot always secure social housing in their own communities. They're often forced to apply for and take housing in some of the larger settlements in the borders which may be several miles from the rest of their family and community. It might also be some distance from their place of work. That does not always support the aim of the local housing associations to encourage a cohesive community. A few miles away may not sound a lot but I think it's important to recognise that in rural communities like the borders a few miles can be significant. The purpose of my amendment 1 is therefore to give social landlords the ability to include extra priority for applicants with a local connection. I am not saying that having a local connection should be a trump card that overrules all other considerations. Clearly applicants who are homeless or with particular medical needs still need to have a priority. However, where everything else is equal a local connection should be taken into account. The amendment will arguably have the greatest impact in rural communities like those in my constituency. I also foresee that it will have considerable impact in more urban areas and cities. I know that many ethnic minority communities wish to live in close proximity to their families and other members of their own community. That amendment would accommodate those considerations too. I fully accept that the concept of local will be different in each part of Scotland. What is local in the borders will be completely different to the concept of local in Glasgow and other city areas. My amendment therefore gives social landlords a discretion to determine how they define local connections to fit their particular needs. In rural areas such as the borders, that might be a particular town or village. In cities, that might be a street or even more specific than that. Amendment 2 simply clarifies and confirms the intentions behind my amendment 1. I know that all political parties have paid lip service to the notion of supporting a local housing allocations policy in the past. Indeed, the Labour Party manifesto in 2011 stated that it wanted to reform the allocation system to ensure that the sufficient weight was given to meeting the needs of local people. I hope that the committee will find some time to be able to support those amendments and I move the amendments in my name. Jackie Baillie, can I ask you to move amendment 46 and the other amendments in the group? Thank you very much and I welcome the opportunity to speak at the committee and move amendment 46. It is supported by Homeless Action Scotland, Shelter Scotland, the Legal Services Agency, Scottish Churches, Housing Action and Crisis. Members know that I am keen on always getting principles on the face of the bill but I think there may be an issue here which I will come on to explain. What this amendment seeks to do is place a requirement on ministers to include in guidance the definition of unmet housing needs and therefore removing that definition from the face of the bill. I accept much of what the minister has said and I will come on to deal with that in a second but let me set out why we came forward with this amendment. It is a fear that despite best intentions that that section undermines the role of social housing and I know that that will not be the minister's intention at all. I recognise and welcome housing options and the approach that is being taken but I do think that we need to just reflect to make sure that we have got this absolutely right. Subsection 1ZB defines unmet housing needs as those which are not capable of being met by housing options which are available. It almost seems to suggest that social housing should be considered as a last resort once all other options are exhausted and that the role of social housing is somehow residual welfare housing. That, as the minister will know, is an approach that is increasingly being taken in England, not something that we would want to see in Scotland which has a strong tradition of considering social housing as having a broad role in meeting housing needs and I'm sure she would agree with me on that one. The second concern is that that whole issue of reasonable preference appears to rest with the decision of each social landlord as to whether someone's housing needs could have been met elsewhere. It's slightly vague, it's definitely subjective about how the assessment would be made, at what point it would be made, how would a social landlord be held to account if it was felt they weren't giving appropriate priority to allocating properties to persons in housing need. So there's genuine concern about what we regard as probably good intentions. Unmet housing needs defined in guidance would remove that burden on social landlords from taking subjective decisions and get consistency or a degree of it across the country which I'm sure the minister would agree would be desirable. Protects the role of social housing as one viable option and also goes on to link allocation policies far more to strategic housing priorities. Having said all of that, I very much welcome the minister's comments like her, I think we're keen to keep a balance and get that absolutely right. I would be content to withdraw subject to a commitment to continuing dialogue with the minister before stage 3 to ensure that the guidance truly does reflect the concerns. Failing that, I can of course bring back an amendment at stage 3. John Lamont has described the experience that he has in the border area. Other areas of Scotland are affected by similar pressures, sometimes manifesting themselves in slightly different forms. My experience in the north-east at my postbag often contains communications from people who have found themselves allocating. There is a complicated housing in the neighbouring town, which may be 10 miles away, may be in the catchment area for a different secondary school and with poor public transport. That often threatens the opportunity for individuals to maintain employment, which is a particular difficulty. A very specific difficulty, which has been brought to my attention on many occasions, is the housing pressures which exist within villages within the national park area, for example. I've had a number of examples of people from Ballotar who have been born and brought up in the community there and find the housing pressure so great that it is impossible to be allocated social housing in that area or anywhere near it. As a result, cohesive communities can begin to break down as young people are driven out of an area because of the inability to provide housing locally. I believe that the subject that John Lamont has raised here is one that needs to be addressed in greater detail, and I believe that the amendments that he has brought forward would be a significant step in allowing us to take that consideration into account. In the case of amendment 1 and John Lamont's amendments, I absolutely am not dismissing them out of hand. They are very sympathetic, but I do believe that landlords can already take local connections into account when allocating housing. We are concerned that the amendment does not require the applicant to have unmet housing needs, and that cuts across the clear intention that its housing need should be the priority when allocating social housing. The existing Scottish Government guidance sets out how a landlord can take residency and local connection into housing allocations, and we will revise that guidance to clarify that further. In terms of Jackie Baillie's amendment, having the definition in the face of the bill in my view establishes clearly that landlords should focus on cases of unmet need. I absolutely take the issues that Jackie Baillie raised in ensuring that that is not abused and we are not looking at welfare housing and we are certainly not looking at what is happening in other parts of the UK in terms of social housing. Having it in the face of the bill should give landlords some flexibility, because I do think that landlords require to have some flexibility in who should have priority for housing. They should continue to focus on housing needs, to target the reasonable preference, and those are unable to access alternative housing solutions and to enable tenants to downsize. However, I am willing to work with Jackie Baillie before stage 3 to look at the guidance to ensure that she should be satisfied that what we have put in the guidance will cover this, and I am willing to work with her on that basis. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 1 in the name of John Lamont already debated with amendment 14. John, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote those in favour of amendment 1. Please show. One vote those against, please show. Amendment 6 is not agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of Jackie Baillie already debated with amendment 14. Jackie, to move or not move. I am happy to withdraw in light of the Minister's comments. I call amendment 2 in the name of John Lamont already debated with amendment 14. John, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote those in favour of amendment 2. Please show. One vote those against, please show. Six votes. That amendment is not agreed to. The question then is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Move to section 4, guidance published by Scottish Ministers on social housing matters. I call amendment 15 in the name of the Minister grouped with amendments 17, 19 and 28. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 15 and speak to the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I'll begin by speaking to an aspect of all four amendments. I'm happy to accept the delegated powers and law reform committee's recommendation, which was endorsed by this committee, that the guidance issued under the powers conferred by sections 4, 7 and 8 of the bill should be consulted on and published. This is included in amendments 15, 17 and 19. Amendment 28 also includes a requirement to consult on and publish guidance issued under section 15 to ensure consistency in the way the guidance is issued. I'm moving to amendment 17. In addition, I have noted the committee and stakeholders' recommendation that clear guidance should be published in section 7 of the bill relating to suspending an applicant from receiving an offer of housing. I'm happy to accept that recommendation and amendment 17 extends the power to issue guidance on suspensions so that a wider range of issues can be covered. Along with the requirement to consult on and publish guidance, amendment 19 does two additional things. Firstly, it contains an amendment to require that the housing support services that the landlord considers appropriate are provided for tenants with the new short Scottish secure tenancy for antisocial behaviour. This is consistent with the requirements at present for other short Scottish secure tenancies and antisocial behaviour grounds. The requirement to provide support services is intended to enable the short tenancy to be converted to a Scottish secure tenancy at the end of 12 months. Secondly, the amendment ensures that the power for statutory guidance for the new short Scottish secure tenancy covers all of the actions that a landlord can take around this type of tenancy. For example, guidance on landlords' powers to extend the term of this type of tenancy for the further six months. This will help to ensure that the necessary checks and balances are in place and that there is clarity about how the process should operate. Turning to amendment 28, this amendment introduces a power for Scottish ministers to consult on and publish statutory guidance around recovering possession of a tenancy under the new simplified eviction process. The committee recommended in its stage 1 report that the guidance on the implementation of this measure includes an emphasis on the importance of balancing the rights of both tenants and landlords and provides clarity on the types of conviction that might lead to an eviction. Social landlords should only use the new simplified eviction process where a tenant or member of their household has been convicted of a serious antisocial or criminal behaviour in the locality of a tenancy. The new simplified eviction process is not intended to be used where a tenant or a member of their household has been convicted of an offence which has not caused any harm to the community. This amendment will allow the Government to address the committee's recommendation around what guidance should include. It will also help to ensure that there is additional protection for tenants against inappropriate eviction. I move amendment 15 of my name and ask the committee to support all four amendments in this group. I think that, Minister, you do not want to say anything else. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. The question is then that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I move two factors to be considered in the allocation of social housing. I call amendment 49 in the name of Mary Fee, grouped with amendment 16. Mary can ask you to move amendment 49 and speak to the other amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 49 in my name would allow social landlords a greater degree of flexibility in their allocations policy, which would benefit the sustainability of communities and localities. My amendment would give social landlords the flexibility we heard in evidence that they want. For example, Jim Hayton from Elacho told us that councils absolutely accept the principle should be based on need, but that should not involve following a set of rules, without regard to the makeup of the community and what is likely to lead to sustainability. Allowing landlords to make sensible decisions in the interests of sustainable community life, while not ignoring the principle of housing need. I know from my own area examples of where local letting initiatives and allowing local authorities and RSLs to be given a degree of flexibility helps to strengthen, build and maintain communities. We should not forget that RSLs and local authorities know best what is good for their community. Ultimately, we all want sustainable communities with good, solid working relationships in them. Allowing RSLs and councils more flexibility over their own area, which, after all, they know their area better than anyone else. We would help to develop, support and build those kinds of communities. Amendment 16 in the minister's name would remove that degree of flexibility. The proposal itself was included in the bill at the last minute, was not consulted upon and again was removed with equal haste. I am unsure as to the minister's reason for removing it with such haste. I believe that there is merit in a proposal to allow flexibility in allocation. Clearly I would accept that there has to be some guidance around that to make sure discrimination does not take place. However, I believe that my amendment would give councils the flexibility that they told us through evidence that they want and would help to build sustainable communities. For that reason, I would ask the committee to support my amendment and reject the minister's amendment. I will start with speaking briefly on amendment 49, which Mary Pee has just spoken to. I recognise very much that landlords have a difficult job managing allocations and I think all of us as MSPs are only too aware of that. As we all know, problems between neighbours can cause distress for the individuals concerned as well as challenges and costs for landlords. However, I am not convinced that this amendment is the way forward to address these issues. Landlords already have flexibility within legislation and Mary Pee has already talked about that to make sensitive lets. I am not clear what this amendment would add to that. Landlords can take account of the overall circumstances including an individual's housing needs and the housing options that are available when making allocations. There will be revised guidance on allocations and this will include advice on making sensitive letings. In addition, the bill is already bringing forward additional measures to help landlords tackle antisocial behaviour. I understand and well understand how important it is to make allocations that are appropriate and sustainable. It is in the interests of the tenant being housed and also of the neighbours in wider community. However, I think the measures that we already have along with antisocial behaviour provisions in the bill will achieve the same effect and I would ask Mary Pee not to press the amendment, but