 Mw событиwn, y cy רק CAPAA? Mae'r cyrch am arlaedd diwrnod iawn yn gyffindedigol hwnnw, sy'n gyfrifysgol i'r cyfrifysgol sydd ar Argrifessor. Mae'r cyrch am arferwydig gyfrifysgol yn gyfrifysgol yn gyfrifysgol i'r cyfrifysgol i'r cyfrifysgol, ac mae y cyfrifysgol i'r cyfrifysgol i gydag am ymddangod опadau. Double, Gwêm Cymru Gweinidog, 4-11-123-15ONE. Rwyf yn gweithio ni, Cymru.ion, Cymruau y gallwch yn gweld ond wedi gweld gyda Gwmffinolwyd-, mae'n ynorydd yn 5-15-9-6-8-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-1. Mae oedd cysysysu i Gwmffinolwyd, yn ni'n gweld cyfots. Mae oedd darlesio i gyd. Maen nhw'n sybu eich glas. clubs sion i gair bod fod yn cyfnod lle o wirio sydd gyda'i drwsff mwrdd hyn yn cyfnodol. Rhyw pwysig maen nhw yn cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch a gwmpag a bobl yn cyfnodol, sion i gbl, maen nhw'n cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch a gwgwien uhswyr. Mae ddweud yn cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch a siwm, sydd yn cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch, mae ddweud yn cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch i gwybarau fod y dyfodol ychydig yn cyfrwydd gyda'u bywch gyda'u bywch I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. I would be grateful if members could now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. We turn to group 1 and I call amendment 5 in the name of the minister in a group on its own and invite the minister to move and speak to amendment 5, please minister. Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures that formal writing is not required to create a private residential tenancy. Under section 8 of the bill, a landlord is required to set out in writing all the terms of the tenancy and provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement. However, if a landlord fails to do this, a private residential tenancy would still exist if the property is let to an individual as a separate dwelling. The tenant occupies all her part of it as their principal home, and the tenancy is not one that is excluded under schedule 1. I move amendment 5. I have concerns about this amendment. I understand what the minister says and the purpose that it has within that, but I am also concerned that there may be unforeseen circumstances relating to that. In order for me to not oppose this amendment, would it be possible for the minister to explain a couple of key things? Firstly, has this been properly thought through to ensure that there are no potential unforeseen circumstances or potential grounds for dispute relating to the terms of this clause? Can she tell me if there has been any attempt to consult more broadly on the potential unforeseen circumstances that this might bring about? It gives me grave concern that it could open up a situation in which existing arrangements might be pursued as tenancies where they were never intended to be in the first place. I thank the minister. I invite him to wind up. Presiding Officer, I would say what I said. This is a technical amendment. It does ensure that if a landlord is operating as a landlord and there is someone in the premises and the landlord has not provided the appropriate documents, they cannot use that as an excuse to say that they do not have a Scottish residential tenancy. We have thought it out very carefully to ensure that that cannot be abused. We are very satisfied that this is the appropriate way to take this forward. I move amendment 5. In which case, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Before I call a division, I now suspend Parliament for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 5. This is a 32nd division. Could members please cast their votes now? Order. The result of the vote on amendment 5 is, yes, 85, no 10. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. We now turn to group 2. I call amendment 6. In the name of the minister, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 6 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you. Amendment 6, 45 and 69 are minor tidying amendments that will have no impact on the policy or operation of the new tenancy. At stage 2, the bill was amended so that the default notice period which tenants have to give to end a tenancy is 28 days irrespective of the duration of the tenancy. That was a change from the bill— Order. Can we have order in the chamber, please? That was a change from the bill as introduced, which has specified a 56-day default notice period for tenancies that had lasted for more than six months. Amendments 28 and 29 simply tied the up section 39 of the bill in consequence of the amendments made at stage 2. They do not, in any way, change the substance of the provision. Amendment 30 splits section 41 into 2 sections. That does not change the effect of the section. The purpose of the amendment is simply to improve the readability of the bill. The first section will set out what an eviction order is. The second section will provide further detail about the circumstances in which one can be made. Amendment 93 is a consequential amendment. Amendments 31, 33 and 34, where a wrongful termination order is granted against joint landlords. The first-tier tribunal can specify that each landlord is liable for a particular amount as a penalty. That allows the tribunal to reflect the fact that one of the landlords may be more culpable for the wrongful termination than the others. The cumulative total of these individual amounts is capped so that the total penalty payable to the tenant will not be more than it would have been if there was one landlord instead of joint landlords. At stage 2, the maximum amount payable by a landlord under a wrongful termination order was increased from 3-months rent to 6-months rent. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 therefore update the total amount that is recoverable from joint landlords so that that is also set at 6-months rent. Schedule 1 sets out the types of tenancy that cannot be private residential tenancies and includes tenancies of agricultural land that meet the conditions that are set out in the schedule. The land reform Scotland Bill creates two new types of tenancy, namely the modern limited duration tenancy and the repairing tenancy. Amendment 46 inserts those new tenancies into schedule 1 and therefore excludes them on the same basis as the existing types of agricultural tenancy. Amendment 50 ensures that the provisions relating to trust ownership only applies where a person is acting as a landlord in his or her capacity as a trustee. If the landlord happens to be a trustee under a trust but that is unrelated to the let property, this amendment ensures that the trust provisions do not apply. Amendment 51 replaces an existing reference to particular types of trust beneficiary with one overarching reference to trust beneficiaries. That in no way widens the scope of the provisions but simply uses more modern language. I move amendment 6. Thank you, I call Alex Johnson to be followed by Jim Hulme. An unusual form of address, but nonetheless, Mr Hulme. Well, we've known each other for about nine years, so I think it's a bit time to get a little bit less formal in this Parliament and I look forward to a less informal Parliament after being returned in me. I appreciate the minister's views on putting in the new tenancies that are in the new land reform only past yesterday, but I wonder if the minister had considered at any stage tenant-side agricultural houses to be included to give protection as we have with normal tenancies to agriculture also. I thank Mr Hulme Minister to wind up, please. Just in response to Jim Hulme's question, we haven't in this bill, but we have already met our discussions with the environment minister to look at how we can address agricultural tenancies in terms of appearing in the next Parliament, but it's not part of this bill. The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 3, and I call amendment 7, in the name of the minister. Group with amendments are shown in the groupings, and I ask the minister to move amendment 7. I speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Amendment 7 is a technical amendment that extends the meaning of tenancy and connected expressions in other enactments to include a private residential tenancy. Various statutes lay down rules in relation to tenancies. When the word tenancy is used in a statute, it ordinarily picks up the common law meaning. At common law, it is a fundamental feature of a tenancy that it has a niche or a termination date. A private residential tenancy does not have a niche. Therefore, in enactments passed before or after the bill, references to tenancies would not ordinarily catch private residential tenancies. That amendment will ensure that they do where appropriate. Amendment 52 is being made simply to flag up on the face of the bill the effect of the amendment that was made by amendment 75 to the 2001 housing act, which is that it will stop a sublet or other private transfer of a socially rented house creating a private residential tenancy over the socially rented house. Amendment 71 to 74, 76, 78 and 79 make changes to other various pieces of legislation in consequence of the bill. I do not propose going through each and every amendment in detail, but in brief the other pieces of legislation affected by the consequential amendments are being altered so that they will in future apply in the same way in relation to private residential tenancies and tenants as they presently apply in relation to existing types of statutorily protected tenancies and tenants. Amendment 110 is not required as paragraph 7 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the housing Scotland act 2014 will make this change once it has been brought into force and the amendment therefore duplicates existing statutory provisions and I cannot support it accordingly. I move amendment 7 and ask David Stewart not to press his amendment 110. I invite David Stewart to speak to amendment 110 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendment would amend the terms of the Rent Scotland Act 1984 to ensure that the offence of illegal eviction references the requirement for landlords to go to the first-tier tribunal to secure an eviction to remove a tenant from the property. This amendment is essential to make it crystal clear that the provisions of the 1984 act apply to the new private residential tenancy. I am aware that the minister is committed to making this change via the housing Scotland act 2014 and I will therefore withdraw this amendment. I thank the minister for meeting me and taking the time to consider the issue in detail and, Presiding Officer, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. It would not be at this stage, we will come to that later. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I invite the minister to wind up. No further points. In which case the question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to, I will agree to. We are. That then brings us to group 4 and I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister group with amendments 9, 10 and 11 and I ask the minister to move amendment 8, please, and speak to all of the amendments in the group. I will speak to amendments 8 to 11. The bill requires landlords to provide tenants with certain things. Section 8 imposes an obligation in relation to the written terms of the tenancy, while section 9 imposes a separate obligation in relation to other information that may be specified by regulations. Where those things are not supplied, the tenant can apply to the tribunal for a payment order against the landlord. Amendment 8 provides that where there are separate failures under sections 8 and 9, the maximum financial penalty available will increase accordingly. That is the tribunal will now have the ability to award an amount not exceeding three months rent for each breach rather than a maximum of three months rent for both breaches. That recognises that the sections impose two distinct obligations and ensures that a landlord who has already breached one of the sections can't then disregard the other with impunity. At the same time, amendment 8 avoids the penalty being increased for every individual breach of section 9 that is signed in an application. That recognises that any section 9 failure is essentially one of not providing the package of any additional material to which the tenant is entitled under section 9. If that breach consists of a number of different failings, the tribunal can take account of that fact when deciding whether to award the maximum amount for a breach of section 9 rather than a lesser sum. Amendment 9 prevents a tenant from increasing the amount that he or she can be awarded by bringing separate applications for each individual item, not provided under section 9. That means that there is no second opportunity to make a claim under section 9 if it could have been included in an earlier section 9 claim. That will ensure that the tribunal's time and resources are not used up by having to consider something separately later, which it could have taken into account on its consideration of the earlier application. I move amendment 8. I support amendment 8 and propose to explain briefly why I support amendment 8. During evidence taken on the bill, it appeared that the three-month rent penalty, which was stipulated in the original draft, was inadequate as an appropriate punishment for some of the actions that might be taken by landlords. I believe that that evidence supported a more stiffer penalty. As a consequence, the six-month rent penalty, which is now available, in some circumstances is appropriate. It has to be said, however, that the reason why I said that I would accept that change at an earlier stage was in order to ensure that we had a balanced bill. Sadly, that balance will not be in the completed bill today, but having said that it will support that, it has my support today. In which case, the question is, that amendment 8, to be agreed to, are we all agreed? I move amendment 9, 10 and 11, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 9 to 11 on block. Any member object to a single question being put on amendments 9 to 11? Since no member has objected, the question is, that amendments 9 to 11, I agree to, are we all agreed? That brings us to group 5, and I call amendment 12, in the name of the minister group, with amendments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. I ask the minister to move amendment 12 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. The bill provides that when a landlord's proposed rent increases referred by a tenant, a rent officer can set the tenant's rent at what he or she judges to be the open market value. Amendment 12 will allow a rent officer to correct an error if an order he or she has issued, which means that time and resources need not be spent on an appeal against the order to deal with a simple mistake that can easily be fixed by the rent officer issuing a corrected order. Amendment 13, 14, 16 and 17 rephrase the open market rent calculation, which is carried out where a tenant disputes a landlord's proposed rent increase. That does not alter the effect of the provision but simply makes it clearer in response to feedback received from stakeholders. It continues to be the case that the calculation is based on a hypothetical new letting of the property by a willing landlord to a willing tenant. The only way that the current tenant is relevant to that calculation is if his or her actions would, for better or worse, change the open market rent that could be achieved on a hypothetical new letting. It continues to be the case that the landlord is not to benefit from a higher rent due to the tenant having carried out any improvements voluntarily and the tenant is not to benefit from his or her failure to comply with tenancy terms where that has a direct impact on the open market rent. For example, because furnishings have been ruined. However, those are now the only two exceptions that need to be stated. In addition, the scope of the exception has been extended to cover all work voluntary played for or carried out by the tenant to cover maintenance as well as improvements and work paid for by the tenant but carried out by someone else. Amendment 15, I will talk to now, one of the criteria when calculating the open market rent rate is the start date of the new hypothetical open market let. The underlying principle is that this ought to be the date the rent increase would have taken effect had it not been contested. At stage 2, the mechanism by which a rent increase notice takes effect was amended. Amendment 15 updates the open market rent calculation in order to reflect the amended rule so that it is always tied to the date that the increase should have taken effect. Where a landlord's proposed rent increase is disputed, the rent officer to whom the dispute is referred must issue a provisional order before issuing a final order setting the new rent. That gives the parties a chance to contest the rent officer's proposal before it is finalised. Section 28 of the bill deals with the case where the parties have settled the dispute themselves before the rent officer has made a decision. It requires the rent officer to make an order simply giving effect to whichever agreement the parties have reached. Amendment 18 removes the requirement for a rent officer to issue a provisional order in these circumstances. That is in recognition of the fact that the order reflects the party's agreement and so there is no need to give them an opportunity to contest it. I move amendment 12. I invite the minister to wind up. The question then is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 13 to 18 on block. I move on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 13 to 18? Since no member objects, the question then is that amendment 13 to 18 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 6 and I call amendment 19 in the name of Patrick Harvie, which is grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I invite Patrick Harvie to move amendment 19 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Please, Mr Harvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been clear to me for quite some considerable time that some degree of rent control is necessary in Scotland if we are going to ensure that private rented accommodation is affordable to people who need it. Far too many people, as has been made clear in debate after debate in this chamber, have been left knowing that owner occupation is unaffordable to them, social rented housing is unavailable to them and that being the case, we cannot afford to allow private rented housing to be seen merely as a market commodity. That is not like any other transaction. It is a serious responsibility to take on the provision of housing and if the private rented sector is going to continue to do more and provide more housing for people in Scotland who have no other option, we need to ensure that it is provided on a basis that they can afford and that does not leave people, as too many are today, being fleeced for poor quality accommodation. The Government's acknowledgement that some form of rent control mechanism is necessary was, although it took some time to get there, very welcome that we have got something into the bill. I have argued consistently that it could have been improved. It appears that the Scottish National Party's membership agrees that a stronger, bolder national form of rent controls would also be a good idea. I commend them for making that decision at their conference. Mike McKenzie's microphone, please. I wonder if Mr Harvie agrees with me that, to be unduly harsh with rent capping, might deter investment and prevent the provision of new homes in the very areas where new homes are scarce. A proportionate intervention, as suggested by the bill and by the Scottish Government, is the appropriate way forward in this case. Patrick Harvie. I do not think that we should be unduly harsh. I think that we need to be just harsh enough. The ability to ensure that this sector provides affordable high-quality accommodation should be our priority. In other countries that have a full national form of rent controls, there is good evidence to show that it does not deter investment from those responsible landlords who want to provide that accommodation at the level that it should be provided. The arguments about how far we should go in this legislation itself will continue to rumble on. At stage 2, although I would prefer a system that simply gave local authorities the ability to designate a rent pressure zone themselves, I am not sure that I see a reason why they need to ask permission from central government to do that. Although that would be my preference, I acknowledge that that was not where we were going to get to with this bill and I simply sought to introduce a time limit within which the Government must respond to that kind of application. Let us be clear. By the time that a local authority reaches the point of making an application for a rent pressure zone, that will already be on the back of months, possibly even years, of sustained pressure and campaigning from those who are at the hard end of this debate, those who are being fleeced for accommodation that they ultimately cannot afford. By the time that application comes through, we absolutely have to deal with it rapidly. The Government was not willing to accept my stage 2 amendment, which would have set what I thought was a reasonable limit. I have been willing to compromise with them and bring back that amendment, which I gather that they will be willing to accept the idea of an 18-week period. I would ask the minister in responding to this group of amendments though, whether in specifying that the Scottish Government can set out requirements which an application must meet in order to be valid, what kind of requirements has she in mind? I recognise that this is a compromised position, something that the Government is willing to accept that goes some way towards what I had been hoping for. However, if the Government is able to define the requirements that specify a valid application, why then do we still need 18 weeks to consider whether the application in fact should go forward? Can the minister tell us what those requirements will be? I look forward to the response on the wider aspects of this group from the minister and other members. I move amendment 19. Could I just have clarification? My consul was showing that that was 85. That does not refer to the fact that the amendment that is being discussed, does it? The amendment is 19 that we are discussing when it comes to a vote that the consul should or the seat number. Oh, right. I did not know that I had a seat number. Thank you. I hope that the consuls will show the amendment numbers when we are actually voting. