 Llywodraeth yma, cymdeithasbydd yw i'w bwysig i'r 16 yma yn 2014 o'r Ffraith Ffasiliad Cymru. Rwy'n cael eu gweld yna'r cymdeithasbydd ym mwynethau'r teimlo, gyda'r tyfnod mewn cyffredinol yma. Y ddechrau yma yn ymwneud y Llywodraeth Cymru, ac mae'n fawr i'r ddau'r Llywodraeth Cymru. Rwy'n cymdeithasbydd ymwneud ymwneud ymwneud ar gyfer Llywodraeth Tyffrwyll Prifysgwr. Rym ni i llwyddiant ei maen nhw i ddechrau'r tyniadau yn cael ei ddigonol iawn, i ni'n gwybod i d���falion i ddweud rwynebu yn hwnnw gwirioneddol i'r rhan oherwydd y cwestiwn. Gweithio arnynniwg y Diolch yn i'w ddweud ar y maen nhw i'i ddweud y 3 yma, a ddweud y maen nhw i ddweud yr aelodau. Rwyneid efallai un dibbyr ar ôl o amnaires rwyneid negwyd. Rwyf i ddweud yr aelodau i'r�right chwilio i gydwyparu i ddim yn ddigneg gasseen eu hoffet, ac yn dganffwch i'i g несion i glusddas cities yn annac, ei ddim yn fengr戰. Fy emall, cells rhaglen ei ddd mountainコot yn ddignog eu hoffet flynydd, iawn i twei pri byddion heriau yn ddigneud erbyn gwasanaeth euhootementau hefyd. E chi'w ddim yn rhywetheu o gwasanaeth grwdill yn ddigwem pethiau звwydd o ddigwethaeth neu wreithwch hynny'n ddigwem favos. Cysy евrodd wedi'i eu horizon should catch my eye 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a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved I must check whether any member objects to it being withdrawn.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 objectes the committee immediately moves to the vote to amend it. If any member does not want to move amendment called they should say not moved. Any other MSP can move it but I will not specifically invitation other members to do so. 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. So, we look at section 72, Tenement Management Schemes, and I call amendment 149 in the name of Sarah Boyack, grouped with amendments 153, 154, 150, 151, 7, 152 and 35, and Sarah, as I understand, Malcolm Chisholm, is not going to speak to his amendment, but you are. Okay. Thank you, convener. I am grateful to the opportunity to speak to my amendments and I am just going to run through them in the order that they are in the grouping. As members will be aware, the issue of repairs to common property has caused considerable controversy in Edinburgh in the aftermath of the statutory repair scandal, and I know that I am not alone in Edinburgh colleagues, but it is still receiving case work. I think that this bill is the opportunity to mend some of the problems that we have got and to learn from the experience from Edinburgh alongside Dave Stewart's bill, which is being discussed, as we speak. Section 72 is a welcome inclusion in the bill because it gives the local authority the power to pay and crucially recover a share of the scheme costs, and the inability to proceed with work due to an unwilling or unidentifiable owner has caused unacceptable delays to home repairs and is one of the reasons why constituents have continued to turn to the council for intervention via the statutory notices route, even though we have provisions in a previous housing bill to enable majority decisions to be made under the use of tenement management schemes. Amendment 149 is more of a probing amendment to consider the apportionment of costs where a local authority uses this new power. It is based on the approach that the City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991 set out, which provides the basis of the council's current statutory notice system. I am interested in the minister's comments on the amendment that I am laying. The reason that I am putting it in is that, under the 1991 act, the council portioned the cost of statutory repair work on an equal share basis among its owners. That does not prevent owners from pursuing their fellow owners through civil action where the amount paid does not reflect the situation set out in vital deeds, but it is a simple way to process and administer the provisions from the council's perspective and it avoids them having to pay costly legal expenses where an owner challenges the apportionment. That amendment would allow alternative determination methods where they are considered reasonable. For example, if there is only one missing share, it would be very straightforward to determine the missing share as the remainder once all the other shares were paid according to the tenement management scheme. In the event that a local authority steps in to pay for more than one owner's share, that amendment would allow the missing shares to be split evenly between those owners. Given that, by virtue of the owners being liable for a missing share, they have been unwilling or unable to work with the other owners to get a constructive way forward, that amendment would allow a process that minimises the risk of expensive and protracted legal action that the councils would have to pay to determine the cost. Amendments 1, 5, 3 and 4 seek to clarify the requirement that an owner be notified before a local authority steps in to pay a missing share. One of the scenarios that would allow the local authority to pay a missing share is if the owner can't be identified or found. In such circumstances, it wouldn't be possible to notify the owner directly, so amendment 1, 5, 4 would require the authority to publish notice of its intention to pay the missing share in two newspapers, including, if practical, a local newspaper. To complete the circle 1, 5, 3 makes it clear that it's only in circumstances where the identity of the owner is known that a local authority is required to notify that owner directly, rather than advertising in the press. The requirement to publish notification in the press, where an owner cannot be identified, has been used before, for example in the anti-social behaviour Scotland act 2004. During the process of drafting this amendment, it was noted that there's been a recent trend away from publishing notices due to following circulations of newspapers, so if anyone has an alternative suggestion, I'd be willing to listen to that, but I think that at the moment my suggestion would be in newspapers because there's an understandable transparency that comes from that. Amendments 1, 5, 8 and 1, 5, 1—again, I see those as probing amendments, but I'm very concerned about the issues that they address. Those would allow local authorities to pay a missing share to registered social landlords. Amendment 1, 5, 3 would enable Scottish ministers to make regulations to achieve that following a period of consultation to consider the issue. Such a power would only apply in cases where the RSL's owner of or responsible for maintenance of any part of a tenement building. Given that regulations would have the power to amend primary legislation, I've suggested that amendment 1, 5, 1 would require any such regulations to apply the affirmative procedure. Those amendments fall on from the debate that we had in response to Dave Stewart's bill. The issue was raised by the SFHA, and they said that, in general, housing associations undertake repairs with agreement from owners, but that they are in some circumstances required to pay the costs for people who are not prepared to pay up and in some circumstances they effectively bear the costs beyond what they should pay to ensure the safety and security of their assets. Civil remedies to cover such costs in those cases can be protracted and unsuccessful. That's money that could otherwise be used in improving existing stock or going towards the issue of much-needed new homes. Since evidence at the Dave Stewart stage 1 process, I've been made aware that in Edinburgh there are currently 11 examples of housing associations taking properties out of their letting pools because they cannot carry out common repairs and those properties don't meet the standard that they are prepared to let houses with. That's a lost income at the moment of around £40,000. It means that those properties are deteriorating, and that's bad news for everybody else in the building, and it's leading to housing associations selling off