if she does I would ask the committee to reject it. I will now move on to amendment 16, which is a Government amendment. This amendment moves section 5 from the bill and section 5 would have enabled landlords to take age into account in allocating social houses. I would say that this was not done or rushed in any way. I know that section 5 was not in the bill initially and was not consulted on and I know that it has provoked a strong reaction and landlords are understandably very keen to have flexibility to manage their stock effectively. Others such as Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People are concerned about the potential for discrimination against young people. In the past few months, I have met with stakeholders, listened closely to all the points that have been made and, as I indicated to the committee in my letter of second of May, I have weighed up all the arguments and have decided to bring forward amendment 5 to this amendment to review section 5 from the bill. It was not an easy decision and I absolutely recognise that landlords have a challenging task and there are difficult decisions to be made in allocating social housing. However, I think that this decision is the right one for the following reasons. First, age is not of itself an indicator of need in our housing allocations policy is based on making allocations to those most in need. I want to be clear that I don't think landlords would seek to discriminate against young people or any other group, but I am concerned about the potential for certain vulnerable groups to end up being disadvantaged in the allocation of housing. Secondly, landlords have given me examples of where they would like to take edge into account in many cases to prevent difficulties between neighbours, for example, restricting allocations to a certain age group where there is a block of predominantly older people. I am aware, as Mary Fee said, of the difficulties that can exist when neighbours are anti-social or when neighbours with different lifestyles live next door to each other. It doesn't follow, it's all young people, it's all chaotic lives. It can happen with the reverse as well with older people. But where there is potential for classes of lifestyle, there is already scope within the legal framework to make sensitive lets and some landlords are already making effective use of sensitive lets. I think more use could be made of this flexibility and I want to work closely with landlords to develop guidance to provide more advice on how sensitive lets can be used effectively in allocations without discriminating against any age group. Finally, if our neighbours are behaving in an anti-social way and causing nuisance or distress to neighbours, I'm introducing additional measures through this bill to help landlords deal with anti-social behaviour. For these reasons, I think it's right that age should not be taken into account in the allocation of social houses. I'm grateful to the committee for its recommendations and to the landlords and other stakeholders for their input and considered advice in this section of the bill. I have listened to all sides of the debate. I've thought long and hard on the correct course of action here but I've decided to bring forward this amendment to remove section 5 from the bill and I ask the committee to support it. The bill was published and there were some bits that I liked better than others and I have to say that section 5 is one of the bits that I liked better. My experience of case work in the north-east, particularly in our growth where a number of cases of this kind have arisen, it is surprising that quite often the inappropriate combination of tenants in a block or next door to each other can in fact result in what you and I might consider quite reasonable behaviour being the cause for complaint and ultimately the cause for accusations of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, I think it's important that these sensitivities can be properly taken into account and I believe that section 5 would have that effect. The minister has spoken at some length about the powers that exist currently and the concept of sensitive lets and I believe that they go some way towards achieving their objective in this area. I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed that the minister, having published section 5 in the original draft of the bill, has felt at this stage that it is necessary to take that provision out. Can I just say that the minister will be aware of heavy lobbying on this section of the bill from the likes of COSLA? When we took evidence from tenants groups in the wayday in Dunbarton, one woman will stick in my memory as saying who is an elderly woman who said, I don't want to be housed next to loads of elderly folk. I'd rather have a mixed community so I think the evidence is that we can't please all of the people all of the time but can I get an assurance from the minister that the guidance that you're going to re-issue on this will take into account sensitive lets and make sure that certainly in the north-east people have a chance to turn down a house three times so they must take the third house but they have got a choice in where they can live. I'm very keen and have already indicated that we'll work very closely with our stakeholders including local authorities COSLA and RSLs to ensure that the guidance does cover sensitive lets in a way that does not discriminate because there is an absolute recognition of the difficulties that people face that Alex Johnson and Mary Fee mentioned and are all aware of. We want to address that but we do think that there is currently flexibility and that we can use that and work with stakeholders to ensure that sensitive letings are addressed in a meaningful way within the guidance and that's the aim that we want to go forward on. Mary Fee, can I ask you to wind up and pressur, withdraw your amendment? I've listened very carefully to what the minister has said and clearly the minister acknowledges that there are issues around allocation of housing and I'm sure the minister, as much as I do, wants to build strong, sustainable communities and my amendment would have allowed local authorities the flexibility to do that by taking a number of different issues into account without discriminating against anyone. We'd have given local authorities and RSLs the ability to build strong communities and work with communities to develop and sustain where they live and I do accept what the minister says that guidance will be there and I will look forward to see whatever guidance the minister produces in the long term. I will be pressing my amendment and while I do have sympathy with what the minister has put forward I cannot support it but I will be abstaining from the minister's amendment. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed so we move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 49 please show, three those against please show, four. The result of the vision is for the amendment three against the amendment four so the amendment is not agreed. Call amendment 16 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 49, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed, we move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 16 please show, four those against please show, one those abstaining, two. So the result of the vote is yes, four, no, one, abstentions, two. The amendment was therefore agreed to. If the question then is that section six be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 17 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 15, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. You have to keep up. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We're not agreed. I move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 17 please show, five those against please show, two. The result of the division is four, yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Call amendment 18 in the name of the minister in the group of its own. This is about minimum period for application to remain in force. Minister, can I ask you to move and speak to amendment 18? I want landlords of the flexibility to manage allocations effectively and this may include suspending an applicant or tenant from receiving an offer of housing for a period of time in certain circumstances. A landlord should also have the flexibility to review its decision to withdraw or shorten the suspension if circumstances change. So if the reason for an applicant being suspended changes, he or she could apply to the landlord to have the suspension reviewed and potentially it could be lifted. This amendment seeks to make clear that a landlord has the right to shorten or withdraw a suspension if it chooses to do so. It does not enable a landlord to increase the period of a suspension, only shorten or withdraw it. I move amendment 18. Anything further to say, minister? The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Question then is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move to duties with respect to homelessness. Call amendment 3 in the name of Jim Hume grouped with amendment 8. Jim, can I ask you to move amendment 3 and speak to the other amendment in the group? Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of my amendment at this committee this morning. The aim of this amendment is to ensure that all statutory homeless referrals from local authorities to registered social landlords are dealt with using a section 5 referral. Under the 2001 Housing Act, I'm aware that there are some social landlords out there who are not in favour of this amendment and prefer the option to utilise informal nominations when it comes to homelessness. However, not only does the use of a section 5 referral, I believe, ensure a consistent and transparent approach to housing homeless households. It also affords these households who are among our most vulnerable members of society with certain safeguards. For example, if your application is subject to section 5 referral, then you have the right to a response from the registered social landlord within a reasonable period. That request will not be declined without a good reason, and a good reason being that there is a lack of stock. Use of a less formal approach is harder to monitor, and I think that with an issue as important as this, we must ensure that the system is robust and this is the only possible through effective monitoring. This would be made easier through mandatory use of section 5 referrals. I want to move from a situation where only 65% of homeless households are referred under section 5 and afforded all the relevant safeguards and make this 100% of homeless households. I would refer the committee to the Scottish Housing Regulators 2009 report on homelessness, which believed that councils should work more effectively with RSLs and stated that there were, as I quote, some specific areas where current practices could be improved and that this may mean setting aside their current reluctance to use section 5 powers. We have an opportunity this morning, I believe, to iron out inconsistent practice amongst all local authorities when it comes to referring homeless households to registered social landlords. Ensure that those families enjoy the safeguards that they deserve and that the system is more transparent and consistent. It's not just I that would appreciate the committee members' support from my amendment, but also the many homeless people who are not given the safeguards of a section 5 referral and help them and all of us in a long way to fight homelessness wherever possible and move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much, Jimmy Dee. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 8 and the other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce and speak to amendment 8, which I have tabled as a probing amendment. I'm also pleased to have the support of my colleague Alec Rowley, which underlines that this is an issue with cross-party support. This amendment seeks to ensure homeless children and pregnant women are not placed in temporary housing that is of a very poor physical standard or serious disrepair. The purpose of this amendment is to give households with pregnant women and children the right to challenge being placed in homeless temporary accommodation, which is of a very poor standard. The majority of temporary accommodation is of a good standard and is an important positive step away from what would otherwise be a crisis of homelessness for those people and families affected. It is worth noting that this amendment will only affect a fairly small percentage of vulnerable households and will not have a big impact on local authorities. I place on record my appreciation to Shelter Scotland and Debbie King and Fiona King for their work in highlighting this issue. This measure would be a key safeguard for those families in very poor quality temporary accommodation where it is unhealthy and dangerous for children to be living. While this amendment will not impact on the majority of families in good quality temporary accommodation, for those who find themselves in damp, derelict and substandard housing, this will be a vital lifeline. Families in temporary accommodation are already in a vulnerable situation. Living in temporary accommodation in poor physical repair is an additional burden and has a serious impact on their health and wellbeing and their ability to cope. Shelter Scotland has also asked the Government to commit to amending the 2004 unsuitable accommodation order as soon as the bill receives royal assent, as that will allow households to actually challenge local authorities about temporary accommodation, which is in poor physical repair. Shelter Scotland has argued strongly in favour of my amendment and believe it is necessary as they have acted on behalf of families in temporary accommodation, which is in a terrible state of repair. They strongly contend that they were not able to challenge the local authority using the current legislation. This specific issue is not covered by existing legislation and although the code of guidance defines good practice around temporary accommodation, this is not legislative and currently vulnerable families have no recourse to challenge the conditions they face. My amendment will protect the most vulnerable households in temporary accommodation, pregnant women and children and it will only affect a very small but important number of households. We have seen how successfully existing legislation has been in preventing families being put in bed and breakfast accommodation with a reduction of 92% in the use of such accommodation over the past 10 years. I believe this small change will not only protect families from being put in unsuitable types of temporary accommodation but also accommodation in poor physical repair, for example extreme damp. For all of these reasons I hope the Scottish Government will welcome my amendment and support its inclusion in the bill. I would strongly urge the Government to instruct its officials to engage with Shelter Scotland in a serious, meaningful and constructive dialogue to address the concerns they have raised and to explore what further progress may be possible in advance. I would also request that the Minister meet with myself, Shelter Scotland and Alec Rowley to further discuss and explore these issues. I move amendment 8. Anyone else wish to speak? Minister? Thank you. Amendment 3 in the name of Jim Hume would place a duty on a local authority to use section 5 of the 2001 act every time it asks a registered social landlord to rehouse a homeless household. Local authorities already have the power to use section 5 to request registered social landlords to rehouse a homeless household. They can choose to use this power if they decide that it is necessary or if they choose to do so. Local authorities and RSLs have indicated that they say no need to have section 5 made a mandatory route for rehousing homeless households. I therefore have concerns that, if this amendment is passed, it could actually damage the causative working relationship that local authorities and RSLs have developed and that, in turn, it could have an impact on outcomes for homeless people. I don't consider that there is evidence to justify the change proposed by the amendments. It's not supported by local authorities nor is it supported by RSLs. I therefore invite Mr Hume to withdraw amendment 3 and ask the committee not to support it. I turn to amendment 8 in the name of Jim Eadie. I don't consider