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 43 and other amendments in the group and ask the chamber to settle down, please. I will speak to amendments 19 to 24, 80 to 82 and 43 and 44. I thank Patrick Harby for his contribution, and I am pleased to be able to support his amendments 19 to 24. Minister, could I stop you for a moment? We have order in the chamber, please. If members have to conduct conversations, then there are one or two members who have requested to speak in this group, so I would ask those members to conduct those conversations, not in the chamber. While Patrick Harby might feel that he might have gone further with his amendments, I believe that he has managed to strike a good balance with them, which is why the Government is happy to support them. However, Patrick Harby's amendments 80, 81 and 82 seek to broaden the scope of the criteria for a rent pressure zone to include rents that are too high. At stage 2, Mr Harby brought forward a broadly similar amendment, which committee members rejected by 7 votes to 0. I appreciate that part of Mr Harby's concern here may be about the affordability of rents in the private rented sector, but I cannot support those amendments for two reasons. Firstly, the bill provides that any rent cap set by ministers in a rent pressure zone must be at least CPI plus 1%. Accepting Mr Harby's amendment would mean that in an area where rents are considered too high but are not currently increasing by too much, a rent cap could be imposed that is actually more than how much tenants rents are increasing by. The effect of that could be to encourage landlords to increase rents further by the full amount of the cap, leaving tenants worse off. Secondly, we are working hard to encourage institutional investors to enter the private rented sector in Scotland and contribute to the supply of new housing. I will give broadening. I am grateful to the minister. If the minister is not able to accept 80, 81 and 82, what does the bill have to offer for those for whom rents have already been spiralling out of control before legislation comes into force? What disincentive will there be for landlords to avoid hiking up their rents before their rent control system comes into being? I think that this is the debate that I have had previously with Patrick Harvie. We said that we would consult an increasing rents in rent hotspots areas and that is what we are doing. What I am saying is that what Patrick Harvie is proposing just now, I do not think, will help the very people that he is suggesting would be helped because this could encourage landlords to put rents up in areas where they are deemed to be, as Patrick Harvie described, too high by CPI plus 1 per cent year on year, which might not happen if they were not put under the amendment that Patrick Harvie is proposing. We have the proportionate approach here in rent controls in this bill. It is about hotspot areas that have been identified as hotspot areas where it is impacting in the wider housing system in that area. At the same time, we are doing this with the same time of the commitment of this Government to increase the supply of housing across all tenors, because ultimately we know that supply is what will bring the rents down, is increasing the supply. I think that there will be unintended consequences in Patrick Harvie's amendment, and I certainly wish to avoid that. However, I want to be absolutely clear that, in relation to rent increases, we will make tenants and landlords fully aware of the tenants' right to challenge a rent increase to a rent officer then the tribe, you know. In addition, the rent increase notices that will be prescribed by ministers will also contain sources of support and money advice, as will all of the prescribed notices under the new tenancy. The provisions in the bill on rent pressure zones address the problems of rents rising too much in hotspot areas. As I said earlier, Patrick Harvie's amendments could lead to higher rents, and I therefore cannot support them and would ask members not to support them either. Moving on to my amendments 43 and 44, the bill provides that a local authority may make an application to Scottish ministers requesting that all or part of the authorities area be designated as a rent pressure zone. After receiving an application from an authority, ministers may bring forward regulations that would designate an area as a rent pressure zone. At stage 2, I brought forward amendments that would provide that regulations to amend or revoke any designation would be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. After stage 2, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee asked that I consider again whether the negative procedure is appropriate for regulations amending or revoking a zone. I have reconsidered this and amendments 43 and 44 will make regulations amending or revoking a rent pressure zone subject to the affirmative procedure, just like regulations designating a zone. I would like to thank the Delegated Powers Committee for its input in this subject. Many thanks. I have three requests at the moment to speak in this group. I call Ken Macintosh to be followed by Alex Johnston. I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing forward these amendments and offering Labour support, not just for the amendments but for his comments and support of this issue, about the operation of rent pressure zones. As the minister will know, although Labour supports the introduction of rent pressure zones, we have some concerns. We were not entirely convinced that this was the best way to take action on rent rises and we remain concerned at how the zones will work in practice. We are particularly concerned at their effectiveness in addressing the whole question of affordability in the private rented sector. Patrick Harvie's amendments would offer some improvement to the proposals, not only introducing an 18-week time frame in which to act but also helping tenants in those areas where rents are already too high, not just where they are rising too fast. For that reason, we will be supporting Mr Harvie's amendments. The inclusion in the legislation of rent pressure zones is one of the reasons why I will oppose this legislation later this evening. It is the fact that Patrick Harvie and I will never agree about how market forces operate in a marketplace. I believe quite strongly that if a rent pressure zone is designated, the effect that that will have is that it will create an investment vacuum in an area where we can least afford it. As a consequence, I oppose rent pressure zones per se. The provisions that Patrick Harvie has brought forward in his amendments in this group, in my view, make things not better but worse. As a consequence, I will oppose the amendments in the name of Patrick Harvie. Amendments 43 and 44, in the minister's name, relate to the rent pressure zone legislation. They relate particularly to the change between negative and affirmative instruments. I am a great fan of the negative instrument. I have spoken up in many committees and in the chamber on more than one occasion to defend the use of the negative instrument in many circumstances, and I do not have the prejudice that some have against it preferring affirmative action. However, if the Government wants it that way, it can have it that way, so I will support those two. One of the few things that Mr Johnson and I agree on this afternoon is that the intent of the bill was to be a balanced bill. I think that the proposals that are before us in the rent pressure zones are a balance of the pressures on tenants and investment in the area and will achieve a benefit to the tenants who find themselves in this particular situation. However, I will not be able to support 80, 81 and 82 for the reasons that the minister has outlined. I would also say to Mr Harvie that we are not at SNP conference today. We are at the final stage of a bill that has been through committee deliberations. The committee unanimously voted against those proposals at stage 2, including the Labour members, because we did not feel at that time. I do not agree at this stage that they would bring any benefit to the bill. I wholeheartedly support the comments of Alex Johnson that he and I will never agree on the operation of market forces. I think that that is an unquestionable truth. Those people who have been left with no alternative but the private rented sector, those people whom our society has failed, are left at the mercy of those market forces, and that market is not operating in their interests. I believe that the imperative of a house is to be a home, not to be a speculative investment, and that, while there is good evidence from other European countries that our rent control system is entirely compatible with seeing continued investment in the provision of private rented housing, without that basic level of rent control, we will continue to see our constituents, too many of them, being fleeced for poor quality housing. I thank Ken Macintosh for his supportive comments. I will just say that, in relation to the minister's view that the unintended consequences of 80 to 82 that I might not have thought of, can I say that, if we don't do this, if we pass legislation which only looks to address future rent increases and fails to address the question of historic rent increases, this debate will remain open. There will be unintended consequences of passing legislation without this measure, because without that we will still have continual demands from our constituents to address the historic, unfair and exploitative rents that too many of them are being forced to pay. I welcome the fact that the minister is supporting the first set of 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 in this group. It will be important to ensure that the Government responds quickly and in a straightforward manner to local authorities, which desire to have a rent pressure zone. However, as I will mention in the next group, I fear that we are passing legislation that will not be as effective as what is genuinely needed. I feel that we have made a compromise between those who want nothing and those who want something genuinely workable. I am glad that it is a small step forward, but I am quite sure that it will not be the last one. I would like to press 19 to a vote, please, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 19 is yes, 81, no 18. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 20. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I ask Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. It will be a division. This is a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 20 is yes, 81, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 21. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. It will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 21 is yes, 82, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 22. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 22 is yes, 81, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 23. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 23 is yes, 82, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 24. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 24 is yes, 81, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is agreed to. I now call amendment 80. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 80 is yes, 28, no, 71. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is not agreed to. I now call amendment 81. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 81 is yes, 27, no, 71. There were no abstentions. The amendment, therefore, is not agreed to. I now call amendment 82. In the name of Patrick Harvie, which has already been debated with amendment 19, I invite Patrick Harvie to move or not move. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a 32nd division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 82 is yes, 28, no, 71. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That brings us to group 7 and I call amendment 83, in the name of Patrick Harvie, and a group on its own. I invite Patrick Harvie to move and speak to amendment 83. Amendment 83 is a fairly simple one that requires ministers within a period of three years after the bill is passed to conduct a review. That review, or the report of the assessment, should take account of the impact of the rent control provisions on the affordability, availability and quality of private rented housing during the review. If Alex Johnson's worst fears come true and that this has had a terrible impact on the availability of housing, we will understand that. We will be able to assess that. I suspect that that will not be what happens, but I do suspect, particularly as a result of the way that some of the amendments have gone in the previous group, I suspect that we have a rent control measure, which is a small step in the right direction, but which will not do enough. I doubt that, after that period of three years, we will have seen very many rent pressure zones being declared. I doubt that we will have helped very many tenants in the private rented sector. I do not, for a moment, regret the fact that the Government has taken this much of a step, but it is going to have to go further. I think that the demand from within the political spectrum and from beyond from the people that we represent and from the organisations that work to support people in relation to housing and the private rented sector will specifically continue to build the call for a more coherent, bolder and more national form of rent control mechanisms. I think that the evidence from other European countries, as I have mentioned, is that that can be achieved. It can be achieved and ensure that private rented housing, whether it is a larger or small part of the housing mix, provides a good value for money, affordable and high-quality offer to its tenants. That is what we should all be looking to achieve, and we will be in a stronger position to achieve that if we conduct the kind of review that my amendment 83 calls for. I think that it is a very reasonable proportionate measure, given that we are implementing a new system to spend a few years seeing how it works, shake out any of the flaws and then figure out if we can build on it and go forward with something stronger. I do not know, as I had a previous indication in the last group that the Government would accept some of my amendments. I have no idea if it is going to accept this one or not, but I really would encourage the minister to recognise that this kind of exercise will have great value in taking forward the rent control system and ensuring that it is as good as it needs to be. I move amendment 83. Many thanks. We are tight for time over the whole afternoon, so I would ask the members to keep the remarks as brief as they possibly can. Ken Macintosh, to be followed by Alex Johnson. Thank you for bringing forward the amendment. Today's bill does offer extra protection, flexibility and security to private renters in Scotland, but on the whole issue of affordability, it remains to be seen how much support it will offer tenants exploited by rip-off rent rises. As the living rent campaign highlighted just last week, the proposals fall far short of a credible strategy to tackle the spiralling and unaffordable cost of renting. Similarly, on the quality and availability of private rented housing, it is difficult to predict at this stage what the effect of the bill will be. I intend to move an amendment later on this afternoon on this very point. Patrick Harvie has proposed in amendment 83 that the Government review the operation and impact of the legislation on affordability, quality and availability of private rented accommodation within the next three years. My Labour colleagues and I believe that that is not just sensible, reasonable and proportionate, as Mr Harvie pointed out, but it is also very much required. On affordability in particular, the proposals in the bill around rent pressure zones, as we have just discussed earlier, feel as if they have been designed almost never to be used. They offer no protection to those whose rents are already unaffordable and there is the chance that they could in fact drive up rents for those vulnerable tenants who have to frequently move. I would point out to the minister that both the living rent campaign and Shelter with their make renting right campaign are supportive of this amendment. I urge the minister to support amendment 83. On hearing Patrick Harvie describe the way in which his report might function, I am almost but not quite tempted to support the idea. The grounds on which I do not support it are that we have a Government that managed to conduct two detailed consultations with the industry and in the end only saw what it wanted to see. I suspect that the requirement for the Government to report on the outcome of the legislation would be just one more opportunity for the Government to see what it wants to see. I will start by saying that I do not support this amendment, but I do not support the grounds that Alex Johnson has just said. I want to be absolutely clear on that. It is not on the same grounds as him. I have concerns about this amendment and the timescale doing a review three years after the bill received royal assent. The new tenancy is expected to commence in late 2017 to tie in with the commencement of the new private rented sector tribunal, as this is an essential part of its operation. It also will allow us time to develop the supporting secondary legislation, including the model tenancy agreement, and to raise awareness among tenants and landlords. Therefore, the new tenancy would commence approximately halfway through the review period. That means that the new tenancy would only have been operational for approximately 18 months by the review date. I do not think that that sufficient amount of time to enable us to undertake a full and comprehensive assessment of how the new tenancy is impacting on the sector, nor do I consider it necessary, as I have already committed to reviewing the new tenancy within five years of its commencement. That would therefore be an unnecessary additional duty placed on the Government, as well as an additional burden on the Government's resources. I would ask Mr Harvie not to press amendment 83. Patrick Harvie to wind up and indicate, if you intend to, to protest her with draw, please. I was a wee bit anxious there that Alex Johnson was going to throw his weight behind this amendment and scupper it, but it seems that the minister had already decided not to support it anyway, so maybe I dodged a bullet there. I do just want, in winding up on this, to reinforce the argument that we should not, if the case is continuing to grow during the next Parliament, whoever represents the citizens that we represent today, whoever is here in the next Parliament, we should not be willing to let that whole Parliament go through another five-year period before we look at whether legislation that we are passing today actually does the job that we require of it. If that legislation is going to have a positive impact in making private rented housing more affordable and preventing absurd rent rises that we have seen in recent years, then we should start to see that effect happen during the next session of Parliament. I think that reviewing it at the three-year mark is a quite reasonable course of action, I think that leaving it till after five years, which means until after the end of the next session of Parliament would close off the opportunity that that Parliament should take to ensure that the system works as well as it needs to. I would like to press amendment 83A to a vote. Many thanks in that case question. Is it amendment 83B agreed to? Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 83 is yes, 32. No, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. We now turn to group 8 and I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister in a group on its own. I invite the minister to move in speaker amendment 25. Presiding Officer, since 1449 legislation has protected Scottish tenants from losing their tenancies when ownership of the properties they lease changes hands, whether by sale, deeds, death or otherwise. The amendment ensures that private residential tenants will have that protection. It means that when the previous owner of a property was letting it out under a private residential tenancy, the tenancy will continue and the new owner automatically takes over as the landlord. I move amendment 25. I have no request to speak, minister. Do you wish to add anything further? No further comments. In that case question, is it amendment 25B agreed to? Are we all agreed? We are. I call group 9 and I call amendment 26 in the name of the minister group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I invite the minister to move amendment 26 and speak to all amendments in the group. I also invite members to turn off their mobile phones. Schedule 3 of the bill currently contains a mandatory repossession ground that enables a landlord to regain possession of a property if the landlord or a family member intends to live in the property. Where a family member wishes to live in the property, my amendments 26, 27, 59 to 63 and 65 to 68 would change the nature of the repossession ground from mandatory to discretionary. That means that where it is a family member of the landlord who intends to live in the property, an eviction order would only be granted if the ground is met and the tribunal considers it reasonable to evict the tenant. If it is where the landlord intends to live in the property, the ground would remain mandatory. That eviction ground is based on the intention of the landlord or his or her family member. Amendment 68 also provides that if a family member is incapable of having or expressing his or her intention, the landlord and the person entitled to make decisions about where that family member lives can express the intent. David Stewart's amendments 102 and 104 would make the whole ground discretionary. That would mean that the tribunal would have discretion on whether to evict the tenant, even if it was established that the landlord intended to live in the property. My amendments already amend the ground so that where a family member wishes to live in the property, the tribunal will have discretion on whether or not to grant an eviction order. I think that my amendments strike a better balance. Accordingly, I move amendment 26 and ask David Stewart not to press his amendments 102 to 104. This amendment would have the effect of introducing a reasonableness test to the eviction ground that relates to a landlord or a member of the family intending to live in the property. Although I note that the minister has moved amendments that should change the ground from mandatory to discretionary, I believe that that does not go far enough and that the first year tribunal's discretion should extend to the landlord's intention too. Enabling the tribunal to consider whether it is reasonable to grant the order will add an important layer of protection for private tenants from potentially arbitrary eviction. Evicting a tenant from their home is a very serious sanction, which will not only affect the tenant but potentially the family of the tenant and the children in the household. It is therefore vital to ensure that the tenant and the landlord's situations are fully examined by the tribunal before a decision is made either way. It would also address concerns raised during the bill process that by not enabling the first year tribunal to take into account whether an eviction order is reasonable or not, the bill may not sufficiently take into account human rights considerations. It is principally article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. The amendment, alongside the other amendments for the grounds of eviction that will move today, aims to ensure that there is a holistic, reasonable and balanced approach to deciding whether tenants should be evicted. It gives me significant concern that the opportunity for a family member to take up residence and then the tenancy on that basis will become a discretionary rather than a mandatory ground. I would ask at this stage if the minister could possibly, in her winding up, explain what the reason for that change was and whether any evidence was taken from stakeholders to influence the decision on why a landlord should be able to have a mandatory grounds for repossessing a property or taking back a property should he wish to live in it, but should it be a family member he wishes to put in that property, then it is treated as a discretionary ground. There are simply too many examples that I am aware of of situations, particularly in rural areas, where the need to get a property back for a family member is something that is too important to be treated as a discretionary. I would like to hear the minister's further explanation. We have struck a reasonable balance here. We have listened to all sides in this debate about discretionary and mandatory. I would make clear at this point that whether a ground is discretionary or mandatory, the tribunal has to be ensured that that ground has been established. If a landlord wants to live in the property or intends to live in the property themselves, they will have to provide evidence to the tribunal of why they are doing so. It does not mean that a family member would not be granted by a tribunal. They will look at the circumstances around that. If it is a family member who does not own the property that the landlord wants to move into the property, the tribunal will have a right and a discretion to look at what is surrounding that and why does the family member require to move into that property. Very often, the ground will be granted, but it is about putting that element of discretion when it comes to the family member. We felt that that was right. We think that we have the balance right here. We know that it is a fine balance between mandatory and discretionary and the rights of landlords and rights of tenants. We think that we have struck the right balance here, but in terms of we cannot accept David Stewart's amendments 102 and 104, because one side is telling us that we are going too far, the other side is telling us that we are not going too far enough. Perhaps we have got it right. The question then is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. This is a one minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 26 is, yes, 84. No 13, there were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, agreed. I call amendment 27 in the name of the minister. I already debated with amendment 26, so I invite the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes, we are. In which case we move to group 10, under call amendment 84, in the name of Alec Johnson, group with amendments 85, 86, 87, 88 and 92. I invite Mr Johnson to move amendment 84 and speak to all the amendments in group please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by formally moving amendment 84 in my name and speaking to the whole group of amendments? The purpose of those amendments is to reintroduce the initial period, as I believe that the Scottish Government's stage 2 amendment to remove it was an ill-thought-out and overreaction to stage 1 lobbying. The tenancy review group advised that there should be an initial period and it receives 76 per cent support, including from Shelter Scotland at the consultation stage. As I have said earlier, during the consultations that have happened on this bill, there have been some very interesting and unpredictable reactions by Government to fairly strong opinions that have been expressed. The initial period would have given stability and flexibility to both landlords and tenants as acknowledged by the committee and by the Government at stage 1. Stakeholders have offered the minister alternative solutions, which addressed the issue of a tenant having to leave quickly without jeopardising the whole sector, yet those have been dismissed. Landlords' risk of tenants' change-overs had they previously used the six-month initial period has increased from twice a year to up to 12 times a year. That is a disproportionate increase in risk. Some landlords may decide to withdraw from the sector, creating a negative effect on the market for tenants. Has the Scottish Government thought forward a step and considered the impacts of removing the initial period on a whim? My amendments are to seek to correct that and give the sector a chance. Many thanks to Short Contributions. Ken Macintosh to be followed by Clare Adamson. Labour is opposed to this group of amendments from Alex Johnson. The issue of tying in tenants to an initial period came up at the Equal Opportunities Committee as well as at stage 1 and was discussed at stage 2 by the Infrastructure Committee and its deliberations on the bill. Our concern, clearly shared by most members across the chamber, is that the initial proposal in the bill to tie tenants into a six-month lease would make it difficult for those who need to flee domestic abuse. It could be stressful and dangerous enough for victims of domestic abuse without the added burden or the added prospect of being chased for six months' rent for a property that they no longer live in. The Government agreed with Labour and other campaigners at stage 2 and removed the section from the bill. I would urge Mr Johnson not to attempt to reinstate it. Just to concur with the concerns raised by Ken Macintosh and the evidence that we received particularly from COSLA regarding this. I think that the evidence about domestic abuse was absolutely compelling, so I will be rejecting those amendments. I amended the bill during stage 2 to remove the initial period. As I had concluded that having an initial period was likely to cause problems for various groups of tenants which I judged best to avoid, I noted the concerns raised by the ICI Committee about the impact that the initial period could have in cases of domestic abuse and concluded that the initial period could make it very difficult for someone in an abusive relationship to terminate a tenancy without incurring financial penalties. However, I also noticed other circumstances where the initial period could prove unreasonably restrictive and inflexible for both tenants and landlords. For example, a tenant having entered into a tenancy in good faith could suddenly find 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 as part of their current job, or a landlord might offer a tenancy in good faith and then find that they need the property urgently for themselves or have to sell it for financial reasons. The effects of my amendments at stage 2 were to make the tenancy completely open-ended, enabling tenants to end the tenancy by providing notice at any time and enabling landlords to use all the grounds for repossession from the outset of the tenancy. That has been supported widely throughout the sector, including by Shelter, in the recent briefing. I believe that this is a simpler and more straightforward approach that will benefit tenants and landlords. Therefore, I cannot support Alex Johnston's amendments and would urge members not to support them either. I am afraid that I believe that the case was made for the initial period early in the process that it had strong support across the board. It is the case that a specific set of circumstances were drawn to the committee's attention, which could be addressed by eliminating the initial period. However, there were alternative routes and the loss of the initial period means that it takes away the predictability and the stability from the landlord-tenant relationship in that early period of a new tenancy. Therefore, I believe that the removal of the initial period was a bad idea and that it weakens the legislation further and that I will propose today its reintroduction. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. This is a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 84 is, yes, 15, no 82. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 28 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 6. We invite the minister to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 29 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 6. intentions and aeg to move formally. Amendment 85, in the name of Alex Johnston, already debated with amendment 84. Will Alex Johnson to move anewfo or not to move? ".. not moved." Thank you. In which case.. I call Activism Amendment 30 in the name of the minister. Already, I'm debated with amendment 6. That's to invite Mr Minister to move formally. To moved. The question is, it's amendment 30. We agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. We are. The call amendment 86 in the name of Alex lifetime already ein is the new. I invitean AJsson to move on or not to move. Need. Thank you. Ieith ydy'r amser 30-21 rydyn ni. Does the minister speak to him? He would like to know what the question is. Ieith ydy'r amser 30-21 rydyn ni. The bill contains a repossession ground that enables a lender to regain possession of a property where they intend to sell it. The amendment 32 ensures that a lender who is entitled to sell the property can apply for an eviction order in the same way as a landlord can. I move amendment 32. Since no one else has requested to speak on amendment 32, minister, do you wish to add anything further? Nothing further. Thank you. In that case, question is that amendment 32 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are. Call amendment 33 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 6 and I invite the minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. We are. We are now turned to group 12, and I call amendment 35 in the name of the minister, group with amendments 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 70 and 77, and I ask the minister to move amendment 35 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. The bill is introduced would have required an executor to terminate the tenancy if the soul tenant died and nobody inherited and gave a right to inherit only to the dead tenant's bereaved partner. I have listened to the evidence given to the infrastructure and capital investment committee at stage 1 and I'm bringing forward amendments 35 to 38 and 42 to remove the need for an executor's involvement to terminate a tenancy on the soul tenant's death and amendments 70 and 77 have been made in consequence of that change. If it is not inherited, the tenancy ends automatically with the tenant's death. Having listened to what Claire Adamson had to say at stage 2, I'm also bringing forward amendments 39 to 41 so that not only the tenant's bereaved partner but also adult family members and carers who live in the let property as their principal home with the tenant can inherit the tenancy if the appropriate conditions are fulfilled. I'm grateful to Claire Adamson for her contribution in this. The amendments also make clear that when a joint tenant dies, his or her interest under the tenancy dies to leaving the tenancy to carry on with the surviving joint tenant or tenance. I move amendment 35. Many thanks. Brief contributions, Claire Adamson and Alec Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Although we've talked about the balance of the bill, I think that at the heart of this bill we have to remember it is about the family home and recognising that a tenant's house is their home that they're living in. I welcome the support of the Government in this area and I will be supporting the amendments. Thank you, Alec Johnston. Briefly, please. I start addressing them in order of these amendments. I can see why the changes are being made and I can see that they're justified, but as we progress through the changes that get to amendments 38 through to 41, it does produce a quite extraordinary degree of complexity. However worthy the objectives contained within those amendments are, and many of them are, when you read through individual sections, I have grave concerns that will simply create in some form a legal minefield that will be extremely difficult to discharge. I seek the reassurance of the minister that that is not what is going to happen in those circumstances and that we will not find ourselves with a set of regulations so complex that they cannot be effectively applied. Thank you, minister, to wind up, please. I was simply saying in response to Alec Johnston that the session that we've itemised here in the bill was about the relationship between the session rights and any other social tenancies. They are well-known, well-approved, they will not be difficult to find a way around, and it's the right thing to do, as Clare Adamson said. Is it, in fact, the minister's intention to ensure that private sector tenancies are, in fact, indistinguishable from social tenancies, or is there an understanding by the Government that there is actually a difference between the two? Minister. I would simply say that if they were the same, we wouldn't be having a bill here about private residential tenancies. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendments 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 36 to 42 on block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 36 to 42? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 36 to 42 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 13, and I call amendment 89 in the name of Ken Macintosh, which is group with amendments 90 and 91, and I invite Ken Macintosh to move amendment 89, to speak to all amendments in the group, please, Mr Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and amendments 89, 90 and 91 in my name are designed to drive up the quality and standards of accommodation in the private sector. My colleagues and I in Scottish Labour are proposing the creation of a private residential tenancy charter to ensure that tenants and private lets are put on a similar footing to those in socially rented accommodation and have some assurance that their properties will be warm, secure and safe to live in. I think that it is important to say that good landlords, of which there are a majority, have nothing to fear from our amendment. But, and I was discussing this very issue with volunteers from the homeless charity crisis at an event earlier this week, we need to take action to stamp out those rogue landlords who provide properties that are cold, damp and frankly inadequate. We already know from figures produced by the Bank of Scotland that those who rent are, on average, £1440 a year worse off on average than those who own their own home. Tenants in the private rented sector in turn pay much more rent than tenants in the social rented sector, and yet all too often they receive poorer value for money. As Government law centres powerless report demonstrated, often vulnerable tenants are treated very badly in relation to standards of accommodation and service. I believe that it is unacceptable that private renters should be worse off financially and worse off in the state or quality of the home they live in too. Tenants in the social rented sector have recourse to the Scottish social housing charter, which sets out the standards and the outcomes that tenants can expect from landlords. Labour believes that those in the PRS should be able to expect the same. As the minister and many members will know, there is no doubt that the condition and maintenance of homes in Scotland is a serious problem. The recent commission on housing and wellbeing found that half of all housing in Scotland falls short of official quality standards. Data from the Scottish house condition survey suggests that the rates of extensive disrepair, damp and condensation in homes continues to remain unchanged and with more than 70,000 homes falling below the tolerable standard. 14 per cent of people now live in the private rented sector, but it is estimated that a quarter of all homes below tolerable standard are to be found in that same sector. The PRS has more than doubled in size over the past decade and the expanding number of people renting privately needs the sort of protection and method of asserting their rights that my amendments would give. Amendment 89 would require the Scottish Government to create a private residential tenancy charter, which landlords would have to comply with. Amendment 90 would empower the first-year tribunal to determine complaints from tenants where there had been a failure to comply with a charter. The amendment would also entitle local authorities, as well as individual tenants, to bring complaints to the tribunal too. Amendment 91 is a consequential amendment. I am grateful to Mike Daley and his colleagues at the Government Law Centre for all the work that they do in helping vulnerable tenants and for suggesting the charter as a way of addressing a gap in today's bill on the issue of quality. I would note, as you have seen from the briefing circulated in advance of today's stage 3, that my amendments are supported by Shelter. Those three amendments offer a powerful means to raise standards in the sector, root out poor practice and ensure PRS tenants obtain better value for money. I move the amendments in my name. I have some sympathy with the aims of the amendments that were set out by Ken Macintosh. It is important to place on the record that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee did not have the opportunity to consider those amendments at stage 2. Had we had that opportunity, there would have been the opportunity for a debate, there would have been the opportunity for the minister and perhaps Mr Macintosh to have had discussions in advance of stage 3 to actually scope what the impact of those amendments would be and how best to take them forward in order to have them properly considered and possibly included in the bill. My objection is that they are being tabled at far too late a stage in the legislative process and for that reason I would urge members not to support them on this occasion. I have often criticised the Government for bringing things in late in the legislative process, but in this case it is not the Government that is to blame. As Jim Eadie says, we have not had the chance to consider this, but I am prepared to express an opinion on those amendments. Firstly, I can understand the objective that lies behind them. Indeed, I would like to see the private rented sector providing improved quality of housing in Scotland, and anything that we can do to achieve that would be worthwhile. However, I think that we have a problem here in that Ken Macintosh has perhaps, as we discussed a moment ago, confused the opportunities that exist between the private rented sector and the social rented sector. The problem is that, were that to be enforced, it is not the case, as he suggested, that private landlords would have to conform to that. They would not have to conform to that. They would have an alternative. They could disinvest, and that would be a catastrophe. I agree with the objectives but not the means by which he seeks to achieve them. In the face of the idea of a charter that lies behind Ken Macintosh's amendments, it might seem like an attractive proposition. However, I have to say, like Jim Eadie and Alex Johnson, that no-one in the consultation on our proposals for the bill and we would extensive consultation and extensive scrutiny by a committee at stage 1 and