 Arian Sabun, gozo ddod. Cymru eu gwВотig i ddechrau i ddechrau y 6 yw yw 2016 of y Cyfrwysgrifonau Arian Sredin a Bwyll atawn. Yr unrhyw ddoch chi. Rydyn ni'r rwy'n symud o'r mwyloedd mewn gweld sydd rwy'n cyffredinol y pwyllgor a'r mwyaf incerwydig i ddIG yn adeiladol i'r ddefnyddio llwy fach nesaf a'r introduced o bobl. Mae ddweud o gyhoeddhaeth cyfynebu siarfawn Mcmahon, ond rydym yn gallu ddwyd i quellu James Kelly i gynnyddio'r cyfnodau yn ddod. Aelod y mhwn y gwirionedd iawn i'w ddwylliant o ddraffol, a oedd yn cyfawr o'r byw, o'r Ffraitys, oes gennychu'r Ysgrifennu 2016. Rwy'n i chi i gael Margot Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare, Charlotte McHaffay, cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd cyfnodd and Jackie Pantany, principal legal officer at the Scottish Government. Good morning. This instrument is laid under affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. Can I invite the minister to make a short opening statement? Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to give evidence in the draft letting agent code of practice Scotland regulations 2016. The private rented sector plays an increasingly important role in meeting housing need across Scotland. Because letting agents managed roughly half of all annual lettings, letting agents are well positioned to improve standards in the sector by ensuring the homes that they let are of good quality and well managed. Many letting agents operate in a professional manner but this good practice is not shared by all. The draft code is intended to rectify this by setting out the standards of practice that all letting agents must meet. The key features of the code include a clear framework that has been structured to follow the letting process, making it easy for letting agents, landlords and tenants to navigate, a requirement on letting agents not to act for landlords who are refusing or unreasonably delaying complying with their legal obligations and to inform their relevant authorities. That will help to enforce standards and a requirement for letting agents to hold client money protection and professional indemnity insurance, providing additional protection for landlords and tenants if things go wrong. In drafting the regulations, we have drawn on existing voluntary codes of practice and related documents, worked with industry bodies as well as housing and tenant groups and held a public consultation. As far as possible, future proof the document to avoid it becoming out of date in the immediate future, for example, due to changes in the private housing tenancy Scotland bill. Importantly, the code gives consumers and Scottish ministers the ability to challenge poor practice by agents through the first tier tribe you know. By providing consumers with a more accessible form of redress, landlords and tenants will be in a better position to assert their rights, which should in turn encourage agents to make improvements in their services. Scottish ministers will also be able to take breaches of the code into account in determining whether a letting agent should be permitted to or permitted to remain on the mandatory register of letting agents that ministers are required to establish. Ultimately, a letting agent who fails to comply with the code may be removed from the register, which would mean that they would no longer be able to operate. I believe that the code will support positive changes in the letting industry. Minister, I now invite members to ask any questions they have. Are there any questions from members? It would appear that the members of the committee are satisfied with your opening statement. In that case, I thank the minister and her officials for their evidence. The second agenda item is the formal consideration of motion S4M-15460, calling for the committee to recommend approval of the draft letting agent code of practice Scotland regulations 2016. I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S4M-15460. I move that the S4M-15460, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, recommends that the letting agent code of practice Scotland regulations 2016 be approved. I now invite any further comments and questions from members. There are no further comments or questions. In that case, the question is that motion S4M-15460, in the name of Margaret Burgess, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. In that case, that concludes the consideration of this affirmative instrument. We will report the outcome of our consideration to the Parliament. I will now suspend briefly to allow for a witness changeover. Our next agenda item is to consider the private housing tenancy Scotland Bill at stage 2. We have a large number of Scottish Government and non-Government amendments to consider and we hope to make as much progress as we can in disposing of those today. The committee will have an opportunity to complete consideration of amendments on 24 February if further time is necessary. I welcome back Margaret Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare and her supporting officials. I remind members that the minister's officials are here in a strictly supportive capacity and cannot speak during stage 2 proceedings or be questioned by members. Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshaled list and the groupings for today's consideration. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Schedule 1 is for us to consider the meaning of private residential tenancy. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 102. I call on the minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to amendments 1 to 17, 80 and 102. Those amendments amend schedule 1 of the bill, which outlines the types of tenancies that cannot be private residential tenancies. The Scottish Government recognises that the recent growth of purpose-built student accommodation now provides much-needed new accommodation for students and has been developed for the specific purpose of providing bespoke accommodation. That is similar in character to the accommodation that colleges and universities provide, which is exempt from the provisions of the bill and does not form part of the mainstream PRS. In responding to the committee's stage 1 report, I said that I would bring forward an amendment that will have the effect of exempting purpose-built student accommodation properties from the bill. Amendment 9 is designed to do justice. Amendment 9 extends the existing student-led exemption to include purpose-built student accommodation. Amendments 1 to 8 make some minor consequential changes to the existing exemption as a result. The effect of amendment 9 is that the tenancies offered by PBSA providers will not be private residential tenancies. Among other things, that will ensure that PBSA providers can continue to provide accommodation for students through their nomination agreements with colleges and universities. In order to do that, they need to be able to order fixed-term tenancies so that they know what properties will be available for the next academic year well in advance of it beginning. Schedule 3 of the bill lists the eviction grounds under which landlords can regain possession of their property. One of the grounds is that the tenant is not a student, which was included with PBSA providers in mind. Amendment 102 remove this eviction ground, and this ground will no longer be relevant if PBSA providers are to be exempt from the new tenancy regime or removed altogether from it, which I believe is the most appropriate approach. Amendment 88 makes a consequential amendment to section 37 of the bill to remove the reference to the eviction ground of not a student. If amendment 102 is accepted, this eviction ground will no longer apply. Amendments 10 to 15 clarify what is meant by resident landlord in schedule 1. The effect of amendments 10 and 11 is to confirm that where a tenant moves into a shared flat with a landlord, this cannot be a private residential tenancy. Amendments 12 and 14 simply change the location of what is currently paragraph 9 of schedule 1, as it will not be relevant to the new text being inserted by amendments 10 and 11. At the same time, a minor change is made to the reference to an executor to avoid any confusion in a case for an executor is also a beneficiary. Amendments 13 and 15 are minor consequential amendments to update paragraph references. Amendment 16 excludes those tenancies where the landlord is the Scottish Police Authority. Police Scotland has housing for officers mainly in rural areas so that they are able to fulfil their operational requirements. The amendment will enable Police Scotland to continue to move their officers around the country and to provide housing for them where that is required. Amendment 17 adds an exemption for the Ministry of Defence. The effect of this amendment will be that the MOD will be able to maintain its operational effectiveness in deploying its personnel across Scotland. I move amendment 1. I begin by saying that I welcome the amendments in this grouping. With regard to the changes in student accommodation, there are a couple of minor points that I would like the minister's views on. Firstly, there is, I believe, no provision here for accommodation to become, which is currently private rented, to become student accommodation. Is it deliberate that you are sticking to purpose-built student accommodation or could you envisage accommodation transferring from one purpose to another where need is identified by means including change of plan and permission for HMOs, for example, or other means? Secondly, I can ask if the minister is content that the bill adequately defines what a student is and whether it is anticipated that any closer examination of that definition might be necessary. In answer to your first point, we have been clear that we are talking here about purpose-built student accommodation that often has nomination rights with universities. We will define in legislation later exactly what we include in purpose-built student accommodation. In terms of the definition of student, we are satisfied that we have that right in the bill. I generally accept the amendments that the minister has moved. However, could you ask that the minister looks carefully at in the future having a review of student accommodation and perhaps makes a commitment to ensure that students renting from that type accommodation are not charged pre-tenancy fees and are protected by the repair and standard under section 13 of the House in Scotland Act 2006? Can you ensure that all members who want to speak have spoken before you wind up? Are there any other members who have any other points that they wish to make on this group of amendments? In that case, I invite the minister to wind up. In response to David Stewart, we clearly have made a commitment that we will be reviewing the whole of how this bill, if and when it passes, is working for the student sector, both in the purpose-built student accommodation and in the wider private rented sector. Currently, just now, there are students in the purpose-built sector who are in short assured tenancies and some are on occupancy rights through the university standards. They have to have standards and we would anticipate that that would continue, but we will certainly be taking that on board what you say as we move forward. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, all the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 2 to 17 on block? Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 2 to 17? In that case, the question is that amendments 2 to 17 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, thank you. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The question is that sections 2 to 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The next group of amendments concerns statutory terms of tenancy. I call amendment 150, in the name of David Stewart, grouped with amendments 151, 18, 19 and 20. I invite David Stewart to move amendment 150 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I like to move amendment 150, the statutory terms of tenancy. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the statutory terms cannot be contracted out of. Generally, I would say that the supply is for all my amendments, convener, that amendments are supported by Shelter Scotland, CES, Government Law Centre, the Living Rent Campaign, Crisis and NUS. Unless otherwise stated in the future this morning, all the amendments that I am moving will be supported by all the organisations that I have mentioned. I would like to introduce amendment 150 and clarify what is in the bill. I will ensure that any terms that are put into lease by landlord, which are contrary to the statutory terms, will have no legal standing with the tribunals should a landlord attempt to enforce them, even if the tenant has signed the lease. That would give tenants clear and an ambiguous protection against any terms introduced by the landlord, which undermine their rights. The effect of what that does is that it stops an undermining of the security of tenure. I move amendment 150 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I will speak exclusively on amendment 151. The purpose of this amendment seeks to make the duty to inform a landlord about others staying in the property more proportionate. As initially drafted, the tenant, the legislation, the bill would be obliged to send the landlord details of every person who stayed in the property, even if it was just a friend staying overnight. That would represent unreasonable intrusion into the lives of the tenant. Indeed, it is currently drafted that the tenant might be in material breach of the tenancy and liable to eviction for failing to notify the landlord that someone had stayed for a day or two. While the aim of this particular paragraph in the bill is welcoming, giving landlords the power to prevent overcrowding and subletting, the simple technical amendment that specifies that an additional person is living in the accommodation, as their main home, renders the paragraph more proportionate. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 18 and other amendments in the group. Schedule 2 of the bill already provides that it is to be a statutory term of every private residential tenancy that the tenant is to tell the landlord about anyone aged 16 or over who resides in the property. Amendment 18 will ensure that it is also a statutory term of tenancies that the tenant tells the landlord if the person subsequently ceases to reside in the property. The purpose of amendment 18 is to ensure that landlords know how many people are living with their tenants so that landlords can manage their properties, for example, by ensuring that there is no overcrowding. Schedule 2 of the bill outlines some of the terms that will be laid down in regulations as statutory terms of the private residential tenancy. One of the terms in which the regulations must include is that a tenant must allow the landlord or any person authorised by the landlord reasonable access to the property to carry out work or to inspect the property in order to determine what work, if any, to carry out, except where access is required urgently. The landlord must provide the tenant with at least 48 hours' notice that the access is required. Amendments 19 and 20 reframe the obligations relating to access in order to make it clear that the tenant can waive the 48 hours' notice if the tenant is content to do so. However, other than where access is required urgently, there is no obligation on the tenant to allow access if he or she has not received this notice. The effect of that is to provide more flexibility when both parties are in agreement. With regard to David Stewart's amendment 150, there is no need to provide this in the bill as it is already implicit that landlords and tenants cannot contract out of the statutory terms. Section 5, 2 of the bill states that the statutory terms are terms of every private residential tenancy. That is also why section 12.4 talks about a contractual term purporting to displace a statutory term rather than talking about it actually doing so. I understand that there has been a suggestion that it would be simpler for a tenant to apply automatically rather than the tenant needing to go to the tribunal in order to have them apply, but let me be clear that a tenant does not need to make an application to the tribunal in order for the terms to apply. They apply automatically, but if a tenant wants to see how a statutory term fits alongside other contractual lease terms, he or she should be able to ask for a document that does that. I am happy to clarify that, and I hope that it gives Mr Stewart the reassurance that he seeks. However, there may be cases where, including the provision that suggested in this amendment could lead to difficulties. Section 5, 3 of the bill provides a power for Scottish ministers to allow the effect of the statutory terms to be modified or displace by the parties in certain circumstances—for example, where a protection is enhanced by the parties in a way that is in the tenant's interests. The amendment, as proposed, may cause confusion in such cases, as there could be a question mark over whether the modification is a statutory or a contractual term. Therefore, I urge David Stewart not to press his amendment. With regard to Adam Ingram's amendment 151, schedule 2 sets out the statutory terms that are provided for on the face of the bill. That includes notification about other residents, about whom the tenant must inform the landlord if they are residing in the property. That is so that the landlord knows how many adults are living with the tenant so that they are able to effectively manage their property. Amendment 151 limits the statutory term so that a tenant needs only to tell the landlord about a person aged 16 or over residing in the property if it is that person's only or principal home. I think that that is a sensible approach and I am content to accept the member's amendment in principle. However, I consider the drafting to be defective and would ask Adam Ingram to withdraw his amendment. I allow me to bring forward an amendment at stage 3, which has the same purpose and effect. I would ask him not to press it at this stage. No other members have indicated their wish to speak on this group of amendments. Therefore, we will now ask David Stewart to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. We would ask that the minister looks at this particular amendment in stage 3 so that we can look at the issue again. Are members content for that amendment to be withdrawn? The question is that section 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 151 in the name of Adam Ingram, already debated with amendment 150. I would ask Adam Ingram to move or not to move. I now call amendments 18, 19 and 20, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 18 to 20 on block? Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 18 to 20? In that case, the question is that amendments 18 to 20 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next group of amendments relates to technical drafting and consequential amendments. I call amendment 21 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 40, 26, 83, 129, 134, 139, 140 and 141. Can I ask the minister to move amendment 21 and speak to all amendments in the group? Amendment 24 joins up the process of a tenant applying for a written tenancy agreement with the process of applying for an order for payment against the landlord to ensure that a tenant does not go away with a financial award, but still without any written terms for his or her tenancy. Section 14 enables a tenant to apply to the tribunal to make an order against a landlord who has failed to provide the tenant with the necessary tenancy information, including any written terms of the tenancy that are required under section 8. An order can require the landlord to pay the tenant up to a maximum of three months rent. Amendment 24 ensures that, where the terms of the tenancy are not set out in writing between the parties, an application for a payment order under section 14 can only be made in conjunction with an application to the tribunal to draw up written terms under section 12. Amendment 56 is where a tenant disputes a landlord's proposed rent increase. The bill provides for how the rent officer or the tribunal is to calculate the open market rent of the property. The provisions state that this should include an assumption that the property has been let by a willing landlord. The law assumes that a willing tenant is implied in any calculation of open market rent. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, amendment 56 states explicitly that there is also an assumption that the property has been let to a willing tenant. That is something that the Law Society of Scotland called for as part of its stage 1 evidence to the committee. Amendments 139 and 140 set out definitions for a number of terms used throughout the bill and includes, among other things, a definition of rent. Amendment 139 confirms that rent means any sums paid periodically by the tenant to the landlord rather than payments of a one-off nature and amendment 140 clarifies that rent includes sums payable in respect of services, repairs, maintenance or insurance. Payments of this nature are included to ensure that sums cannot be charged which fall out with the definition of rent in a way that would undermine the protections that we are introducing in relation to rent increases. Amendment 141 contains amendments to other acts that refer to the day that section 1 comes into force. For now, that is unavoidable because the actual date of section 1 coming into force is to be set by later regulations. The amendments in their present form will put those reading the amended act to the trouble of having to find the commencement regulations to see what day section 1 was actually brought into force. To make life easier for those looking at the amended acts online or in updated printed versions, amendment 141 will allow regulations to insert the actual date that section 1 comes into force. Similarly, the amendment will allow regulations to remove section 65 with effect from the day that section 1 comes into force, because on that day section 65, which applies only before section 1 comes into force, will become irrelevant. amendment 21 to 23, 25 to 29, 42, 80 through 83, 129 and 134, fixed minor grafting points. No members have indicated that they wish to speak on this group of amendments. Can I therefore ask you to wind up? Is there anything else to say? Thank you. In that case, the question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 12 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 22 to 25 on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 22 to 25? In that case, the question is that amendments 22 to 25 are agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 26 to 29 on block. Thank you. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 26 to 29. In that case, the question is that amendments 26 to 29 are agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 16 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The next group of amendments are those concerning the effective date of rent increase notice. I call amendment 30, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55. I invite the minister to move amendment 30 and speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to amendment 30, 32, 35, 40, 41, 43, 52 and 55. Section 19 of the bill provides that a landlord must give a tenant at least three months notice before the landlord can increase the rent. Amendment 33 reconfigures how this rent increase notice takes effect. The result of the change is that if a tenant receives a notice which fails to give enough time, perhaps due to unexpected postal delays, the notice can still take effect, but not until the three months notice period has elapsed from the actual date of receipt by the tenant. Adopting this approach provides a fallback position for cases where there are unexpected delays in a tenant receiving the notice. However, in the vast majority of cases, the rent increase notice will, unless it is disputed, simply take effect on the date specified. Amendments 30, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 52 and 55 are consequential amendments made as a result of the reconfiguration. The overall effect is that neither party will end up in an unclear position where the validity of a rent increase notice is in doubt, but the tenant is always guaranteed the protection of a minimum of three months notice of any increase. I move amendment 30. No members have indicated the wish to speak. Sorry, my apologies. Just a very brief question that comes from the minister's explanation, how will you confirm receipt of a rent increase notice? There are regulations about when a notice is received when it is sent by special delivery. That is laid down in the interpretation act. There is a legal definition of when someone receives notice. Any further points from members? Do you have anything further that you wish to add? Nothing further to add. Okay, in that case, the question is that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 17 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The next group is an amendment on restriction on diligence. I call amendment 31 in the name of the minister and a group on its own, and I call the minister to move and speak to amendment 31. Amendment 31 introduces a restriction on the debt recovery action that a landlord can take against the tenant for unpaid rent. It also applies to a liability that arises under section 26 of the bill as a result of a rent increase. The amendment ensures that a landlord can only carry out diligence against the tenant for outstanding liabilities of this nature if the landlord has first obtained the consent of the first tier tribunal. That protects the tenant by ensuring that all relevant circumstances can be considered before any diligence is allowed to proceed. It mirrors the effect of a similar protection, which exists in assured tenancies under the Housing Scotland Act 1988, and I move amendment 31. In that case, do you have anything further to add, minister? The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendments 32, 33, 34 and 35, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 32 to 35 on block. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 32 to 35? In that case, the question is that amendments 32 to 35 are agreed to, are we all agreed? I move on to amendments relating to modification of rent increase notice. I call amendment 36 in the name of the minister and grouped with amendments 37, 38 and 39. I invite the minister to move amendment 36 and speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to amendments 36 to 39. As I said when discussing group 4 earlier, section 19 of the bill provides that a landlord must give a tenant at least three months notice before the landlord can increase the rent. Amendments 36 to 39 relate to the landlord and tenant's ability to modify the date or amount in the rent increase notice by agreement. That is designed to allow the parties to reach a compromise if they wish to do so, while still ensuring that they cannot bring forward the date of the increase and shorten the original three months notice period given to the tenant. Provisions to this effect have been in the bills since introduction, but they are now moved to a section on their own for accessibility. The amendments also clarify that where the rent is subsequently referred to a rent officer for adjudication, the modification will be void for both the rent officers and the tribunals' purposes. I move amendment 36. Thank you minister. No members indicated they wish to speak. Do you have anything further to add? Nothing further. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 19 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Call amendment 37 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 36, and I invite the minister to move formally. Thank you. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 38 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 36, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next group refers to tenants' right to refer rent. I call amendment 152 in the name of David Stewart grouped with amendment 153. I invite David Stewart to move amendment 152 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. These amendments refer to a tenants' right to refer rent. The bill is currently drafted does not allow a tenant to refer the rent to a rent officer until they received a rent increase notice from their landlord. That means that tenants who sign up to rent a property with a vastly inflated rent are not able to challenge this until they receive the notice of an increase. Tenants who are not familiar with the local area market rents may be particularly vulnerable to this, for example migrant workers and foreign students. The amendment also allows tenants who are living in a rent pressure zone to refer the rent to a rent officer. The bill that is currently drafted does not allow for this, and it would seem unfair that tenants who are early paying above market rents, even though they are in a rent pressure zone, are not able to seek recourse to fix a market rent. I hope that members can support those amendments 152 and 153 to ensure that a level playing field for all tenants when it comes to ensuring that all tenants pay no more than the local market rate further home. I would like to speak in support of David Stewart's motions. It is important that tenants have an expectation that rents are set at a fair level. As well as that, it is linked to the fact that it can be correct that people may be trying to unfairly profit in certain areas. What it does is ensure that the level of fairness by allowing someone who feels that the level of rent being set is not on a par with what the local market rent is. It allows that to refer on further review. Those are sensible amendments that seek to underline the importance of fair rents. Do any other members wish to speak on the amendment? In that case, can I invite the minister to respond? I will respond to David Stewart's amendments 152 and 153. Section 20 of the bill provides tenants with the ability to refer a rent increase to a rent officer. That is to protect tenants from unreasonable rent increases that take the rent to be beyond the open market rate. Amendment 152 undermines the landlord's ability to contract with a tenant, as in practice a tenant could accept an initial rent when taking a tenancy and then immediately seek to have it reviewed. That could place a disproportionate burden on rent service Scotland and the tribunal. I believe that the proper way to address issues of rent affordability is what this Government is already doing, building more houses. For amendment 153, there would be little point in enabling sitting tenants in rent pressure zones to refer their rent to a rent officer, as the amount of rent could increase would be capped and therefore could not be assessed in terms of the open market rate. I would ask David Stewart not to press amendments 152 and 153. I invite David Stewart to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press up with draw his amendments. I wish to press both amendments 152 and 153. I stress particularly in amendment 152 that the person who will be arbitrating on the rent increase is the rent officer of which Government has set up. We are not talking about some outside Rachman-like landlord who will be deciding on that. It is really important that there is a bit of proportionality under the European Convention of Human Rights. We need to look at providing protection to tenants. Both those amendments are fair, proportionate and are represented by all the organisations that were stressed earlier who know what it is like to deal with tenants in the front-line services. The question is whether amendment 152 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. In that case, I will call a division. Those in favour of amendment 150, please show. I apologise. Those in favour of amendment 152, please show. Those against amendment 152, please show. Amendment 152, the result is yes to no five, abstentions zero. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 153, in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 152. I can ask David Stewart to move or not move. In that case, the question is whether amendment 153 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I will therefore call a division. Those in favour of amendment 153, please show. Those against amendment 153, please show. Amendment 153, the result is yes to no five, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 39, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 36. Can I invite the minister to move formally? I move. The question is whether amendment 39 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is whether section 20 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 40, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30. Can I invite the minister to formally move? I move. The question is whether amendment 40 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I now call amendment 41, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30. I invite the minister to formally move. I move. The question is whether amendment 41 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is whether section 21 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. 2. A huwedesaeth Sfalt yr IgrŽfod am ar yr unig yn cymdeinair... Hoеmo'r heddorg gagwyd rwy'r keyf. Erddangos dwg fel此awaeth gyda---- … y � iddyn nhw ddweud … Felly...'隻 365' yn meddwl mitr ychydig gan ein hefyd… … agwyd rwy'r arfer ysty Russia… … ac roedd o'regeithio anomalyau mewn gweld... … ac rwy'r cwsail dyIGHT advaien... … ac roedd o'r gymnas hygrannu 3 … 34 mlyw i gael y Soliadoffent Ffyrdd Society Gwyrddon? undefun Iraq 34 mlyw i gael ei dde horrifying gotten an defend 35 mlyw i gael ei dde�лер 24 mlyw i regard 34 mlyw i gael e furddo 29 mlyw i gael ei dde joule 31 mlyw i gael ei選ff然 extraen Masysydd 26 mlyw i gael cefn designer 27 mlyw i gael Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 46, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 47, 252 on block? I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 47 to 52. In that case, the question is that amendments 47 to 52 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move on to grounds for eviction rent arrears. I call amendment 53, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 54, 172, 173, 183, 184, 111, 111A, 111B, 185, 186 and 187. Can I point out that amendment 183 pre-empts amendment 184 and that amendments 111 and 185 are direct alternatives? I invite the minister to move amendment 53 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to my amendments 53, 54 and 111 and respond to Alex Johnson's amendments 172, 173, 184 and 187 and David Stewart's amendments 183, 185 and 186. Amendments 53 and 54 extend the amount of time available to a tenant to meet liability arising as a result of a rent adjudication, where the final decision sets a higher rent than the amount that the tenant is currently paying. It protects the tenant from the possibility of being evicted purely for failure to pay, this sum due, unless, as with other rent arrears, the sum remains unpaid for three consecutive months or more. Where a tenant's rent is increased as a result of a rent adjudication, the tenant becomes liable to pay the landlord the extra amount he or she would have been due to pay if the rent increase had not been delayed by the adjudication. The bill provides the tenant with 28 days to do this. On the expiry of the 28 day grace period, any outstanding sum is currently treated as having fallen due on the date that the rent should have increased in line with the rent increase notice. If that was more than three months ago, that could allow the landlord to seek to evict the tenant on the rent arrears eviction ground. The effect of amendment 53 is that, if the tenant does not pay off this liability in full within the 28 day grace period on the next day, the tenant will be treated as having been in rent arrears for 29 days only. That offers greater protection as a tenant cannot be evicted for rent arrears until he or she has been in arrears for at least three consecutive months. That will make calls made by crisis during stage 1 to give tenants in this situation additional time to pay this sum before the landlord can seek to evict the tenant for rent arrears. Section 3 of the bill currently provides that the rent arrears ground is mandatory if on reaching the tribunal the tenant has been in rent arrears for a continuous three month period and at any point during that period the amount was at least one full month's rent. My amendment 111 provides that if on the first consideration by the tribunal the tenant pays off their rent arrears in full or reduces them below one month's rent, that will be a discretionary eviction ground. It is in response to the committee's recommendation in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government gives further consideration to lengthening the three month period allowed in the bill to pay off a one month rent arrears. The Scottish Government considers that the three month period is sufficient and strikes the right balance. Landlords need to be confident in letting out their property that they will receive rent and should not have to wait any longer before referring a case to the tribunal. However, it is recognised that rent arrears can also be a problem for tenants who might be suffering financial hardship. That is why tenants will be provided with information on their rights and where to get money advice as part of the notice to leave. The effect is that the tenant is given further time to make repayments to the landlord prior to the tribunal first considering the case. Alex Johnson's amendments 172 and 173 would allow a landlord to apply to the tribunal for an eviction order on the basis of rent arrears without the tenant needing to be given 28 days notice. I cannot support that. That could mean that a tenant had to defend an eviction application immediately after the tribunal had declined to grant an eviction order. Where the tribunal has endorsed the tenant's right to stay in the property in or at least in the short term, that should be respected. The notice period in relation to rent arrears is not a particularly long one and it is only right that the landlord should not be able to make subsequent applications without first giving the tenant that notice. If what Mr Johnson is concerned about is cases that are borderline, the tribunal would be able to address this by exercising its power to adjourn. It would be able to allow a short period to see if all of the arrears are paid off during that time and then make its decision accordingly. It does not need to decline to grant eviction orders solely on the basis of a mere promise to pay, which might never materialise. Amendments seek to remove the requirement for the tenant to have been in arrears for three consecutive months before he or she can be evicted for those arrears. I cannot support these amendments as they would impose an unreasonably low threshold of tolerance. There is no timeframe within which those three separate months need to fall, so the months in which arrears have occurred could be years apart and long since paid off. Even if there was a requirement for the three non-consecured months to fall within a particular period, I could not support this amendment. The Government's intention is that the eviction ground should apply only where there is a cumulative failure to pay all sums that the tenant is due to pay. I appreciate that Mr Johnson may be concerned that three consecutive months of arrears could be a long time for a landlord to wait if he or she is not receiving any rent with which to pay the mortgage. However, that is why I have always been clear that a landlord could choose to serve a notice on a tenant after one month or two months. Of course, the eviction ground would not be satisfied at that point, but the landlord is only saying that if the eviction ground does apply at the end of the notice period, then the landlord can go to the tribunal without further delay. The notice will also have signposts of sources of advice that may help the tenant to pay off their arrears. However, if the arrears are paid off before the tenant has been in arrears for a three-month period, the landlord would not be able to erect a tenant. I therefore ask Alex Johnson not to press his amendments. Amendments 183, 185 and 186 changed the mandatory ground qualifying amount to three full-month rent. That means that if a tenant was in rent arrears of less than three full-month rent, the