 The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion 1135 on the name of Kevin Stewart on housing amendment Scotland bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Kevin Stewart to speak and move the motion. Six minutes please. I am pleased to open this stage 1 debate to the general principles of the housing amendment Scotland bill. I would like to begin by thanking the convener and the members of the local government and communities committee for their careful scrutiny of the bill so far. I very much welcome the committee's stage 1 report with its recommendation to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. I hope that the Scottish Government's response to the report provides the committee with the assurance that it was seeking from us. I would also like to thank the clerks for their work in support of the committee and all the stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee. I particularly thank the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Glasgow and West of Scotland forum of housing associations who have worked closely with us throughout. I am pleased that stakeholders not only recognise the need for the bill but also very much support the principles of the bill and have worked with us throughout the process of the bill so far. I look forward to continuing that as the bill moves towards its end. The bill is relatively short but essential measure that amends a number of the powers that the Scottish Housing Regulator can exercise over registered social landlords. It also provides for ministers to limit local authorities' powers over housing associations. It is necessary because of the decision by the Office for National Statistics to classify RSLs as public sector bodies in the national accounts. That decision was taken because the ONS, in light of the criteria that it must apply in classification decisions, judged that some of the powers that the regulator and local authorities may exercise over RSLs amount to public control of RSLs for the purposes of the national accounts. If left unchanged, it would mean that all new net borrowing by RSLs, which previously would have counted as private borrowing, would count against the Scottish Government's borrowing limits. Therefore, although classification may appear to be just a technical matter, it would have the real and significant consequence of placing a new and permanent burden on the finances of the Scottish Government. One result would be that borrowing by RSLs to support our affordable housing programme would no longer count as private borrowing. It would count as Government borrowing, effectively adding £1.5 billion to our £3 billion investment in the programme, putting at risk our target of 50,000 new affordable homes during the life of this Parliament. As RSLs are independent of the Scottish Government, they are free to determine with their private lenders how much they borrow, so reclassification would lead to the consequence of the Scottish Government needing to accommodate RSLs borrowing within its budget but without being able to control or limit the level or extent of that borrowing. The purpose of the bill is to avoid that outcome by ensuring that powers, the regulator and local authorities have over RSLs are consistent with RSLs being classified as private sector bodies. For the most part, the bill achieves that by amending those of the regulator's powers that ONS is identified as public control over RSLs. It narrows the circumstances in which the regulator can appoint a manager to an RSL and in which it can remove, suspend or appoint an officer to an RSL. It removes the regulator's powers to give or withhold consent to actions by RSLs such as disposing of their assets or restructuring themselves. The changes are necessary because, simplest, the powers that they amend currently enable the regulator to act as though it were the actual owner of RSLs. That crosses the line between what the regulator as a public body is able to do in respect of bodies that are classified as private and what is incompatible with the classification. Although those changes are significant, they go just as far as necessary to secure reclassification but no further than that. They do not alter the regulator's single statutory objective, which remains safeguarding and promoting the interests of homeless people, tenants of social landlords and others who use the services of social landlords. They leave intact the majority of the regulator's powers. That includes powers to monitor, assess and report on how well all social landlords are performing, set standards on RSL's financial health and governance, undertake investigations and, where necessary, require landlords to take remedial action. Those and other remaining powers will allow the regulator to continue safeguarding and promoting the interests of tenants and homeless people, not least by reassuring private lenders that RSLs remain attractive businesses to lend to. Through my engagement with the SFHA and the Glasgow and West of Scotland forum of housing associations, I have been encouraged to hear that they recognise that that represents a new challenge for their members and that they are ready to step up to it. They recognise in particular that removing the regulator's powers of consent over matters such as disposals and restructurings will place a greater onus in all of their members to demonstrate to their lenders that they have robust and rigorous governance procedures in place. The committee highlighted that in stage 1 of the report and I know that SFHA and the forum are keen to work with the regulator to ensure that the current review of its regulatory framework helps to strengthen further the governance arrangements already in place. In our response to the report, we confirmed that we will use our regular discussions with the SFHA and the GWSF to confirm that the sector gives proper weight to this important matter, for example through the provision of continuous training and development of the members of the governing bodies. We have also worked, Presiding Officer, with UK Finance to address its concerns. In response to the committee's recommendations, we will bring forward amendments that will provide for the regulation-making powers at sections 8 and 9 of the bill to expire three years after the bill receives royal assent. The bill is necessary to safeguard the Scottish Government's finances and its ambitious affordable housing programme. I am pleased that it commands cross-party support. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Housing Amendment Scotland Bill. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the Housing Amendment Scotland Bill on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I want to thank all those who contributed to the scrutiny of what is mainly a technical bill. It is worth highlighting from the outset that there was general agreement among those that we heard from that the measures in the bill are proportionate and necessary to respond to the Office of National Statistics, the ONS's decision to categorise and register social landlords and RSLs as public bodies. The bill's proposals are intended to ensure that the ONS reclassifies RSLs as private bodies by removing or limiting some of the Scottish housing regulator's powers of intervention. The bill also provides ministers with powers to alter the regulations, powers in future, in order to ensure that RSLs are reclassified as private bodies. Those that we heard from agreed that there would be no other way of achieving those aims other than that bill. If RSLs were to remain as public bodies, their borrowing to build new affordable homes would no longer be considered as private borrowing, but we brought on to the Scottish Government's books potentially adding £1.5 billion in debt. That could have severe implications on RSL's contribution to realising the Government's commitment of 50,000 affordable homes. We therefore agreed that the measures proposed in the bill were necessary, but noted that a few issues raised during our scrutiny needed to be addressed. The information commissioner was concerned that the removal of some of the regulator's powers could exempt RSLs from providing information under environmental information regulations EIRs. While the Scottish Government proposes to bring RSLs under the terms of freedom of information, the information commissioner was concerned that there could be a short gap between enactment of the bill and the FOI changes being implemented. That gap would mean that EIRs would not apply to RSLs, thus stopping people's ability to request such information during that time. The information commissioner was not able to say with certainty that the risk would arise now, but he has to reach a decision at the time when the issue arises. Both the SFHA and the Glasgow West of Scotland forum of housing associations assured the committee that they would encourage and direct RSLs where possible to continue providing EIRs during any such gap period. On that basis, and with those assurances and the relatively low level of risk involved, we agreed that less formal arrangements to ensure that RSLs continue to provide this information is a more proportionate response than changing the bill. Sections 1 and 2 of the bill narrowed the circumstances in which the regulator can intervene where an RSL has failed and also limit the circumstances in which it can remove or appoint managers or officials to an RSL. Most agreed that the measures were appropriate, with some saying that the proposed measures would reflect how powers had actually been used by the regulator historically. The regulator confirmed that. UK finance raised one issue in relation to those powers, commenting that the definition of failure could be broadened to make it clear that the regulator can intervene where the RSL is failing rather than at the point where it has failed or becomes insolvent. That, it felt, would ensure lender confidence within the market. However, the Scottish Government and regulator are laid those concerns by pointing to the statutory provisions in the Housing Scotland Act 2010, which sets out regulatory interventions that the regulator will still be able to make following amendments that are made in the bill. The committee welcomes the minister and has now expanded explanatory notes to provide such clarity. Moving on to sections 3 through to 7 of the bill, those provisions remove the requirement of the regulator to provide its consent to RSLs where they wish to dispose of land or make certain organisational changes, such a change in their constitution or restructuring or to wind up or dissolve an RSL. Consent is replaced with the requirement to notify the regulator within 28 days of the changes being made. Any existing tenant consultation requirements are protected. Again, the committee was broadly content that those proposals were balanced and we welcomed reassurances given. The importance of strong governance processes and its direct impact on the conscience of lenders and RSLs was highlighted to us. While the bill removes some of the regulator's powers in relation to RSL's governance, it was encouraging to hear that the UK finance was comforted by the measures that stakeholders and RSLs would take to ensure that those self-assurance processes were strong. In the time that I have left, I would like to say that there are some additional powers remaining within the bill in sections 8 and 9 to ensure that the Government has got that just right and the power to intervene and make additional provisions if we have not got that just right. The committee acknowledged and the Government acknowledged that those powers do not have to stay there forever and they are now going to be subject at stage to a sunset clause. We think that that is proportionate. We think that it is responsible. We think that it is the right thing to do. The local government community committee is happy to agree to the general principles of this bill. Thank you very much. I call the game. I hope that the Conservatives, Mr Simpson, have four minutes, please. Thank you. This is one of the debates around a bill that does not exactly set the heather on fire, which is important nonetheless. The Housing Amendment Scotland Bill looks on the face of it to be quite narrow and technical—a bit dull, you might think, Presiding Officer. However, while it deals with quite specific accounting issues of interest to accountants, its implications will be far-reaching. If the bill does not go through, and I am sure it will, then it would make it extremely difficult for housing associations to deliver their part in meeting the Government's affordable homes target. While that might give Opposition spokesmen like me an opportunity to kick Kevin Stewart, which can be quite enjoyable, it would not be very responsible. So we will be supporting the bill at this stage and beyond. I think that it is useful to put what this is all about into plain English—I will have a go anyway. Registered social landlords' housing associations were classed as private