that it's necessary to amend the Housing Scotland Act 1987 for unsuitable accommodation orders. Before I talk about the detail of the amendment, I want to make the committee aware of what the Scottish Government is already doing in working with COSLA and other stakeholders, including Shelter, to develop a standard for temporary accommodation. This work is well under way and the aim is to develop clear standards by the summer. On the detail of the amendment, it seeks to require a definition for applicant with family commitments. This is already set out in the homeless person's unsuitable accommodation order 2004. It covers an applicant who is pregnant, with whom a pregnant woman resides, or might reasonably be expected to reside, or with whom dependent children reside, or might reasonably be expected to reside. I assume the amendment is seeking to cover this group of vulnerable people. The second part of the amendment seeks to introduce the test of reasonably fit for human habitation and wind and water type to the unsuitable accommodation order. Under that order, accommodation provided must be suitable for children, so it must already be fit for human habitation and wind and water type. The homeless person's unsuitable accommodation order sets out the criteria of which accommodation must meet. It must have adequate toilet and personal washing facilities for the exclusive use of households. It must be able to be used by the household 24 hours a day and, importantly, it must be suitable for occupation by children. The Code of Guidance and Homelessness provides further statutory guidance to local authorities on these matters. To comply with the code, local authorities must apply their own houses and multiple occupation standards when considering if accommodation is appropriate. Although the order allows for exceptions to be made, a local authority must always ensure that accommodation meets the safety standard for children. A household who has been placed in accommodation, which they consider to be unsuitable, has the right under the homeless legislation to ask the local authority to review its decision. It covers the temporary accommodation that they have been placed in, so there is an existing legal right to challenge the decision of the local authority to place them there. I believe that the existing legislation provides significant safeguards. In addition, the work that has been taken forward by the temporary accommodation standards group will set agreed minimum standards. I would ask the members to reject amendment 8. On the point, I have not been persuaded yet of the arguments that have been put forward, but I am more than willing to meet Alex Rowley and Shelter to discuss it in more detail before stage 3, but I have not been persuaded at this stage and I would ask you to reject amendment 8. Jim Hume, can I ask you to wind up when Cressor withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you very much, convener. Obviously, I am disappointed at this stage that the minister has not minded to support my amendment. It talks about the choice of local authorities to use the section 5 referral, but the facts and figures show that not all local authorities are doing that. My amendment is about the rights of those who are homeless, and God forbid any of us find ourselves in such a situation. I do not agree that it would create a bad relationship with social landlords and tenants, because all we are talking about here is a response within a reasonable period. There should be no declining of a homeless person without a good reason. I do not see that that is too onerous. I appreciate that the minister is offered to meet with Jim Hume, Alex Rowley and Shelter Scotland. Of course, Shelter Scotland supports my amendment and works with me heavily on that, so I would request perhaps in moving my amendment that the minister would be minded to meet with myself and Shelter Scotland regarding my amendment. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 3, please show. Those against, please show. Amendment 7 is not agreed to. 7 votes to 0. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 18 to move formally. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move to short Scottish secure tenancy created on antisocial behaviour crimes. I call amendment 50, in the name of Mary Fee, grouped with amendments 20 to 24 and 39 and 40. Mary, can I ask you to move amendment 50 and speak to all amendments in the group? I hope you do not have to say that again. Thank you. I'll say triple ST is much easier. Thank you, convener. I'm moving amendment 50 in my name, which would amend section 8 and would require landlords to notify a tenant of the details of the behaviour leading to the service of a notice of a tenant being moved to a triple ST. More importantly, would detail the guidance and support that the landlord would be expected to provide to support the tenant, to move the tenant back to a more sustained tenancy, benefiting both the tenant and the community. The very aim is to have tenants living in secure and settled housing, and supporting individuals is a crucial part of that. I'm grateful to Shelter for their support in this. I think it's very important that if someone is being placed on a triple ST that they have a full understanding of the behaviour that has brought them to that circumstance. There could be a number of factors that have led to that. There could be mitigation. There could be family circumstances. There could be a number of things. It's very important that the person is in absolutely no doubt as to why they are in the position that they are in. But also as important is that the landlord must work with that person, must detail what support is going to be offered and given, and how they will work through the situation with that person to move them back on to a more secure footing. Because clearly we all want people living and sustainability happy, taking part in their community and being part of community life, and it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we work with individuals to make sure that that happens. I support amendment 20 in the minister's name as it gives a greater degree of clarity and it tidies up the wording of that particular section. Amendments 21 and 22 in the minister's name are linked. I would be grateful when the minister is making a contribution if she could perhaps explain in a bit more detail the meaning behind amendment, particularly amendment 21, when she talks about removing the provision for a triple ST, which says it can continue by express agreement or tacit relocation. I wonder perhaps minister if you could clarify exactly what you mean by tacit relocation. Amendment 23 again in the minister's name is a tidying up amendment clarifying wording and I'm happy to accept that. Amendment 24 again is linked back to amendments 21 and 22, so perhaps if you could give me a bit more clarity around the thinking behind those three particular amendments I would appreciate that. Amendments 39 and 40 in the minister's name again provide additional clarity and tighten up the wording of the relevant section and I do support both those amendments. I ask minister to speak to amendment 28 on the other amendments in the group. First of all deal with Mary Fee's amendment number 50, which would require specific information to be included in the notice by the landlord converting a tenancy to a short Scottish secure tenancy because of antisocial behaviour. Amendment 50 is in two parts as Mary Fee outlined and I'll speak to part A first. It seeks to place a requirement on landlords to provide details of the actions of the tenant or other person that have caused the landlord to issue the notice. I agree with Mary Fee that a tenant should be provided with this information. This information will allow the tenant to challenge the decision to convert the tenancy with their landlord or in court if they think it's wrong. I'm proposing amendment 20, which will place such a requirement in landlords in the notice to the tenant. However, in part A of Mary Fee's amendment I'm willing to work to ensure that we're clear on this. I'm absolutely clear that the tenant should get the information. They should be advised what the offence is and which member of the household has committed the offence. I'll work with Mary Fee to ensure that amendment 20 covers that. In part B of the amendment to put in place an additional requirement in landlords to include details of the support the landlord proposes to provide to the tenant or other person and order them to sustain his tenancy. We all agree that we want tenants to sustain their tenancy. However, landlords have flexibility in legislation to provide or ensure the provision of such housing support services as they consider appropriate to enable the tenancy to convert to a short Scottish secure tenancy. There are good reasons for this flexibility. For example, as is often the case, some tenants won't engage with the landlords to allow them to assess what the support needs are. In addition, in some cases it's not the landlord themselves that will be providing or arranging the support. Support the landlord considers appropriate may already be in place from another organisation such as an addiction centre or a money advice centre or whatever. A tenant can also choose to refuse support or support may not be what is needed to change the behaviour of someone who, for example, used to just behave and have a wild part at the weekend but has recognised that that's not appropriate and has agreed already to take action on that. I don't want to place an undue burden on landlords to provide support when it's not what is needed or if it's already being provided by another organisation. I absolutely understand the purpose behind Mary Fee's amendment but I believe that landlords need to continue to have flexibility around providing housing support services in anti-social behaviour cases and for those reasons I would invite Mary Fee to withdraw amendment 50. I'll turn now to my own amendments in the group which are just technical amendments to ensure the better operation of the bill's proposal. As I mentioned, amendment 20 deals with a notice issued to a tenant converting a tenancy to a short Scottish secure tenancy in anti-social behaviours grounds and as I indicated I want to ensure that we cover some of the areas that Mary Fee mentioned. This change will ensure that the tenant has enough information to challenge the decision if they wish to do so. Amendments 21, 22, 23, 24, 39 and 40 are technical amendments dealing with operational matters. The amendments provide further clarity in the bill on the rules which apply specifically to short Scottish secure tenancies created on anti-social behaviour grounds. Amendments 21, 22 and 23 ensure that the 2001 act is clear about the term of the short Scottish secure tenancy for anti-social behaviour. The intention is that these tenancies will convert back to a secure tenancy at the end of the 12 months period as long as a landlord hasn't taken action to either extend the tenancy for a further six months or recover possession of the tenancy in court. Mary Fee mentioned tacit relocation. It's when a lease just continues because neither a landlord or a tenant has done anything to stop it continuing until it reaches the date it expires. These are purely technical amendments. There are no changes with these amendments. Amendments 24 clarifies the circumstances under the 2001 act where a court must make an order for recovery of possession of a tenancy in cases where the new short Scottish secure tenacy for anti-social behaviour applies. This technical amendment will ensure, as intended, that the court must make an order for recovery of possession at the end of 12 months or 18 months if the tenancy has been extended and the landlord has properly followed the process to end the short Scottish secure tenancy. Amendments 39 and 40 add the new short Scottish secure tenancy for anti-social behaviour to the type of accommodation that are considered to be permanent accommodation for the purposes of discharging a social landlord's homelessness duty. This will ensure consistency of approach with what happens currently where a short Scottish secure tenancy has been granted because of an asbo or where there has been an order for recovery of possession of a tenancy for anti-social behaviour in the last three years. This is just about consistency. In conclusion, I invite Mary Fee to withdraw amendment 50 and the committee to support amendments, technical amendments 21, 22, 23, 24, 39 and 40 in this group. Does anyone else wish to contribute? Mary Fee, can I ask you to wind up and pressur with draw your amendment please? Thank you, convener. I'm grateful to the minister for the explanation she's given around the amendments that I queried. It's certainly helped to clarify in my mind the thinking and intent behind them. In relation to my own amendment to amendment 50, I am grateful to the minister for agreeing to work with me on the first section of my amendment. I'll certainly look forward to working with the minister to make sure that we find a suitable way of working through that first part of the amendment. I am less happy that the minister does not seem to agree with me that landlords have an obligation to explain or detail the support that will be available to people that are on a triple ST. That support could range from simply signposting to more detailed intervention. However, given the minister's assurance that she will work with me on the first part, I am content that this time to withdraw my amendment, but I will bring back part B of my amendment at a later stage if I cannot make progress with the minister. You're withdrawing your amendment. Does anybody object to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 20, in the name of the minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 21, 22 and 23, all in the name of the minister, all previously debated. Minister, can I invite you to move these amendments on block? Move on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? No. The question is that amendments 21 to 23 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. The question is then that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 24, in the name of the minister, all already debated, with amendment 50. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Move to Scottish Secure Tenancy, Assegnation Sublet, Joint Tenancy and Succession. I call amendment 25, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 26, 27 and 47. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 25 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I will speak to amendments first to amendments 25, 26 and 27. These are minor technical amendments to help ensure that the new 12 months residency requirement for joint tenancies, assigning a tenancy, subletting and succeeding to a tenancy will operate fairly and effectively in practice. Section 13 and 14 of the bill introduce a new 12 month qualifying period for persons other than spouses or civil partners. The provision includes a notification of residency requirements for joint tenancies, assigning, subletting and succeeding to a tenancy. The purpose of these provisions is to help ensure the best use of social housing by limiting the potential for abuse of joint tenancies, assegnation, subletting and succession. However, I consider that the provisions in the bill as introduced may be too restrictive around the notification of residence requirements. Section 13 and 14 is introduced do not allow for a situation where the current or previous tenant has notified the landlord that another person is living in their home. In practice, it is often the tenant who notifies the landlord that someone has moved into their home. Indeed, tenancy agreements may even require the notification to come from the tenant. Amendments 25, 26 and 27 will help to ensure that the new residency requirements for joint tenancies, subletting, assigning a tenancy and succession can operate fairly and effectively in practice. They will do this by allowing for the situation where the current or previous tenant has notified the landlord that someone is living in their home. I will now turn to amendment 47, tabled by Jackie Baillie. This amendment would remove section 14, which introduces changes to the residency rules for succession from the bill. At present, the only residency requirement in law for a qualified person to succeed to a tenancy on the death of a tenant is six months in the case of cohabitese. That means that there is currently no residency requirement for family members or carers before they can take over the tenancy at the death of a tenant. Landlords have told us that, in some cases, people have moved into properties in order to succeed to a tenancy after staying there for only a few weeks or even days. That is clearly not the best use of social housing stock, which is one of the things that this bill is aiming to address. I know that Carers Scotland raised concerns in their evidence to the committee that the provisions in the bill might potentially disadvantage unpaid carers. I do not believe this to be the case. Where there are exceptional circumstances, landlords, depending on how they frame their allocation policies, have the flexibility to decide that, if a person merits the allocation of a tenancy where they do not qualify to succeed it, they can be granted it. Landlords can consider each case on an individual basis and could decide to use this flexibility, for example, where a carer has had to give up their own home and move to another part of the country to care for a terminally ill relative but has not completed the 12-month qualifying period before the tenant dies. Amendment 27, which I have just spoken to, allows the notification of residents at a property as a person's only principal home for succession purposes to come from either the tenant or the person themselves. This government amendment will help the succession provision to work fairly and effectively in practice. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 47 and to retain section 14 in the bill and move amendment 25 and ask the committee to support it on amendments 26 and 27. Jackie, can I ask you to speak to amendment 47, please, on the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to move amendment 47. It's already exciting that there's a bit of comment you can see even on Twitter. But I did, in fact, take the time to consider stage one of the report. And whilst the Minister is absolutely right, a number of housing organisations, particularly providers, welcome the government's intentions. There are a number that remain concerned and I think it is right we test those concerns, including those of Carers Scotland. This amendment has been supported by Homeless Action Scotland, Shelter Scotland, the Legal Services Agency, Scottish Church's Housing, Action and Crisis. So it doesn't come from nowhere. I think for me, the thing I struggled with most was finding the evidence that was actually produced to suggest the change to 12 months was what we should be doing. There was nothing in the policy memorandum as far as I could see. Policy memorandum appeared to be silent on this. I know my colleague Mary Fee had asked you previously what was the background to this and that information wasn't forthcoming. And I still struggle in my mind, despite your explanation, with why 12 months and not six. I can understand what you want to do in terms of consistency, but I don't understand why it has to be 12 months. The concern does centre quite a bit around Carers, because if a carer is given up their principal whom to care for somebody, that person dies after four months or eight months instead of after 12. There is a real and genuine practical difficulty there. Carers are mostly motivated by their desire to care, not by a timescale, and also secondly, not by remembering to notify the landlord of a carer. Or indeed, if the tenant is ill, the tenant notifying the landlord, that has taken place. I recognise what you say about flexibility, but I am nevertheless concerned that, unintentionally, we might increase the risk of homelessness. I do think that there are one or two people who will test the system and perhaps not fit into the overwhelming majority who are actually trying to do the right thing by the person cared for and the right thing in terms of housing. I would ask for a period of further reflection on this, again to make sure we get this right. It is also an erosion of the rights of unmarried partners, because you do double the qualifying period. You go from six months to 12 months and I have no appreciation even in your explanation of why we have done that. Some may have well been in the property for a shorter period than the 12 months you suggest, but actually have been in stable relationships for considerably longer. At a point where somebody is bereaved and dealing with that grief, we just add to it in a completely unhelpful way. I do recognise with all of this that it is about getting a balance. I know the committee was seeking clarification in their report. I think we are looking for the policy basis on which you have made this decision. It is appropriate, I think, to make changes. Some have certainly argued that that is the case, but I think the way we have done it does open us to unintended consequences. I am prepared to withdraw if the minister would take the opportunity for further reflection with those who have concerns to make sure we get the balance absolutely right. Anyone else wish to contribute? Game Minister, can I ask you to wind up please? I certainly note the points that Jackie Baillie has raised and absolutely agree with everything that she said in terms of carers who are not operating on a timescale that they are there to care and will understand the concerns that they have highlighted. I do think that landlords have flexibility on this matter and can consider cases on an individual basis, but I am happy to take on board what Jackie Baillie said and have further discussion on this before we get to stage 3. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed to. I call amendment 26 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25 minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 27 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 25 minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 47 in the name of Jackie Baillie already debated with amendment 25. Jackie, to move or not move? I am happy to ask the Prime Minister's comment. I call amendment 28 in the name of the minister already debated. The question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Dwi ddawr wnaith excess yng Ngh tan, y dywed y ffordd an echynol yw'r siarad Alggrúd yw rhaniad gyda'r ffordd? Rwy'n fawr, mae'n gweld y A i'w eitdo i'w hyffordd y Gertaid Gweinidol, ac oedd yn gwneud y cwestiwn i'w sefydliadol. Rwy'n ddisgrifenni'n gweld y A i'w erioed. Felly, eitdo i'w cwestiwn i'w erioed o'i gael yr Amhgwyll ond myletran GOG formarkets on my commitment to meet my own Shelter Scotland and Ali Rowley to explore the issues that I highlighted on behalf of Shelter Scotland this morning. I do note that the minister was not blinded with accepting of Amendment 8, but I would like to reiterate on the record the factarr there appears to be an inconsistency that requires some further clarification. That inconsistency is that the government is clear that inkiliadau fel chi'n gweithio'n gweithio'r wath—cymdeithasol, dywedais, cyflym, na gilyddio'n gwneud yn ternwyd o ran y Prifysgol ei chael ei fod yw'r dael? Oni, rai'n cael ei phoes definedd, ond fyddai hwnnw o'n dweud. Rym ni'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, ond rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n O'r yw llyniw gwysigrach afliwch yn rôl iawn mis yw ychwanegu Cyfrilliaid hyd yn fwy gwirionedd onsywydd yn Aberfish-ewis iawn, fel gan cerfodd ennillol i'r rhai oherwyddais governNote yn argymddag fy gwaith lle am yr ydydd. Mae mater hyn yn cael eu buddai'n molygu hydrofyniad hefyd asien chi, i erioed hyn, arbeiteto Ruwlaeth itd a проept, a undm heavens i mi roedden nhw dyma.ekw rebell a anghymdd yn ei moddlachhi o'r hangon i gyizi Allahf temples sp利u ha不对. Mae oes west menus. Dwyn wrth gilybod, mae'r bia Tous ond mae yw'r ce answers SNF светor llarn. Felly, yna yr award 50-on i ddiwrnod y talu ond E Jongsaol��ead Un sos ynglynting 2507 Oes mor isnadyd i'n gweithio �为什么 mae un oesathonol, a bod yn ni leisio gesbyt pofi ddwy beth ond sefydlu yn y grwp sw Cars Haith vom yn ni. Nid, y peth yn denud, dim ni'n gweithio hyn mewn iechwan Mercedes-BasMA, Ac rwy'n groes i chi'n cofio'r amlwgiau sydd mae'n洗odol eich lleigwyd, a wnaethef yn cyhoedd yn gynhyrchu'r adrofiadau. Ond rwy'n ganodd i chi'n gweithio bod fydd yn digwydd â llwyddiad ac yn gyffredinol, iddyn nhw'n cyffredinol i ni'n gweithio ar y paragraf 5 wedi gwneud hynny. Roedd y cyfnodd y ddim yn ymgyrchol yn gwneud o gael o'r boblion gyda'r com intense o'r perthynas y bydd. ond nid yw'r byw yn y ddweud i'n bwysig yn y byw, rwy'n rwy'n gweithgol. One of the problems that we have in Scotland today is that a significant minority of people who enter social housing seem to step into a revolving door. They find themselves continually going round the system, becoming, in many cases, homeless again and of course requiring to be re-housed. Felly, mae'n dda i'r ddaligiaeth yn f dockos hwn dechrau â'i meddwl. Y ddweud gweld â'i creuio'r dd panel gan y lle ddechrau, cael ei ddweud i'r meddwl hyn yn meddwl a'u meddwl i ei sog na bellach mecan Hassanol, a nhw'n meddwl ym mhagaf. Ac mae'n meddwl i'r meddwl i'r meddwl, rydyn i'r meddwl, go into a system where support would be provided and a clear route would be given through that supported period to becoming a secure tenant at the end of it. This objective would, I believe, help to ensure that we create more stable tenancies at the outset and deliver at the end of the process a block of tenants across Scotland who are less likely to fall into the mechanisms of which we've discussed much today. Many housing providers are already providing this kind of support. The problem is that provision is not universal and by creating a Scottish starter tenancy I believe we can get into a situation where the vast majority of tenants will be supported through to a full tenancy and that we can get the kind of stability which can be achieved by this process. I'm aware that a similar type of tenancy exists in England and that it is reporting increasing levels of success in supporting people into stable tenancies. I believe that it is an oversight not to have included such a provision in the bill initially and I believe that if properly applied we can achieve very good results with this direction of travel. In terms of the exact wording we are at stage 2 today and I am keen to ensure that when the minister responds that I get a response note to the wording that I have drafted necessarily but to the principles which I've tried to raise with his amendment. I have had the degree of sympathy with the amendment Alex Johnson has tabled and I think that the ways as proposed to the committee in terms of a discussion around the principle would be mentioned but I do feel I need to go into the wording of the amendment. I think that if we are to look at starter tenancies and how they assist tenants and the reasons perhaps those starter tenancies should be terminated they should be around sustainability of local communities and how behaviour or anti-social behaviour in particular was affecting a community. I do not support point 3A in the amendment where rent arrears are able to be taken into account. I think that rent arrears can be managed within the tenancy and that landlord should not have the power to terminate the tenancy on the grounds of rent arrears that should be focused more about the behaviour of the tenant and how that is affecting the wider community rather than an issue confined to rent arrears so on that basis I do not think I can support the amendment as tabled but still do welcome the discussion around the general principle of starter or initial tenancies. As we have heard amendment 51 would require Scottish ministers to make regulations to introduce a Scottish starter tenancy. I explained my views in initial or starter tenancies before and I understand that initial or starter tenancies have the support of some tenants groups and landlords and I have listened to their views however I remain convinced that this is not the right time to introduce them. I'm concerned that the benefits of introducing an initial tenancy would be outwead by the potential additional insecurity for new tenants at a time of so much uncertainty caused by UK Government welfare reforms and the changes we're seeing to housing in other parts of the UK. As I've said before I feel strongly that people who often will have had to wait a long time to get a house, be building up for it, waiting for their house in the social sector and are allocated their house are then going to be put in trial for a year and that concerns me and I know that landlords and tenants are concerned about antisocial behaviour and that's part of the reason for the initial or starter tenancies but the bill contains other measures to help landlords in this front, use of short Scottish secure tenancies, simplified eviction procedures, suspending tenants from receiving an offer of housing in certain circumstances which includes a measure of antisocial behaviour and these measures give landlords extra tools to address antisocial behaviour without the need for initial tenancies. In its stage one report the committee gave its view that there was no clear indication that it would be appropriate to introduce initial tenancies at this time and I am of the same opinion and invite the committee to reject these amendments. Can I ask Alex Johnson to wind up in press or withdraw his amendment? Thank you very much, convener. I will press the amendment because it's my nature to push these things through to the end of the process. I'm interested to hear what the minister has to say however and I am aware that during the process of the bill the minister has looked at the inclusion of some measures to support tenancies and I wonder if during the course of this process we may actually see the opportunity to strengthen these measures which are already within the bill. Nevertheless I think it is an important opportunity to create a class of tenancy which has already demonstrated its success in other areas and that it will be a missed opportunity not to introduce this in Scotland. Therefore press my amendment. Is that amendment 51 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 51 please show. One those against please show. Six. The vote is one for six against. The amendment is therefore not agreed to and we break now for five minutes for a comfort break. Okay we move to the next grouping which is transfer of sheriffs jurisdiction to first-year trade you know. Call amendment 52 in the name of Jim Hume grouped with amendment 29. Jim can ask you to move amendment 52 and speak to both amendments in the group please. Yes of course and thank you very much again convener for giving me this opportunity to speak in favour of this amendment. I was compelled to table this amendment as I didn't believe that the bill was clear on what access there would be to legal representation at tribunals. With jurisdiction being transferred from civil private rented sector cases tribunals will now be dealing with some sensitive and important cases. In particular the loss of someone's home through eviction is one of the most serious issues over which the tribunals will now preside. I welcome the introduction of tribunals and they will undoubtedly provide a more relaxed environment which may be more conducive to a satisfactory resolution between a landlord and a tenant. However I believe that the issue of eviction is so serious that it requires a guarantee that the tenant can obtain legal representation to make the best possible case. In the absence of such guarantees in the bill I felt it necessary to introduce this amendment to enshrine in law that tenants or occupants will have the ability to access legal representation should define themselves involved in such a serious case. I believe it would be a mistake and a failing in our part to introduce such an important new system without a clear understanding of how tenants can access justice under this new framework. It would be helpful and I'd be grateful if a clear statement from the housing minister confirming that those at risk of losing their homes will be entitled to legal representation and that those affected will be able to afford legal representation either through legal aid or in equivalent assuming the necessary eligibility criteria is met of course and that the level of legal aid available for solicitors fees will not be any less for representation at tribunal and eviction cases than they currently are in a sheriff court. I'd be grateful for clarity from the minister today on some of these points and I believe that the points that I've made would be best made by of course members supporting my amendment and further noted that it's an amendment already supported by Homeless Action Scotland, Shelter Scotland, Legal Services Agency, Scottish Churches Housing Action and Crisis. I'll move the amendment to my name. Thank you. Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 29 on the other amendment in the group, please? I'll address amendment 52 first. The proposed amendment would require that provision is made for legal representation. It would require provision to be made and this could undermine that the system we're aiming for where legal representation is not the norm and where most people can engage directly with the tribunal. Tribunal procedures are, as Jim Hume already said, more relaxed. They should be accessible and understandable and don't generally require legal representation and we intend that this will be the case for the private rented sector tribunal. Having said that, we do recognise that there are still likely to be people who will need or wish assistance to represent their case. We'll consider the most appropriate method of support as part of the detail of the operation of the private rented sector tribunal and, for example, representation could be through advocacy, lay representation or funding for legal representation. I'm grateful for the committee's support for this approach in its stage one of the bill. I've undertaken to keep Parliament informed regarding the operational detail including policy regarding access and representation and I hope that that explanation is sufficient to allow Jim Hume to withdraw amendment 52. Turning to amendment 29 in my name, this is a technical amendment which ensures that appeals for private rented sector cases from the first tribunal to the upper tribunal are handled consistently. The amendment removes wording from the antisocial behaviour except for Scotland Act 2004 which sets out the current route of appeal for cases about landlord registration decisions by local authorities. Appeals to the upper tribunal will still well out for these cases but, as with other appeals relating to private rented sector cases, this will be under the provisions in the Tribunals Scotland Act. This is relevant as the courts reform bill contains provisions which set conditions which must be met for a decision of the upper tribunal to be judicially reviewed. If appeals are provided for other than by the Tribunals Scotland Act, these conditions will not apply. In conclusion I would ask for support for amendment 29 and for amendment 52 to be redacted. Jim Hume, can I ask you to wind up in pressure with draw your amendment please? Thank you very much, convener. The committee's report did state that the Scottish Government would provide further information regarding access to and representation at private rented sector tribunals and I do appreciate that tribunals should be a more relaxed environment but, of course, when it becomes an issue of an eviction, that is a very serious case for someone facing homelessness. At this stage I would be minded to continue to move my amendment until we get further clarity and I appreciate that it may not be passed today but I would be inclined to bring it back at stage 3 if not so supported or if we don't have further clarity from the minister in the meantime so I move my amendment. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to or are we all agreed? We're not agreed. Those in favour of amendment 52 please show. Those three, two. Those against please show. There's two, four and five against. The amendment is not agreed. So the question is now that section 17 be agreed to or are we all agreed? I now call amendment 29 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 52, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to or are we all agreed? The question is that sections 18 to 20 be agreed to or are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to or are we all agreed? The question is that sections 21 and 22 be agreed to or are we all agreed? I now move to repairing standard and I call amendment 31 in the name of Jim Eady, group with amendments 53, 54, 48, 5 and 30. Jim, can I ask you to move amendment 31 and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I'm pleased to introduce and speak to amendments 31 and 5. The purpose of amendment 31 is to ensure that all private rented sector properties will have carbon monoxide alarms. Carbon monoxide, CO, gas is known as a silent killer because it is invisible and has no smell. CO can be emitted by any faulty appliance which burns a carbon-based fuel such as gas, petrol, oil, coal and wood and as little as 2% in the air can kill within one to three minutes. Children, older people, pregnant women and people with respiratory problems are particularly at risk from carbon monoxide poisoning. It is worth noting that a YouGov survey from March this year highlighted that one in 20 tenants in the private rented sector in Scotland have experienced some problems from carbon monoxide over the last five years, typically drowsiness, nausea and headaches. Furthermore, according to the Department of Health figures for England and Wales, 50 people a year die from CO poisoning and around 4,000 people are taken to accident and emergency. The Scottish Government recently reported at least one death a year in Scotland from CO poisoning. That is one death too many. A recent survey of tenants in the private rented sector in Scotland found that 3% of tenants said they had experienced carbon monoxide poisoning in the last year. This amendment seeks to reverse these figures by introducing an inexpensive and effective way to safeguard tenants' safety. All private landlords in Scotland must provide a valid gas safety record and annual checks for the appliances in the property they rent out, but there is currently no legal requirement for them to provide a carbon monoxide detector and alarm. I am keen to see CO alarms as part of an evolution in private renting where stability and security become the norm and where, as a result, tenants feel comfortable in asking for the services and improvements that turn a private rent into a home. I also like to place on record my thanks to Shelter Scotland for their work in highlighting this issue and in supporting me in tabling this amendment. Turning now to amendment 5 with regard to the repairing standard, I welcomed the opportunity to speak to this amendment, which is intended as a probing amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent landlords from failing to contribute to the cost of common repairs that are required to be carried out in order for their property to meet the repairing standard. This is an issue that has been highlighted by the City of Edinburgh Council. 67% of all homes in Edinburgh are flats, and over 45,000 households rent their homes from a private landlord. It is essential that these buildings are maintained, but issues with mixed ownership often complicate the process. While common parts of a building are already covered by the repairing standard, it may be difficult for owners to recover the cost of common repairs if a landlord does not contribute. This amendment will help to avoid situations where responsible homeowners pay to maintain common areas that contribute to a privately rented property, meeting the repairing standard, but the landlord fails to contribute to the costs. For example, a secured door entry system in a block of flats may need to be repaired, and the majority of owners have agreed to carry out the work. A private landlord has not been engaging with the owners regarding this work. The owners decide to go ahead with the repair anyway, as the security of the building is compromised. The landlord has not paid for their share of the work, but their flat now complies with the repairing standard. Under the current provisions within the Tenement Scotland Act, the owners is on the other owners to recover costs from the landlord. This can be complex and time-consuming, and can act as a disincentive for responsible owners who want to actively maintain their property. Under the proposed amendment, the landlord could be referred to the private rented housing panel, and if it is proven that the landlord has not been contributing to common repairs, it could be found guilty of an offence and face removal from the landlord register or a fine. I would strongly urge the Scottish Government to engage in a constructive dialogue through its officials with the City of Edinburgh council to address what is a serious and widespread issue across the city and to explore what further progress may be possible in advance of stage 3. Mark Griffin, can I ask you to speak to amendment 53 and the other amendments in the group, please? Thank you. Amendment 53 is a simple amendment that would ensure that all smoke alarms in the houses were connected to the mains electrical supply. We know the issues that are around the safety and reliability of smoke alarms, which are battery operated, and I know that the Government supports the move to hard-wired detectors. The Government's position is that, since 2007, any smoke alarms to be replaced will be replaced by hard-wired alarms, but to simplify the position for tenants, rather than them having to wait over the course of the next five to ten years for their alarms to be upgraded to the safer, hard-wired forms. Rather than them having to wonder about when potential warranties expire and instruct a landlord to come in and replace them, I think that to simplify the whole situation, to give a tenant clarity and to improve the safety of all houses in the private sector, we should move to ensure that all smoke alarms are connected to mains supply and move them and ask members to support them. Mark Griffin, can I ask Bob Doris to speak to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, Ken Weiner. In speaking to amendment 54, can I first of all welcome the constructive nature and dialogue that I have had with the Scottish Government in relation to this amendment and, indeed, electrical safety first, whose idea was formally the electrical safety council. This amendment introduces the requirement for five yearly checks by a registered electrician of both fixed electrical installations and all rented properties in the private rented sector and any electrical appliances supplied with less. Those checks are supported by 12 trade associations, businesses and charities. That includes key housing stakeholders, organisations such as the Scottish Association of Landlords, Shelter Scotland or the Institute of Charter, Surveyor Scotland and the Charter Institute of Housing Scotland, so very broad support. This amendment will be achieved by an amendment to the repairing standards contained in the Housing Scotland Act 2006. The amendment introduces a specific requirement for private landlords to arrange for a suitably competent person to carry electrical safety checks every five years. It will also require that a copy of the record of that inspection is provided to the tenant or any subsequent tenant in that five-year period. A power-to-issue guidance on electrical standards will also be introduced and the enforcement will be through a complaint to the private rented housing panel. Can you finish off by saying that the majority of accidental domestic fires in Scotland are caused by electricity? That is 69 per cent. Further research indicates that private tenants are far more likely to take the risk of electrical fires and shocks. I believe that amendment 54 is needed, and the key thing is that the private rented sector supports this further regulation and requirements. Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 48 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to speak to my amendment 48 in relation to the duty to make provision on energy efficiency standards. I would like to speak to this amendment and I hope that it will be possible to include a provision on energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. This amendment would allow Scottish Ministers to set regulations and require landlords to adhere to a minimum energy efficiency standard, which must come into force if my amendment is accepted by the beginning of January 2015 following a consultation process. There would also need to be, of course, a system of inspection under regulation. It also provides the Scottish Ministers with the power to set penalties for landlords who fail to ensure that their properties meet the minimum required standards. This would include where a house forms only part of any premises. I appreciate that this is a difficult aspect of the amendment, but I think that this is something that really seriously needs to be considered, because often people can be left very isolated in poor conditions in their premises. I was somewhat surprised that the Bill is lodged at Stage 1 and did not include provisions relating to this important issue, so my Labour colleagues and I felt it was necessary to propose such an amendment at this stage. I'm sure most Members would agree that improved energy efficiency would create many benefits to state the obvious, not only in terms of tenant's general comfort but would help reduce the risk of fuel poverty and reduce carbon emissions. As we all know, this Parliament introduced the Climate Change Act in 2009, which requires us to achieve annual carbon emissions, and so far we have missed the first two targets for complicated reasons, but legal standards in energy efficiency would also, in the private rented sector, could also go some way to addressing greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. We also have a target in relation to fuel poverty, which must be addressed, and this is equally important in rural areas. The Scottish Government have set the ambitious but wholly achievable target of eradicating fuel poverty by November 2016, but only achievable if we really address this issue, I believe, in part through this Bill. If this target is to be realised, then improved energy efficiency standards are essential, and the existing Homes Alliance is a supporter of this way forward. I also understand, although I'm not on this committee, that there's been evidence highlighted from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys, Edinburgh City Council and Friends of the Earth Scotland who are all supportive of moves within the Bill. I am aware that the Scottish Government have put together a ministerial working group, which will look into energy efficiency standards in the whole of the private sector, and that this group is likely, if I understand correctly, and the Minister will no doubt confirm this, or if I'm wrong, I apologise, but I understand that's to report in the autumn. While this is welcome news, I would like my amendment lodged today to help focus minds on what would be best as a means of addressing the issue with regards to the private rented sector within this section of the Bill. As there are a number of other provisions relating to repair standards in this Bill, I argue that this would be a sensible means of addressing energy efficiency, and would ensure that these standards are in place at least in the rented sector by 2015 rather than the later date that waiting for separate measures would require. Can I ask the minister to speak to amendment 30 and the other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I'll start in the order that we've had them with amendment 31 proposed by Jim Eadie, and I thank Jim Eadie for raising the issue of carbon monoxide poisoning in private rented homes. The installation of carbon monoxide detectors will help to provide additional protection to tenants in the private rented sector, and Mr Eadie has already outlined the impact and the number of deaths over the UK by carbon monoxide poisoning. The amendment will add the requirement for carbon monoxide detectors to be installed to the repairing standard for private rented homes, and in doing so strengthens housing standards and the safety of tenants in the private rented sector. I welcome this proposal and would urge the committee to support this amendment. Mark Griffin's amendment 53 seeks to require the installation of hardwired smoke alarms and properties in the private rented sector, but, as I said at stage one, since September 2007, private landlords must already install a hardwired smoke alarm to achieve the repairing standard if there was no provision for smoke detection already in place. Where landlords have already installed battery-operated alarms prior to September 2007, they must be replaced with hardwired detectors at the end of the five- to ten-year lifespan. That means that all battery-operated detectors should be replaced with hardwired systems by 2017. I believe that this phased approach is sensible and proportionate. It will achieve the desired purpose of the amendment in an incremental way and ensure that fire safety standards continue to steadily improve. I would ask Mark Griffin not to move amendment 53 and the committee to reject it. I am also grateful to Bob Doris for raising the important issue of electrical safety in private rented homes in amendment 54. Regular electrical safety testing will add additional protection to tenants in the private rented sector and reduce the risk of exposure to unsafe electrical installations. This is an issue that is strongly supported, as Bob Doris said, by the electrical safety first, I think they called now, whose research suggests that 70% of accidental fires in Scotland are caused by electricity. The amendment will include the requirement for landlords to ensure that such a test is completed at least once every five years, and tenants will also be provided with a copy of the most recent record of an inspection. I believe that this amendment will strengthen housing standards and the safety of tenants in the private rented sector, and I welcome the proposal and urge the committee to support it. I have some concerns with Claudia Beamish's amendment 44 that seeks to introduce a provision on energy efficiency standards in private rented sector properties. 