repossession ground would be discretionary. It also calculates whether the qualifying amount is met as of the date of the tribunal hearing rather than at any point during the period of arrears. Rent arrears is an important issue for landlords and one that ultimately can make their business unviable. Landlords need to be confident that, in letting out their property, they will receive the rent. Many landlords in the private rented sector are not large businesses who can weather cash flow problems. If we make letting unviable, it will drive down supply and disadvantage all tenants in the longer term. It is therefore important to strike a balance between the needs of those tenants who may fall into arrears and need time to make that up and landlords who may have a mortgage to pay. I am already bringing forward an amendment 111, which provides that, if in first consideration by the tribunal, the tenant has paid off their rent arrears in full or reduced them below one-month rent, the tribunal would not be obliged to grant an order for eviction. With my further amendment, I think that what we have in the bill strikes the right balance on this ground, so I do not support this amendment. I therefore ask David Stewart not to progress his amendments and I move my amendment 53. The purpose of my amendments 172 and 173 is to ensure that the landlord is in a relatively strong position and is able to implement the law effectively on his behalf. That is why it is necessary that it will be able to go back to the tribunal for support, where the legislation indicates that it ought to be able to. I will speak to the other amendments in a more general sense, because they all have the same objective, and that is to deal with the concept of consecutive in three consecutive months. It is the case that there have been issues in the past, which have given difficulties where rent arrears have built up over a period and cannot be described as consecutive but are still considerable. There is also the danger that we might return to a position that we have seen before where landlords dealing with a situation of rent arrears may find that a small amount of those arrears are paid off in order to reduce the period and prevent the case from progressing. The policy memorandum for the bill states that the Scottish Government recognises that landlords must have confidence that they can remove a tenant swiftly in cases of non-payment of rent. That is a ground that will be used often, so it is absolutely critical from the point of view of both parties that it is clear and fair. I believe that my amendments in this section or in this grouping have the effect of giving clarity and fairness to the relationship between landlord and tenant in relation to rent arrears. I now invite David Stewart to speak to amendment 183 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I note that the Scottish Government has brought forward amendment 111 to the rent arrears ground in the bill, which has consumed some way to alleviating the concerns of organisations such as Shelter Scotland, and I welcome the Scottish Government amendment. However, there is still a concern that a tenant could be evicted for as little as one-months rent arrears. I am of a view that that is too low an amount of rent arrears to be evicted for, especially when a tenant is able to show that they are likely to be able to pay off their arrears in a reasonable time frame. The three amendments that I have submitted have, I believe, simplified what was in the original draft, and it prevents tenants from the risk of eviction when they have a relatively low amount of rent arrears. I am now proposing that, where a tenant accrues three months rent arrears, the landlord will be able to seek a mandatory order for eviction. If the arrears are below the amount, the tribunal can consider what is reasonable in the circumstances to grant the order. That would include the circumstances of the landlord as well as the tenant. I am finished. Sorry, thank you. Sorry, if you pay attention, you will know that. Thank you, Mr Stewart. That is helpful, as always. I do not see any other members wishing to contribute at this stage, in which case I will invite the minister to wind up. I am nothing further to add than I think that we have got a proportionate with our amendments. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 54, given the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 53. I call amendment 55, given the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30, and I invite the minister to formally move. Amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? This is a question thataza 26 agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 56, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21, and I invite the minister to formally move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on to grounds for eviction, the property required for another purpose, and I'd like to welcome at this stage Patrick Harvie, who has joined us for our proceedings. I call amendment 57, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 177, 178, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 179, and I invite the minister to move amendment 57 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Convener, I will speak to my amendments 57, 88 to 89 and to Alex Johnson's amendments 777 and 179. Amendment 57 is a minor consequential amendment. Section 27 sets out how rent officers and the first tier tribunal are to determine the open market rent for a rented property. In doing so, it makes reference to the eviction grounds that currently require or include a pretenancy notice. Amendments 98 and 98 propose to remove those notices, meaning that the reference to them in section 27 will no longer be appropriate. Amendments 88 and 89, 91, 94 and 95, the bill contains repossession grounds that enable a landlord to regain possession of a rent property if he or she intends to sell it, live in it, refurbish it or change its use. Amendment 88 strengthens the landlord intends to sell repossession grounds by ensuring that a landlord cannot give his property away or sell it for a nominal sum in order to evict a tenant. Instead, a landlord will only be able to apply to the tribunal for an eviction order where they are looking to sell their property in the open market. Where a repossession ground refers to a landlord's intention, a landlord must provide evidence to the first tier tribunal of his or her intention and the tribunal must be satisfied that the ground is met before granting recovery of possession to the landlord. I know that the robustness of the grounds was an issue raised during the stage 1 debate, in particular those grounds that include an intention by the landlord. Some stakeholders are concerned that those grounds may be open to misuse. That is why I have brought forward amendments 89, 91, 94 and 95. Amendment 89 provides examples of the type of evidence that the first tier tribunal may consider when determining if the landlord genuinely wants to sell and includes a letter of engagement from an estate agent or a recently prepared document such as a home report. For refurbishing the property, amendment 91 includes examples of evidence such as planning permission or a contract between the landlord and an architect. Whether the landlord or family member intends to live in the property, amendment 94 provides that an example of evidence that might be used is an affidavit stating that the person has that intention. If changing the use of the property, amendment 95 provides that an example of evidence that might be used is planning permission, which would be required. That responds to calls from stakeholders for examples of the types of evidence that might be required to demonstrate that ground on the face of the bill. Deciding on whether the ground is met is entirely up to the tribunal. It will be for the tribunal to consider whether the evidence presented to it during any repossession case is sufficient. I will move to amendment 90. Schedule 3 of the bill provides a mandatory ground for eviction where a property has been repossessed by the lender. The tribunal must order possession of a property if a mortgage lender intends to sell the let property and certain specified conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the tenant was given notice before the tenancy began, that the tenancy might be ended on this ground. If the tenant is not made aware of this fact before the tenancy begins, the tribunal will have discretion on whether to evict the tenant. This amendment removes the requirement for the tenant to be given notice before the tenancy began and removes the discretionary stand of the repossession ground. In its evidence to the ICI committee, the council of mortgage lenders outlined that lenders do not need to be notified when tenants change and new tenancies are entered into. Therefore, they have no involvement in the tenancy contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant and have no way of ensuring that a landlord issues a pre-notice to the tenant to advise them that this ground of eviction might be used. I fully appreciate that lenders require certainty that they can obtain vacant possession in the event of mortgage default. Having reconsidered this ground, I agree that lenders must continue to have the confidence in their lending under the new tenancy. This amendment will achieve this by removing the discretionary element of this ground. Amendments 92 and 93 will mean that beneficiaries who have property held in trust for them can make use of the eviction ground that the landlord or family member intends to live in the property if the beneficiary wishes to use the property as his or her home. The eviction ground is provided for in schedule 3 of the bill. Amendments 92 and 93 provide that where property is held in trust, the reference to a landlord in the eviction ground is to be read as a reference to those with certain rights under the trust, essentially the trust beneficiaries. Those amendments recognise that a trust beneficiary is the one with the true interest in the property and so the idea of the landlord intending to occupy needs to be modified accordingly. That would enable the trustees to recover a leg property for a person for whom that property is held in trust where that person wishes to live in the property. Amendments 96 and 99, I move to schedule 3 of the bill, currently contains an eviction ground which enables a landlord to gain repossession of a property if it is required for use in connection with the purposes of a religion as a residence from which a religious worker's duties are performed. The ground in the bill has a requirement to notify the tenant before the tenancy begins that the ground may be used to repossess. Amendments 96, 97 and 99 amend the ground by providing that the property must have been used for that purpose previously. The effect is that a landlord may only repossess a property on the ground that is required to house a religious worker as a residence from which their duties are performed if it had previously been used for that purpose. During stage 1, some stakeholders expressed concern that the ground continues to use the use of pre-tenancy notices that are currently used in the assured tenancy regime. Amendment 98 removed the requirement for the tenant to be given notice before the tenancy began that the tenancy might be ended on this ground. Those amendments reaffirmed my position that pre-tenancy notices are not required under the new tenancy and make that eviction ground narrower by ensuring that a landlord may only regain possession of a property under those circumstances if it had been previously used for that purpose. Amendment 177 is to add an eviction ground where the landlord is a company who intends to let the property to a shareholder. The effect is to add another mandatory ground whereby a tenant may be evicted from his or her home. I have sought to strike a fair balance in setting the grounds for repossession in schedule 3 of the bill. Those include carefully considering rights of landlords to own and use their property and the rights of tenants to have a home. For example, where landlords want to rubber recovered possession to live there themselves or to house a family member, they have the right to recover the property. I have lodged amendments 92 and 93 to ensure that the eviction ground works where the property is held in trust so that the beneficiary may be housed. However, I do not consider it fair that a tenant can be evicted from his or her home where the landlord is purely a limited company and wants to let the property to a shareholder of that limited company. That ground may also be open to abuse, as there is no limit in the number of shares that a shareholder must have in order for the ground to apply. Amendment 178 inserts an eviction ground where the landlord is a trust and intends to let the property to a beneficiary of the trust. I understand why Mr Johnson has put forward the amendment and thank him for doing so, but, as he will have just heard, I have already brought forward an amendment 93 that deals with the situation where a property is held by a trustee. Rather than insert that as a separate eviction ground, I have proposed inserting that as a variation in the application of the existing eviction ground, which applies where a landlord or family member wishes to occupy the property. I would suggest that that is more appropriate, as the amendment is not really about adding a new eviction ground but rather about modifying the application of the existing one to accommodate trust ownership. I therefore urge Mr Johnson not to press his amendment but to support amendment 93 instead. Amendment 179 would enable a landlord to evict a tenant so that the landlord can let the property to an employee or a retired employee. I have concerns about that amendment. It could result in a family being evicted from their home so that an employee or a retired employee of the landlord could move in. I think that it would be unfair to allow a family to be moved out in these circumstances. Indeed, such a result would be counter to the purpose of the bill to give people security of tenure in what is their home in the private sector. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment. I believe that we have got the balance of the ground right and that we have now captured the reasonable circumstances that a landlord would need to recover possession of their property. There is nothing in the bill that stops landlords retaining particular properties for tied housing for employees. I believe that the end of my amendment is now quite lost here. I am getting lost with the number of amendments here. I move amendment 57 and ask Alex Johnson not to press his amendment. I now call on Alex Johnson to speak to amendment 177 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. The purpose of amendments 177, 178 and 179 is to better reflect practice in some particularly rural areas and the way that businesses utilise housing. Often in marginal rural areas, housing is scarce and is essential that housing is available for businesses that operate in these areas. Consequently, a number of different business models exist and will ensure that housing is available for those who work within their businesses. The three amendments deal with different circumstances surrounding that. However, they reflect actual practice in many areas. To understand better why I have proposed those amendments, I almost have to stand the minister's argument on its head. The need to have housing available is so vital to businesses that the alternative to getting involved in leases is to simply leave unused property empty. In marginal rural areas where housing is already in short supply, the idea that businesses will leave houses empty rather than let them is something that we desperately need to avoid. Consequently, I believe that it is necessary within the bill to have provisions that give the confidence to rural businesses that they can let property that is not currently being utilised and contribute towards the provision of local housing, knowing that, should they require that property to house someone associated or formerly associated with their business at a later point, they can regain possession. My concern is that, if we do not provide adequately within the bill for that need, that rural property will lie empty rather than be let under the terms of the bill. That is why I am motivated to propose those three amendments. Finally, there is one issue that I have with one of the minister's amendments, which is amendment 88. I have had a number of correspondence who have commented on the relatively simple amendment that they believe that the definition on the open market is too broad and may give them difficulties in the future. I would like to hear the minister's comment on that. I now invite the minister to wind up. In response to Alex Johnson's comments, I will deal with that first in terms of the open market. We believe that that is clear what the open market is, but we do not think that it is too broad. I am not minded to change that. In terms of his arguments on retired employees or employees in rural business, we are working hard with the rural sector to look at how they have to work at how they manage their stock. However, in the same vein, housing in rural areas for families is at a shortage. If a family is in a home and their children are at a school there, I do not think that it is fair that that is their home, and I do not think that it is right that they should be moved out. I do not accept his amendments. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on to the procedure for designating a rent pressure zone. I call amendment 154 in the name of Patrick Harvie, grouped with amendments 155, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 135 and 138. I invite Patrick Harvie to move amendment 154 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Good morning, convener. I am very happy to have the opportunity to move amendment 154 and speak to others. As a non-member of the committee as a guest, I will restrict my remarks to the amendments in my name and leave members of the committee to consider the others. At present, the bill sets out the ability for local authorities to make an application to Scottish ministers by asking them to designate an area or part of an area as a rent pressure zone. My instinct is to welcome the move towards some ability for a measure to address rent prices when they have gone out of control. That is a problem in many parts of the country and needs to be addressed. It seems to be initially slightly uncomfortable that local authorities cannot simply be given the power to do so and need to be asked to make an application to Scottish ministers. The section does not even place any particular requirements on Scottish ministers as far as I can read it in how they should handle an application. My amendments 154 and 155 set out a time limit for Scottish ministers to give a response. I have suggested three months. That is a reasonable time limit for ministers to respond. It also ensures that they must either designate the area—basically agree to the request of the local authority—or set out reasons why not. It seems to me that the reasons why not must be related to the criteria under which the designation would otherwise have been made. I hope that the minister will be willing to agree that a reasonable period should be required and that, if the Scottish Government intends to overrule the state of the intention and the priority of a local authority that, in their view, a rent pressure zone should be declared, that the Scottish ministers in those circumstances should set out clear reasons within that time limit. Otherwise, I fear that the lobbying power that would no doubt be brought to bear in the initial stages at local level would then simply have another crack of the whip, another opportunity to lobby at national level against necessary action being taken. I now invite the minister to speak to amendment 64 and other amendments in the group. I will speak to amendment 64, to amendment 69, to amendment 135, to amendment 138 and to Patrick Harvie's amendments 154 and 155. Amendment 64 to amendment 69, to amendment 135 and to amendment 138, I will deal with first. My amendments will ensure that the Scottish Government can act quickly to change or revoke a rent pressure zone in response to changing economic circumstances. They also broaden out the range of landlords and tenants representatives with whom the Government is to consult before designating a rent pressure zone from just those representing landlords and tenants within the proposed zone to those representing landlords and tenants within the whole local authority area that the proposed zone will be in. Regulations designating a rent pressure zone are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. Amendments 64, 65 and 68 provide that the duties on ministers to consult landlords and tenants in the proposed rent pressure zone and provide supporting evidence to the Scottish Parliament along with a summary of the consultation responses are limited to making regulations to designate an area as a rent pressure zone. Amendments 135 and 138 provide that regulations amending or revoking a designation are subject to negative parliamentary procedure. That means that if ministers need to amend or revoke the designation at a later date, for example, because of increasing mortgage interest rates, they can do so using the negative parliamentary procedure, which is usually quicker than the affirmative procedure and does not prevent regulations from being made when the Parliament is in recess or dissolved. Section 33 of the bill requires ministers to consult persons representing the interests of landlords and tenants within the area in the application before laying any regulations in the Scottish Parliament to designate an area as a rent pressure zone. Amendments 66, 67 and 69 expand the consultation duty on ministers when designating a rent pressure zone by providing that ministers must consult representatives of landlords and tenants within the whole local authority area within which the proposed zone would be located. Amendments 154 and 155 would give Scottish ministers three months from receiving a local authority application to either designate a zone or lay before the Parliament a document explaining why they have not done so by reference to the factors mentioned in section 332A. Section 30 provides that Scottish ministers may by regulations designate a rent pressure zone and prescribe the cap for rent increase in that zone after receiving an application from the local authority. The level of any cap set would be at least CPI plus 1. Section 63 requires the designation of a zone to be done by affirmative procedure. Section 33 provides that, before laying a draft instrument before the Parliament, Scottish ministers must consult on whether to designate a zone. When laying a draft instrument, Scottish ministers must also lay before the Parliament a document that sets out the evidence that a rent pressure zone is required. I believe that rent pressure zones are a proportionate and balanced response to the issue of rents that have been rising too much in some parts of the private rented sector. That will provide Scottish ministers with the power to designate an area and to set a rent cap for sitting tenants. Where that needs to be done and an application has been made by a local authority setting out the case for this, then of course the Scottish Government will respond in good time, but I am happy to commit to that in the face of the bill. As I agree with the principle behind Mr Harvie's amendments 154 and 155, there should be a timeframe for Scottish ministers when designated a rent pressure zone or otherwise, or otherwise informing Parliament why they have not done so. However, it is important to ensure that any decision on whether to designate a zone is done properly. I would like to consider further how best to achieve that in the bill. It is also not possible for the bill to give assurances that a zone will be designated. Ministers can only bind themselves to lay regulations, and it will then be for Parliament to decide whether or not to approve those regulations. I would ask Mr Harvie not to press his amendments for now, and I would commit to working with him to bring forward an acceptable amendment at stage 3. I would ask the committee to support my amendments. I now invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. It is a better response than I get to most of my amendments when I come to committees. I am glad that the minister agrees that there should be a requirement on the face of the bill for the Government to respond in a timely manner. I am happy to have some discussions with the minister about what a timely manner amounts to. I do think that it is important that if an application is made, that will be inevitably on the back of a significant period already of people arguing for it, making the case, having experienced a sustained period of rent increases. It is going to be very important that, when we get to that point, action is taken quickly, rather than dragging on for six months or a year or what have you. Where that problem exists to the point where an application has been made, it clearly needs to be dealt with quickly. Given that the minister's comments about willingness to discuss how best to frame this, I am happy to seek leave to withdraw 154. Are members agreed that amendment 154 be withdrawn? I call amendment 155, in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 154. Patrick Harvie, to move or not move? Not moved. In that case, we now move on to rent pressure zones restrictions on rent increases. I call amendment 58, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 59, 156, 60, 61, 62, 63, 157, 158, 70, 71 and 136. I point out that amendment 59 pre-empts amendment 156, and that amendment 156 pre-empts 60 and 61. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 58 and speak to all amendments in the group? I will speak to my amendments 58 to 63, 77 to 1 and 136, and Patrick Harvie's amendments 156 to 158. Amendments 58 to 63, 70, 71 and 136 set out in the face of the bill, the process for assessing how much can be charged in respect of improvements that a landlord may have made to the left property, so that those can be recooked in a rent pressure zone. That is to ensure that landlords are not put off making improvements to properties in rent pressure zones. Section 30 of the bill provides that a local authority may make an application to Scottish ministers to designate a rent pressure zone. Rents would be capped in a zone for sitting tenants for up to five years. Any rent cap set by the minister for the zone would have to be at least CPI plus 1%. Amendments 58 to 63 amend the formula that must be used when calculating how much a tenant's rent can be increased within a rent pressure zone. The amended formula allows an amount for property improvement costs, costs that would be determined by a rent officer. Amendments 70 and 71 set out how rent officers are to consider applications for improvements to a property. Any improvements paid for in whole or impart by the tenant will be disregarded, as will repairs, maintenance and decoration. Amendment 136 makes the regulations prescribing the application form subject to the negative procedure. Amendments 156 to 158 remove the formula to be used when calculating the rent cap for a rent pressure zone and replaces it with an ability to prescribe a set number of percentage points in the regulations to designate the zone. The Scottish Government has given careful consideration to how a rent cap might be set. Section 31 provides the formula for the minimum cap, which is CPI plus 1%, together with an additional percentage, if appropriate, and is summing in relation to a landlord's improvements. It is important that, to be clear on the face of the bill, what the minimum rent cap might be, as it will enable landlords and investors to continue to manage their business effectively, including planning any future investment. That is what we consulted on, and that is what I consider to be the right approach to working with the sector on this. I cannot therefore support those amendments. Accordingly, I move amendment 58 and would ask Patrick Harvie not to press his. Thank you minister. I now invite Patrick Harvie to speak to amendment 156 and other amendments in the group. I thank you convener for not knowing that the minister intended to move amendments in this area. I put in amendment 156 and 157, which is consequential to it, simply in order to have some discussion of the issue. It seemed to me odd that a complex formula would be required in the legislation, rather than simply giving the power for rent pressure zones to be created with a simple percentage number being included. Given the comments that the minister has made, I would like to give that some further thought and consider again whether the issue needs to be addressed at all. One of the objectives that we ought to share is to ensure that tenants can make a clear and simple argument within a local authority area for action to be taken. The simplicity would be attractive, but I will give some further thought to the minister's comments about those amendments. Amendment 158, within the same group, addresses a slightly different aspect. Section 33, currently, says that one of the requirements in the document must be set out showing evidence that leads ministers to believe that rents payable within the proposed zone are rising by too much. It seems to me that that will restrict the ability to use this new mechanism to address existing issues in parts of the country, which are the precise reason why we are having this debate. People have been arguing for action on rent levels for some significant time, and it seems to me that if we pass legislation that requires ministers to set out evidence showing that rent levels are rising, we will be closing off the possibility to use the mechanism in places where we already have a problem of rents having resin. Amendment 158 simply allows the option for ministers—it does not say that that has to be used, but it allows the option for ministers to set out evidence showing that rents are rising or have resin. I would find it disappointing if the minister was not able to reconsider and accept amendment 158. The minister will know that I have raised the issue of indexation before when we were debating this, and I noticed that, on amendment 59, the minister lays out a formula for the cap on indexation. That is CPI plus 1 plus X. Let me give an example of Edinburgh was a rent pressure zone today, then the increase would be 1.3. The reason for that is that CPI is running at 0.3 plus 1, which gives you 1.3, and any further increase would be any property improvement by landlords. Is that a correct analysis of the formula, minister? I am trying to help the minister out, rather than ask the minister to explain the formula. The formula is CPI plus 1 plus X. CPI is the consumer price index. The current rate of consumer price index is 0.3 from January's figures. Plus 1 gives you 1.3, so that would be the cap unless there was any property improvement by landlords. Is that a correct understanding of the formula? I have to give other members the opportunity to speak before the minister winds up. My understanding of the formula is the consumer price index, which we know the current figure of, plus 1. The current rate was 1.3. What I am trying to verify is that any additional costs would be property improvement by landlords. If that is true, how are we going to verify that independently what additional costs that would give, because that would affect the cap on rates? Thank you, David. Are there any other comments from members in that case? I will now invite the minister to wind up. The point that David Stewart made in terms of the assumption that CPI plus 1 was correct is that in terms of the cost for property improvements, that would be determined by the rent assessment committee that would have to be absolutely clear that it was property improvements that took part within the timeframe and that it could not demonstrate the cost of them. The rent assessment committee would determine that. In terms of Patrick Harvie's amendment, I have concerns about it because it is not about recent rent rises that he has talked about in the past, so I would have concerns about supporting that amendment as it stands. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 59 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 58. Can I remind members that amendment 59 preempts amendment 156? Can I invite the minister to formally move? The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 60 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 58 and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 61 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 58 and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 62 in the name of the minister already debated I invite the minister to informally move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to—are we all agreed? Ieithaf, amendment 63, in the name of the minister, has already been debated with amendment 58, and I invite the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Ieithaf, amendment 157, in the name of Patrick Harvie, has already been debated with amendment 58, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Not move. Thank you. The question is that section 31 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Ieithaf, amendment 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 64 to 68 on block? Ieithaf, any member objects to a single question being put on amendment 64 to 68. No, in that case, the question is that amendment 64 to 68 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Ieithaf, amendment 158, in the name of Patrick Harvie, has already been debated with amendment 58, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The minister, having stated that she has concerns but not stated what they are, would move that amendment. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, in which case I will now call a division those in favour of amendment 158, please show, and those against amendment 158, please show. Amendment 158, the result is yes, zero, no, seven, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. Ieithaf, amendment 69, in the name of the minister, has already been debated with amendment 154 and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 33 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that section 34 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 70, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 58, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 71, in the name of Margaret Burgess, has already debated with amendment 58. I invite the minister to move or not move. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The next group is termination by agreement or by end of tenancy. I call amendment 159, in the name of Alec Johnson, grouped with amendments 160, 169 and 176. I invite Alec Johnson to move amendment 159 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 159, the primary function of which is to facilitate the introduction of amendment 160. Amendment 160 is, I believe, a relatively simple introduction of the concept that a tenancy can be ended by mutual agreement. It's important that if both parties are in agreement, there are flexibilities for the tenancy to be ended. That is most likely to be initiated by the tenant and, for example, if they may want to leave a tenancy quickly and if a landlord has a waiting list, they may be able to replace that tenant fairly quickly. I think that that is a practical common sense amendment that allows for mutual agreement between parties. Amendment number 169 has the function of introducing the opportunity to propose amendment 176, which relates to the termination due to end of tenancy. I think that it's sensible if a tenancy is agreed for a fixed period and is not renewed or further extended that it should be possible to end a tenancy and amendment 176 sets out the grounds on which that could be achieved. It also sets out a reasonable notice period for such a termination of tenancy to take place. Thank you. No other members have indicated they wish to speak at this point, in which case I will invite the minister to respond. I respond to Alex Johnson's amendments 159, 160, 169 and 176. The overall aim of the private residential tenancy is to improve security of tenancy for tenants, balance with appropriate safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. The bill provides that the new tenancy is open-ended and can only be terminated by a tenant giving notice to the landlord or the landlord serving a notice to leave on the tenant on the basis of one of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 of the bill. Amendments 159 and 160 cannot be accepted as they insert provision that would allow the landlord and tenant to agree a termination date at the start of the tenancy. It is highly likely that landlords would have an unfair bargaining position in setting this date when granting the tenancy. That would wholly undermine one of the fundamental principles of the new tenancy. However, if the tenant wishes to leave during the tenancy, he can serve a notice to that effect. It is then within the gift of the landlord to wear the tenant's notice requirement if he or she wishes to do so. The parties can come to a mutual agreement, but it has to be instigated by the tenant, made freely and without coercion, and can only be done after the tenancy has started so that the granting of the tenancy can no longer be used as a bargaining chip. Amendments 169 and 176 to enable the tribunal to grant an eviction order are consequential on the provisions, which would allow the landlord and tenant to agree a termination date at the start of the tenancy. That is equivalent to the no-fault ground in the short-assured tenancy regime, which we have deliberately excluded from the bill in order to create a more secure tenancy. I therefore cannot support Alex Johnson's amendments. I invite Alex Johnson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I thank the minister for her comments. She is correct in her interpretation of the purpose of my amendments. Nevertheless, it is my view that those objectives are worthy of pursuit and consequently I will be pressing amendment 159. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, in which case we will move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 159, please show. Those against amendment 159. Amendment 159, those in favour, yes, one, no, six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 160 in the name of Alex Johnson. Already debated with amendment 159, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. In that case, the question is that section 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I am going to propose that we suspend this meeting of committee for 10 minutes to allow members to have a short break and we will resume in 11.25 or thereabouts. Considerations do not comply with housing tenants Scotland Bill at stage 2. I move on to subtenant protection. I call amendment 72 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 82. I invite the minister to move amendment 72 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to the amendments 72, 79 and 82. Section 36 makes provision to protect the security of tenure for those who have subtenancies. I do not envisage that subtenancies will be common in the private rented sector, but section 36 is intended to ensure that, where they are granted, the subtenants receive certain protections. Amendment 72 extends the meaning of lawfully granting subtenancy to also include a case where the subtenancy has been granted in breach of the head tenants lease or that of someone further up a chain of subtenancies, but the subtenancy has been tolerated by the person who could have taken action as a result of the breach of agreement. In short, if the head landlord has allowed the subtenancy to carry on, he or she should not later be able to treat it as an unlawful subtenancy. That is to deny the subtenant the protections that the bill provides. Amendment 73 to 79 and 82 are minor amendments so that the references to the eviction grounds in section 37 match the names given to them in schedule 3. I move amendment 72. Thank you minister. No members have indicated that they wish to speak. Do you have anything further to add? In that case, the question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendment 73 to 80 on block. I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendment 73 to 80. In that case, the question is that amendment 73 to 80 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I move on to grounds for eviction, pen and status. I call amendment 81 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 100, 101 and 103. I invite the minister to move amendment 81 and speak to all amendments in the group. I will speak to amendment 81, 101 and 103, and those amendments make changes to the grounds for eviction, which apply based upon the tenant's status. I will deal with amendment 81 and 103 first. Supported accommodation is offered in both the social and private sector. Where the support is provided by charities and other groups in the private rented sector, they often use short-assured tenancies. The Richmond Fellowship raised the open-ended nature of the new tenancy with the Scottish Government as a concern. They currently use short-assured tenancies, which enables them to recover possession if a tenant no longer requires the care on offer, so that this tenancy can be offered to someone else who does require the care. Supported accommodation providers play an important part in helping local authorities deliver community care, and I would not want to hamper their ability to do this. Therefore, amendment 103 adds a new reposition ground that will enable the providers of supported accommodation to recover possession of a property where the tenancy was granted to meet and assess need for community care, and the tenant has since been assessed as no longer having that need under section 12A of the Social Work Scotland Act 1968. Section 37 of the bill provides that where the private residential tenancy of the person who was the sub-tenant's landlord is brought to an end by any of the grounds other than those that relate to a tenant's conduct, the sub-tenant's tenancy will also come to an end. Amendment 81 provides that this should also include the ground of supported accommodation. Amendments 100 and 101 are now deal with. Paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the bill enables a landlord to regain possession of the let property where the tenancy was entered into to provide an employee of the landlord with a home as part of his or her employment, and the tenant is no longer a qualifying employee or did not become one. This is a mandatory reposition ground, which means that if the ground is established, the tribunal must issue an order for eviction. Amendment 100 provides that if an application for eviction under this ground is submitted within 12 months of the tenant's ceasing to be or not becoming an employee of the landlord, the reposition ground remains mandatory, otherwise the ground is discretionary. The effect of this amendment will be to ensure that the mandatory aspect is only available for a limited period of time and that the landlord cannot hold this over the tenant in perpetuity. Amendment 101 is a technical amendment, which amends paragraph numbers. Amendment 81. No members have indicated that they wish to speak. Do you have anything further to add? Nothing further, convener. In that case, the question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 82, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 72, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on to notice of termination. I call amendment 161, in the name of Alex Johnson, grouped with amendments 162, 84, 163, 164, 165, 86, 166 and 167. I invite Alex Johnson to move amendment 161 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 161. The purpose of my amendments in this group is to facilitate the regaining of a property by a landlord who has had a tenant leave their property. It is the case that quite often tenants will have to leave at short notice, and consequently it is vital to ensure that properties are not left unattended and unlooked after in these circumstances. The function of those amendments is to ensure that where a tenant chooses to leave a property, the landlord can regain access. In the case of amendment 165, it requires that written notification be received by the landlord before they can act. It is something that would reassure landlords and also have the opportunity to bring 10 properties back into use as quickly as possible after a tenant chooses to leave. For that reason, I think that those are practical amendments that can facilitate management of property and ensure that they do not sit empty unnecessarily or without care. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I now invite the minister to speak to amendment 84 and other amendments in the group. I will speak first to my amendment 84, convener. A tenant will be able to end a tenancy by giving notice to the landlord. There is a concern that this flexible path to termination might be exploited by unscrupulous landlords to reintroduce the no-fall to eviction ground by the back door. A landlord might insist that notice be given as a condition of getting a tenancy so that six months after it begins, a tenancy ends without the landlord having to get an eviction order. To tackle the problem, amendment 84 will allow tenants to dispute the validity of a notice that they have given on the basis that he or she was coerced into giving it or gave it when in the weak negotiating position of trying to secure a tenancy. I will talk now to amendment 86. If a landlord gives a tenant notice to leave, section 40 dictates when the tenancy ends, but the parties might want it to end earlier. The bill already allows for that, because under section 38, the tenant can give notice to end the tenancy on a day of his or her choosing, and the landlord can accept that by waiving the notice period. Amendment 86 simply adds a flag to section 40 so that nobody overlooks this route to ending the tenancy earlier than section 40 would do. I will now speak to amendments 161 and 162. Section 38 of the bill provides a tenancy comes to an end on the day that is specified in the tenant's notice to his or her landlord. Amendment 161 and 162 provides that the tenancy could end on the day specified in the notice or on the day on which the tenant ceases to occupy the property, whichever day is the later. The effect of those amendments is that, if a tenant notified his or her landlord in writing that they were moving out on 30 January, he or she remained in the property until 14 February, the tenancy would come to an end on 14 February. If we accept those amendments, we would end up with a very messy position in cases in which the landlord has already granted a new tenancy to someone else on the basis of the current tenant having given notice. There would then be two people with competing rights to live in the property at the same time. The bill's provisions are clear. Once the date of the notice given by the tenant passes, his or her tenancy is at an end. If he or she stays on, they could be ejected as having no right to occupy. The simple fact is that the tenancy is ended so the tenant has no right to be there. I therefore ask members not to support those amendments. Amendment 163, the default notice period to be given by tenants to landlords when ending a private residential tenancy, is currently set at 28 days when the tenancy has lasted for six months or less and 56 days when the tenancy has lasted for six months or more. This amendment removes the second limit so that the period is 28 days in every case. The original intention was that tenants who had been in a property for longer would be required to give a longer notice period. Likewise, landlords are required to give tenants longer notice if the tenant has been in the tenancy for more than six months except where the eviction is due to the tenant's conduct. However, I have listened carefully to all the evidence that was presented to the committee and noted, for example, that some tenants may need to end their tenancy within four weeks to take up a social tenancy. In further consideration, I would not want to disadvantage tenants simply because they have been in their tenancy for more than six months. Therefore, I am minded to endorse this change to the default minimum notice period to be given by tenants and would urge the committee to support that. I will now go to amendments 64 and 65. Section 40 of the bill provides that where the tenant has received a notice to leave from the landlord and moves out without requiring the landlord to obtain an eviction order, the tenancy comes to an end on the later of either the day the tenant ceases to occupy the property or the date specified in the notice to leave. Amendments 164 and 165 provide that a tenancy can come to an end on the day on which the tenant notifies the landlord and writing that he or she has ceased to occupy the property or the day the tenant ceases to occupy the property if that day is later than the day specified in the notice to leave. I do not think that that would assist parties and I am not entirely sure what Alex Johnson is trying to achieve. I think that it overcomplicates what is a relatively simple process for consensual termination at the landlord's instigation. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments. Amendments 166 and 167. Amendment 166 applies sections 22, 23 and 23A of the Rent Scotland Act 1984 to the private residential tenancy. Those sections will apply as a matter of law and nothing more needs to be done to achieve that. It is not limited to specific tenancy types. It is also not quite the case that the landlord would need to comply with a particular set of rules. It is rather that there are provisions that apply and I would therefore suggest that Mr Stewart not to press amendments 166. However, I recognise that it might be helpful to revisit the use of the term court proceedings in section 23 of the 1984 act. I do not think that amendment 167 will necessarily quite address what we need to do in this regard, but I am welcome the point that Mr Stewart has raised. I would ask him not to press this amendment on the understanding that we will look into this and take steps to address this issue as a consequential modification if that is required. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support my amendments and I ask Alex Johnson and David Stewart not to press their amendments and I support Patrick Harvey's amendment. I now invite Patrick Harvey to speak to amendment 163 and other amendments in the group. My hit rates are going up dramatically today. I am grateful for the minister's comments. I will briefly set out the case in favour of this amendment, which has the support of Citizens Advice Scotland, who suggested it. I can understand why some people might instinctively feel that a landlord should be able to expect a longer notice period from long-term tenants, but the threshold of six months is by no means a long-term tenancy. I was in the private rented sector for about a dozen years. I think that every single place that I lived was for a longer period than six months. In effect, the result of the bill as it stands would be that, in every single instance of my trying to find a new place to live, I would have had that longer two-month period in which I was locked in. The practical consequences of this could leave people vulnerable either to having to pay two months' rent if they are having to acquire a new place to live before that two-month notice period is being served out or potentially facing the risk of a period where they may not be able to guarantee getting a new flat before that period has wound up. There could be a risk of at least a limbo homeless situation. There has also been a case made particularly in relation to those having to leave an unsafe home with an abusive partner that they may end up having to carry the extra bill that housing benefit would not in the circumstance where they are only able to claim for four weeks on the second property in order to move immediately. For all those reasons, I am very pleased that the minister has accepted this amendment, and I hope that the committee will agree. David Stewart speaks to amendments 166 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. As Patrick Harvie said, I am also very positive for the comments from the minister and hopefully it is the start of a role for the later amendments that we have later on. My amendments 166 and 167 will ensure that it is crystal clear that the provisions of the Rent Scotland Act 1984, which make a criminal offence to a legally evicted tenant, apply to the new private rented tenancy. I am aware that the minister has made it clear that the provisions of the 1984 act, which relate to legal eviction, will apply to the new private residential tenancy without need to reference them in the face of the bill. However, I have concerns that the provisions of the bill, which relate to consensual termination, could leave some tenants in a vulnerable situation. Landlords may assert that tenants left the property and accepted the eviction notice, but, in fact, they wish to remain the property and challenge the eviction action. Therefore, I am moving those amendments to ensure that it is crystal clear that, in the process of seeking an eviction, landlords must adhere to the provisions of the 1984 act to relate to legal eviction. However, I have listened to the comments from the minister and, on the basis that the minister will look at that, again, before stage 3, I would seek permission from the committee not to move amendment 166 and 167. I now invite Alex Johnson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I have to say that Patrick Harvie is having a much better strike rate than I am today. Nevertheless, the minister comments in brief response to them. Amendment 165 is, I think, the minister is often suspicious of my motives, but in this case I can assure her that my motivation for amendment 165 is purely a practical one. It is, in my view, essential that property should not be left vulnerable and where a tenant has confirmed that they have vacated a property, it is important that a landlord can access that property to undertake matters in relation to heating, for example, in winter months, or to take precautions against flooding, which are very contemporary at the moment. It is therefore my view that this is an issue that should be addressed in the bill. Regarding amendment 161 and 162, I have listened carefully to what the minister has had to say, and consequently I have decided that I will seek leave to withdraw amendment 161. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. In that case, are members content for amendment 161 to be withdrawn? We are. In that case, we move on to amendment 83. I call amendment 83 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 21, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 162 in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 161, and invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. In that case, the question is that section 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 84 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 161, and invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We now move on to initial period, and I call amendment 85 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 87, 123, 128, 130 and 137, and I invite the minister to move amendment 85 and to speak to all amendments in the group. I'll move 85 and speak to the other amendments in the group. The bill currently provides for an initial period of a tenancy during which tenants are tied into the tenancy and landlords can only use limited grounds for repossession. The initial period was intended to provide landlords with certainty over the initial length of the tenancy and tenants with security that only limited grounds for repossession could be used by the landlord during the early stages of their tenancy. However, I've concluded that having an initial period is likely to cause problems for various groups of tenants that I judge at best to avoid. First, I have noted the concerns raised by the committee about the impact that the initial tenancy could have in cases of domestic abuse. I've concluded that the initial period could make it difficult for someone in an abusive relationship to terminate a tenancy without incurring financial penalties. I don't think that we should create a position where someone suffering from domestic abuse should have to worry about the financial penalties that they might incur if they sought to escape the predicament. That is perhaps the most compelling of reasons for thinking again about retaining the idea of an initial period, but there are other reasons, too. For example, a tenant having entered into a tenancy in good faith could provide suddenly that they have to move quickly perhaps to provide care and support to a family member living elsewhere or to accept a new job or indeed move elsewhere because it is part of their current job. Those sorts of reasons have persuaded me that the initial tenancy could prove unreasonably restrictive and inflexible for tenants. The same is true for landlords. They might offer a tenancy in good faith and then find that they need the property urgently and unexpectedly to house a member of their family or are suddenly required to sell it. In light of those considerations, I have brought forward the amendments in this group to remove the initial period from the bill. The effect of the amendments will be to make the tenancy completely open-ended with tenants able to give notice at any time and landlords able to use all grounds for repossession from the beginning of the tenancy. I believe that this is a simpler and more straightforward approach that will benefit both tenants and landlords. I move amendment 85. Briefly on the subject of the initial tenancy, I have had mixed views on consulting on this, but it has to be said that I believe on balance that many of the landlords who are letting property on a regular or professional basis see the initial period as being of some value. As a consequence, at this stage, I will seek to oppose this amendment. Thank you. Are there any other contributions from members? In that case, I invite the minister to wind up. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. I will now call a division. Those in favour of amendment 85, please show. Those against amendment 85, please show. Amendment 85, the result of the division, is yes, six, no, one. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 163 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 161 and invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 164 in the name of Alec Johnson, already debated with amendment 161 and I invite Alec Johnson to move or not move. In that case, the question is that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will then move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 164, please show. Those against amendment 164, thank you. Amendment 164, the result is yes, one, no, six, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not moved. I call amendment 86 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 161 and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 166 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 161 and I invite David Stewart to move or not move. I am on the basis of not move, convener. I now call amendment 167 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 161 and I invite David Stewart to move or not move. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We now move on to first tier tribunal application of reasonableness test and I call amendment 168 in the name of David Stewart, grouped with amendment 170 and I invite David Stewart to move amendment 168 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In my view, this is probably the most significant of the amendments that I put to date and whilst the Scottish Government amendments will ensure more evidence needs to be produced by landlords are to be welcomed, I am still of the view that the legislation will not enable the tribunal to take all the factors relating to the case into consideration, including whether it is reasonable in the circumstances to grant the order. As we all know, evicting a tenant from their home is a very serious sanction, which will affect not only the tenant but potentially the families of the tenant and the children in that household. It is therefore vital to ensure that tenants and the landlord situations are fully examined by the tribunal before a decision is made either way. The tribunal should therefore be able to take all the circumstances into account fully and make an assessment as to whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an eviction order. If a tenant has failed to pay rent over a number of months and the landlord is struggling to meet other financial commitments because of this, then, of course, the tribunal will be able to consider that when deciding whether to grant an eviction order. On the other hand, if a tenant has made efforts to pay rent and is continuing on a payment plan but technically fails the threshold for rent arrears before eviction, then the tribunal should be able to take that into account too. I cannot see any reason not to enable a tribunal to take the reasonableness into account when deciding whether to grant an eviction order. I am sure that the committee would not wish to see evictions granted in circumstances that are unreasonable. It would also address concerns raised by the committee or raised to the committee that, by not enabling the first to the tribunal to take into account whether an eviction order is reasonable or not, the bill may not sufficiently take into account human rights considerations. Principally, article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights states, and I quote, that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. I would be interested to hear the minister's view on this amendment, which I am hoping that it should be able to support. Thereby ensuring that there is a holistic, reasonable and balanced approach to deciding whether tenants should be evicted. No other members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I therefore invite the minister to respond. Okay, convener, I will set the outset that I cannot support these amendments. Amendment 168, which we have heard, would introduce a reasonable test into every ground for eviction, and the effect of that would be for all mandatory grounds to become discretionary. The Scottish Government has given very careful consideration to the discretionary and mandatory balance in the grounds in schedule 3. In my response to the stage 1 report, I said that it was clearly important to get the grounds right so that tenants can be treated fairly and landlords can be confident in regaining possession of their property. With the lodging of my amendments 117 to 122, I believe that we have now struck the right balance, one that protects tenants but also provides landlords with confidence that they can manage their properties effectively and recover possession where necessary. The amendments that I have put forward move a further forward for eviction grounds from mandatory to discretionary, which will allow the tribunal to consider all the circumstances of the case. I hope that that would provide some reassurance to Mr Stewart, but there remain some instances where we need to assure landlords that they will get their property back, otherwise we risk deterring them from remaining in the rental sector altogether, and any reduction in supply would only disadvantage tenants. Amendment 170 is a proposal to add directions to the tribunal to have regard to certain evidence in relation to the grounds for eviction, where a landlord is to show intention and to have regard to certain factors when considering whether the tenant's behaviour is sufficient to warrant eviction. My amendments 88, 89, 91, 94 and 95 strengthen the grounds where a landlord is to show intent by providing in the face of the bill examples that the tribunal may consider when making a determination as to whether the ground is made. I do so in order to emphasise that the tribunal will need to be satisfied that a ground applies before an eviction order can be granted, and that will require evidence to be provided to it. I thank Mr Stewart for bringing forward the amendment, but I urge him to accept my amendments instead, as I believe that the use of concrete examples will be helpful. As I say, I have put the amendments relating to the landlord's intention forward because I want people to be absolutely clear that the onus is on the landlord to prove that the ground is made out, but as far as the proposed inserted section 1A to 1D are concerned, I am confident that the tribunal does not need to be directed what to consider. Those are already things that the tribunal can consider, and I believe that it as a specialist forum can be trusted to have regard to all relevant facts and circumstances. I now invite David Stewart to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press over the draw his amendment. I think that, as I said at the start, those two amendments are very important. However, I hear what the minister says. If the minister would agree to meet me to discuss this further, I would then seek the leave of the committee to withdraw both amendments. I am happy to discuss with Mr Stewart. Members are content to withdraw the amendment. I now call amendment 169, in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 159. I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. The question is that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will therefore have a division. Those in favour of amendment 169, please show. And those against amendment 169, please show. Thank you. Amendment 169, the result is yes, one, no, six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that amendment 169 be agreed to. We have done that. I call amendment 170, in the name of David Stewart. Already debated with amendment 168, and I invite David Stewart to move or not move. No, I do not move, convener. Thank you. The question is that we now move on to the first tier tribunal general discretion of eviction, and I call amendment 171, in the name of Alex Johnson, in a group on its own, and I invite Alex Johnson to move and speak to amendment 171. I move amendment 171 in my name, and I have speak to it very briefly, because it follows on largely from the previous debate that we had. However, although it shares some words in common with amendment 170, it is much shorter and it seeks not to direct the tribunal as to what it should consider, but simply direct the tribunal having considered the evidence to make a clear and decisive decision. That is why it says that it is reasonable in all circumstances to issue such an order. I hope that that will simplify the process of the tribunal. In that case, there are no other members who wish to speak. I invite the minister to respond. Convener, Alex Johnson's amendment 171 essentially has the effect of inserting an additional eviction ground into the bill that covers any other reasonable circumstances under which the tribunal considers it reasonable to evict the tenant. We have consulted extensively on the eviction grounds and I think that we have got them right. The eviction grounds must be transparent. Tenants have a right to know the grounds under which they are to be evicted or they could be evicted. That amendment introduces a general catch-all eviction ground that could cover absolutely anything. I do not think that that is right and I cannot support it. I invite Alex Johnson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. As I have said before in the debate, the minister has understood my intention and that we have different policy intentions. I will therefore press the amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 171 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. In that case, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 171, please show. Those against amendment 171, please show. In that case, amendment number 171, the result is yes, one, no, six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 172, in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 172, please show. Those against amendment 172, please show. Amendment number 172, the result is yes, one, no, six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 87, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 85, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 173, in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Thank you. We now move on to suspension of execution of order, and I call amendment 174, in the name of David Stewart, grouped with amendment 175, and I invite David Stewart to move amendment 174 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment 174 would make it clear that the first-year tribunal has the power to postpone an eviction order if it were of the view that granting the order and enabling immediate execution would cause undue hardship to the tenant. That could play an important role in defining tenants with enough time to seek alternative accommodation should the landlord seek an eviction under one of the man's new grounds, and in my view is a key plank in preventing homelessness. Thank you. I apologise, Mr Kelly. If I can just briefly speak in support of the motion, obviously granting an eviction order is a serious matter, and there's obviously got serious consequences for the tenants. However, I think that Mr Stewart sets out some reasonable mitigating factors, and I think that his amendment adds some reasonableness to the bill, when I would therefore support it. Thank you. My apologies to Mr Ingram. I should have called him before inviting other members, but that's my fault. I now invite Adam Ingram to speak to amendment 175 and the other amendment in the group. Thank you very much, convener. The amendment was suggested by Homeless Action Scotland, and its purpose is to ensure that tribunals consist, delay or postpone action where it is in the best interests of all parties to do so. It's often the case in disputes between tenant and landlord that an agreement can be reached concerning arrangements to pay arrears or to modify behaviour. So, in order to avoid unnecessary evictions, this new element, which replicates powers already available in relation to the assured and short-assured tenancy regime, enables the affected tenant to demonstrate a pattern of amended behaviour over an agreed period, which should satisfy both tenant and landlord. Advice agencies report that this mechanism is used very frequently and successfully, and it would appear logical to replicate it in the new tenancy regime. The ability to delay or sysc and benefit both tenants and landlords and fits with the tribunal ethos of seeking mutually acceptable solutions to problems where possible rather than an overly legalistic and adversarial approach. Thank you, Mr Ingram. Do any other members wish to speak at this stage? No, in that case, I will ask the minister to respond. I will respond to amendments 174 from David Stewart and Adam Ingram's amendment 175. I thank the members for bringing forward those amendments and Mr Stewart for bringing forward amendment 174, but I am not actually persuaded by the need for it. Firstly, the tribunal will already have the power to adjourn under tribunal rules if it sees fit to do so. It will not be obliged to dispose of an application immediately if there is a reason that more time would be appropriate. It also has the power to select an eviction date rather than this needing to be the date of the order, and it has the power under the tribunal's Scotland Act 2014 to review its own orders. What is appropriate will vary based on individual circumstances, and the tribunal has the flexibility to deal with that, so if the tenant would face hardship, that could be taken into consideration and addressed as appropriate. Of course, questions about hardship could be made if we will apply to landlords. We do not want landlords being forced into mortgage arrears that might bring about the forced sale of the property. I am therefore content that the tribunal already has the necessary power to take into account potential hardship for both parties when deciding when an eviction order should take effect, which is the fair balance that the bill is seeking to achieve. Amendment 175 seeks to give additional discretionary powers to the first-tier tribunal under the new tenancy. Specifically, it would allow the tribunal to adjourn proceedings in an application for an eviction order, assist or suspend an order, and impose conditions on the tenant. For example, in relation to payment of rent arrears, if the conditions are complied with the tribunal may recall the order, the tribunal is also given discretion to postpone the date in which an order for eviction takes effect. I also thank Mr Ringham for bringing this amendment forward, as it is an important point, and this is something that we have been looking at closely ourselves. I wholeheartedly endorse his desire to ensure that the tribunal has all the powers that we will need. However, I would need to hear more about why this amendment is necessary and how it would operate in practice, as I am not sure that anything more is required. The tribunal will have its own tribunal rules and it will be able to adjourn the proceedings without any bespoke provision needing to be made to that effect in this bill. The tribunal already has the power to choose the date in which an eviction order will bring a tenancy to an end. Section 419 provides for us. A tenancy does not have to be ended on the date that the eviction order is granted. In terms of subsequent postponement, section 43 of the Tribunals Scotland Act 2014 gives the tribunal the powers to review its own decisions. Those aspects of the policy are therefore already addressed and are addressed in the most appropriate forum, namely across all tribunal functions and not just for the purpose of this bill. That leaves the questions of conditions being imposed. I am wary of going down a route of allowing the tribunal to impose conditions in the way that the 1988 act does. There are no reported Scottish cases on the effect of that provision. If a rent payment plan is put in place by the imposition of conditions, what would be the consequences of that? Would a tenant who fails to pay be held in contempt? There would seem to be a risk of adverse consequences here, and I am not sure that there is necessarily any benefit. However, I would like to reassure Mr Ingram that there is nothing to stop the tribunal from adjourning a case to see whether a tenant has paid the rent arrears and then making the decision of the adjourned hearing in light of what has happened in the intervening period. That would seem to be a cleaner and less problematic way of achieving the same result. I do not know that the imposition of conditions would add anything to that unless it is intended. There should be a consequence other than eviction. Eviction is already something that the tribunal would have the power to order. If there is anything that Mr Ingram considers cannot be addressed through those existing mechanisms, I really wish to sit down with him and talk about it. However, even if it was felt appropriate to provide for the imposition of conditions, I have some technical difficulties with the amendment, which would need to be addressed. I would be happy to work with Mr Ingram on that point in advance of stage 3. I would also welcome comments from stakeholders who have practical experience of having used the equivalent 1988 act provision. However, until we know that it offers something more and does so in a way that we wish to replicate, I cannot, at this stage, support including the provision in the bill. I would ask Mr Ingram not to press his amendment just now and we can discuss further what additional powers, if any, are needed. Accordingly, I would ask both David Stewart and Adam Ingram not to press their amendments. I now invite David Stewart to wind up and to indicate whether or not he wishes to press amendment 174. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In that case, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 174, please show. Those against, please show. Amendment 174, the result is yes to no five. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question is that section 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 88 to 94 on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 88 to 94? The question is that amendments 88 to 94 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 177, in the name of Alec Johnston, already debated, with amendment 57. I ask Alec Johnston to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 177, please show. Those against. Amendment 177, the result is yes, one, no six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 178, in the name of Alec Johnston, already debated, with amendment 57. I invite Alec Johnston to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 178 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Those in favour of amendment 178, please show. Those against. Amendment 178, the result is yes, one, no six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendments 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 95 to 99 on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 95 to 99? In that case, the question is that amendments 95 to 99 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 179, in the name of Alec Johnston, already debated, with amendment 57. I invite Alec Johnston to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In that case, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 179, please show. Those against. Amendment 179, please show. Thank you. Amendment 179, the result is yes, one, no six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendments 100, 101, 102 and 103, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 100 to 103 on block. Thank you. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 100 to 103? In that case, the question is that amendments 100 to 103 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We now move on to grounds for eviction, tenants, conduct other than rent arrears. I call amendment 180, in the name of David Stewart, grouped with amendments 181, 182, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110. I point out that amendment 182 preempts amendments 104 and 105. I now invite David Stewart to move amendment 118 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I believe that my amendments 180, 181 and 182, which will meant that not occupying let property section, the bill are required as they will clarify the process, which must take place before a landlord can establish whether a property is abandoned. As the bill is currently drafted, I have concerns that the process that a landlord must follow to prove that a tenant has left the property is too weak. That is not ideal, as it could lead a tenant to a tenant to remain in the property becoming homeless. My amendments are in line with the provisions of the Housing Scotland Act 2001, which let a set process for landlords to follow to regain possession of a property where it has been abandoned. It will ensure that tenants cannot be evicted unless it is clear that they no longer intend to occupy the property. That is to ensure that, should a tenant be away from the property for an extended premium due to illness, work, holidays etc., that landlord cannot evict them. If the ground is not changed, I feel that a tenant could return from extended absences and find that they have been evicted. Again, I feel that that is strongly in line with the European Convention of Human Rights, particularly the grounds of avoiding harassment of tenants. I now invite the minister to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the group. I will begin with amendments 104 to 106. It is an eviction ground under the bill that the tenant is not occupying the left property as his or her only principal home, but it could be that a tenant is not living in the property because he has quite lawfully sublet it. If a landlord has not prohibited the tenant from subletting, he or she should not be able to evict the tenant for doing so. Amendments 104 to 106 therefore narrow the eviction grounds so that it cannot be used if the left property is being occupied as the only or principal home of a lawful subtenant rather than that of the tenant. If neither the tenant nor the subtenant are making a home in the left property, the eviction ground will still allow the landlord to bring the tenancy to an end. Landlords will have a way of tackling completely abandoned properties. They will also be able to use the ground if someone is occupying the property, but that person does not have a lawful subtenancy. Amendments 107 to 110, the bill provides for a repossession ground that enables a landlord to gain repossession of a property where a tenant has failed to comply with the terms of a tenancy agreement. During stage 1, some stakeholders, including Shelter, expressed concern that the tribunal should not have to grant repossession for breaching a statutory term of the tenancy and should be able to consider the circumstances in each case. Amendment 107 removes the mandatory element of the eviction ground so that a breach of any term of a tenancy agreement will give rise to a discretionary ground for eviction. Amendments 108 to 110 are a consequence of this change. I think that this is proportionate and balances the rights of landlords and tenants, ensuring that the tribunal will only evict a tenant where it considers that a reasonable decision given the breach. Amendment 180, in the name of David Stewart, amends the not occupying the let property ground to change the reference from the tenant's home to the tenant's only or principal home. That amendment is not necessary. Every eviction ground in schedule 3 begins with a sentence giving it a name or label. It is no more than that. As section 41.7 of the bill makes clear, amending the name as amendment 180 would make no difference in the law to the circumstances in which the eviction ground does or does not apply. It would simply make the label longer, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I am now going on. The tribunal will need to be convinced that the tenant is not occupying a property as his or her only principal home. The law is already generous in how it interprets the occupation of such a long holiday, or even a stain prison would not be a failure to occupy as an only or principal home. However, I am grateful for bringing that to my attention, Mr Stewart, and I hope that I have reassured him something with that. Amendment 181 sets out a requirement for a particular form of notice to be served on the tenant. However, the bill already contains a power to prescribe the form of notices and the Government will use that power to ensure that every notice sets out clearly what grounds for eviction might apply, what the tenant needs to do and what the timescales are. As a result, the detail specified in what would be paragraph 1A is not needed. Not only that, the form of notice appears to be misleading, it states that if at the end of the notice period it appears to the landlord that the tenant does not intend to occupy the property, the tenancy will be terminated with immediate effect. However, it then goes on to provide for the tribunal to terminate the tenancy. The tribunal would not be in a position to consider the eviction case if the tenancy has already been terminated. In addition, amendment 181 requires the landlord to make inquiries. However, a landlord who had not made inquiries would have no reason to have sent an eviction notice on the basis of the ground. Finally, the amendment allows the eviction ground to be met, only if the landlord would suffer harm as a result of the tenant's failure to occupy the property as the tenant's only principal home. However, the private residential tenancy regime is designed to protect people's homes. It is not designed to protect houses that have ended up being used only occasionally. Indeed, holidaylets are specifically exempted under 6 schedule 1 of the bill. The existing assured tenancy regime under the 1988 act applies only if and for so long as a property is used as a tenant's only or principal home. Our system similarly focuses on protecting people's homes where the eviction grounds apply. We are not talking about someone's home. Of course, a landlord might be perfectly happy for the tenant to stay on, but that would be for the parties to agree between themselves. For those reasons, I would urge members not to support amendments 181 and 182. Minister's amendments in this group are largely fine-tuning and reasonable, but the one that stands out is amendment 107, which seeks to remove the provision that a first-tier tribunal must find that the ground named by subparagraph 1 applies if the tenant has materially failed to comply with a statutory term of the tenancy. I would have thought if a tenant fails to comply with a statutory term of the tenancy that would be a reasonable ground for the tribunal to find in favour of the landlord. Therefore, I cannot see why the section or the lines are being removed, and therefore we will oppose the removal from the bill. Other than to say that we do not know what the statutory term of the tenancy which will be done in regulations will be laid out, but we think that this is fair and proportionate to allow the tribunal to have that power to be able to do that, and we think that that is fairer than what Alex Johnson is suggesting and what we originally proposed. Can I invite David Stewart to wind up and indicate whether or not he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment? I have heard what the minister has to say, and the minister has previously agreed to meet me on the reasonableness ground. If she would also agree to meet me on amendments 180 to 182, I would seek leave to withdraw three of those amendments. Are members content to withdraw those amendments? I call amendment 181 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 180, and I invite David Stewart to move or not move. I call amendment 182 in the name of David Stewart already debated with amendment 180. I remind members that amendment 182 pre-empts amendments 104 and 105, and I invite David Stewart to move or not move. I call amendment 104 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 180, and I invite the Minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 105 in the name of Margaret Burgess already debated with amendment 180 and I invite the minister to move or not move. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendments 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 106 to 110 on block. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put? In that case, we put the question on each amendment individually. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to, are we agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to, are we agreed? In that case, there will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 107, please show. Those opposed to amendment 107, please show. Amendment 107, the result is yes, six, no, one. There were no abstentions. The amendment is agreed to, therefore. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to, are we agreed? The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to, are we agreed? eu cofiniadon, ne Ny ai ddim yn billedigion, a siaradion yn promising mewn. Ond nid gwrdd Sefrad Jerusalem sydd yn blaen at dwei iddy d doetredod, mae case ydi gwaith gan Daith i gweithio gweld, Mae'n meddygol i chi d blissau appealingu deall hynny. Mae'n meddyl e Samsung Yn ni, maith gwrs drwith aj буду cydmryd, I nodi'r iaith. Amennychwm 173, rwy'n hunr WINSH to drac f начинаh y mae ych byw. Argymell anton admire 184 o petrug geniffellol Sondl. I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Those in favour of amendment 184, please show. Those not in favour, please show. The result of amendment 184 is yes, one, no, six. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 101, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. I call amendment 101A, in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Not moved. Sorry, my apologies. Is it 111 rather than 101? 111, my apologies. 111A, in the name of Alex Johnson. Not moved. I call amendment 111B, in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I ask the minister if she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 111. Moved. It's not done. It's not done. Thank you. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, that we are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Those in favour of amendment 111, please show. Those against, please show. The result of amendment 111 is yes, six, no, one, no, one, no, one, no, one, no, one, no, one. The result of amendment 111 is yes, six, no one, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed to. I call amendment 185 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 53, and can I invite David Stewart to move or not move? Thank you. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to, are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed, there will therefore be a division. The result of amendment 185 is yes, two, no, five, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 186 in the name of David Stewart, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite David Stewart to move or not move? Moved. The result of amendment 186 is yes, two, no, five, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 187 in the name of Alex Johnson, already debated with amendment 53, and I invite Alex Johnson to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. We now move on to grounds for eviction, criminal and antisocial behaviour, and I call amendment 112 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 113, 114, 115, 116 and 124, and I invite the minister to move amendment 112 and speak to all amendments in the group. I will start with amendment 112, convener. Schedule 3 of the bill provides for the grounds under which a landlord can gain repossession of the let property. One of the grounds is where after the tenancy has begun, the tenant is convicted of an offence connected to the immoral or illegal use of the let property or an imprisonable offence committed in the vicinity of the let property. This is presently framed in the bill as a mandatory repossession ground, which means that, if the ground is established, the tribunal must grant an eviction order. Amendment 112 provides that, if an application for eviction under this ground is submitted more than 12 months from the date of the tenant's conviction, the repossession ground is discretionary. The effect of this is that after a year has elapsed since the relevant conviction, the tribunal must consider whether the landlord has a reasonable excuse for not bringing the eviction case forward sooner. This change will ensure that a landlord cannot hold the mandatory repossession ground over the tenant's head indefinitely to be used at a later date. Amendments 113 to 115. Antisocial behaviour that causes alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance is simply unacceptable. The current ground for antisocial behaviour covers the tenant's acting in an antisocial manner towards people who live in the let property and antisocial behaviour committed within or in the locality of the property. On reflection, the Government has concluded that this repossession ground does not go far enough, which is why I have brought forward amendments 113 and 115, which define relevant antisocial behaviour to encompass any antisocial behaviour for which it would be reasonable for the tribunal to issue an eviction order given its nature to whom it is related and where it occurred. Antisocial behaviour is subjective in its nature and directing a person from their home is a serious penalty, so this amendment also introduces a test of reasonableness that the tribunal must consider before issuing any eviction order. Also an application for eviction on that ground must be made within 12 months of it occurring unless the landlord has a reasonable excuse. Amendment 114 makes a minor change to the language used in this ground to ensure consistency. It changes the word acting in an antisocial manner to the word behaving in an antisocial manner. Antisocial behaviour will not be tolerated and we need to ensure that where serious antisocial behaviour occurs, a landlord can take the ultimate action to evict the tenant. The tribunal will consider all of the evidence presented to it, including where the behaviour took place before deciding whether it is reasonable to do so. Amendment 116 provides a landlord with a further course of redress when there is another person living in or frequenting the property who has acted in a criminal or antisocial manner. The antisocial behaviour and criminal conviction grounds in the bill is introduced and relates solely to the behaviour of the tenant. This amendment introduces another ground that will enable a landlord to regain possession where a tenant associates in the let property with a person who has a relevant conviction or engaged in relevant antisocial behaviour. A relevant conviction is where, after the tenancy has begun, this person is convicted of using or allowing the use of the let property for an immoral or illegal purpose or has been convicted of an offence committed in or in the locality of the let property, which is punishable by imprisonment. Relevant antisocial behaviour is any behaviour that, if it had been engaged in by the tenant, might result in the tenant being evicted. That is a discretionary repossession ground, so the tribunal must also be satisfied that it is reasonable to evict the tenant. If the tribunal is considering the case more than 12 months after the relevant conviction or incident of antisocial behaviour, it must also consider whether there is a reasonable excuse for the landlord's delay in making an application to it. In a case involving joint tenants, the ground applies to any one of them. Amendment 124 is a technical amendment to join up amendment 116 with the ability of a landlord to provide the shorter notice period of 28 days when seeking an eviction order on the basis of certain grounds. That will ensure that a landlord can move swiftly in order to address the antisocial behaviour. I move amendment 112. The question is that amendment 112 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 113, 114, 115 and 116, all in name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 113 to 116 on block. Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 113 to 116? In that case, the question is that amendments 113 to 116 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We now move to grounds for eviction legal impediment to let continuing. I call amendment 188 in the name of Patrick Harvie, grouped with amendments 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122. I point out that amendment 188 pre-empts amendment 117, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move amendment 188 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Once again, I will limit my remarks to the amendment in my own name and leave members of the committee to discuss the others. In part 4 of the bill section 14 sets out that a ground for eviction is that the landlord is not registered by the relevant local authority under the landlord registration scheme. Effectively, the two triggers that would bring this ground into effect are that the local authority has either refused to enter the landlord in the register or has removed it from it. Those triggers would only apply in relation to something that the landlord has done, not to something that the tenant has done. It seems to me that it is basically unjust that a tenant would be subject to eviction when they have done nothing wrong, that they would lose their home on the basis of the landlord's behaviour that has led to them being removed from the register. Let's remember that that fit and proper person test in the landlord registration scheme is not a high bar. It's not a high bar by any means. For a landlord to be in a situation as serious as it would take to have them removed from the register, it is clearly something that should not impact on the tenant in that way, leading to an eviction. It seems to be far more appropriate in those circumstances that a management order would be made available to ensure that the tenancy can be managed by a social landlord or another responsible entity or body who is able to ensure that the tenant can continue in that property. I acknowledge that amendment 188 would not achieve that. I lodged it in order that we can have the debate on that point of principle. I hope that the minister will engage directly in the question of what is the proper response when our landlord has behaved so badly that they are kicked off the register. Is it really the proper response that the tenant should suffer eviction? As well as that question of justice, I would also raise the possibility of a practical consequence of that. If, for example, a local authority responded to a serious criminal offence by a landlord with a significant number of properties in a community, it would be faced with the prospect either of removing them from the register and leaving a large number of tenants facing almost immediate eviction or delaying taking action and allowing that landlord to continue to let to new tenants. I do think that there is a serious consequence of this if we don't have an alternative approach. I have no doubt at all that the Scottish Government's many very excellent lawyers would be able to craft a better way of producing an alternative approach to this kind of situation, but it does seem to me that the bill as it stands is wrong. I hope that the minister will agree that an alternative might be sought. On that basis, I would like to move amendment 188. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 117 and other amendments in the group. I will speak first to amendments 117 to 122. When considering the eviction grounds, we want to ensure that they strike an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants to the right to respect for their home and the rights of private landlords. The legal impediment to the left continuing repossession grounds in the bill are refusal or revocation of the landlord's registration by the local authority. Revocation of their HMO licence or an overcrowding statutory notice has been served on the landlord. Those grounds are mandatory, which means that if the tribunal establishes that the grounds exist, it must issue an eviction order. Having considered the evidence presented to the committee, I think that it would be disproportionate to mandatory evict a tenant from his or her home simply because their landlord has in some way failed to comply with duties and legislation. For example, it might not be fair if a tenant was evicted just because their landlord registration was revoked by the local authority. The tribunal should have the power to consider all of the evidence presented to it in such cases and make a decision based on whether it would be reasonable to issue an eviction order. I have brought forward amendments 117 to 122 to change the nature of the legal impediment to let continuing grounds from mandatory to discretionary. That means that, even where the tribunal establishes that the necessary facts to make out the eviction grounds exist, the tribunal will still have a discretion about whether or not to evict the tenant and it will only do so if it is considered reasonable. Amendment 188 by Patrick Harvie's amendments said that it is an offence for a landlord to operate without being registered with the local authority. Under the current assured tenancy system, most landlords use short assured tenancy agreements, which can be terminated on a particular date. If a landlord ceases to be registered with a local authority, he or she should terminate the short assured tenancy to avoid committing the offence of letting property. When unregistered, given the open-ended nature of the new private residential tenancy, the landlord requires some way of bringing a tenancy to an end where he or she has been refused registration or had it revoked. The eviction ground in the bill provides the means by which a landlord can bring a tenancy to an end. To exclude that, it would undermine the system of landlord registration and could lead to a landlord being found guilty of an offence for continuing to let the property. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support my amendments and I ask Patrick Harvie not to press his amendments. Okay, no other members have indicated that they wish to speak. Can I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendments? I acknowledge that the minister's amendments in this group are an improvement to the bill as it stands. I do feel that we are in danger of imagining that there is a binary choice here that either we have to allow a landlord to continue to be registered and therefore potentially, even after being guilty of some kind of infringement, being able to continue to let new tenants or we have to remove them from register and lead to the potential for eviction in order to protect them from committing a subsequent criminal offence. I am still not convinced that the option of a compulsory management order is not the right way to go. I would encourage the minister to give some further thought to that before stage 3 and to consider whether, in those circumstances, allowing that tenancy to continue to operate but be managed by another body, one that is a fit and proper person, whether that is the appropriate response to that kind of situation. Having said that, and with the possibility of perhaps communicating with the minister ahead of stage 3, I would ask to withdraw 188. Minister, do you want to indicate whether you are willing to meet Mr Harvie? I am happy to meet Mr Harvie and other members of the committee. Are members content to withdraw that amendment? I call amendment 117, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are, I call amendment 118, in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed. I call amendment 119, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 120, in the name of the minister already debated amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 121, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 122, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 188, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 175, in the name of Adam Ingram, already debated with amendment 174, and I invite Adam Ingram to move or not move. I call amendment 176, in the name of Alec Johnston, already debated with amendment 159, and I invite Alec Johnston to move or not move. I call amendment 123, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 85, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 124, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 112, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Felly, mae'n bwyddu i'r sgwm fan i dda, neu maen nhw'n hyd i'r ddweud. Felly, mae'n ddweud am y torb? Yn y cwestiynau, mae'n ddweud. Felly, mae'n ddweud got y ddweud wedi'u yr unigion o'r honnw, ond mae'n ddweud yn i fynd Llyfr, ac mae'n ddweud i'r ddweud. Mae'n ddweud i ddweud hwn i ddweud. Mae'n ddweud i ddweud i'r ddweud. Mae hefyd hwn. In that group, section 47 and 48 deal with wrongful termination, and it's very welcome that there is a provision to address a situation in which either a tribunal has issued an Labour a Biterip stimulate adnod afterwards having been mislead, whereas a tenant who has been persuaded to give up a property afterwards having been mislead. I cannot be the only MSP who has constituents who have raised such issues, not unlike those issues in which misleading information or attempts to mislead were used to persuade a tenant to leave or to require to leave a property that they otherwise are happy to continue to rent, so it's really important that there's a provision for dealing with this kind of situation. However, on both of these sections, the action that can be taken requires to be initiated by the former tenant themselves, and I don't think it's difficult to understand that a tenant who's lost their home in this way has got a great deal of other stuff to be getting on with in finding a new place to live, settling into it. Very few situations I think would see a tenant having either the information that they would need or being in a kind of situation which would make it easy for them to challenge their former tenant in this way and to have appropriate action taken. My amendments address both of these sections by allowing a person providing independent advocacy services on the tenant or joint tenant's behalf to initiate this kind of action. I've suggested that this might include a housing charity, a welfare rights advisor, and I'm sure that we can imagine a range of different organisations being able to take that action on a tenant's behalf. Amendment 191 is consequential to both giving a definition of the terms of advocacy services and independent. I do hope that the minister will be open to this argument and I move amendment 189. Thank you very much. I now invite the minister to speak to amendment 125 and other amendments in the group. I'll speak to my amendments 125, 126 and 127 and respond to Patrick Harvie's amendments 189, 190 and 191 and Clare Adamson's amendments 192 and 193. The purpose of amendments 126 and 127 is to place the tribunal under a duty to issue a copy of any wrongful termination order to the local authorities with which the landlord is registered. The effect of those amendments is to further join up decisions made against a landlord by the tribunal with the broader regulation of landlords. Local authorities will be able to take those orders into account when considering a landlord's fit and proper person status under landlord registration. Amendment 125 is a minor technical amendment to clarify the drafting so that it reads immediately before. With regard to Patrick Harvie's amendments 189, 190 and 191, at present there is absolutely nothing to stop a former tenant seeking assistance from persons providing independent advocacy services when the former tenant is making an application for wrongful termination. Those organisations, as Patrick Harvie outlined, provide an excellent service, but they can do that without specific provision allowing third-party applications. They can already provide as much help as they wish and can even represent the tenant at the tribunal. However, due to the nature of the application, it is unrealistic to think that an application can be made without any or detailed input from the former tenant. If the tenant is to be involved, I see no reason for the application not to be in his or her name, albeit made with as much or as little assistance from a third party who wishes to provide it. Otherwise, we would end up in a situation in which an application could be made against the tenant's wishes. The application relates to the tenancy that a particular person had, and it should surely be his or her choice whether or not that tenancy is referred to a tribunal application. In addition, wrongful termination orders are about compensating a former tenant for losing his or her home. Under the bill, the payment is made to the person who makes the wrongful termination application. The amendment would have the effect of allowing third parties to receive any compensatory payment, and I do not think that that would be appropriate. With regard to Clare Adamson's amendments 192 and 193, we heard from a number of tenant representatives organisations during stage 1, who voiced concern that the proposed maximum payment to tenants for wrongful termination is not sufficient to reflect upheaval, removal costs and emotional distress that the tenant is likely to have incurred and incurred needlessly. Although most landlords operate within the parameters of the legislation and comply with their obligations, I know that not all do. I want the wrongful termination order to act as a disincentive to landlords. I do not want landlords misleading tenants or the tribunal in a way that leads to tenants having to leave their homes. Accordingly, I would ask the committee to support my amendments. I endorse Clare Adamson's amendments 192 and 193 and I would ask Patrick Harvie not to press amendments 189, 190 and 191. I now invite Clare Adamson to speak to amendment 192 and other amendments in the group. I thank the convener for the opportunity to speak to the amendment. That is a very complex area in terms of the different values of compensation that can vary across the country, depending on the value of the rent that is involved for people. In all of our deliberations in this bill, it has been about achieving balance and fairness to both the landlords and the tenant. Mr Harvie has already eloquently laid out the difficulties of a tenant facing a wrongful termination and the other pressures on them at the time. I feel that we need to have a level of compensation that makes it worthwhile for the tenants to pursue their rights under the bill and to act as an encouragement for the very best behaviour of the landlords. I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I was a little disappointed that the minister did not see the merit in those amendments. No one would dispute that action seeking recognition of a wrongful termination does need to be well informed by the experience of the tenant. However, I would take issue with the argument that that means that there is no reason that it should not be done in their name. One of the issues that I think the whole committee has been aware of in scrutinising this bill is the vulnerability that some people feel in challenging a landlord who, let us remember, in some places, particularly where there are large commercial landlords, that landlord might be somebody's next landlord, as well as their former landlord. To be in a position of challenging that landlord in name does feel very different than having another organisation do that on behalf of the tenant. I also question whether that is purely about compensation. Clearly, that is a very core part of what the section is about, and it is an important one. Surely, we should also be expecting, for example, in looking at the fit and proper person test under the landlord registration scheme, we should be expecting factors to be taken into account such as whether a landlord has a track record of misleading the tribunal or misleading their tenants. There is a longer term and a wider public interest in that, not purely a private interest on the part of a tenant seeking compensation. It may be that that raises the potential for other changes that might be proposed at stage 3, but for the time being, I would like to press amendment 189. The question is that amendment 189 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Those in favour of amendment 189, please show. Those against amendment 189, please show. The result of the vote on amendment number 189 is yes, 0, no, 6. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 125 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 189. I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 190 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 189, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. I call amendment 191 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 189, and I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Mae niligoedd. And yerwyr vet. Y kiwr argynwyr yn doesn gan awards, y fyddfa 1126 i «Mynst CEO », i ddweud i mroe108, ac wrth ddelchon piwn â получ diadotriadol hefyd. Morron wedi fy inquiwn ac i ddweud yn www. 맞our. I call amendment 192 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 189, and I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 192 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 49 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 127 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 189, and I invite the minister to formally move. No. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. The question is that section 50 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 128, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 85, and I invite the minister to formally move. I call amendment 129, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I call amendment 130, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 85, and I invite the minister to formally move. I call amendment 139, in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 189, and I invite 참 perd, welcome Can help are we all agreed the question is that section 53, be agreed to are we all agreed we now move on to the death of 12 amendment 142 in the name of the Minister grouped with amendments 144 143a, 144 peroinha expected 195, 196, 197, 198, 147, 148 and 149. I point out that amendment 194 preempts amendment 145. Can I invite the minister to move amendment 142 and speak to all amendments in the group? The bill currently provides that where a sole tenant dies, either a brief partner may inherit the tenancy or an executor of the tenancy state must bring the tenancy to an end. Those intended amendments are to ensure that if there is no one to succeed, the tenancy will end without need to appoint an executor. The effect would be if the tenancy is terminating the death of the tenant unless there is a partner with a succession right to inherit the tenancy. I listened closely to stakeholders' evidence on this during stage 1. During my own appearance at committee, I stated my intention to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that if there is no one to succeed, the tenancy will not end. That is because in considering the issue further it became clear that the tenancy not ending on the death of the tenant may disadvantage both the landlord and the deceased tenant's family. Any monies left in the deceased state could be considerably reduced if they took the executor a while to terminate the tenancy. Also, if the tenant died in test date, the landlord would be sitting with an empty property that they cannot re-let until such time that the sheriff appoints an executor and the executor subsequently terminates the tenancy. That convener is still my intention, but having considered my amendments further, I would like to withdraw them at this stage so that I can consider further the process by which accession we will work. That would mean asking Clare Adamson to withdraw her amendments at this stage as well. Can I invite Clare Adamson to speak to amendment 143A and other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener, and I thank the minister for her commitment to take this forward to stage 3. It is an important principle that we take forward in all of this. We have been keen to emphasise that it is a family home and someone's home that we are talking about. In circumstances where there is a sibling, a carer or a younger person in the family, a child who could succeed the tenancy, it is important that those rights are respected. I will choose to withdraw my amendments given the commitment of the minister to look at this at stage 3. Thank you, minister. Do you have anything further to add and to confirm that you are withdrawing? Sorry, convener, I am withdrawing with all the amendments at this stage. However, the policy intention is clear and we will come back with a process for succession rights. Can I have the agreement of members that they are content for the minister and Clare Adamson, for the first of all the minister to withdraw her amendments? The question is that section 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 143 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite the minister to move or not move. Thank you. I call amendment 144 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite the minister to formally move. Sorry, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is, I call amendment 194 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 142 and I remind members that if amendment 194 is agreed to, you cannot call amendment 145. Can I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move? I call amendment 145 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite the minister to move or not move. The question is, I call amendment 146 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite the minister to move or not move. The question is, section 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 195 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move. Thank you. I call amendment 196 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move. I call amendment 197 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move. I call amendment 198 in the name of Clare Adamson, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite Clare Adamson to move or not move. I call amendment 147 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142 and I invite the minister to move or not move. Rwyf ni'n dweud y mynd o gwaith ar gyffredinunolol 156 y byddur i'r gwahau? Rwyf ni'n dweud i tudwithiau yn cyhoeddiaeth Trybunol, a rydyn ni'n mynd i ffordd y byddwyr 131 yn yr ymgyrch. Fy enw i chi'n ffordd y byddwyr 132. Rydyn ni'n dweud i ffordd y byddwyr 131, ac yn gweinwyr 131 I'n dweud i'r fyddwyr 131 panwgofod dros ar gwaith. the more accessible forum of the tribunal. Criminal cases will continue to be dealt with by the share of courts as usual and this amendment does not affect the jurisdiction that the court of session has in relation to landlord and tenant matters such as judicial review. I'm talking now on amendment 132, convener. All private landlords are required to register with the local authority in whose area the let property is situated under part 8 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, etc. Scotland Act 2004 to ensure that they are fit and proper to be letting houses. Amendment 132 provides that where as a result of proceedings before it, it comes to the tribunal's attention that a landlord is not registered with relevant local authority. The tribunal will be under a duty to notify the local authority. The tribunal must tell the authority the landlord's name and address and the address of the property for which he or she is a landlord. The effect of that will be to enable local authorities who have responsibility for administering landlord registration to take enforcement action against a landlord who is unregistered. I move amendment 131. Thank you very much, minister. No members have indicated they wish to speak. Do you have anything further to add? The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 132 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 131, and I invite the minister to formally move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now we want to overlooking minor errors in the documents. I call amendment 133 in the name of the minister in a group on its own, and I invite the minister to move and speak to amendment 133. Amendment 133, convener, inserts a new section into the bill, which provides that any minor errors in the documents specified will not invalidate the document unless the error materially affects the effect of the document. The effect of this will be to ensure that the new tenancy works well in practice, as we do not want tenants and landlords to be penalised for minor errors that do not distort the effect of the document. We want a system that is user-friendly and capable of taking a common sense approach. I move amendment 133. The question is that amendment 133, I take it you have nothing further to add minister. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 148 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142, and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 100. Are we all agreed? No, it's up. Sorry. He's reading it, they're all mine. Okay, the question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It was indicated earlier that the minister was going to move the amendments in that section. We believe that the minister has moved amendment 148, is that it? No, it's not moved. Can I just confirm, minister, that you're not moving amendment 148? No, it's consequential in the previous amendments that I've already mentioned. Amendment 148 is not moved. Okay, I call amendment 149 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 142. Not moved. Minister to move or not moved? Not moved. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 138 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21. Can I invite the minister to move or not move? The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that schedule 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 135, 136, 137 and 138. All in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Can I invite the minister to move amendments 135 to 138 on block? Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put? In that case, the question is that amendments 135 to 138 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 139 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21 and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 140 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 21 and I invite the minister to formally move. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? called amendment 141 in the name of the minister has already been debated with amendment 21". The question is whether amendment 141 will be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 62 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 63 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to, are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill and that ends our business for today. I now close this meeting of the committee.