bodies for accounting purposes until the Office for National Statistics decided to change their status to public bodies. The effect of that is that any borrowing they do counts against the Scottish Government's borrowing limits, which in turn means that the Government might have to limit what RSLs can borrow, which would not be good. You can see the problem, but in order to remove those shackles, you would have to reclassify RSLs as private sector bodies. However, you would not expect a private sector body to be so tightly regulated as our housing associations are by their housing regulator. That level of public sector control was one of the reasons behind the ONS switch in the first place, so you can see where they were coming from. So, if we were to take RSLs back into the private sector, then we also have to reign back on the regulator's powers. The bill tackles this, with the end result being that housing associations will enjoy more freedoms and be able to deliver more. So it is technical, but it is important. It is fair to say that there hasn't been a great deal of interest in this outside of the sector. The local government communities committee only had 16 responses to its call for evidence, compared to more than 1,000 on the planning bill, but that is a lot more controversial. People were generally supportive of the proposals. Briefly, they narrow the powers of the regulator to appoint a manager to an RSL and to remove suspended and appoint officers of an RSL. They removed the need for the regulator's consent to the disposal of land and housing assets by an RSL, any changes to the constitution of an RSL, and the voluntary winding up, dissolution and restructuring of an RSL. They provide Scottish ministers with regulation making powers to limit the influence that local authority has over an RSL. The committee made a number of recommendations, and I am pleased that it took on board the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee around sections 8 and 9 of the bill, which have already been mentioned, which cover ministers' regulation making powers. The DPLR committee considered that, in principle, the powers could be framed more narrowly. The minister agreed to add a sunset clause to both those sections, and he hoped that this and his assertion that the powers would only be used for limited means would address the concerns raised by the DPLR committee, and indeed they do. Overall, it is a sensible bill. It should proceed without fuss through its stages, and I commend it to the Parliament. Mr Simpson, I understood your explanation, so thank you for putting in simple English. I call on Monica Lennon. The bar has been raised. I am pleased to be opening for Scottish Labour in this afternoon's stage 1 debate on the housing amendment Scotland bill and to state our support for the bill. I was worried that there would be a lot of repetition in this debate, but let us just call it consensus. I think that we are going to be saying lots of similar things. Like other colleagues, I am also a member of the local government and communities committee, which has produced a stage 1 report on this bill. I joined the committee late, just at the beginning of this year, as the work on the bill was drawing to a close. I must pay tribute to the convener, my fellow committee members, and Elaine Smith MSP, my predecessor as deputy convener on the committee, who will be speaking later in the debate. Scottish Labour supports this bill, because, like everyone in the chamber, we agree that it is necessary and we understand that it is a proportionate response to ensure that registered social landlords does not affect the Government's ability to borrow money and build affordable housing, which is so desperately needed across Scotland. Falling the decision from the Office of National Statistics to reclassify RSLs as public sector bodies in the UK national accounts back in 2016, the bill has become necessary to ensure that RSLs can be reclassified as private sector bodies as they were previously. As we have heard, as the minister explained in his opening speech, if left unchanged, that would mean that any borrowing undertaken by social landlords would be counted as borrowing by the Scottish Government. As government borrowing is limited to £450 million per year and £3 billion in total, that could potentially lead to a situation where restrictions would have to be placed on how much RSLs can borrow. As we have heard, the bill seeks to make changes to the powers that the Scottish Housing Regulator has over RSLs in relation to their management, governance and how they buy and sell land. Reducing the powers of the regulator over RSLs will allow the Office of National Statistics to reclassify RSLs as private sector bodies as they were before. As we have also heard from the convener, the majority of the evidence received by the Local Government and Communities Committee has been supportive of those proposals, including evidence from the Glasgow and Missus Scotland forum of housing associations and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Unlike other bills, there was no need to consult widely, so the Government took a sensible approach to engage directly with the regulator and the groups and bodies who represent those who are likely to be affected by the bill's proposals, including tenant groups. There appears to be broad agreement between stakeholders and the regulator that changes to the regulator's powers will reflect actual practice and that the narrowing of powers will not hamper interventions where necessary. Some concerns had been raised about the bill that it could potentially weaken safeguards or have unintended impact at landlords could fall out of the scope of environmental information regulations, which Bob Doris has highlighted. We welcome that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will look into making RSLs subject to freedom of information act. Should it be deemed a case that it will fall out of environmental information Scotland regulations 2004 obligations? The fact that there would still be a gap between the implementation of the bill and the FOI remains a concern, but we are all keen that the Government will work with us to resolve that as the bill progresses. In conclusion, the Scottish Labour is happy to support the principles of the bill at decision time this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. How long do I have? Four minutes, please. Four minutes, goodness me. Is that too much? We'll see how we get on. I'll try and stay