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, and we are committed to improving energy efficiency to help to address fuel poverty and to reduce carbon emissions from housing. We are already working 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. As well as being unnecessary, the proposed amendment would not allow sufficient time to understand the issues that the working group has identified. We need to take proper account of the evidence that we have commissioned on what level of regulation is technically feasible and appropriate. Consultation on the Scottish Government's sustainable housing strategy also indicated strong support for sufficient lead-in time for the sector to prepare for minimum standards, and this amendment seeks to undermine that process by severely limiting the opportunities to develop proposals that will be appropriate to the sector as a whole and will potentially constrain their ability to deliver on it. I am already proposing amendment 30 to enable the repairing standard to be amended by regulations, so if the steering group on minimum energy efficiency standards in the private sector identifies that it would be appropriate to use the repairing standard to support improvement in energy efficiency work, that could be looked at in future after appropriate consultation. For these reasons, I do not consider that the amendment is necessary or that it would achieve the desired purpose, and I would invite Ms Mimish not to move amendment 48 and members not to support it. I move now to amendment 5, and I have concerns with Jim Eadie's amendment 5, which seeks to force private sector landlords to comply with majority decisions to complete repairs to common parts of a property. Owners already have a right under the tenant management scheme to pursue any other non-compliant owner for work agreed under a majority decision. In addition, owners already have a common duty to maintain any part of the building which provides support or shelter to any other part, and an owner can recover costs from any other owner. This housing bill also takes important steps forward as section 72 contains an amendment to the Tenement Scotland Act, which will allow a local authority discretionary power to pay a missing share on behalf of a non-cooperating owner and to recover the debt. So for these reasons, the amendment is unnecessary to achieve the desired purpose, and I would ask that members do not support it, but I would also add that officials and myself are continually in discussion and are happy to go into discussion with the member about this amendment, but I do not think that we require to support it. Amendment 30 is in my name, and this amendment will create a new regulation making power for Scottish ministers to vary the detail of the repairing standard for private rented sector property without the need for further primary legislation. Private rented property, as you have said, any such variation to the standard will remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment will make it easier to introduce improvements to standards of accommodation in the private rented sector, including any further improvements to safety in the home for private tenants should these be required. The Scottish Government proposed work in cross-tenure housing quality standards later this year will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise further issues regarding housing quality, and the outcome of this consultation will be important in determining any further changes to housing standards. This amendment will provide assurance that further changes to the repairing standard can be made following the outcome of the consultation, and I would therefore ask Members to support amendment 30. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the minister for her positive response in relation to amendment 31 and for the constructive engagement that there has been between myself and the minister and the Scottish Government on this issue. I am delighted in fact that this will strengthen the rights of people living in the private rented sector. I would also note in relation to amendment 5, the minister's clarification, that existing proposal would allow a local authority to recover a contribution from a private landlord in relation to a common repair, and to welcome the minister's commitment to an on-going dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council on the issues that were highlighted in my amendment. On that basis, I am pleased to move amendment 31 and to withdraw. The question then is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 53 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 31 to move or not move. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 53, please show. Three, those against, please show. Four, the amendment is not agreed to by yes, three, no, four. I call amendment 54 in the name of Bob Doris, already debated with amendment 31. Bob, to move or not move. The question is then that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 48 in the name of Claudia Beamish, already debated with amendment 31. Claudia, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 48, please show. Two, those against, please show. Five, the amendment is not agreed to by two votes to five. I call amendment 5 in the name of Jim Eadie, already debated with amendment 31. Jim, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 31. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 30, please show. Five, those against, please show. Two, the amendment is agreed by five votes to two. I call amendment 6 in the name of Jim Eadie, grouped with amendments. Oh, we moved to our enforcement of repairing standards. So I call amendment 6 in the name of Jim Eadie, grouped with amendments 10, 11, 32 and 41. Jim Eadie, can I ask you to move amendment 6 and speak to the other amendments in the group? I am pleased to move and introduce amendment 6, the purpose of which seeks to enable neighbouring owners who are adversely affected by a property that does not meet the repairing standard to defer the owner of the said property to the private rented housing panel. This amendment would also allow advice services to make referrals to the private rented housing panel where the advice service is providing support to a tenant whose property does not meet the repairing standard. It is worth noting that common repairs can be very complex, especially in a city like Edinburgh where 67 per cent of all homes are flats, 49 per cent of homes were built before 1945 and over 45,000 households rent privately. Data from the Scottish house condition survey shows that 76 per cent of private sector homes are in some form of disrepair. While the majority of landlords operating in Edinburgh do take responsibility for their obligations towards common repairs, more can be done to ensure that tenants and neighbouring homeowners have the power to hold bad landlords to account. Allowing neighbouring owners to make a referral to the private rented housing panel would help to enforce the message that people need to take responsibility for the maintenance of their own home as well as the common areas of the building. Neighbouring owners may be more likely to take a proactive approach in reporting the needs for a repair than a tenant who may fear a redress from the landlord. Landlords may be less likely to take an interest in the upkeep of the building in common areas if they are not living in the building. They may also be less aware of the general state of repair of the building, especially if they do not visit the property on a regular basis. Some tenants may prefer to access support through an advice agency rather than through their local authority. It may be more convenient for a tenant to use an advice agency if this is located in their community where they have an existing relationship with an advice agency or have had positive experiences of support from an agency in the past. Taking all of this into account, I hope that the Scottish Government will consider this amendment and the potential views of neighbouring owners, landlords and tenants. The next amendment is in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, but I think that Mary you are going to move to speak to amendment 10 and the other amendments in the group. Yes, thank you convener. I am going to move amendment 10 and 11 in Malcolm Chisholm's name. Amendments 10 and 11 are both quite straightforward, quite simple amendments. Amendment 10 would enable an owner of a house, neighbouring a house, owned by a landlord, where the landlord has not contributed to the cost of maintenance and repair to recoup and enforce that standard. As elected representatives, I am sure that we are all aware of people that have come to see us in relation to an adjoining property that is not maintained to a standard and the difficulties that that subsequently brings to the people living in the neighbouring house. Amendment 10 would cover that and would allow neighbour enforcement of a repairing standard. Similarly, amendment 11 would extend enforcement of the repairing standard to contractors because quite often it is contractors that are coming out to do work that could highlight the lack of repairing standard and would be in a position where they could ensure that the correct standards were met. Amendment 32 in the name of the minister, I am supportive of that amendment. Similarly, amendment 41, I am supportive of that. I move amendments 10 and 11 in Malcolm Chisholm's name. Minister, can I ask you to speak to amendment 32 and the other amendments in the group, please? I will start with amendment 6. As we heard, Jim Eadie's amendment seeks to specify two additional types of persons that may apply to the private rented housing panel for a determination in respect of the repairing standard. The bill as it stands enables local authorities to make such applications and I would expect neighbours and advice bodies to provide evidence of poor property condition to the relevant local authority for it to consider whether the application is needed. If in future it would be useful to extend the range of bodies that can make applications, the bill provides ministers with the power to allow that. In addition, new powers for inspection I am proposing 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 minimum standards. The power of entry for local authorities to inspect a property in relation to the repairing standard will be an important new tool. Taken together with existing powers of inspection, this will enable local authorities to enter private rented sector properties for a variety of housing related issues. I believe the bill strikes the right balance in allowing local authority to make the application but granting a power to ministers to broaden access to the private rented housing panel through secondary legislation if that's considered necessary and appropriate in the future. In the meantime, I think it's important to let local authorities exercise the new powers that are in the bill to tackle poor standards in the private rented sector and I would therefore invite Mr Reidy to withdraw amendment six. And amendments 10 and 11, what I've already said, is also relevant to Malcolm Chisholm's amendments. As I've already indicated, third parties such as service managers can report evidence about poor property condition to their relevant local authority. If the experience shows that it would be advantageous to allow service managers to make their application, then there is the power to do that. And I think it's preferable to let local authorities operate the provisions for applications to the panel and consider how effective that proves before extending the bodies that can do it. And I would ask members not to support amendments 10 and 11. Finally, in this group, I will speak to my own amendments number 32 and 41. First, I'll quickly deal with amendment 41, which is a technical amendment removing redundant references relating to Scottish homes from section 22 of the Housing Scotland Act 2006. And I would ask members to support amendment 41. Amendment 32 is a more significant change. I want local authorities to be able to take effective action where there is evidence that property condition falls below legal minimum standards. The provisions for third party reporting provide an additional and important tool for local authorities to take action to enforce the repairing standard. In some cases, it may be difficult for a local authority to gather evidence and property condition without a power of entry to inspect a property suspected of failing the repairing standard. The new power of entry, as introduced by amendment 32, is significant and can be used much more easily than the powers previously considered in the policy memorandum for designating a specific geographic area as an enhanced enforcement area. And after further consideration, I believe that allowing all local authorities to inspect properties that they have concerns about, regardless of geographical location, provides a more appropriate and effective solution. I consider that amendment 32 will enhance the provisions for third party reporting and significantly strengthen the hand of local authorities in tackling substandard housing. And I would urge members to support amendment 32. Anyone else? No. Jim, can I ask you to wind up and presser, withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the minister for her explanation and clarification, particularly in relation to broadening access to the private rented housing panel through secondary legislation. I will further note her comments on allowing the new proposals contained in the legislation to bed down before taking any further powers. However, I would urge the Scottish Government to engage in a continuing and on-going dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council on the issues that are highlighted in my amendment, but I will be withdrawing my amendment. Does any member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No. I call amendment 10, in the name of Malcolm, but Mary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 10, please show. Two, those against, please show. Five, the amendment is not agreed by five votes to two. I call amendment 11, in the name of Malcolm, to choose them. Already debated with amendment six, Mary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 11, please show. Two, those against, please show. Five, the amendment is not agreed by two votes five. I call amendment 32, in the name of the Minister, already debated with amendment six. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that sections 24 and 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move to rent reviews and rent increases, private rented housing. I call amendment 33, in the name of James Kelly, grouped with amendments 33A and 37. James, can I ask you to move amendment 33 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener, and I welcome the opportunity to come to the committee this morning to move my amendments. Aside from the crisis in housing supply, the growth of the private rented sector and the consequential issues, which derive from that, are the biggest issues facing housing in Scotland today. The private rented sector has almost doubled in size to over 300,000. As a result of that, we have seen substantial rent rises, particularly in certain parts of Scotland. For example, in Aberdeen, the average rent rise is 8.6%. That growth in the private rented sector has put tenants in a position where, in some cases, they are vulnerable and having to deal with landlords. There are many responsible landlords in the country, but there are some who are not so responsible and they take advantage of the position that tenants find themselves in and not being able to find alternative accommodation and putting rents up. We see many examples of that in our case works and our local constituencies. Added to that, there are 120,000 households in the private rented sector that are below the poverty line, and we know that that results in 40% of those households cutting back on heating and a third cutting back on food. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on us as a parliament to try to address some of the issues around rising rent levels, which therefore lead to poverty issues for some of these households. That is what this amendment seeks to address, by ensuring that there are rent reviews and that they take place no more than once a year, and also that rents are capped at a particular level to stop a situation where there are irregular rent reviews and therefore unreasonable rent rises, and also where again unreasonable rent rises are imposed on tenants. In terms of Patrick Harvie's amendment, amendment 33A, which seeks to ensure that the regulations for such a scheme are laid before Parliament as opposed to coming into force on 1 January 2015, I think on reflection that is a sensible amendment from Patrick Harvie. I am not in this amendment proposing a particular scheme, and I think it makes sense that that scheme will be brought forward by ministers on 1 January 2015 and laid before Parliament, and therefore I will accept Patrick Harvie's amendment. In summary, the effect of this amendment is clearly to introduce rent caps in the private rented sector. It is to alleviate the issues that many tenants face with unreasonable rent rises. I think some of the problems that we have got in the private rented sector are real issues that we face in our constituency, and the Bill going through Parliament gives us an opportunity here and now to act to make a difference to the lives of many tenants throughout the country. Patrick Harvie can ask you to move amendment 33A and speak to the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you very much, convener. I was very pleased to see this amendment being lodged by James Kelly during the debate on this Bill and debates on housing prior to the Bill's introduction. I have consistently argued that we should be addressing the question of rent levels in the private rented sector, particularly at a time when we have seen an extended period of low interest rates. That has been a real benefit to owner occupiers, as well as owners of property that is rented out in the private rented sector who have a mortgage on that property. We have seen owners gaining that benefit during this period of low interest rates. We have not seen those living in the private rented sector getting the same benefit passed on to them in their housing costs. I am not sure I would have taken precisely the same approach that James Kelly has taken. Clearly, the Labour Party at UK level has made a decision about the policy it wants to put forward on this, and there is a good case for that. I think that my approach would probably been to look at the variations that exist within the private rented sector in different parts of the country. Scotland is not the same as the south-east of England. Aberdeen is not the same as rural parts of Scotland that do not see the same prices there. Even different parts of Glasgow or Edinburgh are not the same as each other. I think that my instinct would have been to give a power to introduce some controls on rent levels in particular areas where the evidence demonstrates that there is a particular problem. I think that approach would be less likely to have a wider disruptive effect on the private rented sector more generally. However, if the committee is going to debate and decide on James Kelly's amendment as it is framed, it seems to me that there ought to be a date that was achievable. Given the timescale to the beginning of 2015, it seems to me to be enough time for ministers to consider their options, consult on the issue, draft regulations and introduce them to Parliament. Given the requirement for Parliament then to take evidence on those regulations, scrutinise, make a decision and for them to come into force, including any systems needed to be in effect to implement them, that is a wee bit ambitious as a timescale. If the committee is going to make a decision on the amendment, it is reasonable to move the timescale back a wee bit. I am grateful for James Kelly acknowledging that. If the committee does not decide that this approach is the right one, I hope that there is some willingness to look at alternate variations on the theme of rent levels at the time that we reach stage 3. I have reservations about amendment 33, because it would require Scottish ministers, as I think Patrick Harvie has highlighted, to introduce rent control by 1 January 2015. Patrick Harvie's amendment 33A seeks to give a slightly longer timescale, allowing regulations to be laid by this date and taking into account the possibility that Parliament may not support the regulations. However, I cannot support the proposals as put forward by James Kelly or by the amendment by Patrick Harvie, which would improve the drafting. It does not address the reasons why I think the proposals flawed, because what has been proposed is a significant new duty in respect of matters that formed no part of the housing bill in introduction. If I brought forward an amendment such as this at this late stage, I would quite rightly have been criticised for having failed to consult stakeholders for not producing any assessments of the impact that the duty would have on landlords or tenants and for denying this committee opportunity to consider and take evidence on the provision at stage 1. This is a significant measure that we are talking about, and a measure of this significance requires full public consultation on the basis of clear proposals followed by close parliamentary scrutiny of detailed provisions that appeared on the face of the bill at the introduction. As none of those conditions have been met, I urge members to reject the amendments in this group. James Kelly, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 33, please? Yes, convener. In terms of Patrick Harvie's comments around the scheme set out in the amendment and variations throughout the country, I take those comments on board. I deliberately have not been specific about a particular scheme, but if this amendment is unsuccessful, I will certainly look to bring it back at stage 3, and if it was considered beyond stage 3, I am certainly sympathetic to a proposal that would involve variations throughout the country. I certainly recognise that a blanket Scottish approach would not be the best in this circumstance, so I take those comments on board. I think that in terms of the minister's comments, I really think that the response is inadequate. There are big issues faced by tenants' routes or constituencies in community routes in Scotland. Patrick Harvie is right to highlight the fact that there has been a real shift in power because of the growth of the sector and the low interest rates in favour of landlords and not in favour of tenants. I did not get from the minister that she acknowledged that the growth in rent levels in the private rented sector was an issue. I think that it is an issue and it should have been addressed in the bill. If you have been listening to a number of stakeholders, we are telling you loud and clear that that is an issue in the bill. It seems almost to me, Minister, that if you are turning a blind eye to something that is a big issue in housing, you are the housing minister and you are therefore responsible for making a positive impact on housing policy. This bill gives you the opportunity to do that. The proposal before us, if that is not the one you like, will try to bring back an alternative one at stage 3, but it seems set not to take any action on that. That is something that will be greeted by with disappointment by many tenants and people on the ground throughout Scotland. Carvey, can I ask you to wind up on 33A and pressur, withdraw your amendment please? Given that James Kelly has indicated that he does not object to the amendment to his amendment, I do not think I have anything further to add. Yes, you are pressing your amendment. The question is that amendment 33A be agreed to, then are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I will put the amendment to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 33A, please show. Those against, please show. The amendment is defeated by two votes to five. James Kelly can ask you to pressur, withdraw amendment 33A. The question is that amendment 33A be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed and we move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 33A, please show. Two votes. Those against, please show. Five votes. The amendment is not agreed by two votes to five. We move on to security of 10-year private rented housing. I call amendment 34 in the name of James Kelly, grouped with amendments 34A to 34G and 38. Mr Kelly, to move amendment 34 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 34. Again, this seeks to address the fact that with the real growth in the size of the private rented sector and short tenancies are a major issue that faces many people in that sector. It is a somewhat outdated figure but I am sure that it is not totally out of the ballpark from Spice from a number of years ago, that the number of percentage of tenancies that we had was 74%. Therefore, that gives a lack of stability for tenants. They do not know whether they are going to be able to stay in that accommodation for any length of time. A landlord can come along and say that their tenancy has ended and move them on. Again, that routes a lot of consequential problems. As I said in the last discussion, place is too much power in the hands of landlords as opposed to tenants. That can be brought out in the sense that there can be a lack of repairs to property. Property might not be in a fit state, but if a tenant is in a short tenancy, they are very little that they are able to do about that. What amendment 34 seeks to do is to introduce more secure tenancies. In this proposal, a three-year standard tenancy, given the ability to terminate contracts in the first six months after a month's notice, and the landlord's ability to terminate with a two-month notice if the tenant is acting in an anti-social manner, falls behind in rent arrears, and also if the landlord's plans to refurbish or change the use of the property. In terms of Patrick Harvie's amendments, I do think that they bring a number of reasonable points into consideration. I don't want to support them at this stage. What I would say is that if this amendment was passed, I will consider those amendments in terms of stage three. If this amendment is not passed, I will be bringing back amendments similar to this one at stage three, and I will consider some of the points that Patrick Harvie has made in the amendments that he has laid out. In summary, the effect of this amendment is to address the insecurity that many tenants face, and the lack of empowerment that they have in dealing with landlords. I believe that longer and more stable and secure tenancies are required to give more power to tenants in order to address some of the problems that exist in the private rented sector. Patrick, can I ask you to move amendment 30A and 34A and speak to other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Once again, I was pleased to see an amendment on security of tenure coming into the debate. Members will recall that I have placed emphasis on the issue of security of tenure during previous discussions. It is a question that underpends a great deal else that all Members would like to see improved in the private rented sector. Without security of tenure, many of the other rights that we are seeking and that the Government are seeking to improve for tenants in the private rented sector are difficult to exercise in practice. I think that we should recognise that the Government has indicated previously that it does not intend to address security of tenure during this bell and that they have a piece of work on going, which will take longer, which will be examining the question. I do think that this is a useful forum for rehearsing the arguments and hopefully the discussion that takes place on these amendments, even if the committee rejects them, will help to inform the Government's consideration of the question of security of tenure. I sought to make a few changes in order that we can have some specific discussion on the aspects of the scheme that James Kelly is suggesting. First of all, amendments 34, A, B, C and D would remove the idea of the six-month initial term. It seems to me that if the reasons for a landlord to terminate the tenancy are set out in D1 to 6, as James Kelly suggests, if those are the reasonable grounds for a landlord to get rid of a tenant and tell the tenant that they've lost their home a very serious step for someone to take, if those are the reasonable grounds, I don't really see a case for additional grounds during the first six months. If during the first six months the tenant isn't breaching the terms of the tenancy or acting antisocialy or in rent arrears set out in reasons 1 to 3, for example, I don't really see that additional grounds should be brought in in the first six months, so I'm not clear about the reason for that interim term. 34E suggests that where refurbishment or change of use is the reason for ending a tenancy, six months notice might be given. If a landlord intends to change the use of a property or refurbish it, it seems to me reasonable to expect them to plan ahead for that kind of action and to give sufficient notice that a tenant doesn't have their life unduly disrupted and that they've got time to make alternative arrangements. 34F suggests that a property being refurbished, a tenant should at least have the option to move back in when that's done. F and G are both intended to close down the possibility that these reasons five and six might, four or five and six rather, might be misused. I think we've probably all heard of constituents who are told that a property is going to be sold and that's why they've got to move out and then within weeks it's back on the market at a higher rent. I think that's a very common practice and it seems to me that refurbishment, if this was a grounds for removing a tenant from their home, it's entirely conceivable that we could see very minor refurbishments done which are not extensive enough to genuinely require somebody to be removed from their home but the property goes then back on the market. 