properties where there's a minority ownership. That's bad news because it's going to lead to less of a spread of tenancies throughout the city, and it's very bad for the income of housing associations. Amendment 152 seeks to amend the recovery time for repayment charges where a local authority has paid a missing share. This is a similarity to the amendment 7 in the name of Jim Eadie, but it does go slightly further. The current provisions in the 2006 housing act state that a repayment charge is recoverable over a period of 30 years, but in the evidence from consideration of Dave Stewart's bill there was a consensus that 30 years was too long a period of time for the recovery of such expenses. My amendment does not take the 30-annual installments approach at all. It gives a different approach, it gives the local authority much greater flexibility in allowing recovery of installments at a frequency and over such a time period not exceeding 30 years as determined reasonable in the circumstances. It also gives the ministers the option of producing guidance on the factors to be considered by the local authority in determining what we can constitute a reasonable frequency and period of recovery. Such guidance would be useful to ensure that repayment charges were being assessed in a consistent and a fair way across the country. One of the reasons that I was keen to delete the 30 years' expectation is that, in my experience, both as an owner and as a representative, houses need to be repaired and maintained on a much greater frequency than 30 years. That goes to amendments that Jim Eadie has prepared for the third part that we are looking at today, section 3. I think that we need to create an expectation among owners that that is not a once-in-a-lifetime activity, but that we need to be repairing our properties on a more regular basis. The amendment that I have put in will create more of that expectation. If I can now move to Malcolm Chisholm's amendment 35 about tenement management schemes, one of the key benefits of the approach that is taken in section 72 of the bill is the ability for local authorities not just to pay for a missing share but to be able to recover the cost from the relevant owner. At the moment, local authorities' finances are being squeezed, but, in principle, I think that the certainty of being able to recover their costs for carrying out works that will benefit the owner of a property is a good one. Malcolm's amendment 35 seeks to minimise the risk of non-recovery even further, because this amendment will provide that a repayment charge issued in respect to the repair work would be secured by prior ranking over all other burdens on a property. That would mean that, in the event of a property being sold, repayment of the charge would take precedent over all the other burdens that would ensure full recovery of costs by the local authority. Thank you for having the opportunity to put forward the reasoning behind those amendments. I have taken a little bit more detail, convener, because they are not in the original bill and I do think that the detail is absolutely crucial, having experienced many, many problems with the statutory repairs process in Edinburgh and I particularly wanted to test out the different choices as to how the legislation could be framed. I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 7 in my name. This is one of a number of amendments that I have tabled, which arise from an extensive discussion that took place between myself and elected representatives and officials of the City of Edinburgh Council. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the recovery of funds where a local authority covers the cost of a missing share for a common repair. Common repairs can be complex and pose a significant challenge for the City of Edinburgh due to a high percentage of older flats in mixed ownership. While the proposal to introduce changes that take the owners for debt recovery away from responsible owners who are willing to arrange and pay for repair and maintenance work is welcome, it is unlikely that local authorities will be unable to make use of the powers in their current form. The 30-year payment period for recovery of funds through repayment charges, as outlined in the bill, is arguably excessive and many local authorities will have limited resources to loan funds over such a long period. Local authorities cannot borrow for this expenditure without the express permission of Scottish ministers as it would technically be revenue and not capital. Increasing flexibility over the repayment period will allow more local authorities to make use of the powers. That will help to facilitate more repair work and improve standards in the private sector. The current system does not take affordability into account. There is a set repayment period of 30 years, regardless of the amount owed or the financial circumstances of the owner. The proposed amendment would link a reduced payment period with a duty for local authorities to provide support through their scheme of assistance. This would address affordability issues through the provision of financial assistance or access to advice and information depending on the circumstances of the case and the range of support available through the scheme of assistance. I will first address amendment 149. Amendment 149 seeks to have an owner's share of tenant management scheme cost calculated as a local authority thinks reasonable, but with the principle of favouring equal shares by owners. I am concerned that this amendment could act to weaken the tenant management scheme and that it lacks control to protect home owners. The tenant management scheme is designed to be a process of voluntary agreement between owners based on clarity over costs and how they are shared. The amendment would provide for circumstances where shares could be altered potentially to the benefit of owners who have higher than average shares of the costs. This could result in some owners having an incentive to hold out for a local authority to intervene to reduce their costs while other owners may resist a local authority intervention due to uncertainty as to how their share of the costs will be determined. This would be a significant change to the existing arrangements under the tenant management scheme that has not been subject to any consultation. I do not think that it is appropriate to introduce this change at this point in the bill's progress without first having considered the views of all local authorities and of owners. Therefore, I invite Sarah Boyack to withdraw amendment 149 and, if not, to ask the committee to reject it. Amendments 153 and 154 seek changes to the notification of owners by local authorities when they decide to cover a missing share. Section 33, 30 par 3 of the Tenements Scotland Act 2004 already provides a procedure for service of a notice on a person who cannot be identified or found. That involves delivery of a notice to the property. The approach provided for in the bill is consistent with other notices under the 2004 act, requiring a notice to be advertised in the press would incur additional and unnecessary costs for a local authority. I can see no reason to alter the current arrangements for one particular type of notice nor do I see any advantage from the amendment to justify the additional costs that would cause local authorities. For these reasons, the amendments are unnecessary. They might also, in some cases, because of the costs deter local authorities from using the useful power we are giving them and I would invite Sarah Boyack not to move these amendments and, if she does, would ask the committee to reject them. Amendments 150 and 151 would seek to introduce a regulating making power which could enable registered social landlords to pay for a missing share and recover the costs using a repayment charge. I will already introduce in the bill discretionary powers for local authorities to step in and provide a missing share, where a majority decision allows for work to go