stage 2 suggested that the private rented sector needed or indeed would be suitable for a charter in the lines that we introduced for the social rented sector. Neither Ken Macintosh or any members of his party raised that. That worries me, because we have been asked now at this final stage in the bill's consideration to introduce provisions in what, by any standards, is a significant new policy without having consulted those who would be affected or intended to benefit by it. I do not believe that that is how we should be legislating and for that reason alone I cannot support the amendments. Also, I am not persuaded that a charter is necessary or would even have the intended effect of improving the quality of the private rented sector. We are already undertaking significant work to improve the private rented sector, not least of which is the new tenancy provided for in this bill. This rebalances the relationship between landlords and tenants. By removing the no-false grounds, better enables tenants to assert their existing rights, for example, to require a landlord to carry out repairs to their property. There is also ready legislation on standards that private rented property must meet through the repairing standard in part 1 of the Housing Scotland Act 2006. A further likely overlapping set of standards with different enforcement rules would be inefficient and likely cause confusion. This Government's strategic approach to regulating the sector is set out in our strategy for the sector, first of its kind since devolution. That includes the recent work to regulate letting agents and create a new more accessible specialist housing tribunal. The current approach of setting minimum standards through the repairing standard, I believe, is a better way of giving tenants the necessary safeguards on the condition of their homes. From later this year, repairing standard cases will be heard by the new housing tribunal. The Government is also undertaking work to improve enforcement of regulations in the private rented sector, including new statutory guidance for local authorities on landlord registration, which will be consulted on later this year. I believe that the charter proposed in this amendment, while well intended, would only create additional bureaucracy with limited benefit and would place a significant extra burden on the financial resources of the new tribunal. I therefore cannot support this amendment and would ask Parliament not to support it. Can Mackintosh press up or withdraw his amendment and wind up? I thank all the members for their comments. The key argument seems to be, although I was unsure that the minister seemed to welcome the intention, but then put an argument forward that she thought it would be additional bureaucracy with little effects. I am not entirely sure that that would be the case. The main argument against it seems to be that we did not discuss this at stage 2, and I would suggest that, if it is right to take action, it is right to take action now. It is a rather weak argument to say that it is the only reason for not doing this because it is too late. What I would have to say to Mackintosh here is that what is proposed in this amendment is significant change to the outset of the bill. It is a significant change, not only impacting on the bill but on the financial memorandum for the bill. The social charter in the social sector took a long, lengthy process with lots of consultation to all those involved in it. There has been no consultation on this, and I do not think that it is right or appropriate to put this in at the bill at this stage. The minister made that point. She thinks that it is a bit late, but the issue of quality at standards was raised by many witnesses in the evidence, not least by Mike Daly himself when he gave it to the committee. I accept that the minister has concerns about the potential cost, but clearly there are concerns about quality and standards. I can just say to Mr Johnson his argument that, by introducing this measure, this would cause disinvestment in the sector. I have to say that I thoroughly reject that argument. The opposite of that argument would be that somehow we should be grateful for people investing in the sector to offer an inferior service or band landlords or poor quality renting accommodation. That is not right at all. I accept that the minister does have some reservations. I would have preferred slightly more strong words of encouragement that standards and quality matter, but I intend to move this amendment. The question is that amendment 89 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. There should be a one-minute division. Please vote now. Amendment 89 is yes, 24, no, 60. There will be no abstentions and the amendment is there for not agreed. Amendment 90 is in the name of Ken Macintosh to move or not. Thank you very much. Amendment 43 is in the name of the minister to move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 91 is in the name of Ken Macintosh to move or not. Not moved. Thank you. Amendment 92 is in the name of Alex Johnstone to move or not. Not moved. Amendment 44 is in the name of the minister and all previously debated and I invite the minister to move 44, 93 and 45 on block. Moved on block. Does the member object to a single question being put on amendments 44, 93 and 45? As no member does, the question is that amendment 44, 93 and 45 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are many thanks, which takes us to group 14. Amendment 94 is in the name of Patrick Harvie, group of amendments 98, 58 and 99. Mr Harvie, to move amendment 94 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, earlier I moved some amendments which I had a good ground for suspecting the Government with support. Then I moved some where I genuinely didn't know which way they would go. At this time I'm moving an amendment that is much certain they will reject, but which does give us the opportunity to have some degree of debate about a more fundamental reform which may come in time, but which clearly the Government is unlikely to accept in this legislation. We are quite rightly limiting the grounds for eviction which a landlord can exercise, because we recognise that the purpose of housing is to provide a home and that the security of tenure that people in the private rented sector, people who, once again, I remind the Parliament we have given no other option to, people whom we have failed to provide either the affordability of owner occupation or the availability of social rented housing. The security of tenure that they are entitled to receive is important to their quality of life, to their well-being, to their ability to raise their families rather than simply being moved from home to home to home because after landlord has a whim, that has been too many people's experience. I think that we should be happy and proud that we are giving some greater security of tenure to people in the private rented sector. There will, of course, have to be some circumstances in which a landlord has to have ground for eviction and I think that none of us would disagree that, for example, a tenant's misbehaviour might be a reasonable ground for eviction. It has been argued and, even in some of the more progressive countries in Europe, the intention to move into a property, particularly for someone who is not a professional landlord with dozens of properties, but the intention to move into a property may be that landlord's necessity. It may be something they have to do. On those situations, I think that we might agree that the ground for eviction might be used. I am asking whether the intention to sell a property should be a ground for eviction. My amendment would remove it after a five-year period. Those who have got into becoming a landlord by accident or at a small level, perhaps speculatively, perhaps a buy-to-let mortgage was seen as an alternative to a pension or other investment for their own security in the future. A person in that situation would have five years in which to decide if they want to continue to be a landlord for the long term or whether they want to dispose of that property and they would be able to use the intention to sell a ground for eviction. After that point, a person who is doing the job of a landlord would be able to sell that asset with the tenant sitting in it. The tenant would not have their home taken away from them simply because the landlord has made a financial decision to best serve their own investment purposes. If we want a professional private rented sector, it is reasonable that those professional businesses delivering that service in the private sector should respect the right of the tenants to whom they are selling a service. They are not simply offering the keys month by month for a monthly rent. They are selling a service that includes security of tenure, a secure, safe, decent place to live. There are persons in that situation who want to make a change in their own investment portfolio should not be doing so by evicting a tenant from their home. I recognise that this is a more radical reform than the Government will contemplate today but I would point out that there are other countries such as Germany where it is much harder, but much harder for a landlord to use the intention to sell a property as ground for eviction because being a landlord is about providing housing not about providing one's own speculative investment purposes at the expense of somebody else's long-term secure, safe home. I don't expect this amendment to be accepted by the chamber but I will be interested to see if there is any openness to discussing whether a reform of this nature might come forward in the future. At that point, I move amendment 94. Thank you. I now call on David Stewart to speak to amendment 98 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As with amendments 102 to 106, those amendments enable the first tier tribunal to consider whether an eviction order is reasonable where a landlord stated the intent to sell the property. That would enable the tribunal to look at the broader issue in terms of the landlord's case of eviction action, for example, examining whether the landlord might be able to sell the property with the tenant institute. That would add an extra safe card for private tenants from arbitrary eviction and ensure that the security of tenure that the bill provides is cast iron. I now call on the minister to speak to amendment 58 and other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'll start with Patrick Harvie's amendment 94. It's got it right that the Government will not be supporting his amendment. Landlords need to be confident when they're letting out their property that they'll be able to sell it with vacant possession. Property valuation for landlords is absolutely important, so not being able to evict the tenant in order to sell the property could be problematic for many landlords who need their property or need to sell their property. The impact on the supply of private rented housing would either reduce the value of potentially putting landlords into difficulty or simply not want to let their properties out as private rented homes. Therefore, I can't support the amendment to oppose it. David Stewart's amendment 98 and 99 would make the landlord intends to sell the property eviction ground discretionary. Again, landlords have to have that right and that confidence that they can sell their property. I strengthened this ground by lodging an amendment to outline the types of evidence that might be considered by the tribunal when assessing a landlord's intention to sell the property. The tribunal has to be satisfied that the ground has been met before it can issue an eviction notice. I think that that strikes a fair balance with listening to both stakeholders and I can't support David Stewart's amendment on that. It will have an impact on the supply of private rented housing. Amendment 58 is a technical fix that would enable a landlord to regain possession if he or she intends to sell the property for market value whether on the open market or by private sale. I ask members to support amendment 58. Thanks. I'm working backwards. Amendment 58, in the first instance, I'm not convinced to understand what advantage there is in replacing the phrase on the open market for market value. In fact, I've discussed with one or two people who are worried that how market value might be established and would prefer the open market definition as being one that was more practical for a seller to be able to clearly demonstrate. On the subject of David Stewart's amendments, they, of course, have the effect of turning a mandatory ground into a discretionary one which I believe disadvantages the landlord further within the imbalanced relationship that this bill creates. Finally, on amendment number 94 in the name of Patrick Harvie, I'm concerned that the effect of this amendment could be to guarantee the length of every tenancy to being a day or two less than five years and I wouldn't like to see that happen. Thanks. I now call on Patrick Harvie to wind up and press to withdraw his amendment. Thank you. The minister made a wee slip of the tongue not a serious one but I think it was a telling one when she said that this would be about landlords who might need their property and then correct herself might need to sell their property. There's a fundamental difference between these things. If the property is a home if that's its purpose, if that's the reason it exists then it might be reasonable that if the landlord needs that property that they would have a reasonable ground for eviction, if they need it to live in. This is not about a landlord who needs that property. This is about a landlord who wants to maximise their profit. It's not about whether that house is providing the home or the host to be. I recognise that this amendment isn't going to go anywhere today but I suspect that if we are successful in what the Government is trying to achieve in part of this bill which is the professionalisation of the private rented sector we will have to return to the question of whether those professional bodies choosing to re-organise their financial assets should be able to evict tenants in order to make that a more convenient exercise for themselves a more profitable exercise for themselves or whether in fact tenants should have a right to live in the home that they are paying rent for regardless of whether that property is being sold from one professional landlord to another professional landlord. I press amendment 94. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one minute division. Result of the vote on amendment 94 is yes, 5, no, 68. There were 22 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 46 in the name of the minister. Ready to debate amendment 6. Minister to move please. Many thanks. Question is amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 46 is yes, 94. There were no votes against and there were no abstentions. The amendment was therefore agreed. Thank you Mr Johnston. Which takes us cheerfully to group 15. I now call amendment 95 in the name of Alex Johnston. Group with amendments 96, 97, 47, 48 and 49 Mr Johnston. I point out that if amendment 97 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 47, 48 and 49 because of a pre-emption. Minister to move amendment 95 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Thank you very much I suspect that we will be okay with that pre-emption. Can I first apologise for shouting no at the last group when I should have just kept my mouth shut? I was thinking about this next group and I will take the opportunity to begin my contribution on this group by offering a great deal of praise to the minister because this is the subject in which we got the most effective and constructive movement in the bill from the Government at stage 2. There was grave concern over the effect on purpose-built student accommodation and the choice of companies to invest in developing it in the future if the bill wasn't changed to defend that business model. The Government understood that problem and brought forward amendments at stage 2 which dealt with that problem. I praise the minister for having taken that action. My concern at the time is that perhaps there was a lack of flexibility in the amendments that the Government brought forward at that stage. My amendments number 95 which I move at this stage and 96 and 97 are designed to create a little more flexibility in how those changes can be implemented under the terms of the bill. However, what worries me and where my praise for the minister is that I suspect that amendments number 47, 48 and 49 are designed to do the exact opposite and appear in my view to be a step back from the position which the minister took at stage 2. In summing up my remarks at this stage this was an important change at stage 2. I think greater flexibility would give greater value to the industry and encourage greater investment but I worry that perhaps after the event at stage 2 the minister decided that she'd perhaps gone too far. I encourage her not to believe that and to go forward boldly and create opportunities for investment in purpose built student accommodation. I thank ministers to speak to amendment 47 and other amendments in the group, please. Alex Johnson's amendments 95, 96 and 97 would exempt all students from the new tenancy meaning that they would instead rent through a common law tenancy or occupancy agreement simply because there were students. I can't support that. I believe that all tenants in the private rented sector should have the same rights and protections. That is the only fair and right thing to do. As I have said many times the basic principle of the new tenancy is that if someone rents a property in the private sector then they have to regard the persons they rented to as their home. For those landlords that currently let to students I recognise that they may need to adapt their business model to the new tenancy but this should not be insurmountable. Many students will continue to leave at the end of the term and they will not want to pay rent for somewhere that they will not be living and for those that do stay will be because they are calling where they stay their home and I would therefore ask him not to press his amendment but if he does I would urge Parliament to oppose this amendment. Amendments 4 to 7 to 49 the bill provides that a student let of a property with student specific planning permission i.e. the purpose built student accommodation is exempt from the new tenancy. Student specific planning permission is defined as a building where planning permission for the construction, conversion or change of use of the let property was given on the basis that the let property would be used predominantly for housing students. My amendments 4 to 7 and 49 add an extra limb to the text to include that only an institutional provider of student accommodation could be exempt from the new tenancy. The amendments describe an institutional provider as someone who has at least 30 bedrooms in the same building or complex and intends to use them predominantly for the purpose of housing students. The exemption in the bill is already framed so as to exclude HMO properties in the mainstream private rented sector because they will not have planning permission in the terms that I have just outlined. This is simply to make it absolutely 100% clear that this exemption is only about institutional providers of student accommodation and I ask members to support my amendments 4 to 7, 4 to 8 and 49. Thank you. We will not be supporting the amendments in Alex Johnson's name in this section but we will be supporting the amendments in the name of the minister. This is an issue that came up in evidence at stage 1 on which the committee and Parliament considered at length. It is clear that students themselves do not wish best protection or security of tenure than anyone else in our society. In many ways, the amendments from Alex Johnson are a reflection of whether we should regard a private rented flat primarily as a business or as a home. Do we want to frame the law to meet the needs of those who rent out property to students or to the students who live there? I recognise that the two are not mutually incompatible but the whole point of this bill is to shift the emphasis on Alex Johnson to withdraw the amendments in his name. Thank you very much. We will not be supporting the Conservative amendment today. We will support the Government's amendment. It is only fair that we have had representations from some individuals that we should not support but if we basically block up our halls of residences with students who are no longer students. Obviously, we would have a serious situation of a lack of supply of accommodation in halls of residence if we did not do so. We shall be supporting Margaret Burgess's amendment today. Thank you. I believe that privately built and funded student accommodation has been a revolution in the provision of high quality accommodation for students. I believe that the business model on which much of that investment has been based depends on being able to house students and use the properties effectively at other times of the year in order to generate a return. Therefore, students who wish to take up the opportunity of student accommodation should be in a position to allow that business model to be deployed so that it minimises the cost of the accommodation and maximises its standards. I think that the opportunity provided by my amendments here is a genuine one and intent to press amendment number 95. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment number 95 is yes, 13, no, 82, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 96, in the name of Alex Johnson we are ready to debate with amendment 95. Mr Johnson, to move or not? Moved. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment number 96 is yes, 13, no, 82, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 97, in the name of Alex Johnson Mr Johnson, to move or not? Not moved. Many thanks. Amendment 97, in the name of the minister we are ready to debate with amendment 95. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Amendment 47 is yes, 81, no, 15, the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 48, in the name of the minister Minister to move please. Moved. Thank you. The question is amendment 48, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 48 is yes, 83, no, 13, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 49, in the name of the minister Minister to move please. Moved. Many thanks. The question is amendment 49, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 49 is yes, 84, no, 13, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 50, 51 and 52, all in the name of the minister all previously debated, invite the minister to move amendments 50 to 52 on block. Moved on block. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 50 to 52? As no member objects, the question is that amendment 50 to 52 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. Amendment 50 takes us to group 16. Amendment 1, in the name of Adam Ingram, grouped with amendments 52, 2, 3, 4, 54, 55, 56 and 57. I invite Adam Ingram to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking to my amendments 1 to 4 in this group. At stage 2, I sought to amend the bill at the behest of Homeless Action Scotland so that a tenant need only tell the landlord about a person aged 16 or over residing in the property if it was that person's only or principal home. Whilst the aim of paragraph 3 in the schedule is welcome in giving the landlords the power to prevent overcrowding and subletting, my amendments seek to make the duty to inform a landlord about others staying in the property more proportionate. As initially drafted, the tenant would be obliged to send the landlord details of every person who stayed in the property even if it was a friend staying overnight and this clearly would represent unreasonable intrusion into the lives of the tenant. Indeed, as originally drafted the tenant might be in breach of the tenancy and liable to eviction for failing to notify the landlord that someone had stayed for a day or two. The minister accepted the principle of my stage 2 amendments but asked for a more suitable amendment to be brought forward at stage 3 which would have the same intention. I have worked with the Government to ensure that these amendments have the same purpose and effect as my stage 2 amendment and ensures the bill makes clear that tenants must notify their landlord only if someone occupies a let property as that person's only or principal home. I move amendment 1. I now call the minister to speak to amendment 53 and other amendments to the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to Adam Ingram for re-logging these redrafted amendments, which I am now happy to support. The existing statutory term would have enabled landlords to manage their properties effectively. My amendment 53 amends the statutory term further to provide that the notification provided to the landlord must be in writing. Requiring the notice to be in writing should go some way in mitigating any potential disagreement about if and when a tenant has notified his or her landlord as their only or principal home. Notice served under this term will also meet the requirement for written notice in the succession provisions. Under the bill it will be a statutory term of a tenancy that a tenant must allow access to the let property for an authorised purpose. Authorised purposes include carrying out work in the property which the landlord is entitled or obliged to carry out or inspecting the property in order to determine what any work of that nature or work to be carried out. My amendments 54 to 57 extend the definition of authorised purpose to include valuing the let property. The amendments will enable a rent officer to inspect a property when determining the open market rent in a rent adjudication case or when determining the amount by which the rent of a property in a rent pressure zone is made to the property by the landlord. With regard to the landlord being entitled or obligated to carry out any work reference has also been made to the possibility that the tenant may agree other inspecting access rights with the landlord. Also the bill previously required access to be granted to the landlord or anyone authorised by the landlord those references are now removed altogether in order to avoid disputes about what authorised means but it continues to be the case that the term of the contract can only be invoked at the landlord's instance and not by limiting who access can be granted to under that term. It continues to cover access by others such as tradesmen or rent officers. Alex Johnston Very briefly I thank Adam Ingram for the explanation of his amendments and I think they are proportionate and appropriate to be supporting them as is the case with Margaret Burgess's amendments in this group. Adam Ingram to wind up and press your amendment. Wind up by pressing my amendments. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 53 in the name of the minister. Minister to move please. Moved. Question is amendment 53 Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 2 in the name of Adam Ingram to move or not. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 3 in the name of Adam Ingram to move please. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 54, 55, 56 and 57 are in the name of the minister and are previously debated. The minister to move. Amendment 54, 257 on block. Moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 54 to 57? As no member appears to be on block, I think that the question is that amendment 54 to 57 is a question that the minister has asked as no member appears to object. The question is that amendments 54 to 57 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 98 in the name of David Stewart David Stewart to move or not. Move. Question is amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. We will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote and amendment 98 is yes, 30. No, 64. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 58 in the name of the minister to move. Question is amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Result of the vote and amendment 58 is yes, 83. No, 12. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 99 in the name of David Stewart David Stewart to move or not. Question is amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Result of the vote and amendment 99 is yes, 31. No, 64. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. It takes us to group 17. 100 in the name of David Stewart group with amendments 101, 105 and 106. David Stewart to move amendment 100 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 100. Similar to the other amendments I've moved today these amendments will enable the first tier tribunal to consider whether an eviction order is reasonable for a landlord stated the intent to refurbish or use the property for non-residential purpose. This would allow the tribunal to look at the broader issues in terms of the landlord's case for an eviction action, looking at the purposes for refurbishment or change of use to examine whether it is reasonable that the tenant be evicted because of this. Amending the bill in this way would add an extra safeguard for private tenants from arbitrary eviction ensuring that the security of tenure that the bill provides is cast out. Thank you. Presiding Officer, at stage 2 I strengthen both these eviction grounds by outlining the types of evidence that may be considered by the tribunal when assessing a landlord's intention. The ground for refurbishment only applies when a landlord intends to carry out significantly disruptive work where it would be impracticable for the tenant to continue to occupy the property and we would not want to prohibit a landlord from doing this as we want to improve the quality of the property condition in the sector. If a landlord wants to change the use of the property to a non-residential purpose they would most likely require planning permission for this. That would be a significant measure for a landlord and I would not expect the ground to be used that frequently. Overall I believe that the Government has got the balance and grounds right. The bill now has 18 grounds for eviction, 8 are mandatory, 8 are discretionary and 2 have both a mandatory and discretionary element to support David Stewart's amendments and I would ask members not to support them either. David Stewart to wind up and press her with the draws amendment? Nothing to add. I would press my amendments. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 60-second division. Result of the vote on amendment number 100 is yes, 31, no 64, there are no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 101. The name of David Stewart to move or not move. The question is amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 101 is yes, 31, no 64, there are no abstentions and the name of the minister to move is moved. The question is amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The name of David Stewart to move or not is moved. The question is amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment 101 is yes, 31, no 65, there are no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 103. The name of David Stewart to move or not is moved. The question is amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote on amendment number 103 is yes, 31, no 65, there are no abstentions and therefore are not agreed. Now call amendment 60. The name of the minister to move, please. Move. The question is amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The name of the minister to move, please. Move. The question is amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The name of David Stewart to move or not is moved. gyda oedd, wrth dda nhw llawer, yn lleol gwmnum o Ff Y Llywyddyn y Llywyddyn am oedda i keerwng Rangod ddiwethaeth, a rhan oedd gan unigiadau y Llywyddyn ar y cyfle i ymgyrchu 62-68, rydw i ni gyd-doedd usyn, i fawr ar gyferafodol ar gyferafodol oeth ddwyf. Felly, mae gennym yn y cwmwysleid y Llywyddyn ar gyferafodol ar gyferafodol ar gyferafodol, a chyflodd ddys nhw. Rydw i ni gyd-doedd, rydw i ni gyd-doedd. A gyd-doedd y Llywyddyn y Rangod ddiwethaeth i ddwyf. The name of David Stewart. David Stewart, to move or not? Thank you. So the question is, amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? All. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote and amendment number 105 is yes, 31. No, 65. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 106. The name of David Stewart. David Stewart, to move or not. Thank you. The question is, amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? All. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. Result of the vote and amendment number 106 is yes, 31. No, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Which takes us now to group 18 and a call amendment 107 in the name of Alex Johnson in a group of its own. Mr Johnson, to move and speak to amendment 107, please. Thank you very much. Amendment 107 is a duplicate of one of a small group of amendments that I brought forward at stage 2. These stage 2 amendments covered a range of reasons why I believe that that they should be grounds for eviction. However, I have brought only one of these back at this stage because I believe that it is the most important and the one that we need to better understand, and that is that the property is required for an employee or a retired employee. Having worked most of my life in the rural environment, I have seen many businesses, farm related and others, who relied in order to accommodate their staff on having property which was made available to these staff when required. Quite often, these are houses that are in far flung rural areas where there is housing shortage. Those houses are not necessarily always occupied. It is important that the owners of that property or the businesses that rely on them have the confidence that, when those houses are not in use, they can rent them to members of the community or other people who require accommodation knowing that they can have that property back if they require it to house an employee or a retired employee at some point in the future. I do not envisage a situation where people are simply being thrown out of their houses. What I envisage is a situation where businesses in areas of housing pressure in far flung rural areas will, instead of letting their properties, simply leave them to lie empty rather than take the risk of not being able to get them back. I believe that this is a missed opportunity. I believe that we could have made more housing available in areas of great need, but by failing to take this approach, good business decisions will be made to leave houses empty rather than use them to house people without homes. As with several other amendments that were moved by Mr Johnson this afternoon, Labour will not be supporting this proposal. We recognise the concern that Mr Johnson highlights in that my colleagues and I have all been approached by those running large farms or rural businesses who struggle to find accommodation for their employees. Nowhere in Scotland has the housing crisis that we are currently living through been felt more acutely than those in rural communities. That said, the answer to the problem of housing supply cannot surely be to evict a sitting tenant in a rural area to house the new employee. Again, I urge Mr Johnson to withdraw those amendments as Labour will not be supporting them. I have some sympathy with Alex Johnson's amendment today. Ken Macintosh mentioned large farms, but they could also affect tenanted farms, which are commonly known as tided cottages. There are quite a severe shortage of houses in rural areas, as I know and many others know. There are strict planning rules that are very difficult to build houses for employment in the area. I would fear that farmers or other land-using businesses would tend not to let their properties out in between taking on employment or not, so we would be minded by the Liberal Democrats to support Alex Johnson's amendment today. This is a similar amendment to one that Alex Johnson brought forward during stage 2, and I continue to have concerns about what the amendment is trying to achieve, as it could result in an individual or family being evicted from their home so that an employee or a retired employee of the landlord could move in. I think that that is unfair to allow a person or family to be moved out in those circumstances. Indeed, such a result would be counter to the purpose of the bill, which is to give people security of tenure in their home in the private sector. I therefore cannot support the amendment. I believe that we have the balance of the ground right, and we have now captured all the reasonable circumstances that a landlord would need to evidence in order to recover possession of their property. For example, the bill already provides a ground for repossession for tied housing when a tenancy was granted as a consequence or an expectation of the tenant being an employee of the landlord and the tenant is no longer an employee. We recognise rural communities' difficulties, but we are supporting rural communities. In addition to our overall aim of increasing housing supply across Scotland, we are working with rural communities to address specific rural housing problems. For example, we launched the rural housing fund in February this year, and we are also working with rural communities on self-build. I cannot support Alex Johnson's amendment. I am afraid that this is just a classic case where individual experience colours and attitudes. I will simply repeat that I do not believe that this will necessarily lead to people being evicted unnecessarily, but I do believe that the current bill will lead to our houses in areas in which housing is much needed, simply being left empty rather than being let by the owners, fearing that they will not be able to have them back when they need them for an employee. I think that it is a missed opportunity, and I will press my amendment. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one-minute division. Result of the vote on amendment 107 is, yes, 17, no, 80. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed, which takes us to group 19, and I call amendment 108. In the name of David Stewart, Mr Stewart, to move and speak to amendment 108. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 108. My amendment 108 will amend the not occupying let property section of the bill to clarify the process that must take place before a landlord establishes whether a property is abandoned. As the bill is currently drafted, I still have some concerns that the process of landlord must follow to prove that a tenant has left the property is too weak. That is not ideal, as it could lead to tenants who intend to remain in the property becoming homeless. To ensure that tenants cannot be evicted unless it is clear that they no longer intend to occupy the property, the amendment requires that landlord must serve on the tenant and notice, stating that the reason to believe that the property has been abandoned before they can serve and notice to leave. That will give tenants four weeks to respond, stating where they are indeed resident of the property. Where the landlord receives no response, they will then be able to serve and notice to leave and have the matter considered by the tribunal. That is to ensure that, should a tenant be away from the property for an extended period, such as illness because of work or holidays, the landlord cannot evict him. If that ground has not changed, I fear that a tenant could return from extending absins and find that they have been evicted. The bill currently provides that, for the abandonment and eviction ground to be met, the tribunal must be satisfied that the tenant is not occupying a property as his or her only principal home and that the landlord will require to provide evidence to that effect. In practice, a landlord will need to provide the tenant with notice to leave that they intend to seek an eviction on the ground of abandonment. From receiving the notice, a tenant will have 28 days to tell the landlord that he or she is not living in the let property. To pursue that further, the landlord would then have to apply to the tribunal to grant repossession on this ground. The tribunal will need to be satisfied, as I said, that the ground is met and can call both the landlord and the tenant to provide evidence. I know that, as David Stewart raised there, stakeholders have raised some concerns that a tenant could be evicted where they are only away from the home temporarily, but that should not happen. The provisions that are currently drafted would enable a tenant to be temporarily absent from the property, but that property could still be considered the tenant's only or principal home. David Stewart's amendment 108 would require a landlord to issue two separate notices. Before a landlord could issue the notice to leave, he or she would be required to issue a different notice that states that the landlord has reason to believe that the tenant is no longer occupying that property as the person's only or principal home, and the tenant has four weeks to indicate whether they are occupying the property. That is completely unnecessary and would only duplicate the contents of the notice to leave, which would subsequently follow. Amendment 108 would not only add an additional layer of bureaucracy but could delay the process. I also consider the amendment to be deficient as there is a loophole in the drafting. The amendment as drafted would allow a landlord to give a tenant a notice stating the things required by Mr Stewart's amendment, then they could immediately afterwards serve the required notice to leave. The landlord will have done all that Mr Stewart's amendment technically requires, so I would ask members not to support this amendment. My amendment is an additional step on top of the grounds that is laid out in the bill, therefore landlords would still have to satisfy the requirements that the ground is drawn up by the Government. Additionally, the ground is currently set out in the bill, tenants could still be evicted, even if they are being rent, because the bill only makes reference to a tenant not occupying the accommodation. My argument adds an extra safeguard to the process and the legal advice that I have received from Schelter differs from that that the Government has received. Therefore you are pressing your amendment. I am pressing amendment. I am pressing amendment. So a question is amendment 108 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 60-second division. Result of the vote on amendment 108 is yes, 30. No, 66. With no abstentions, amendment is therefore not agreed, which takes us to group 20. Now I call amendment 109 in the name of David Stewart, the group on its own. Mr Stewart, to move and speak to amendment 109, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will be moving amendment 109. I note that the Government has brought forward amendments that were approved at stage 2, which have gone some way to leaving the concerns of organisations such as Schelter. However, there is still a concern that a tenant could be evicted for as little as one month's renter years. I am still of the view that this is too low on the amount of rent that appears to be evicted for, especially where the tenant may be able to negotiate to pay off the rears in a reasonable timeframe at the first tier tribunal. The amendment that I have submitted would increase the level of renter rears required for a mandatory eviction from one month's renter years to two months's renter years. That would provide an important protection from eviction for tenants and may be experienced in a sudden drop in income and a fall into renter years due to no fault of their own. I believe that it is unfair that tenants in those circumstances would face a mandatory eviction from the first tier tribunal when they may be able to repay their renter years and remain in their home. It should also be noted that the tribunal will continue to have discretion to evict a tenant with less than two months' renter years should the circumstance justify such a decision. Renter years is an important issue for landlords and also for tenants, but it is one that can ultimately make a landlord's business unviable, and 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 that we strike the balance, the right balance here between the needs of tenants who may fall into arrears and need time to make up that and landlords who may have a mortgage to pay. As David Stewart said, I already moved in the rent of years ground at stage two with an amendment to allow a tenant to reduce their rears until the day of the tribunal's consideration from the ground. Remember that we are talking about renter years over three consecutive months period until it reaches the stage of the tribunal, so it could be considerably more than that. The tribunal can have discretion if its rears are less than one month when it reaches the tribunal. I believe that that is right for tenants and landlords. We are very clear that when it comes to issuing notices for renter years and notices to leave for eviction, the tenant is advised of where to get help and how to challenge it, or if they do not agree with it, or where to get help to reduce their rears. I think that it is somebody who has worked on money advice for many years that the way is to prevent their rears building two months rent arrears is a considerable amount of money in the private sector. We have to work with tenants to ensure that they can pay their rears, pay small amounts of their arrears, reduce it below a month's rent and then the tribunal will have discretion. That is the right way for tenants, and it is also right for landlords in terms of getting their rental income in. Therefore, I cannot support David Stewart's amendment. I genuinely believe that we have the right balance in this bill in rent arrears and in the other grounds for repossession, and I would ask members not to support us. I move amendment 108. That will help. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. Therefore, be a division. Please vote now. This will be a 62nd division. Result of the vote in amendment 109 is yes, 30, no, 66. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. Now call amendment 69, 70 and 71, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move. Amendment 69, 271, on block, please. Moved. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 69 to 71? As no member appears to the question is that amendment 69 to 71 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I now call amendment 110 in the name of David Stewart. David Stewart, to move or not. Not moved. I now call amendment 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79. All in the name of the minister, I invite the minister to move amendment 72 to 79 on block. Moved on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 72 to 79? As it appears no member does, the question is that amendment 72 to 79 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many thanks. That in consideration of amendments, I thank you all. Pressing swiftly on, the next item of business is a debate on motion number 15944 in the name of market budgets on the private housing tenancies Scotland bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary, Alex Neil, to signify crown consent to the bill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the Standing Orders, I wish to advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the private housing tenancies Scotland bill, has consented to place a prerogative and interest as far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Many thanks. We now move to the debate and invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. In that regard, I call on market budgets to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have 10 minutes or thereby please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start by thanking everyone who contributed to the development of the private housing tenancies Scotland bill, including members of all parties, and all stakeholders. I am grateful to those stakeholders for their considered thoughts on the bill, both while the Government was shaping its policy and during the Parliament's consideration of the bill. I also want to recognise the work of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and to the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their consideration of it as well. This afternoon's debate on the stage 3 amendments highlighted where we have disagreed in some of the bill's detail, but I have been encouraged, however, by the extent to which most Opposition members of the ICI committee have been generally supportive of what the Government wants to achieve through this bill. I have been happy to work with members who have made constructive criticisms to improve the bill, and I have been glad to support amendments from them, and from those not on the committee, such as Patrick Harvie, where those would strengthen the bill. The position that we have reached on grounds for repossession are good examples of the collaborative approach that we have taken. When the bill was introduced, it contained 16 grounds, 12 of which were mandatory. Now it has 18 grounds, 8 of which are mandatory, 8 of which are discretionary, and 2 of which contain elements of both. I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the contribution of the committee to the bill that I hope we will pass at the end of the debate. The Government published its first strategy for the private rented sector, A Place to Stay, a place to call home in May 2013. The strategy aims to improve and grow the private rented sector by enabling a more effective regulatory system, targeting tougher enforcement action and attracting new investment. As part of our work around the strategy, we have undertaken a range of actions to improve private renting. That includes clarifying the existing law on the charging of premium fees so that tenants cannot be charged for getting a tenancy, setting up the tenancy deposit schemes in Scotland, legislating to create a new tribunal for private renting, legislating to regulate the letting agent industry and providing local authorities with additional powers to tackle bad practice where that occurs. However, to deliver the better quality, more professional sector that we want to achieve, we recognised that we needed to legislate to rebalance the relationship between landlords and tenants to one that is fairer and works in today's private rented sector. The bill's open-ended private residential tenancy will improve security of tenure for tenants and provide appropriate safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. It also makes rents more predictable for tenants with adjudication provided where rent increases take rent beyond the market rate for comparable properties. It enables local authorities to apply for rent pressures' designation, where rent increases in a local area are having a detrimental impact on tenants and housing. The bill will enable tenants to feel more secure and settled in their homes and communities. One benefit of greater security for tenants is that it will enable them to accept their rights, such as being able to ask their landlord to carry out necessary repairs without fear of arbitrary eviction. That will provide a step change in improving the quality of private renting. As part of striking the right balance, the bill recognises that landlords must also have confidence in their ability to effectively manage and regain possession of their property, which is why we have devoted so much time to getting the repossession grounds right. The first-tier tribunal will play a key role in dealing with disputes under the new tenancy, providing a more accessible, specialist form of redress. During the earlier bill stages, I was asked about our approach to tribunal fees, and I want to assure you that we are committed to making the Scottish tribunals as accessible as possible. I am therefore pleased to announce today that if this Government forms the next administration, fees will not be charged for tenants or landlords taking a case to the housing and property chamber of the first-tier tribunal. No fees will mean improved access to justice in the private rented sector, enabling tenants in particular to fully exercise their rights. In reflecting on the changes that we expect the bill to achieve, it is worth noting that under the current tenancy, in most cases, it is tenants, not landlords, who end the tenancy. I expect this to continue to be the case. However, where a landlord brings a tenancy to an end, and this is disputed, the landlord will need to make an application to the tribunal to establish that they are entitled to gain repossession. Landlords will need to provide evidence in support of an application. Even where a ground is mandatory, the tribunal will still need to establish whether the ground has been met before it can grant an order for eviction. During stage 1, one much was said about the repossession grounds, in particular about those grounds that include an intention by the landlord. For example, the landlord intends to sell the property or live in it. Some stakeholders were concerned that those grounds might be open to misuse. As I said earlier, it is important that we get the repossession grounds right. To address the concerns that were raised, I brought forward a number of amendments at stage 2 that outline the types of evidence that might be used to demonstrate some of the eviction grounds. Sanctions will apply should a landlord mislead a tenant into leaving their home or mislead the first tier tribunal into issuing an eviction order. Some of those are set out in the bill as they are specific to the new tenancy, but criminal sanctions such as for illegal eviction will also continue to apply. During stage 2, Clare Adamson brought forward an amendment to increase the amount payable to a tenant who has been wrongfully evicted. She brought forward an amendment to increase that from three months rent to six months rent, and I was more than happy to support her in this. I want to ensure that tenants are made fully aware of their rights. For instance, we will include information about tenants' rights, where to get advice, how to apply to the tribunal and the dispute in disputes with the rent service, the rent adjudication, where to go, where to get assistance to go. All of that information will be included in the notices prescribed. That is very important. That is about informing tenants as well. The student sector also featured heavily during stages 1 and 2 of the bill, and I listened to all the concerns of the stakeholders. At stage 2, I brought forward an amendment to exempt purpose-built student accommodation from the provisions of the bill. I recognise that the growth of purpose-built student accommodation now provides much-needed new accommodation for students and has been developed for the specific purpose of providing this bespoke accommodation, which is similar in character to the accommodation that colleges and universities provide. However, I remain of the view that in the mainstream private rented sector, all tenants should be treated the same, and that is why I have resisted calls to include a specific student tenancy or ground in the bill. The basic principle of the new tenancy is that if you rent property to someone in the private rented sector, you need to recognise that that property is someone's home. Overall, we have sought to strike a fair balance in what has been proposed in the bill and to ensure that the new tenancy will support a well-functioning modern sector that works for both tenants and landlords. The Government has undertaken extensive consultation and worked constructively with members in developing the policy that underpins the bill to ensure that we have got the balance right. We want to create a better, more professional private rented sector, and the new private residential tenancy that is the centre piece of the bill is absolutely key to achieving that. I move that the Parliament agrees that the private sector tenancies—private housing tenancies—Scotland bill will be passed. It is good to reach that stage in a bill in which the arguments have all been made, the amendments have been won and lost, and whether or not the legislation does everything that we wish it to, we are agreed that it will improve the lot of private tenants in Scotland. With unfortunately the exception of the Conservatives yet again, I am pleased that most of us in the Parliament will be voting in favour of this bill at decision time this evening. While supporting the bill as it stands today, I hope that the minister will not mind if I point out that we could have done more and we could have done it sooner. My on-going worry is that the bill does not quite go far enough to address the issues of affordability or of quality and standards that we would have wished to see. That said, my Labour colleagues and I want everyone who lives in the private rented sector the opportunity to make that choice their home, not just a transition, not an expensive limbo in which they feel trapped, not a poor second or third choice to council or housing association accommodation, but a safe, secure, warm and affordable home. It may take a long time to change attitudes and behaviour in this country. We may never get to the stage where private renting is regarded in the way it is in Germany or continental Europe, but today we have offered additional protections to private tenants and begun to address the changes that have taken place in housing tenure in Scotland over the past 10 or so years. Before I go any further, I offer my thanks to the bill team, to the committee clerks and, most of all, to the two campaigns whose efforts did most to get private renting to the top of the parliamentary and political agenda. First of all, my thanks to Shelter, those tireless campaigners for the homeless and for decent housing, and who in this case managed to sign most of us up to the Make Renting Right campaign. Shelter are a trusted and reliable source of information, and their input to the private tenancies bill has been invaluable. Secondly, my thanks to the alliance that is the living rent campaign, led by the National Union of Students and, including many of the big trade unions alongside many other, housing and tenant representative organisations. It is always a little unfair to single out any one individual, but speaking of effective and tireless campaigners, I want to give a particular mention to Mike Daley and his colleagues at the Govern Law Centre. The powerless report, produced by Govern Law, illuminates what can and does happen to vulnerable people in an unfair and imbalanced system when they have insufficient rights or little recourse to legal protection. Those campaigners and many more combined to put the evidence in front of Parliament, highlighting exactly how much housing 10-year in Scotland has changed over recent years and how we have ended up after a decade of difficulty, not with simply a housing shortage, but in the First Minister's own words, in a housing crisis. Only 28 per cent of young people in Scotland now own their own homes, and that is down from 48 per cent in 1999. They cannot afford a deposit, and with 150,000 of them on local authority waiting lists, there is little chance of them getting a socially rented property. The result has meant a doubling of the numbers renting privately, now up to some 330,000 households. Before we all get the wrong impression of the sector, those are not always young single people. One in four of those private rented households have children. They are often in expensive tenancies, which offer little in the way of security, and the result of that combination is very troubling indeed. One-fifth of all homeless applications now come via the private rented sector, a rise of 38 per cent in the last five years. As is too often the case, it is those on lower incomes who have been hit hardest. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that a quarter of households experiencing poverty now live in the PRS, and that is up from one in ten a decade earlier. I apologise to members for the barrage of statistics, but I am trying to illustrate that that is a radical change by any analysis, and for some it means real hardship. For others, a depressing lowering of expectations. Today, we are beginning the process of offering greater security to those who do live in the private rented sector, but the bigger housing crisis itself needs a range of answers. The most important being the need to address housing supply. We need to build tens of thousands more homes across all tenures. I mentioned earlier that the minister might have done well to have listened and been more willing to work with Labour on this issue, and I would suggest that it is not too late to do so now. As an aside, after five years, I understand that the Government believes that consensus is a one-way system. It only applies when Labour supports the SNP, but it could actually work the other way round too. Labour did bring forward a series of amendments to regulate the private rented sector two years ago, and at that stage, of course, it was the SNP voting with the Conservatives to stop it and just think how much money we would have saved private tenants if the Government had adopted our proposals then instead of waiting until now. However, I repeat, it is not too late. Many young people in Scotland today, for example, simply do not believe that they are going to be able to secure or afford a home of their own. Three quarters of Scots who do not own their own home think that they never will. The expense of renting privately means that they feel trapped and that they identify saving for a deposit as the biggest hurdle. As the minister will know, Labour have outlined a plan to help people save for that deposit with a 3,000 boost to savers. The minister does talk proudly of her record in housing despite the fact that her Government has clearly not got anywhere near meeting identified need. The new target that she has announced falls short. 50,000 affordable homes over the next five years is an increase, but shelter, CIH, SFHA have all estimated needed 60,000, which of course is Labour's target. In fact, even within that target, we know that housing for social rent, rather than simply affordable housing, is the more important figure. I would urge the minister to replace her own goal of 35,000 with Labour's more ambitious, achievable and needs-based goal of at least 45,000 homes for social rent. In all the years that I've represented in Eastwood, housing has consistently remained the biggest single issue raised by constituents. Eastwood has a great place to live to go to school to bring up a family, but when your family is going, where do they live? There are very few councillor housing association properties, and house prices are so high that it's very difficult for any young person to get their foot on the property ladder. Just as I believe, the next Scottish Government needs to do more about the living wage, so I believe that we will have to return to the issue of the living rent, but this bill will at least begin to address the problem of security of tenure. We want to drive up standards in the private rented sector and for it to expand. We want the PRS to help to meet the demand, the pressing need for housing in Scotland and for private renting to be an attractive option for investors, but the law needs to be framed to reflect that those are people's homes, not simply that this is a business. Today is a good step forward on that journey, and Labour is happy to support the bill. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is an interesting stage that I have reached during the passage of this bill. I said at stage 1 that it was not possible for me to support it, but that I could envisage a situation where I could support it at a later stage. Sadly, looking back, it now seems that that stage 1 introduction, the bill that was introduced at stage 1, was as good as it got. The opening of amendments for stage 2 resulted in 150 Government amendments landing on the doorstep at stage 1. The effect was that I was dealing with people who were stakeholders who were trying to get me to submit amendments to things that the Government had already submitted amendments to take out of the bill completely. It was a process of radical change. That was such an irony that, at the start of the process, the Government was so determined to consult as widely as possible. That is where I feel disappointed, too. When I spoke to stage holders during the consultation stage, I told them to consult vigorously and actively to engage with the Government and ensure that the bill, when it came along, reflected their needs. As we have gone through the process, I think that disappointment has built among a number of those stakeholders. The things that have disappointed them are simple things such as a misunderstanding in certain quarters about what the private rented sector is. There is an assumption in certain quarters that it is all big business, it is all big money, it is all people with money to spend. However, many of Scotland's private renters rent one or only a handful of properties. Many of Scotland's private landlords are reluctant landlords. They find themselves in a position where they have little alternative but to permanently or temporarily rent out a property. The fact is that the bill could have done so much to ensure that there was a fair balance between landlord and tenant. Eventually, the Parliament did what it always does, and that is that it took the side of the tenant. That was not necessary. We could have done everything that we have done for the tenants during the process, and we could have done something for the landlords as well. Perhaps we would have done if we had better understood what the private rented sector was. The threats to the sector contained in the bill are issues such as rent control. We discussed during the amendments the issue of rent pressure zones. I believe that a rent pressure zone once declared will create a vacuum for investment because nobody will invest if they cannot get the return that they expect to get. The notion of rent control is potentially counter productive because, having set out within the legislation a way in which rents can be increased, I suspect that that might ultimately become an agenda for rent increases rather than a way to control them. I have a concern about the initial period and its loss, which I expressed earlier, too. The initial period was, I believe, one of those things that had the potential to benefit both landlord and tenant if properly implemented. However, its disappearance at stage 2 was just one more confusing element for those stakeholders who had tried to engage in the process. I have already praised the Government and will do so again for the decision to act on purpose-built student accommodation. However, it turned out at stage 3 that that was a reluctant action and that the opportunity to encourage development of that kind is something that the Government has perhaps stepped back from. The fact is that we should have done more to create a proper balance between landlord and tenant. We could have done more to understand the differing circumstances that exist in different parts of the country and in city or rural environments. We could have done more to ensure that those who wish to invest in private houses or private tenancies can do so with the confidence that they can have a tenant that will deliver for them. We could have done more to build the understanding that some people during the debate quite clearly have and that is that a rented property with a quality tenant is a package more valuable than the sum of its parts. I think that we could have also done more to encourage new types of investment because many of us have speculated in recent years that there are investors around who are willing to become involved in building property, perhaps even on a large scale, to rent privately in the Scottish marketplace. Having spoken to stakeholders that have watched the progress of this legislation, opinions have changed and opinions have been formed. The simplest opinion is the one that expressed its views to me on one occasion, that having looked at the changed environment north of the border, the simple decision that he will make is that his investment will be carried out south of the border. That is about confidence and about the difficulty of understanding circumstances. It is about time. If there is a lack of confidence in the legislation among landlords, then that can only be recovered over a period of time. I worry that investment will be lost and that we will miss a chance to bring more investment in. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. I can give members up to five minutes at this stage. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Leslie Brennan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I associate myself with the comments already made about the clerks and the bill team in the ICI committee who have steered us through the process. I also commend Jim Eadie on his chairmanship of the ICI committee throughout the proceedings. It has been a very interesting bill to take part in. Probably one of the most significant ones will impact the lives of so many people in Scotland. I will not have time this afternoon to talk to all the areas of the bill, but there are some things that have come out this afternoon that I think are worth highlighting. The review period, which we had a division on this afternoon, will be very significant. However, as the minister had said, although the bill will be passed today, it will not be enacted until the tribunal is in place, and that is likely to be perhaps a year or a year and a half down the line. To limit it to a three-year review period, it would hardly have given the bill a chance to get started. I think that it is important that we have that review, and it is based on a comprehensive understanding of how well this bill has worked to rebalance that relationship between the tenant and the landlord. If the Conservatives have rightly raised throughout the process of the bill the concerns about how it might impact the private tenancy sector and the investment sector will be taken into consideration in five years' time. I suspect that some of the concerns will not have come to fruition, but this is about reviewing and building the sector going forward, because we know that the private rented sector has become very important in Scotland. However, what we also have to do is understand, and it was rightly said by Patrick Harvie in one of his contributions this afternoon, about that right to home, that feeling that the place where you live is a home and a home that you have got security of 10-year-on. That was why I was so happy that the succession of the family home amendments that were brought forward and discussed at stage 2 and the minister brought forward her amendments at stage 3 that met my concerns in that area. I do not think that Mr Johnson said that this is overly complicated. It is about looking at a family home and in the event that the person who is named in the tenancy dies, the people for whom that is their home, like a sibling, like a child of adult age, like a carer for whom that has been their home and their full-time dwelling, have an opportunity, should they so wish to do, to stay in that family home. That is very important and goes some way to giving tenants in the private sector more I took a very careful position on that, and I expressed my concerns, but I would remind the member that I did not vote against it. It is the family home that is at the heart of what we are doing today. If I could just talk a little bit about the initial tenancy period, as well. It has been another area of concern for and has caused division, where I think most of us have been happy that that has gone. I go back to the very strong evidence that was given by Councillor Harry McGuigan at committee on behalf of COSLA regarding the plight of women who may be in a position of having to flee domestic violence. However, life is complicated, life happens to us all, good and bad things can happen to people at any time, as the minister said. The initial tenancy period could have tied people in very difficult family circumstances where they have to move for a job, to care for someone who has become ill in their family. Tying them into that six-month period could be to the detriment of the tenant and cause them financial and emotional harm. I do not think that it really impacts too much, because, after all, what we all want is that, when a tenant agrees to a tenancy, both the landlord and the tenant are happy and can proceed in a reasonable way in that tenancy. Finally, Presiding Officer, I am absolutely delighted at the announcement of the minister this afternoon about the no fees for tenants or landlords taking cases to the housing tribunal. That sits very well with the SNP's Government's already commitment that when we get the powers over employment tribunals, we will be looking to have no fees for those as well. It really shows where we sit in terms of fairness and redress to justice being available and no barriers being in the way of the Scottish people to get justice when it is required. Many thanks, and I now invite Leslie Brennan to speak to be followed by Jim Hume. Thank you. Going back to 1999, only 5 per cent of households in Scotland lived in the private rented sector and by 2014 it has increased to 14 per cent. Claire Adamson is right to talk about the growing importance of the private rented sector, because this Government has encouraged local authorities to meet housing needs in the private rented sector. I think that it is right that, if you are going to ensure that more people meet their needs in the private rented sector, you do strengthen the tenancy to try to improve a bit more security of tenure. There are a few reasons why more people are meeting their needs in the private rented sector. Obviously, the lack of affordable housing to buy, the lack of affordable finance, worsening wages and employment, but the key thing is the residualisation of public sector housing. We have seen that with the national housing trust, the properties that have been built in Dundee. The tenure is short assure tenancies, but those are not Scottish secure tenancies. Does the member recognise that the greatest contribution to what she rightly calls the residualisation of public sector housing was the right to buy and that this Government has ended that practice? The right to buy stripped away, but not building enough in addition. The two are not incompatible. People were really supportive of right to buy and it secures and it is stable communities. With people renting in the sector for longer, a welcomed improvement in private tenants' rights, especially with the new, modern and simpler type of tenancy, the vast majority of tenancies currently are short assure tenancies. I hope that the Government aims to transfer current PRS tenants to the new tenancy, just as housing associations and councils transferred tenants from the previous tenancies to Scottish secure tenancies in the early 2000s. Improving security of tenures is the overarching aim of this bill. Thus, it is disappointing that Patrick Harvie is away. Patrick Harvie's amendment 83 places a duty to review the operationalisation of the new tenancy and, specifically, analyse in detail how the changes of security of tenures are working in practice. I heard what you said about the time period, but it is important to make sure that, if you are looking, and as Shelter Scotland states, to ensure that this security of tenures is genuine and effective for private tenants across Scotland, you need to review it. I also wish to note my disappointment that Ken Macintosh's amendment 89, which, if the report is, would have led to the introduction of a private residential tenancy charter. When we think about housing of multiple occupation in the private rented sector, they have a lot of regulations that they have to meet and, quite rightly, they ensure good quality housing. I recognise that HMOs account for about 5 per cent of the sector, but those are good examples of good practice by the ones that are in Dundee-Yar, I can only say. I was just to say that I do not think that there is a member from my group who does not see merit in what Mr Macintosh has brought forward and that that could be possible. However, it would not be without cost and, obviously, it did not appear in the financial memorandum for the bill and, because it came at such a late stage, it would be difficult for us to have taken that forward at this stage without delaying the bill, which we all want to see through, so that the protections are in place as quickly as possible. I think that there may have been challenges, but those hurdles were not insurmountable. I think that it is about improving the standard across the sector. Many non-HMO-rented properties are needing upgrading, especially the ones that used to be, that were for my right to buy properties. When you look at them, many of those properties accidentally entered the private rented sector when someone dies and inherits a property and rents it, and they need a lot of upgrading. I think that it is about remembering that landlords have little motivation to upgrade, especially if it affects their bottom line. Tenants have to chase landlords for repairs and annual gas safety checks, so I think that it is about making sure that we have the charter. If more people are living in this sector, they deserve better. I thank Jim Hume for being followed by Patrick Harvie. My colleagues and I are supportive of the bill. We also want to see that more than 330,000 households that rent private land in Scotland have greater security of their tenancy, their home. We are also happy to see that security provisions are put in place for the families that choose to rent and cannot afford to buy a growing property problem. There is market flexibility to maintain so that landlords and investors and others who want to rent out a property do not enter a rental sector that is too rigid and fairly regulated. I thank Margaret Burgess for bringing forward amendments to streamline and simplify the bill. I am particularly pleased to see that a number of grounds have shifted from being mandatory to discretionary. That is giving the tribunal, I believe, more discretion and powers to make a more balanced decision. We supported those amendments today. I also note that, as we did support the amendments brought forward by Ken Macintosh in relation to the private residential tenancy charter, transparency and clarity for the rights and responsibilities of all sides, I believe, is only right. It is a big step forward for putting an end to exploitive renting practices, which, although, of course, are a very small number among the thousands of honest private landlords, but, nevertheless, I do believe that they should be addressed. I did note Alex Johnson's amendment 107, which is unfortunately not here at the moment, which I think would have protected tenant farmers even to maintain quality and sufficient workforce and their land, and I did see merits in that. I am concerned that that made have unintended consequences if not supporting that amendment. Another group that will be protected as well are students in the private rented sector. We do not consider that students should receive any less security from private rented sector landlords than any other tenants simply because of their status as students. We listened, as I mentioned in my remarks, to the concerns of the national union of students, the universities and, of course, private landlords. However, I think that we have come to a fair position today, and I think that it is fair to ensure that there is a stable market of supply and demand obviously promoted further. Of course, I hope that that will lead to more trust between landlords and tenants in the instances in which tenants are students. However, I want to strongly stress the importance of the duty that the Scottish Government has in removing the neighbours of rent prices going up at significant rates, and that is by satisfying the demand. There is currently a highly insufficient supply of housing to give any guarantee that rent pressure zone measures would provide any benefit to such high-pressure areas. I am concerned that imposing rent control zones could do rather the opposite. As the crisis itself noted, there is a risk that at the end of the period of the rent pressure zone, rents for existing tenants will increase to match the open market rent for new tenants, which will not be regulated during the operation of the zone. That was a quotation. I stood by that position as stated earlier in the process of the bill. My colleagues and I find regulating from the top-down unattractive and potentially harmful solution to housing. Anyway, we are where we are and what we should rather be doing is to provide a long-term sustainable and, of course, desirable solution in the supply of more housing. Scotland currently suffers, I believe, from a housing crisis, and I will continue, of course, to hold the Scottish Government, whoever it is, to account to provide Scotland with enough homes for social rent, homes that are affordable and, above all, homes that meet the needs of our people. We are supportive of the bill today and the positive changes that I hope it will bring to overhauling the security of tenants for hundreds of thousands of people. My colleagues and I will be supporting it at decision time today. Thank you, Mr Hulman. Given the way that you started your speech earlier, I am delighted that you did not start that one with a high five. I now call on Patrick Harvie to be followed by Jaimie Dey. The pressure is on me then, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in the closing stages of this debate. It is an important bill. I am particularly pleased by the comments from Alex Neil earlier, who informed us that the Queen is happy with the bill and the way that it impacts on her own interests. I know that the Scottish Minister's own Hollywood palace across the road. I have to admit that I do not know whether she pays rent or not, but I do hope that we are not gouging her because I know how difficult things are for a big family in these difficult times. To be serious, though, since I was elected in 2003, I found myself somewhat unexpectedly a member of the Communities Committee, which dealt with housing among quite a number of other responsibilities. In one of the first pieces of legislation that we had to deal with, the introduction of a landlord registration scheme was inserted. That was an amendment. I think that it was Cathy Craigie who moved that amendment at the time. It was clear that we were in a process of incremental change in the way that we deal with housing, and in particular private rented housing. Since that time, under two terms of Labour-led-dem coalition administration and now two terms of an SNP administration, we have seen the continuation of an incremental approach. Never one big bang to transform everything, but we have seen landlord registration as a system established and, perhaps under resourced a local level, perhaps it has not delivered everything that we hoped of it. We have seen improvements in terms of the physical standards as well as the standard of service that we expect landlords in the private rented sector to provide. We have seen more recently the abolition of the right to buy, which all too often has led to housing shifting generationally between the social rented sector and ending up as privately rented properties—the gradual creeping privatisation of that housing. We have also seen the establishment of a regulation system for letting agents, which we look forward to seeing having some effect and like landlord registration. It may do much, but perhaps not everything that we wished of it, and we may need to continue to revise it and strengthen it. Now we see this bill with a reformed private tenancy and the beginnings of a system of rent control. Despite that incremental change and despite the general policy intent of the Labour, Lib Dem and the SNP administration, we have also seen another change that I do not think was in the policy intention of either administration. That is not just the growth of the private rented sector but replacing a great deal of what used to be more available other forms of tenure in housing in Scotland. It is a legitimate point of view to regard housing simply as a financial transaction to privatise, like we have privatised so much else in our economy. I do not support that point of view, and I think that most of the chamber would not support that ideological point of view either. However, it is what has happened. We have allowed it to happen on our watch collectively. There are countries in Europe that take a very different approach. There are countries in Europe that say that the distinction between social rented housing and private rented housing should not be as sharp as it is in this country. There are countries in Europe that require the same standard of regulation, the same standard of affordability, the same physical standards in terms of the quality of the housing, regardless of who the provider is. If it is a private or a third sector provider or a municipal provider, the level of subsidy may well be the same—a subsidy that benefits the tenant rather than the private provider in the case of the PRS. If we are going to get to that point, I think that it will require a more full-scale reform and more of a conscious decision to say that the private rented sector exists and the social rented sector exists, but we will not have that hard and fast division between the two. Fundamentally, all housing is social. All housing is social. It is intimately bound up with our quality of life, with the way that our community is coherent and cohesive or fails to be, and with the health of our society. Either we are going to see a continuation of this gradual incremental change and constantly fighting catch-up against wider changes in the economy that we are not in control of, or there will come a point where we have to be more radical and bold. I hope that the next session of Parliament will take the latter course. I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak at stage 3 in support of the private housing tenancy Scotland bill. The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which is my privilege to convene, did consult widely on the provisions of the bill and made a series of recommendations in its stage 1 report. That is allowed for proper scrutiny of and further amendment to the bill's provisions as it has progressed through its legislative stages. The bill, which we will pass at decision time this evening, will, I believe, meet the requirements of a modern private rented sector. It balances, or rather rebalances, the right of the tenant to feel secure in their own home, with the right of the landlord to regain possession of their property. It balances the right of a tenant to take their case to an independent tribunal, with the right of a landlord to recover rent arrears, and it also balances the need to ensure continued investment in the private rented sector with the right of a tenant to challenge an unreasonable rent increase. All of those rights are important, but striking the right balance between them is absolutely critical. Here, I believe that the bill that the Government has brought forward, as amended, is one that is both fair and proportionate. The committee was very clear in its stage 1 report that it supported the Scottish Government's intention of creating a clearer and simpler tenancy regime for the modern private rented sector, which is fit for purpose. The majority of the committee also agreed that the no fault ground should be removed while calling on the Government to continue to work with landlords and