34G is similar in intent trying to cut down on the possibility that one of these reasons could be used as an excuse rather than a genuine grounds. It suggests that if a property is going to be sold or if the landlord is going to move back into it themselves that that actually happens in practice rather than seeing the property put back on the market and so I've suggested that it couldn't be put back on the market for private rent for a period of six months. Again, in closing on this discussion, I recognise that the government is probably unlikely to budge on this one but I do think some discussion of these specific questions in the scheme of secure tenure that we might move to in time will hopefully help to inform the government's consideration of any further work that it's doing on the issue and I move amendment 34A. Anyone else, note minister? Thank you, convener. Amendment 34 would place a duty in ministers to introduce regulations to establish a new type of tenancy in the private rented sector and amendment 38 would require that Parliament's affirmative scrutiny procedure be adopted for the proposed new regulations detailed in amendment 34 but like amendment 33 from Mr Kelly it introduces a significant new duty on ministers in respect of matters that formed no part of the bill in introduction and you know as I said earlier it's not about ignoring things or not taking things into account I'm always willing to consider the views of stakeholders and have done so throughout this housing bill but before embarking on major ledges of changes we need to establish the nature and the scale of any problem understand clearly how we'd go about addressing it and be sure that we would actually help those who need it and I would say to Patrick Harvie he has raised these issues before of rent control and of security of tenure in the private sector but that is the only indication that has come to me from anyone in this Parliament and we have discussed this in terms of security of tenure with stakeholders so I'm injecting to these amendments on the grounds that we haven't had the appropriate consultation on it but also we recognise that tenancy regime is central to the efficient functioning of the private rented sector and that's why in our private rented sector strategy we undertook to carry out a review of the tenancy regime and to drive this work forward I asked Professor Douglas Robertson to chair a stakeholder led review group to examine the suitability and effectiveness of the current private centered tenancy regime and to consider legises of changes where required and the review group was established in September 2013 and they presented their final report to me on Friday of last week and I want to consider that report and decide in light of it whether we should introduce a separate bill to give effect to any of its recommendations and the group I'm grateful to the minister for giving way it would be helpful for the discussion if the minister was able to say when that report is going to be published I saw it for the first time in Friday understood and I know I can't ask but we'll publish it as soon as possible because I have said clearly and clearly before that if we need to introduce regulation on tenancy regime we would do so in in separate legislation that was made very clear and the group were aware of that it was not part of the housing bill but we are this matter has been ongoing for some time within the government and certainly I will make sure that that research is published as soon as possible and I want to I want to consider that report and that way any legislation to change the private rented sector regime would reflect the findings of the group and importantly would be the subject of full consultation and parliamentary scrutiny so I would ask Mr Kelly to withdraw amendment 34 and not to propose to continue with amendment 38 and amendment 34A to 34G would amend Mr Kelly's amendment 34 and as I've said about amendment itself we need to take time to consider the findings from the private rented sector tenancy group before we make any changes to tenancy regime we need to ensure also that changes are fully discussed and explored because these are major changes and these are not just tinkering the edges of the bill these are major legislative changes and stakeholders require to have be consulted and we'll have a full and robust public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny so I would ask Mr Harby not to press amendments 34A to 34G and ask the committee to reject all of the amendments in this group. James Kelly to wind up on amendment 34. Thank you convener in terms of Patrick Harvie's comments I think there were two central themes there first around the initial tenancy and then around some of the provisions in relation to a landlord being able to terminate where there were for example refurbishments the proposal around initial you know an initial period of tenancy essentially is moving us from where we are just now with short tenancies to a three-year tenancy and it's a recognition that there should be an initial period of tenancy if we're moving on to a longer three-year three-year secure tenancy I'm not I don't have a closed mind to some of the points that you know Patrick Harvie made around that you know and I will consider those in terms of as I expect I will be having to do bring back the amendment at stage three and similarly in terms of the issues around refurbishment I think it's fair to point out that we don't want anything that's proposed in legislation to be you know misused in any way by landlords so I accept that the anything that's lodged in proposed legislation must be tight enough to ensure that that doesn't happen. Terms in the minister's response you know again I'm disappointed that in an attempt to address a significant issue in the private rented sector you know the minister in terms of this legislation is not prepared to take the issue on. I don't accept what the minister says in terms of you know these issues haven't been raised before they've been raised in the sector they've been raised in Parliament to give a specific example in November when Patrick Harvie spoke in the labour housing debate he raised the issue of rent controls and when I was summing up I specifically said that Labour were looking at bringing forward the issue of rent controls and we'd use a housing bill to test that out and so it's not true to say that these issues haven't been raised before these are significant issues I know that there's a body of work going on currently I think it might help if the minister was able to be a bit clearer as to what the time scales were and whether there was going to be any you know any future legislation brought forward but in the meantime as we remain unclear about that we cannot ignore the issues that are occurring in the sector currently we can't ignore the issues that are brought to our constituency offices and constituency surgeries and therefore when legislation like this is going through Parliament we've got to take the opportunity to positively amend it in order to make a difference for the lives of our constituents and that's what I'm seeking to do and therefore I'll be moving the amendment. To point out Mr Kelly that it wasn't raised in any of our evidence at stage one and your members on the committee did not raise it with any of the stakeholders who we had before us giving evidence. Patrick, can I ask you to wind up on amendment 34a and press her withdrawal? I don't have a great deal to add I would I would simply echo the comments that James Kelly made about timescale and slightly sorry that some members don't seem to be welcoming even having a discussion about these issues I think they are important issues and the discussion on on these issues either in committee or in the chamber will be most useful I think to Parliament as a whole if the minister is at some point able to give a clear indication of the timescale for the consideration of these issues in the the expert group and also a commitment to legislate during the period of this current parliamentary session and I'd like to press 34a. Question is that amendment 34a be agreed to are we all agreed we're not we're not agreed move to a vote those in favour of amendment 34a please show so we're all agreed it's a no are we? No everybody's a no okay call amendment 34b in the name of Patrick are we already debated with amendment 34 Patrick to move or not move? Not moved. Call amendment 34c in the name of Patrick Harvey 34d 34e moved okay the question is that amendment 34e be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed with that amendment all of us call amendment 34f in the name of Patrick Harvey already you're moving it okay the question is that 34f be agreed to are we all agreed no one agrees with that amendment I call amendment 34g in the name of Patrick Harvey already debated with amendment 34 Patrick to move or not move moved question is that amendment 34g be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed no one agrees with that amendment okay we move to the final section houses for houses let for holiday purposes and I call amendment 55 in the name of Drew Smith grouped with amendment 58 thank you very much canviner and I'm grateful for the sorry sorry I beg your pardon uh James Kelly can I uh do you wish to press or withdraw your amendment 34 yeah I think I want to press amendment 34 okay the question is amendment is that amendment 34 be agreed to are we all agreed we are not agreed we move to vote those in favour of amendment 34 please show to those against please show five the amendment is not agreed by two votes to five apologies for that finally we move on to houses let for holiday purposes call a call amendment 55 in the name of Drew Smith grouped with amendment 58 Drew can I ask you to move amendment 55 and speak to both amendments in the group patience is my virtue this morning convener but I'm grateful to the committee for the time this afternoon to have the opportunity to move amendment 55 which seeks to strengthen the regulation of housing let for holiday purposes and in moving this amendment convener I wish to make the committee aware that my concern about this issue has been prompted primarily by complaints made to me by my constituents and the issue of very short term lets for holiday purposes which is often known as party flats is not a new one but it's one where I believe the fact is that a comprehensive solution doesn't yet exist the private letting a property to provide an income for the owner and housing for a tenant is clearly an important part of the housing mix however and I'm sure no one would disagree that party flats do not fill a housing need there are commercial enterprise which impact on those in neighbouring properties which are used for housing and in my view they do require to be better regulated the intention of the amendment is not to ban party flats or even necessarily to reduce their number as I would recognise that just as in housing a mix of accommodation options in the tourism sector can be a good thing but the simple effect of my amendment 55 is to build on the minimal regulation which currently exists by extending closure powers over party flats in circumstances where no other resolution has been arrived at and where it is recognised the noise nuisance antisocial behaviour or other inappropriate activities taking place regularly and which quite simply is making the lives of the neighbours around that property a living hell the power of closure currently resides with the police and I'm not proposing to remove the power from the police but only to extend it to local authorities in my experience in Glasgow the local authority is aware of the problems and caused and adopts a multi agency approach to seeking to provide respite and a correction to inappropriate use which gives those living around party flats their lives back and returns to them the basic rights to live in and enjoy their home and I believe that the current arrangements put too much of the burden on to the police and the practical reality is that the police are less likely to be willing to intervene except in cases of serious criminality the police by nature tend to deal with situations as they occur and they're less focused on the longer term impact of problems as against ensuring that particular instances of antisocial behaviour are resolved it's more likely that the police in attending a party flat incident will seek to quieten down and the current disturbance and in the absence of more serious criminality will advise neighbours that the nuisance will in all likelihood resolve itself in a couple of days time but neighbours know that that flat is just as likely to be let again and quite possibly the same issues will arise by the following weekend my amendment make clear that it is for ministers to consider whether to grant this power to local authorities using regulation and amendment 55 provides for proper scrutiny of such a regulation by the parliament so I'd reiterate that amendment 55 isn't about extending it's about extending a power which already exists to a more appropriate enforcement body rather than creating a new power. I would say of instances of regular nuisance such as my constituents have experienced were taking place in any other as a result of any other housing use then I think action would rightly be demanded and mechanisms indeed exist for it to be dealt with but when it comes to party flats these problems are being allowed to persist and get worse this is a problem which exists across Scotland but it's particularly acute in the city centres and I think my constituents have choose to make their home in Sochi Hall Street or in the Merchant City are well aware that there are compromises which result from that choice but it's not reasonable that enjoyment of their own home is violated by the letting of a neighbouring flat or indeed in one case several flats in the same building for a party and that can be based on a notice displayed in a pub inviting revelers to head upstairs into a residential building to carry on drinking in for want of a better word party so I hope that members will consider these issues and deciding whether not to support this amendment today and if the minister is not willing to do so I would hope that in her contribution she would lay out a suggested way forward which represents a suitably strong and speedy alternative to amending this bill and I know that my constituents who have contacted me would certainly very much welcome the opportunity to make parliamentarians further aware of the issues they face. I certainly understand the problems that can be caused by anti-social behaviour in properties that are let in a short-term basis but I don't believe the provisions proposed by amendment 55 are necessary. Legislation is already in place to enable local authorities to tackle the issue of anti-social behaviour in properties let for holiday purposes. For example under part 7 of the Anti-Social Behaviour etc Scotland Act 2004 local authorities have powers to serve anti-social behaviour notices on private landlord where an occupant or visitor engages in anti-social behaviour at or in the locality of the house. In addition in March 2011 the Scottish Government brought forward an order that deals specifically with the problem of anti-social behaviour in properties let for holiday use or so-called party flats. In a landmark case last year the city of Edinburgh council successfully used the existing legislation to apply for a management control order for two party flats in Grove Street and since then the council has assumed all landlord responsibilities thereby helping to improve the quality of life for residents previously affected by anti-social behaviour. I don't believe that amendment 55 will provide any additional benefits in terms of tackling anti-social behaviour in holiday lets and I would invite Mr Smith to withdraw amendment 45 55 and not move his consequential amendment 58. Can I ask Drew to wind up and press her withdraws amendment? Thank you convener. I want to take up more of the committee's timel and say I'm disappointed in offering the opportunity of the minister to consider issues further that she hasn't taken that and I'm sure that my constituents will be disappointed because the fact is that the current provisions which exist are not providing the resolution that she talks about and while the resolution has been possible in cases where landlords are willing to engage with the system of regulation as it exists then the way that landlord is not willing to engage in that process resolution has not been possible for certainly a number of people in my city and I would have hoped that the minister could at the very least have provided an offer to consider an alternate route to resolve on this issue through this bill so I would intend to press the amendment. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to are we all agreed? We're not agreed we move to vote those in favour of amendment 55 please show. Three those against please show. Four amendment is defeated by four votes two three. That ends consideration of amendments can I thank everyone for their co-operation and patience. That concludes the committee's day one consideration of the housing Scotland bill at stage two committee's consideration will continue next week and I propose that we go no further than the end of part five on day two that means that the deadline for lodging any amendments to the sections of the bill from where we have ended up today until the end of part five is 12 noon on Friday the 16th of May and I suspend their meeting to allow witnesses to leave the room and to move into private session as previously agreed.