within scope. I'm like other speakers and my colleagues on the committee. I recognise the purpose of the bill and agree with it. I agree with everything that the minister said in his opening remarks. It's always a first time for everything and what my convener said as well. We will be voting for the bill at decision time. Therefore, I want to use my four minutes to discuss some wider aspects of housing associations, which I think our deliberations on this bill began to raise in my mind anyway. In the 1970s, community-based housing associations and co-ops began to flourish in Glasgow mainly, working to improve the life in the city's tenements to better manage it and improve tenement housing. This was a very welcome model of co-operation, which I think 40 years later we will do well to reflect on in terms of promoting more co-operative approaches to housing provision. Housing associations themselves have played an important role in the housing story since the recognition of registered housing associations in the Housing Scotland Act 1974. It's important to acknowledge in a debate like this the good work of housing associations, in particular rural social landlords such as Lochaber Housing Association and Waverley Housing Association in the Scottish Borders, as well as the urban organisations that house a large number of tenants in our towns and cities. It's there where we find our largest housing associations, such as the Wheatley Group, which includes 12 business interests, including Dunedin, Canmore and Glasgow Housing Association, which last year reposted a turnover of £275 million in the course of their work. They house £250,000 and I quote customers across Scotland. While today we affirm the value and validity of housing associations as private organisations, it's appropriate to raise a question about where those organisations and where that model is headed. For example, we should differentiate between smaller organisations who tend to use terms such as tenants and larger operators such as Wheatley who talk about customers. When we had the housing regulator chair before the committee in November last year, I put it to him that in his report he had highlighted the declining tenant participation in the larger housing associations compared to the small ones, which brings me back to my opening point about it being time to consider moving towards a more genuine co-operative model for housing in the social sector. In the minister's appearance before the committee in December, he warned that the bill, if it didn't proceed, the £50,000 affordable home target would be at risk, and that's true and this bill overcomes that. While I don't dispute that, I think that we also need to remember that half of the Government's affordable housing programme at £1.5 billion is funded by social tenants. Many of those households are among the financially poorest citizens in this country and I think that it's incumbent on us to acknowledge that. As I've argued, we should not ignore the role of tenants as full participants in housing associations. It's those individuals who are vital to the success of those organisations in Scotland, which is why I regret the fact that in many cases they don't participate to the level that they do. I think that there's room for improvement in that and I think that those shortcomings are particularly important in light of the fact that this bill does weaken the public oversight of housing associations. In conclusion, I agree with the general principles of the Housing Amendment Scotland Bill. Greens will be supporting it in decision time. I look forward to stage 2. Thank you very much. There is a little time in hand. I've been a bit naughty. I have my naughty moments. I call Richard Lyle to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. I'm going at all that time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that is important to all our constituents, including mine in Erdingsden in Belsil. The bill before us today concerns the responsible allocation of funds in relation to the debt limit of the Scottish Government, and it is to this end that I wish to begin my remarks in the chamber today. I have no doubt that anyone in this chamber would fail to recognise what an emotional subject housing is, and rightly so. I also feel quite confident to say that most of us would agree that Scotland needs more public housing. This bill is simply a reasonable administrative necessity. Andy Wightman The member says that we need more public housing, but, of course, the bill classifies housing decisions as private organisations. Does he agree with me that, as well as more housing association stock, we need more public housing run by councils? Every house that is built as a house is a family, and you know that as well as I do. It is acknowledged by the Office of National Statistics. If we do not vote to pass the bill, then RSLs, registered social landlords, will continue to be classified as public sector bodies in the national accounts. Resulting in all new net borrowing by RSLs, we count against the Government's borrowing requirements. To allow that to happen would be to allow a significant permanent and most of all needless burden on the Scottish Government's finances. I am sure that this chamber does care about the Scottish Government's ability to pay for services that Scottish people rely on and needs no more convincing than this, as it is a simple argument. That a Government needs all available funds to fulfil its obligations, therefore Parliament ought to take steps to solve the problem of classifying RSLs as public sector bodies by passing the bill. Not passing the bill would have an immediate implication for the Scottish Government's commitment to build homes, homes for families. That is because our commitment depends on the Government's planned financial support of more than £3 billion for a programme being augmented by the RSL sector undertaking private borrowing by some £300 million a year. Moreover, if RSLs borrowing can no longer be counted as private borrowing, the effective cost of the Scottish Government of delivering on the commitment would, by having to include the RSL borrowing, would rise to £4.5 billion, which of course is £1.5 billion over budget, as has already been said. That policy is simple to policies pursued by the UK Government, as well as the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government in their respective jurisdictions. Under the bill, RSLs will no longer be classified by the Government as public sector bodies. Any