ahead and to recover using a repayment charge. I think that it is right that local authorities, as the strategic housing authorities, should have this role in debt recovery power. RSLs will be able to engage with a local authority if enforcement or assistance is needed in their area and I would encourage them to do so. I would also want to be sure that the coverage of missing shares by RSLs did not occur at the expense of services for tenants and the amendment does not provide those assurances. I am also concerned that there has not been any consultation on those proposals. It is not appropriate to introduce such a significant change without having to first listen carefully to the views, particularly the views of lenders, since they could be adversely affected by the proposal. However, I would also want to listen to the views of RSLs and the regulator, as some RSLs have constitutional arrangements that could prevent expenditure that was not expressly for the benefit of members. As I would not currently support the introduction of discretionary powers for RSLs to provide a missing share and to recover through a repayment charge, I do not see the need to introduce a regulation making power in this regard at this time. The Scottish Government's proposed work on cross-tenure housing quality standards later this year will provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise issues regarding housing quality. Contributions to the scope and design of a forum to discuss quality standards are currently being requested with a planned consultation to follow next year. I would want to wait the outcome of this consultation before making any changes, and I would ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 150 and 151, and I would ask the committee not to support them. Amendment 7 and 152, and I understand why Jim Eadie and Sarah Boyack have proposed those amendments, and I know that they reflect in some ways the views of the committee in the stage 1 report that 30 years is excessively long for councils to recover their costs. I appreciate the arguments in favour of a shorter period, but I am concerned that those ignore the risks that a shorter period could pose to vulnerable homeowners, particularly those who are elderly, living and fixed incomes and only with modest savings. A repayment charge is a powerful debt recovery tool that allows local authorities to convert their debt into security without recourse to the courts and, importantly, without the consent of the owner of the property. That power needs to be balanced by safeguards for owners. As matters stand, the 30-year repayment period provides such a safeguard in practice. The amendments would give a very wide discretion to councils to recover potentially significant sums from owners through repayment charges over short periods of time without owners' consent. They would do so without a robust replacement safeguard for owners who might not be able to make such payments, and that is what worries me. Sarah Boyack's proposed guidance for councils, but I am not convinced that substituting the 30-year protection period and replacing it with guidance offers robust compensatory protection against the risks to vulnerable owners. I am clear that any change to local authorities' powers in this area would have to be accompanied by strong arrangements that ensure repayment charges are fair to owners, both in the amount of the charges and in the period over which they should be made. The proposed change refers to what the council considers to be reasonable. For example, there is nothing about a council coming to a view unreasonable that takes account of information on the financial and personal circumstances of affected property owners. There is a real risk, therefore, of a council requiring payments at a level that the property owner cannot afford. That could be a real problem for many owners. A young family struggling with a mortgage or an elderly person living in a pension with modest savings. For such groups, the change proposed by the amendments could mean real hardship and distress. Further, the amendments do not include any specific right to appeal for an owner who may be subject to an unaffordable financial arrangement. That is the type of major omission that I am concerned about if we make the change here, however well-intentioned. However, turning to the issue of council recovery, councils already have the option to renegotiate a shorter repayment period or seek full and immediate recovery through the courts. The existing 30-year repayment period is a backstop. Owners whose property is subject to a repayment charge cannot generally sell the property or create any new borrowing over it without first repaying the council. The average period between house sales is about seven years, so in practice councils would be receiving repayment long before the 30-year period. A reduction in the repayment period does not necessarily make repayment more likely. There is no provision in the amendments that alters what happens for non-payment. If a owner does not pay whatever the timescale, then the council cannot seek to sell the property as a result of the charge. A council can only seek recovery as a civil debt. With a shorter period there would be situations where a council will have to place another charge on the property to ensure it receives payment with additional costs for the council and for the property owner. For all those reasons, I cannot support the amendments and would ask the committee to reject them. Amendment 35, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, seeks to ensure that local authorities receive repayment before other registered charges on a property are paid. A repayment charge that has been registered by a local authority already has priority over all future burdens. It also has priority over nearly all existing burdens. The exception includes charges already registered by the local authority and a small number of other charges created by other public authorities. As a local authority is already entitled to receive repayment priority for charges, it has registered nearly all cases. I do not see any reason to change the current position. I would invite Malcolm Chisholm, Sarah Boyack and Malcolm Chisholm to withdraw that amendment and ask the committee to reject it. Finally, I am aware that I am not supporting any of the amendments in this group. I hope that I have explained the reasons why. I understand that there are significant concerns, particularly in Edinburgh City Council, regarding the issues that have been raised by Sarah Boyack and Jim Eadie. We recognise what is behind those amendments, but if we were to change those, I think that it requires legislation and consultation. Officials and my officials are more than willing to explore those issues with Edinburgh City Council and discuss how they might address their concerns with any existing legislative framework. If they have found that that is not going to be possible and that there are changes needed, we would want to do proper consultation and bring it back in other legislation. I am not just discounting those out of hand. I absolutely recognise the reasons behind bringing those amendments, but at this stage in the bill, even at stage 3, it would be something rushed through and we would not necessarily achieve what we are all looking for here. For that reason, I would ask the committee not to support those amendments. Thank you. Can I ask Sarah Boyack to wind up and press her with drawer amendment? Yes. I am very disappointed with the minister's overall response, because those are issues that have been raised through the consultation process for two proposed bills now. Those comments have come from the suggestions in Dave Stewart's bill on dangerous and defective buildings, about how we remedy the problems of the operation of existing legislation and, indeed, for representations to this bill. If we adopted that principle in general, it would lead us to a crazy situation where, if something was not in a minister's original