funds that they borrow will therefore not come out of the Government's limited budget, and we will remain able to fulfil our obligations to all our constituents, including making good on our promise of 50,000 new and affordable homes. I commend the bill to the chamber. At last night, I was trying to put my two girls to bed and great excitement as today's last day of term. In the end, I said, do you want me to tell you what I'm talking about in the Parliament tomorrow? I said, I'm talking about the housing amendment Scotland act, or bill. Suddenly, silence fell in the room and I was able to leave them as they didn't want to seem to engage in this vital subject. Graham Simpson. In order to get your girls to bed, did you read them my speech? Jeremy Balfour even worked at him and referred him to the minister's biography, which really got them overly excited. However, talking apart, this bill, although technical and of all I suspect, is not going to be remembered by most of Scotland in the years to come. It is actually very important, as members have already mentioned. With your permission, I would like to go off slightly from the bill but stay to this particular subject. Before I entered the chamber nearly two years ago, I worked for a small charity that tried to get more affordable housing built in Scotland by using empty church buildings or redeveloping church buildings into housing. Through that, we work closely with many housing associations across Scotland. My general view is that housing associations are doing a great job and are working along with Scotland's Government to see whether they can get the 50,000 affordable houses built within the next few years. That is something that I am sure all of us welcome. However, I hope that the powers that housing associations are going to be given by us to allow them to borrow and to be able to do different accountancy procedures. We will also encourage some housing associations who perhaps are becoming slightly conservative with a small charity in regard to their building perspectives. A number of housing associations that I came across were scared to go ahead and build more housing for lots of different reasons. I think that there is a responsibility on them to work with their communities, to work with Scottish Government, to work with local authorities. It is in everybody's interest to get housing associations to develop if they have the confidence to do so. If Mr Balfour wants to outline some of the reasons that he came across and send them to me, I will look at that. Obviously, my officials will help as much as they can in terms of giving housing associations the knowledge and the help to set them on the development track, if that is what they want to do. I would be quite happy to hear from Mr Balfour about those reasons for lack of development in certain places. I certainly will take the minister up on his offer and do that after research, but I think that that type of bill will allow housing associations greater confidence to go forward. It is in all our interest to see more affordable houses built, both in this region of Lothian, but across the whole of Scotland. For that reason, I welcome the bill. I welcome that there is a cross-party consensus on it. I hope that it gets through the final two stages quickly so that we can move on, and we can see housing associations flourish as we seek to serve everybody across the whole of Scotland. The fact is that, as the minister said, the plan for 50,000 affordable houses, 35,000 of which are for social rent, could be put in jeopardy if the bill did not go ahead. We cannot allow that to happen, because we should remember that, even with those figures that we face, we still have a housing crisis in Scotland that has to be tackled. Last year, there were over 34,000 homeless applications made in Scotland so that we can see, even with those 35,000 social rented houses, if they are achieved—and I hope that they are—in the five-year period. It does not solve our housing crisis. There are 137,000 households on local authority housing waiting lists, 10,000, almost 11,000 households in temporary accommodation, and 27 per cent of them in bed and breakfast. Can we just imagine that, in this chamber, young children sitting in their classroom, class sizes of 30, other children are getting on with their work, and those children are wondering where they are going to be sleeping that night. It is incredible that, in 2018 in Scotland, we have these housing problems, so we need to tackle them. The house minister is often fond of reminding us that, over the period before his party came into government, he said that there were eight council houses that were built, six to six. However, it is interesting that, between 1997 and 2007, there were 37,200 odd houses built in the housing association sector, so there was a lot of progress made. I was quite surprised to discover that there are almost 280,000 units of housing stock within the housing associations, so we can see that housing associations make a massive contribution in Scotland. The minister was a councillor, and I was a councillor, and I know that he was a councillor. One of the most difficult things for me—and it is continued as an MSP—is people coming along to your surgeries, people contacting you for help, whether they are in housing that is not adequate, or they do not have housing at all. That is why it is good that we have the unity today. I am glad that we have that unity today. I think that there is a lot of shared ambition across this chamber in terms of the delivery of affordable homes, homes for social rent across Scotland. I recognise that, in Mr Rowley's part of the world, Fife has done extremely well in terms of adding to our programme in the previous parliamentary session and in this one, and I hope that that co-operation across parties in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland will continue so that we can resolve the problems that people have in terms of getting housing. Alex Rowley? I think that we need to work together because of the issues that are outlined there. It is not acceptable that we have the housing crisis in Scotland. Every party should work together. The very basic right to having a roof over your head should be there for every individual person, every child and every family, so I am pleased to work with the Government on this. Thank you. I call Stuart Steams and then we move to closing speeches. Let me, through the chair, say a couple of words to Andy Wightman. He gave us a 40-year horizon