set of proposals in a bill, we would not amend those bills. It takes out the whole purpose of having stage 2 and stage 3, otherwise we would approve bills on block. As a principle for not accepting those amendments, I find that an incredibly weak principle. Going through the responses in detail, there is no intention to weaken the tenement management scheme. The amendment here is actually to dry and address a problem that has been identified by the city council. We have legislation in front of us, which is the opportunity to get it right, rather than waiting for an unspecified piece of more legislation. That is one of the problems that we have on housing legislation, because in the bill there are a variety of different pieces of housing legislation that are being amended and corrected to make them effective and useful. As the minister said, Jimmy Dian brought forward amendments on the basis of practical experience representations from a variety of stakeholders. The principle of kicking everything into the long grass does not fix the problem. The interrelationship between different pieces of housing legislation, developed at different times, is in itself a problem. For that reason, I am not necessarily going to push all those amendments today to the vote, but I am going to bring them back at stage 3, because I am going to have discussions with other colleagues about it. I do not think that it is an acceptable point to reject those amendments on the basis that they were not consulted on. That is a poor approach to addressing legislation. I do not think that the bill, as it is currently formulated, does the job that it needs to do. We know what does not work from existing housing legislation, and some of the provisions in the bill will not help to overcome those problems. Hence the representations that we have had from SFHA and from Edinburgh Council, which have concerns about the way in which the bill is currently worded, it will not address the challenges that are there. If the minister was prepared to have a meeting with me in Jamedie between stage 2 and stage 3, I would be prepared not to push my amendments, because I am not convinced that the detail of what she has told us today is correct in every respect. I think that there are gaps in her response to the detail of what we have suggested. I am particularly concerned about the fact that discretionary power is not currently used in terms of amendment 150. The point that we have in 150 is about trying to address a problem that is a current problem. That is not a future problem, and the bill is a place to address the issue about social landlords who are currently walking away from mixed tenement buildings because they cannot be sure that they have properties that are capable of being let. That is a current problem. It is not something to be addressed in the future. I do not have the procedure of this, convener. If the minister is prepared to have discussions between now and stage 3, I did say that some of those were testing amendments and probing amendments. If she is prepared to at least have the discussion by there, I am not saying that I have to agree with her in every respect, but I would seek that discussion before we go to stage 3. If she has just taken the view that, because it was not in the bill as currently proposed, we would dismiss all those amendments, I will push them to date and come back at stage 3, because I do not think that in terms of legislation in this Parliament that is a credible response to amendments that have been posed to problems that are existing and that this bill we perceived does not amend in the correct way. Minister, do you want to come back in? I have accepted a number of amendments at stage 2, and we have also made a number of Government amendments after the discussions at stage 1, but I am certainly willing to meet with Sarah Boyack and Jamide prior to stage 3. It is not a case of dismissing a amount of hands simply because there are not consultations. We want to ensure that any amendments do what they are intending to do, and we are not clear that that is the case or that some are necessary, but I am more than willing to meet with both Jamide and Sarah Boyack to discuss their concerns. Sarah Boyack, can I ask you whether you are going to press or withdraw your amendment? The first set of amendments that I proposed is amendment 1498. I am not pushing at this point. Can you just tell me what you want to do with amendment 1498? I am not pushing at this point. Does any other member wish to move? Okay, so we move on to amendment 153 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, do you want to move that one? I am not moving at this stage. Does anyone else wish to move? Okay, I call amendment 154 in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, what do you want to do? I am not moving at this stage. Sorry? I am not moving at this stage. Okay, anyone else wants to move? No. I call amendment 150 in the name of Sarah Boyack, already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, do you want to move or not move that one? 150. I do want to push that amendment. Okay, so the question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, we move to a division. So those in favour of amendment 150, please show. To those against, please show. The amendment is not agreed by votes yes, no, yes, two, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 151 in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, to move or not move? Not moved. Does anyone else wish to move? I call amendment 7 in the name of Jim Eadie already debated with amendment 149. Jim, to move or not move? Not moved. Can I just say a word in my way of response to the minister? Can I just say that I am grateful for the minister's response, in particular her recognition that the amendment tabled by myself today reflects the views of the committee at stage 1? I particularly welcome her statement that she is not discounting this amendment or any of the other amendments in the group out of hand and that she is willing to instruct her officials to enter into a constructive and meaningful dialogue to see if a middle way can be found, particularly on amendment 7. I also recognise the statement that there is a need to strike a balance between the rights of councils to recover debts and the rights of owner occupiers to repay their debt at an appropriate level over a reasonable time period. So I think that that is an issue that does require further discussion and consultation, but I very much welcome the willingness to consult further on that and to engage in meaningful discussions on that issue. That is not moved. The call amendment 152 in the name of Sarah Boyack already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, to move or not move 152. I would like to push this one because I have a strong view about the 30 years issue is not the right time level to be set. Okay, the question is that amendment 152 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 152, please show. Those against, please show. So the amendment is not agreed to because we have votes yes, two, no, five. So I call amendment 135, which was in Malcolm Chisholm's name already debated with amendment 149. Sarah, on his behalf, to move or not move? Okay, so the question then is that section 72 be agreed to, are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move to discharge of cost notices applying to owners of properties. I call amendment 117 in the name of the minister in a group on its own. Minister, can I ask you to move and speak to the amendment? Thank you. This amendment proposes changes to the Title Conditions Scotland Act 2003 and to the Tenement Scotland Act 2004 to aid the convening process in particular situation. The situation arises where a notice of potential liability for costs under those acts is registered against a property. The effect of such a notice is that a new owner may become liable for any relevant costs occurred in relation to maintenance for other work. The notice of potential liability expires after three years unless it's renewed. An issue may arise when a homeowner wishes to sell their property during the three-year period or during a renewal period. Even if the outstanding amount is paid, the title will still show that the property is encumbered with a potential liability for costs, and naturally buyers may be wary of purchasing a property that is encumbered in this way. Currently, the keeper can deal with this administratively, but this may no longer be possible with the commencement of the Lamp Registration, etc., Scotland Act 2020. The change in the keeper's practice will not bring transactions to halt, but it will mean more toing and froing between solicitors. In order to avoid such problems arising and convening transactions, this amendment will provide for a statutory discharge procedure for homeowners. There will be no obligation to use the new procedure, and notices of potential liability will continue to expire at the end of three years unless renewed, as is currently laid down in legislation. I move amendment 117. Anyone else wish to speak? Okay, so we move straight to the vote. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Question then is that section 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now move to Home Maintenance Framework, due to in a call amendment 9 in the name of Jim Eadie, in a group of its own. Jim, can I ask you to move it and speak to your amendment? Thank you, convener. I am pleased to move and speak to amendment 9, the purpose of which requires owners to prepare a maintenance plan to cover common repairs with a view to encouraging responsible home ownership and the avoidance of emergency repairs. Sarah Boyack said earlier in her previous discussion that there is a need to create an expectation and a culture among home owners that repairs are not a one-off event, but are something that needs to be addressed throughout the lifetime of someone's ownership of a property. I think that amendment seeks to achieve that. 76 per cent of all private homes in Edinburgh are in some form of disrepair. 38 per cent of private homes in Edinburgh are considered to be an urgent disrepair. There is a clear need to encourage home owners to invest in their homes in order to preserve the fabric of the city and to keep buildings safe. Proactive maintenance helps to prevent emergency repairs which can be costly and potentially pose a danger to residents and the general public. The requirement to establish a maintenance plan will encourage owners to work together and take responsibility for the maintenance of their homes, as well as marking a shift in culture from reactive repairs to proactive maintenance. This will also help to reinforce the message that home owners have to take responsibility for the maintenance of their own home. It can be difficult for an owner to take the first step towards organising a common repair if they do not already know their neighbours. That can lead to small jobs being put off. Establishing a relationship with neighbours to agree a maintenance plan will make it easier for owners to organise repairs when it becomes evident that work needs to be carried out. Under the proposed amendment, local authorities would have to establish local enforcement policies, which could include a requirement for home owners to register details of their maintenance plan with the local authority or use of powers in the Housing Scotland Act 2006 to require home owners to establish a maintenance plan. I thank the committee for raising the issue today because it gives me an opportunity to set out some of the existing powers and duties in this area. There is already a general duty for owners to maintain any part of a tenement building that provides support or shelter to any other part under section 8 of the Tenement Scotland Act 2004. Also, local authorities already have a discretionary power under section 42 of the Housing Scotland Act 2006 to require property owners to draw up maintenance plans. Those plans can already include common areas where there is evidence of disrepair or reason to believe an area will not be maintained to a reasonable standard. Historic Scotland is running a pilot voluntary building maintenance scheme in Stirling and I will assess the results of the pilot and will be able to do that before considering the introduction of any mandatory maintenance scheme. Amendment 9 would place additional costs on all owners of property with common areas regardless of the state of repair of their property. Every owner would require to arrange annual inspections of roof areas that are jointly owned and appoint persons to implement maintenance plans. I am not convinced that such requirements are justified or that local authorities can't address the problems of poor maintenance where they exist using their existing powers. I hope that that explanation will allow Jim Eadie to withdraw the amendment. Jim, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw? Thank you for the beat. Sorry, sorry, you didn't catch my error. Thank you very much, convener. I think that the minister's comments are quite illustrative because although there are existing powers and requirements, none of those are actually being implemented. That leads to a problem. I have questions about how some of Jim Eadie's suggestions would work and how they would relate to the tenement management scheme. I think that if it was to be passed, Jim Eadie's amendment would have to be backed up by guidance from the Scottish Government as to how it was going to be implemented so that there would be a level playing field across the country. I am presuming that Jim Eadie would see a similar enforcement scheme as outlined by the City of Edinburgh Council in its submission at stage 1 of the bill. However, I think that the idea that buildings do not need annual maintenance inspections does not meet reality. I think that we have a real problem with buildings that need to be jointly maintained where there are no regular maintenance inspections carried out. If there are powers that local authorities currently have, then they are certainly not being used. I think that the amendment puts the issue centre stage and I think that it is a very useful amendment to have on this bill. Minister, do you wish to come back in? No, I think that I would say that that is one of the issues that we would want if the powers are there and that is one of the issues that officials would want to discuss with local authorities where there is a problem and why they are not using the powers and how they can be encouraged to use the powers that exist. Jim, can I ask you to wind up? Thank you, convener. This amendment has the support of the City of Edinburgh Council and is designed to tackle an issue that they have identified as being one that requires to be addressed. I do appreciate the minister's willingness to engage in dialogue with the City of Edinburgh Council and for that reason I am content not to push the amendment to the vote today and to withdraw amendment 9. Is any other member object to this amendment being withdrawn? So the question is that section 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Move to maintenance plans areas. And I call amendment 56, which is in the name of James Kelly, but which Mark Griffin is going to move. It's on a group of its own. So Mark, can I ask you to move and speak to the amendment, please? Thank you, convener. This amendment is to clarify the position regarding premises and gardens. The wording of the legislation is premises, and we feel that that could be interpreted as simply the buildings. And this amendment ensures that shared gardens are covered in maintenance plans. The situation across Scotland is that there are local authorities and registered social landlords who are having massive difficulties where they have tenants who share a garden with private tenants in these areas and maintain to unacceptable standards. Local authorities can step in if the situation in the garden breaches health and safety standards, but this amendment would ensure that action can be taken before this point and ask committee members to support. Anyone else wish to speak? Minister? If I understand this amendment correctly, it seeks to enable local authorities to require owners to prepare a maintenance plan for common garden areas. Local authorities can already require owners to prepare a maintenance plan, and this applies where the property consists of a single house or two or more houses, and the plan can include any part of the premises. A plan can already include a garden area. Section 194, Brackets 1 of the Housing Scotland Act 2006, says in terms that house includes any yard, garden, garage, outhouse or other area. The amendment is therefore not required to achieve its intended purpose, and I would invite Mr Griffin to withdraw the amendment and ask the committee to reject it if he doesn't do so. Mark, can I ask you to wind up in the presser and withdraw your amendment, please? Thank you, convener. I thank the minister for her comments, too. I think that the point that I made in opening is to clarify the position that premises could be interpreted as simply the building and that we would want to make sure that gardens were included to stop any interpretation simply focusing on the buildings itself, and I would be pressing the amendment. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 56, please show. Those against, please show. The vote is yes to no five, therefore the amendment is not agreed to. So the question is that section 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Question is that section 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed to those two sections. We move to charging orders and I call amendment 118 in the name of the minister in a group of its own. Minister, to move and speak to your amendment. Okay, I'll speak to amendment 118. This is a technical amendment to the Housing Scotland Act 1987. The bill provides an opportunity to tidy up schedule nine to the 1987 act. Schedule nine relates to recovery of expenses by charging order. Schedule nine does, however, still contain references to few duties and, of course, these are no longer appropriate as feudal tenure and few duties were abolished by the abolition of feudal tenure, et cetera, in Scotland Act 2000. The amendment therefore repeals these references in paragraphs 4, B, I of schedule nine and adjusts the references in paragraph six of that schedule. It also makes minor consequential changes to the Crofter Scotland Act 1993 and the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982. This is a technical amendment to deal without dated references to feudal tenure so I don't intend to say much more on it and I move the amendment 118. The other member wished to speak. So the question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to first-tier tribunal and private rented housing panel disqualification from membership. I call the amendment 119 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendment 120. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 119 and speak to both amendments in the group, please? Okay, thank you, convener. Amendment 119 disqualified specified office holders from hearing cases transferred from the due restriction of the sheriff and letting agents redress cases as part of the first-tier tribunal. Amendment 120 disqualified the same office holders from being appointed as or remaining members of the private rented housing panel and, in consequence, the homeowner housing panel. Those disqualifications will safeguard the independence of these tribunal due restrictions and will prevent potential conflicts of interest. Similar to some other existing tribunals, those amendments also include the ability to amend the list of disqualified offices by secondary legislation. Having the power to amend the list will provide the flexibility to consider operational implications more fully when more is known about the organisational structure of the first-tier tribunal, which will include all of these housing-related due restrictions. I move amendment 119 and ask the committee to support it. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 120 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 119. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 178 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to Scottish Housing Regulator transfer of assets following inquiries. I call amendment 121 in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments 122, 123 and 124. Minister to move amendment 121 and speak to the other amendments in the group, please. Okay. I will speak to all the amendments in this group, all of which relate to section 79 of the bill. The purpose of section 79 of the bill is to protect the tenants and indeed lenders of registered social landlords by enabling the regulator to act quickly in the event of an RASL suddenly being in imminent danger of becoming insolvent. As I said when I gave evidence to the committee at stage one, the risk of this happening is very low and the regulator works hard to avoid such eventualities arising. Section 79 is therefore a precautionary measure which the Government hopes will never need to be used. It identifies four tests that need to be met before the regulator can set aside the usual requirement for it to consult the tenants and lenders of an RASL before directing a transfer of the RASL's assets. The four tests are the RASL's viability is in jeopardy for financial reasons. There is a risk of someone taking steps to have the RASL declared insolvent. A direction to transfer assets would substantially reduce the likelihood of someone taking steps to have the RASL declared insolvent and it is insufficient time for the regulator to consult tenants and lenders before making a direction. Unless all four tests are met, the normal duty on the regulator at section 67 of the 2010 Housing Act to consult tenants and lenders before directing a transfer of assets remains in force. Amendment 121 and 122, which is consequential on it, provide that the regulator must consider separately whether there's time to consult tenants and lenders. They recognise that more time would be needed to consult tenants than lenders in practice. It would invariably take several weeks to conduct a genuine consultation with tenants whereas a consultation with lenders could be consulted in less time. The amendments would ensure that section 79 sets aside the duty to consult only where there was real lack of time and I invite the committee to support them. Turning to amendment 123 that addresses the committee's recommendation in its stage 1 report that the Government should issue guidance on how the regulator will act under section 79. The Government agrees in principle with that recommendation. However, the 2010 Housing Act prohibits ministers from directing or otherwise seeking to control how the regulator performs its statutory functions. For that reason, it wouldn't be right for ministers to issue the guidance that the committee has in mind. Instead, the regulator itself should be required to do so and that's what amendment 123 achieves. It requires the regulator to describe the sort of circumstances in which it would not be able to consult tenants and or lenders, what it would do in such circumstances and how it would communicate with those affected by its decision not to consult. It also requires the regulator to consult with the representatives of tenants, landlords and lenders before issuing this guidance. I hope that the amendment addresses the concerns behind the committee's recommendation and that the committee will support it. Finally, in this group, amendment 124 requires the regulator to obtain an independent valuation before directing an RSL to transfer some of its assets and to have regard to the valuation when directing the transfer. This is the effect of reinstating the 2010 Act requirement to obtain a valuation which paragraph B of section 79 would have removed. The council of mortgage lenders argued that such a duty is necessary and