since housing associations came into play. There was the digest of Justinian, which covered the co-operative housing associations in ancient Rome. Indeed, 2,500 years ago, there were co-operative models in Babylon, so we have come to the party quite late in Scotland, I might suggest. Members might reasonably ask why I am speaking of this debate. I forced my way to the front of the long queue that the whips had drawn up to fill the last speaking place from the Government benches. The temptation, of course, for my part was when I read in the committee report at paragraph 10, the bill is short and technical. The word technical is what inevitably draws me in. I think that it is fair to say that this is not the most contentious thing that we have debated since I came to Parliament in 2001. It is quite interesting because it illustrates some of the unintended side effects that come from revising the way in which we do accounting, in particular, of bodies that have to report their assets, liabilities, their income and expenditure. I found in 2001, under the old FRS17 accounting standard, when I looked at the accounts for commoner prison—I was interested in prisons at that time—that because the PFI contractor's commoner prison limited had a commitment in the 30-year contract that they had to pass the prison to the Government, they treated it as a disposal in the second year of trading. It vanished off their balance sheet as an asset, but the Government concerned that it was not an asset in their balance sheet until 30 years hence when it appeared in their balance sheet. We had a period of virtually 30 years when that asset appeared on nobody's balance sheet. That was under the old system. We are now under IFRS, the international financial reporting standard. We now have a new thing called contingent assets, which means that, in the similar circumstances, it is now on commoner prison limited balance sheet and on the Government's balance sheet. It now appears on both balance sheets. However, the bottom line about all this in relation to the issue that is before us today is that we need to get the right balance as to where things appear in our public accounting. The problem that has been presented to us by the Office of National Statistics—it is a perfectly proper problem for them to present us with—is that where those associations in a place where they had sufficient freedom of action that they could control, manage and dispose by assets without the Government telling them what to do. That is a question. The next kind of question is where they are creating assets for the Government. The final question is where they, by their actions, create ill-involuntary liabilities, contingent or otherwise, for the Government. It was the uncertainties in those accounting areas that, I think, properly caused the Office of National Statistics to say that we have bodies out there that are connected to the public sector, although they are private bodies, as Mr Wightman reminded us, do they really form part of the public sector? Of course, that would inhibit Government spending plans and, more fundamentally, for the policy that we are interested in, inhibit the ability of those societies to borrow money and build housing. Alex Rowley is perfectly correct that we have got to build more houses, whatever means we do by. I will. Elaine Smith I thank Mr Stevenson for taking intervention. In reading about the bill, did he also come across comments by UK Finance where he said that the lenders might have to ramp up their due diligence in a quote directly? I wonder what he thought about that particular point that was being made. I was very pleased that UK Finance got themselves to the position of supporting what was proposed. Initially, I gathered that there was a bit doubt. I think that Elaine Smith makes a very valid point. Whenever you change the system, you risk creating more complexities. If that gets in the way of our building more houses and making life more difficult for housing associations, that is not good news. However, I think that the bill strikes the right balance. I shall be very happy to support it come decision time. I call Elaine Smith to close for Labour. Although I am closing for Scottish Labour, when the bill first came to the local government committee's committee, I was the deputy convener of the committee. Therefore, I was involved in taking evidence on the bill. I did at the time raise some concerns about some potential unintended consequences that might be encountered through narrowing the powers of the housing regulator. I will return to those a bit later. As we have heard from the minister, the committee convener, and I think that most other contributors to the debate, the main thrust of the bill is to ensure that the borrowing ability of housing associations and other social landlords will not be counted as government borrowing, and that will be done by reducing the powers of the regulator over registered social landlords and allowing the ons to reclassify them as private sector bodies. It will also ensure that the debt accrued by registered social landlords does not become subject to further restrictions or limits as an unintended consequence of that earlier decision taken by the ons that reclassified registered social landlords as public sector bodies. Those of you who know me will be aware that I would not naturally be drawn to reclassifying a body from the public sector to the private sector. I note Andy Wightman's comments on that regard as well. However, as we know, the consequences of not acting, which were set out very clearly, in evidence to the committee, is that the Scottish Government's target of building more affordable homes could be negatively impacted almost immediately if unnecessary restrictions were required to be placed on the borrowing ability of RSLs. I think that that would also include another point that Andy Wightman made earlier. That would include perhaps an impact on the council house building, which is also raised by my colleague Alec Rowley in his contribution. It is for that reason that there is broad consensus that the bill is necessary, and it is why Scottish Labour agreed with the committee and Welsh Portals General principles. Jeremy Balfour in his contribution raised an interesting issue about housing associations, and it brought to mind a point around the right to buy, because I was involved in that issue with the extension of the right to buy to housing associations back in the day at the start of this Parliament, which was an issue