should be retained and the government has been persuaded by that argument, which is why we have brought forward this amendment. However, the amendment does make one change to the approach taken in the 2010 Act. At present, the 2010 Act requires that where the regulator has obtained an independent valuation, it should then direct the transfer of assets at a price that it considers would be fetched if they were to be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer. In practice, the need for the regulator to direct the transfer of assets is likely to arise in circumstances where the transfer is necessary to avoid the transferring RSL becoming insolved. In such circumstances, neither the selling RSL or the purchasing RSL are likely to be entirely willing in the sense that we would normally use in that concept. Amendment 124 recognises this by replacing the willing seller and buyer test with a duty on the regulator to have regard to the valuation that it has been required to obtain. I think that that's a more sensible approach which avoids the risk of the regulator having to set a price that is not realistic in the circumstances in which a transfer is having to be made. I hope the committee will agree with the approach and will support the amendment. Convener, I move amendment 121 and invite the committee to support the other amendments in the group. Anyone else wish to speak? No, so the question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 122, 123 and 124 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 122 to 124 on block. Moved. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on those amendments? Okay, so the question is that amendments 122 to 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment, we move to registered social landlord disposals and restructuring. I call amendment 155 in the name of the minister grouped with amendment 129. Minister, to move amendment 155 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you. The amendments in this group give effect to the Government's commitment to require tenants to be balloted before their registered social landlord becomes a subsidiary or part of a group structure of another body. When I gave evidence to the committee in the 12th of March, I explained that the Government was sympathetic to the argument from the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations that RSLs becoming subsidiaries or part of group structures lost control over their affairs in the same way as RSL that transfer their assets to other RSLs. I explained that we would consult on proposals to give tenants the same right to be balloted when group structures and subsidiaries are being proposed as they already enjoy when a transfer is proposed. We consulted stakeholders between the 12th of March and 9th of April and the majority of those who responded supported the proposal and I confirmed in the stage 1 debate that we would be bringing forward stage 2 amendments to give effect to it. Amendment 155 delivers the policy objective. It takes the requirements in the 2010 Housing Act for a ballot where a transfer is proposed and replicates them for cases where there is a proposal for an RSL to become a subsidiary or part of a group structure of another RSL. In this way, it treats the two types of change in the same way, recognising that both involve an RSL losing control over its affairs and that tenants should be consulted before either change happens. The amendment highlights the Government's commitment to ensuring that tenants are consulted about changes that would have major implications for them before they happen. Amendment 129 is technical and has no legal effect that simply tidies up a reference which is already in a section of the 2010 Act as it currently stands and I hope that committee will support these amendments. I move amendment 155. Does anyone else wish to make any comment? Okay, so the question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question then is that sections 80 and 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 57 in the name of Alec Johnson already debated with amendment 51 which was on day one. Alec, can I ask you to move or not move? Which number was that? 57, not moved. So I call amendment 37 in the name of James Kelly already debated with amendment 33 on day one. Does anyone wish to move that amendment? Okay, the question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 37 please show. Those against please show. A vote is yes to no five so the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of James Kelly already debated with amendment 34 on day one. Does anyone wish to move? Mark moves amendment 38. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to division. Those in favour of amendment 38 please show. Those against please show. The result of the vote is yes to five no. Therefore the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 58 which was in the name of Drew Smith already debated with amendment 55 on day one. Does anyone wish to move? Moved by Mark Griffin. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to division. Those in favour of amendment 58 please show. Those against please show. The result of the division is yes to no five. Therefore the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 126 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 76 which was on day two. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 127 which was in the name of Patrick Harvey already debated with amendment 76 on day two. Does anyone wish to move? Nope. Call amendment 128 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 85 on day two. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question then is that section 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? And then the question is that sections 83 and 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And I call amendment 39 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 50 which was on day one. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is then that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 50 also on day one minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 6 also on day one minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Gweithio. Y clywau hyn ar gyfer 129 iawn fel Caerdaidd, wedi'i mewn gweld iechyd, ond mae'r 155 pa yn gweld. Mae'r 129 iawn i Fanfru, mae'n gweld. Mae'n gweld iechyd. Mae'n gweld iechyd, mae'n gweld iechyd i Ranjol 2, mae'n gweld. Mae'n gweld iechyd, 12 run 12ulle i Fanfru, Oes wych'n gweld yr Ymbrillwn 42 mewn gwirionedd, wedi gweld yr Ymbrillwn 43 a 44, ond mae ydych chi'n wneud os yw yr Ymbrillwn 43 a 44 o gwirionedd ohonoion. Cymru yn i'r maes o'r minister yn mynd i ddiwethaf, ac yn ymgyrch cyngor 12, yma, oherwydd nes eu collaid o'r mwyso cheimpriddol. Mae y cwestiynau yw ddelfwyd yn ei ddelfwyd wedi bod yn rhaid. On synthetic, hynny? Nob, rhaid i'n rhaid. Ond nad rydym yn ei morhau ymgyrch o'r mwyso risi'. A'r mwyso risi'n i'r risi'? Rwy'n ddweud y dyfodol. Rwy'n ddweud. O, mae'n ddweud. Felly, mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Os gw зовутr Alyk Johnson. Mae semunledd eu record o'r F Shouldn. Mae o'r onions. Mae'r onion. Mae addysg a cy railway. Mae'r onion. Ychwaneddiwn ganンユfu. Mae'n gweithio'r ystyried log我不知道 sydd ddim Xiaotlen. Mae egg dietsion. Mae gennym lawt reverse. The second item of business today is to consider two public petitions, Petitions PE1425, on the adverse impact of DVLA local office closures, and Petition PE1481 on blacklisting in Scotland. Can I invite comments and views from members on Petition PE1425, which is on the DVLA closures? I think, convener, that is typical of the kind of problem that arises with a whole series of government departments, where the transformation from a paper-based approach to an electronic based approach happens within government departments. The petition particularly makes reference to issues of economy, safety and customer service to all Scottish residents. I am afraid that the issue of economy is just a consequence of this type of change. However, I am more concerned about issues of safety and customer service. I am not entirely sure about the dangers that will be associated with that, but I am concerned to know more about them. The issue of customer service relates specifically to the representations that I have had from the motor trade. I may wish to find out more about exactly what the impact on the motor trade would be of the closure of those offices. I agree with much of the comment that Alex Johnson has made. I know that in public transport, in order to get vehicles back on the road quickly, the DVLA office in the guile is used on a weekly basis by many of the public transport companies. I think that it would be an inconvenience to the public transport operators if the DVLA office in the guile was to close. I am sure that we would be replicated across the world of Scotland. My representations are received from the PCS trade union, which said that, if implemented, the local office closures would have led to the loss of a total of 119 jobs in Scotland and five offices across the country. I think that that is a significant point. I would say that there is a significant point. We never want to see jobs being lost, but what I referred to in my original remark was a change in the nature and the practice of Government that is being driven by technology. It would be irresponsible of us, any politician of any colour, to suggest that Government should be kept as big as possible in order to employ as many people as possible. We must always remember that efficiency in Government drives economic growth and creates jobs, so that efficiency in Government is something that we should, in principle, be supporting. I suspect that, because this is the Westminster legislation, those people are not covered by no compulsory redundancies, as they would be under the Scottish Government. It is also interesting to note in our paper that we did ask for comments and we asked the haulage and freight stakeholders on two occasions to express any concerns that they had and none have been received. We might want to point that out to the petitioner. I do not know what you recommend, that we close the petition or any further action that the committee wishes to take? It would be reasonable for us to support the concept that the Scottish Government should make representations. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the Public Petitions Committee would have done that when they were considering the petition. Could you write to them and tell them to support their actions? Support the Public Petitions Committee, that does not really... Transport Scotland wrote to the committee detailing its response to the UK Government consultation. I think that all those steps have been gone through, if you like. I do not think that I would merge from Mr Johnson's suggestion that the Scottish Parliament should urge the Scottish Government to make representations to the UK Government, but that is just a question of clarifying whether that has been done by the Public Petitions Committee? It has been done by the Government. If you look at paragraph 17, I think, the re-paragraph 17. So our response was received from the Transport Strategy Unit of the Scottish Government on 21 January when it said that there are no plans to revisit the closures and that the transformation programme to reduce the DVLA's running cross costs will be going ahead. That was the response that the Scottish Government must have got from the DVLA, or the Westminster Government. So I think everything has been done that could be done by during its passage through the Public Petitions Committee, if you like, before it was referred to us. I think that we should write the petitioner to that effect and close the petition. Okay, has that agreed? All right. Okay, so we move on to comments. Does anyone have any comments or views on petition PE148 to 1? Mark? When we discussed the issue of blacklisting through the process of the Public Procurement from Bill, there still has been evidence of other agencies operating blacklists. There have been motions tabled in the Parliament in the last couple of weeks of that effect. It seems to me that there is still more to be uncovered until agreement is reached with those who have previously been found to be operating blacklists. The members of staff who were discriminated against until agreement on level of compensation and other things that we should continue to keep the petition open. Yeah, I would remind you though that it is specifically related to the worded of public contracts. We cannot get involved in terms of companies that are working purely in the private private sector. I have been lost so far as to say that we have been through a long process in relation to the procurement bill, which has now completed its passage. The issue of the use of the award of public contracts to influence companies in this way has been discussed both at stage one and stage two. It has been rejected for legitimate reasons during its parliamentary process. As a consequence, I believe that matter has been addressed by Parliament as a whole. Gordon, did you want to come in? Yeah, I was just going to say that I am totally against blacklisting. I know the Scottish Government is against blacklisting, but we have a bit of a problem in the sense that most of this comes under UK employment law. It is reserved to the UK Government, unless of course we get a vote on 18 September that goes in the right direction. So I am not sure what we can do with this petition bearing in mind that employment law is reserved. I mean, I know what I am understanding is that the Scottish Government has written to a number of the unions, asking them to provide evidence to them in order for them to provide future guidance for the procurement process. I think that that is probably the right way to go forward is to improve the guidance for the procurement process based on evidence that is received from the unions. There does not seem to be any evidence that any Scottish Government contracts have suffered from blacklisting. I agree that it has been linked to the public procurement bill, but there is still an outstanding call for the Scottish Government to conduct a full-length public inquiry and, on the point, Gordon MacNorrell raises that there is no evidence found that Scottish Government contracts have went to companies operating blacklists. The fact remains that there has been no independent inquiry to ascertain whether that has happened or not. What I could suggest then is that we, as a committee, are right to the petitioners and ask if they are satisfied with the actions that the Government has taken through the Public Procurement Reform Bill and keep the petition open until we receive a response. You want to write to the petitioners to see what the Government has done so far in terms of public contracts. It is enough to point out that employment law is a reserve matter. If we could see what is the name of the company, the consulting association or they work under two names, did I not see? If they went out of business, that would be fine, especially in Scotland, but, as I say, it is reserved, so they work UK wide. We can do as agreed. We move on now to then agenda item 3, annual report. Can I invite comments from members on the annual report as drafted? It seems okay, however, I seem to have got somebody's copy with hundreds of notes in it. That's not mine. I think that was very successful, both as a committee and as given the fact that we were discussing the housing bill, we had an important piece of legislation and going out was... Just if we beef that bit up a bit, maybe? I remember that. Yeah, and so if we did that and then I just cleared that bit. Andy, got any other comments? Okay, that concludes our business for today and the committee will publish its report on 2 June, which is next week. Next week, the committee will consider an affirmative instrument on the HGV speed limit on the M9A9 trunk road regulations 2014, and I close the meeting.