for me. Of course, that is not an issue now, but it could have been something that would put off housing associations building more houses. On the other issues of concern that have been raised about the bill, I agree that further work must be done to ensure that there is no reduction in terms of the information that RSLs are required to provide to the public, something that was raised during the committee's stage. I appreciate the expectation, if you expressed by the SFA and others, that they would continue to expect the members to provide the information that they are currently required to do under the environmental information regulations 2004. Nonetheless, it is still an issue of concern that should an unintended consequence of the bill be that registered social analysts fall out of the scope of the EIR, there might still be a gap in the implementation between the passage of the bill and the extension of the FOI act to apply to RSLs. I was just going to finish on saying that I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to resolving this with the committee, as mentioned by Monica Lennon, but I am happy to take the convener. Bob Doris, I thank you for taking the intervention. It would not be ideal, but even if the gap is very small, once the FOI comes in, in theory, those could be resubmitted under FOIs and the information would still be given out. I hope that that will not arise, and housing associations will just deal with the spirit of the legislation before us. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure that the committee will be taking that on board at the next stage and keeping an eye on it. At the committee, I also raised the issue that increased self-assessment for registered social landlords runs the risk of increased costs for RSLs, and that there is an implication that local authorities will have reduced influence on housing association boards and associated impact on council's duties towards housing targets and reducing homelessness. I am glad that the minister has agreed to monitor that, and to ensure that I approach to tackling homelessness with the partnership and co-operation of RSLs. In that regard, Andy Wightman's comments were interesting, and I look forward to seeing how he takes that forward. In conclusion, the Scottish Government has said that, without the bill, there would be a significant permanent burden on Scottish Government finances and controls on how much RSLs can borrow. Although it has been a fairly technical debate—maybe not, as Graham Simpson said, setting the header on fire—however, the consequences could be real for Government spending, for housing, waiting lists and for homeless people, so it is an important piece of legislation. As a former homelessness officer, I feel very strongly about that. As I have said, Scottish Labour will be happy to support the bill at decision time. I am pleased to be participating in this stage 1 debate this afternoon and to be closing on behalf of the Conservatives. It has been good to hear the contributions from members across the chamber supporting the principles of the bill and the consensus that we have in the chamber is most encouraging. As a member of the committee, I thank all those who have worked so far on the bill and look forward to proceeding. We, in the Scottish Conservatives, are supportive of the bill. We understand the reasons behind it and acknowledge that. As colleagues have said this afternoon, Graham Simpson talked about how important the bill was and how it had to go through. Government and SLAs had a sensible approach to what was happening, which is most important. Monica Lennon talked about the powers and the management and the governance that require us to be taking place. Jeremy Balfour touched on the housing association's lack of building and development and the fear that it had. That is something that we need to take on board. I look forward to some dialogue with the housing minister on that as we progress. As other members have indicated, this is a necessary change since the Office of National Statistics reclassified our housing associations as public bodies, which meant that any borrowing that is undertaken towards the Scottish Government's borrowing limits privately boil around £300 million each year at present. That is around two-thirds of the Scottish Government's capital borrowing limit. Without any changes to the current situation, it is highly likely that the Scottish Government will be forced into imposing controls on borrowing by housing associations. That is not anything that any of us wants to take place. The situation could put the Scottish Government's target of building at least 50,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament in danger. As a party, we support the goal, and failure to meet that target has to be a challenge. We must make sure that that is not an opinion that takes place. We need those houses, and we need them now. To ensure that that is not the case, it is therefore essential that the Office of National Statistics is able to reclassify housing associations as private bodies once again. The bill does exactly that by reducing and removing certain powers of the regulator, and therefore we are happy to support that. In addition to keeping with the aim of the move forward the redesignation of housing associations as public sector bodies, it is welcome to see the proposals in section 9 of the bill to limit authorities' control over them. Giving ministers regulator making powers or limiting or removing the influence of councils can have overhousing associations is another necessary step to tackle this issue. Those steps are very important that we ensure that that does take place. All of that is not to say, however, that registered social landlords do not need to be regulated at all. They very much do require to be regulated. It is vital that tenants can be confident in the knowledge that their homes are well maintained and that their tenancy is secure. A strong framework also gives funders of social housing the confidence to invest. We have touched on that already, that there may be a lack of confidence to invest, and we have to ensure that that is not the case and that we do manage to challenge that and ensure that that happens. In concluding, we and the Scottish Conservatives are committed to strengthening building regulations to ensure the safety of the Scottish public and also increasing the number of affordable homes available across the country. We believe that the recommendations contained within the committee's report and the bill seek to address that problem. Our aim is to strengthen and support any measures that will improve the housing sector and, in turn, will benefit communities the length and breadth of Scotland that I support. Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. I call Kevin Stewart to close to the Government. That would have been interesting. I call Kevin Stewart to close to the Government. Minister, till five o'clock, please. As long as you did not call David Stewart, who is not present at the moment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Maybe too many stewards, never too many stewards. I thank those members who participated in this afternoon's debate. I certainly appreciate the consensus that there has been around the chamber. I am glad that they support the general principles of the bill today and the recognition that it is necessary in order to protect the finances of the Scottish Government. As you will know, this Government is a clear and defining reason for making housing a priority. Providing good quality, warm and affordable housing is vital to create a fairer Scotland, secure economic growth and to support and create jobs. At the heart of that sits our commitment to deliver at least 50,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament, 35,000 of those for social rent, which presents a huge opportunity to meet the various housing needs of communities right across the country. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on that commitment. Thanks to partners, councils and housing associations in the construction industry, recent statistics show that approvals for new housing association homes are up 33 per cent on the previous year, helping to lay the foundations for a pipeline of proposals capable of delivering against the remainder of the 50,000 target. Too much chat. What Mr Stewart is saying is riveting, and you should be listening. I hope that I can continue to be riveting, Presiding Officer. Maybe the heather will be set alight this afternoon. Let me be quite clear. The role of housing associations is not just about providing good-quality housing and services for the tenants that they have, or in just building new energy-efficient homes. It is also about creating jobs, supporting vulnerable people, as Ms Smith pointed out, and acting as an anchor for some of the most deprived communities in our country. Given the crucial role that housing associations play, I am delighted that the need for the bill and its general principles from the outset have had the support of the sector. Both the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations have acknowledged the need for the bill, not least to underline the status of housing associations as independent private bodies, but that they are partners with the public sector but are not controlled by it. They are key partners for all of us, developing and managing high-quality energy efficiency housing across the country, and delivering that range of services to the tenants that I have mentioned previously. Beyond that, they do so much more to build and sustain the communities in which they operate, and long may that continue. We agree on the need for them to have a strong and effective independent regulator working on behalf of homeless people, tenants and the others who use their services. One of the key benefits of such regulation is the confidence that it gives to lenders. That confidence enables housing associations to borrow at favourable rates, helping them in turn to play their part in delivering affordable housing. Maintaining lenders' confidence has been an important objective for the Government during the development of the bill, and that is why we have been in regular contact with their representative body UKFI at finance throughout the process and why we have used our response to the stage 1 report to address concerns that they raised with us. Another priority has been to ensure that housing associations continue to provide information requested by anyone under the environmental information regulations, as has been mentioned by many members this afternoon. I am pleased that the SFHA and GWSF shared that priority, and I am grateful to them for confirming that they will be advising their members to continue to respond positively to requests for environmental information, even if, once the bill has been enacted and brought into force, the Scottish Information Commissioner were to decide that the regulations could no longer apply to housing associations. I hope that those examples illustrate the positive and constructive approach that we and stakeholders have taken to the issues raised by the bill. I welcome the input of the local government committee. I hope that that will continue during stage 2 deliberations. Finally, I thank the officials who have had to deal with what some members have said is rather a dry piece of legislation. Personally, I find all of that quite exciting, as I do all housing. I hope that we will continue to see the co-operation that we have had when we reached stage 2. I thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for giving us the opportunity to move stage 1 today. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on stage 1 of the housing Scotland amendment bill. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion to move motion S5M-1345 on the Laser Misuse Vehicles Bill. The next item of business is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion S5M-1397 on substitution on committees, and I ask Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau, to move his motion. We come to decision time. The first question is that amendment S5M-1347.1, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, which seeks to amend motion S5M-1347 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on Scotland's support for the UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment S5M-1347.1, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, is yes, 27, no, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion S5M-1347, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion S5M-1350, in the name of Kevin Stewart on the housing amendment Scotland bill at stage 1 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion S5M-1345, on the laser misuse vehicles bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are. The final question is that motion S5M-1397, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau on Substitution on Committees, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.