letting agents during the bill's passage to help to ensure that the 16 new grounds provide an appropriate and proportionate balance between tenants and landlords. A key change made at stage 2 was that the purpose-built student accommodation, built by private providers, is now exempted from the bill's provisions in the same way that student accommodation, provided by further and higher education institutions, already was. That change was a direct consequence of the committee's recommendation in that regard. I would like to associate my remarks with previous speakers, including the minister, who has said that, in terms of the mainstream private rented sector, all tenants should be treated equally. Another key change is that the balance between mandatory and discretionary eviction grounds has shifted towards more discretionary grounds again in response to recommendations from the committee. The majority of the committee called on the Government to give further thought as to which of the grounds for repossession should be mandatory and which discretionary. After stage 2, eight grounds are entirely discretionary, two have mandatory and discretionary elements, and the remaining eight are mandatory. On rent arrears, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government give further consideration to lengthening the three-month period, allowing the bill to pay off a one-month rent arrears. The Scottish Government responded that more time should be provided for tenants to pay off their rent arrears and indicated that they would bring forward an amendment. The outcome is that ground 11 relating to rent arrears is now mandatory in more limited circumstances than was previously the case, and specifically it is mandatory only if the tenant is in arrears by one month's rent or more on the day that the tribunal considers the case. The other issue, of course, was the removal of the initial period in cases of domestic abuse. This was an issue that was raised in committee, and the committee can be pleased that we have brought about further amendment to the bill in this regard, so that those people in abusive relationships can leave a tenancy without facing financial difficulties as a consequence. The bill has also been strengthened at stage 3 on the measures in relation to the death of a tenant and succession to tenancy, an issue that was raised at stage 2 by Clare Adamson. Again, we can be proud of the way in which the bill has been strengthened in this regard. Another key recommendation of the committee was that the operation of the tenancy should be reviewed post-implementation recommendation that was accepted by the Government in its response to our stage 1 report. A number of stakeholders have called for this review to consider in detail how the tenancy's provisions on security of tenure are working in practice to ensure that the security of tenure is effective for private tenants across Scotland. In conclusion, the bill will rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in favour of the tenant. That is something that I very much welcome. The bill will not only safeguard the rights of tenants but strengthen those rights while at the same time ensuring that we continue to see investment in the private rented sector. It is for all of those reasons that I am delighted to support the bill at stage 3. As I said at stage 1 of the private house in the tenancy's Scotland bill, I welcome a lot of what the Scottish Government and, in particular, the Minister for Margaret Burgies has proposed. However, I remain frustrated that we have not done more with the opportunity that has been put in front of us. In particular, I am frustrated that my colleague Ken Macintosh's amendment to establish a private residential tenancy charter, which we believe would have driven up standards in the private rented sector, has been defeated this afternoon. That would have seen those tenants who rent in the private sector being given the same rights as those who rent in council or housing association homes. The minister will know that I raised the issue of the delay in establishing the new tribunal system at stage 1. At that time, I was surprised that, despite agreeing with the legislation in 2016, we will not have the tribunal system up and running until December 2017. The first tier tribunal system is essential in making this piece of legislation work. The minister herself, in her opening remarks, called it the key component. In her briefing for today's debate, Scherter Scotland said that, importantly, the new private residential tenancy, alongside the transfer of private rented sector cases from the sheriff court to the first tier tribunal, will provide greater certainty and clarity for private landlords. It is therefore essential that we get this part of the system right, and I support the minister in doing that. However, she is yet to explain why the introduction of the tribunal system has been delayed and how that will affect the implementation of the bill. I would welcome clarity on that when the minister is summing up. I have also previously asked the minister to work with organisations to make sure that the changes to the private rented sector are more widely known. I know that she is open to that suggestion, and I hope that a public awareness campaign of the changes will be actioned by her in the near future. An issue that we have spoken about throughout the stages of the bill was greater flexibility for those wishing to leave their tenancy as a result of domestic abuse before the initial six-month period has come to an end. I know that the minister took those concerns seriously, and I am pleased that she has acted to make some changes. I am sure that that will make a difference to many people's lives. However, I would welcome more information on that during her closing remarks. As I said, I welcome the bill and the changes that have been made both at stage 2 and stage 3, although I would have liked to have seen further progress in some areas. I believe that it is vital that the Parliament, be that all members or a committee of members, scrutinise the implementation of the bill in the next few years, as we need to know that the bill has worked for those we are trying to protect and that the sector is truly fit for purpose. Therefore, I am disappointed that Patrick Harvie's amendment was defeated this afternoon. Some members might know that this afternoon's speech will be my last in the chamber. I have had unexpected but immense privilege to represent the people of Central Scotland and the Parliament for the past five years. I am extremely proud of my record as a youngest female and the Scottish Labour party's only disabled member in Parliament. However, what I am most proud of is being able to serve my area and my party with my dad by my side. I am delighted that I get to end my contribution to Parliament with my former boss, Ken Macintosh. I am with my dad this afternoon, especially on St Patrick's Day. I am looking forward to the arrival of my first child in July, spending time with my nine-month-old niece, Sophia, and spending some quality time with my husband, John. I am not sure that he is equally looking forward to that quality time, but we are about to find out. When I made my meeting speech on 2 June 2011, I quoted from my dad's meeting speech, as I wrote his words, which would give me the encouragement that I needed. I have decided to conclude my speech with those same words as I felt that they are relevant to this afternoon's debate on the future of our country. He said, It is only right that the first name of this Parliament is the creation of prosperity for this country. However, if we do not work to ensure that nobody is in any way excluded from access to that prosperity, we will undoubtedly fail the people. Thank you very much on behalf of the Parliament. I thank you for that service and wish you all the best, particularly with the imminent arrival. We now turn to the winding-up speeches, and I call on Alex Johnston for a minute's maximum. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will keep this short and simple. I explained in my opening remarks that I feel that we could have done better, that the bill at stage 1 was better than the bill that we have at stage 3. Tonight, when decisions are taken, the Conservative Party will stand with the private rented sector and vote against the bill. It does not mean that we do not wish to see the circumstances of those who rent in the private rented sector improved, but we feel that an opportunity has been missed to encourage investment in the sector by simply pursuing the requirements of tenants and ignoring the requirements of the landlords themselves. Landlords in the private rented sector are quite often reluctant landlords and are quite often small investors. They are individuals often with a single property, and they are people who, if encouraged to do the right thing, will do the right thing. However, they do not necessarily have the money to do it right now or when we would wish them to. We need to encourage confidence on the landlord's side. We need to encourage people to invest in the sector, large and small. We need to encourage people to take that industry forward as an industry, and I use that word advisedly. It is an opportunity for many to invest in the needs and serving the requirements of others. We should encourage people to do so, and we should support them. If, as I worry, is the case, the effect of this legislation is to take confidence away from those who currently invest in the sector, then a sector that we have relied on at a time when Government was not investing in housing as it may be should have, will lack the confidence to expand further. The reason why we have high rents in some areas is not that there are too many private rented homes but that there are too few. If we can encourage growth in the sector, then that can be a significant part of dealing with Scotland's many housing problems. The Conservative Party will continue to participate in the process of legislating in this area. Who knows, maybe someday, there will be enough of us to influence things for the positive. However, with an election on the horizon, you never know that we can be the optimists. However, I hear from behind me the sound of Patrick Harvie, my green colleague, who I have had many an argument with over the last few years and I would be delighted to accept his intervention at this stage. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. I do not intend it to be a hostile one but genuinely out of interest. It must be a quick one. The member is seeking to see the private rented sector grow further. How much should we be comfortable with the idea that the private rented sector grows? Should it come to dominate all of our housing economy or do we reach a limit at some point? I believe that home ownership is the ideal that we should encourage wherever possible but I believe that the private rented sector not only can succeed but, by the member's own contributions today, he has demonstrated in other parts of Europe that it is very successful. I simply disagree with how we might achieve that in Scotland. The fact is that we, myself and Patrick Harvie, will always disagree courteously. I think that we have always done that, but we will always disagree because, unlike Patrick, I actually believe in the market and will never defer from that position. I have no hesitation this afternoon in welcoming the passage of this legislation. It has gone a long way towards securing many of the rights for private sector renters and their landlords that we have long for on those benches, but we have to say that it could have done so much more. That is why we supported in particular Patrick Harvie's amendment that would have called for a review after three years. I think that it raises overall concerns about post-legislative scrutiny in this Parliament and I think that an opportunity has been missed by failing to support that amendment in particular. This bill certainly introduces powers that have been long overdue. Shelter in particular has been campaigning for this type of legislation for the past 10 years and I would like to congratulate them and all the other housing groups who fought so hard to get us to this point, but I have to agree with Ken Macintosh that it is regrettable that some of what we are doing today could already have been done when we previously looked at housing legislation. Renters in the private sector have for far too long had too few housing securities. They could face faultless eviction. They faced the possibility of unexpected rent increases, possibly multiple times in one year. Renters do not even know whether their landlord is a criminal history and they still now have little power to hold their landlord accountable for maintaining homes to a habitable standard. Indeed, complaining about the condition of an accommodation's amenities could in itself still lead to the tenant being met with eviction. That is not to say that this bill does not make valuable progress in increasing renter security on their tenancies and potentially improving the overall quality of life of many private sector renters. It does and we welcome that. The bill requires that landlords that want to evict their tenants because they intend to repurpose the house or the family must show evidence of that intent. It is well past time that we arrived at this outcome and, as the minister and others have said, it is not only about tenants. Landlords also have received some desirable securities. For many, the payments that they receive from their property are their livelihoods and the bill gives them greater security by making sure that they have at least one month's notice before renters leave and possibly adversely affect their income. The bill gives landlords an avenue for raising rents if they have made improvements to their letting property. That, again, is only fair. However, while the protections offered to both landlords and private tenants that are contained in the bill are timely, it should be appreciated that, for many tenants, they will still remain insufficient. The protections that they will now have are good, but may simply not be good enough, and I remain disappointed that we could not reach an amicable outcome on many of the amendments that Labour lodged today. I acknowledge that the minister did move, after hearing debates at stage 1 and stage 2, on a number of areas, but the Government rejected amendments for us today, which had the full and widespread support of organisations such as Shelter Scotland and the National Union of Students, among others, because they would have added even greater protection for the renter than the bill now offers. The fact that it remains the case that a renter can be evicted for a renter year of one month is a huge failing in Labour's view. I understand that there is a need to strike a balance between the competing interests of renters who do not make timely payments and the landlords who deserve their income, but I find it hard to believe that the SNP thinks that failing to make one month's payment on time qualifies as that balance. I have to say that I have heard strong arguments for three months, but with a tribunal hearing needed for earlier eviction in the event that the renter is unlikely to make their payments. However, we put forward a compromise of two months to get the bill improved, but that was rejected. Even that compromise was deemed too much for the Government. As Siobhan MacMahon said earlier, our amendments to the bill, which would have established a private residential tenancy charter to drive up standards in the private rented sector, again were rejected. Just to clarify our position, that did not drop out of thin air. The whole debate and consultation has been around driving up standards, habitability and quality. It was because the Government failed to put into practice in this bill what the consultation had identified that we brought forward this amendment at the end to try to achieve that. This is not an add-on from nowhere, but as a result of the consultation and it should have been supported. Everyone in Scotland deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We recognise that too many young people in Scotland in particular are stuck in a cycle from which they cannot escape. They end up renting to save for a deposit, but the rent is so high that they simply cannot put enough money away. Because we understand that problem, we try to push for better standards in the private rented sector and offer the greater level of protection for private renters from bad landlords, and we believe that that was more than the Government have put forward. I know that you were concerned about Jim Hume's overly personalised introductions to the comments this afternoon, but I hope that he will indulge me in making a personal comment about my daughter's own contribution. She indicated that she saw myself in Ken McIntosh's bookings, Ken was her boss and her dad. I have to reject that. That would suggest that what Siobhan has done here has been a book for which we are the bookings. I do not see it that way. She has only written a chapter in her life here, and she has got much more to do. I am grateful for the support of the members across the chamber, the general support that we have had this afternoon for the bill. There has been an absolute recognition that the bill is about rebalancing the relationship between landlords and tenants to one that works for the modern private rented sector. I believe that the amendments agreed at stage two, and those that we have agreed this afternoon have helped us to get the balance right. By that I mean that we have recognised that those renting in the sector need and deserve greater security than is available at present. That is true generally, but especially so for the increasing number of families who rent privately. The result, I believe, is a fairer balance in the relationship between tenants and landlords, and that includes balancing improved security and stability for tenants with proper safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. That is very much part of our broader approach to reforming the private rented sector to make it more professionally managed and better functioning sector, providing good-quality homes. I am going to say a few things. A number of the speakers this morning this afternoon have talked about the charter, and why did the Government not support the charter. What I would say is that we have a strategic approach to improving the sector, and it is set out in our private rented sector strategy. I do believe that Michael Maman has just said that the charter is something that has been talked about before. I did not say that this is something that has been spoken about before. What I said was that it had not appeared from nowhere. It was as a result of the discussions that had taken place throughout the whole process of the bill. Certainly, as Clare Adamson and Jim Eadie both said in their contribution in the ICI committee, it did not come up once at the ICI committee. It did not come to me from any stakeholders. The charter is proposed by Ken Macintosh. Although it seems an attractive idea and could be an attractive idea, it is a huge policy shift. It was not part of this bill. It was not costed. We have no way of knowing the scale of the financial burden, and that in itself is enough reason to look at it and see that we cannot put something like that into a bill. It was a total shift in policy. It was a new policy being proposed, which we had not considered, nor had we consulted on it at any stage during the passage of the bill. That is why we cannot accept that and why we did not accept it this afternoon. On the point of cost, the minister recognises that there is no point in renewing—we have had the amendments since they have been defeated—that it is a proposal that grants rights. It does not actually create a new body, it does not have a new tribunal, it simply creates a set of rights that tents could then enforce and the existing body of the Government set. There is no cost involved whatsoever. What I would say to Ken Macintosh in response to that is that he compared it as did all that the speakers who spoke in favour of the charter compared it to the charter in the social rented sector. There are costs involved in that considerable cost because it is a regulated sector that the charter is regulated and scrutinised. Therefore, we have to know all that information. We cannot put something into a bill without having that kind of detail and information and that was lacking in what was proposed this afternoon. There was a recognition across all sides of the chamber that increasing housing supply will impact and improve the rents across the housing sector. Ken Macintosh again raised the target that we have set should we be re-elected in the next Parliament. It was not ambitious enough. It is a 67 per cent higher target than we currently have. It is a target that we took and increased the one in the health and wellbeing report. What I would also say to Ken Macintosh is that we have backed that up with more than £3 million of investment. What we are saying is that we will deliver on that target. We delivered it in our 30,000 affordable homes and we will deliver on the 50,000 affordable homes. It is at least 50,000 and we will deliver. Alex Johnson made the point that he said that we are disencouraging investment in the sector. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that people are still interested in investing in the sector. The cabinet secretary is working very hard on that. Alex Johnson suggested that investors would go south. I think that he might want to re-look at what George Osborne did yesterday and wonder whether he would still have the same view that investors will go south, because I do not think that they will. I think that he should look at that as well. I want to spend some time talking. Siobhan Macintosh spoke, as she always does in the debates, in a very reasoned and considered way. She said that it was her last speech in the chamber. Like Siobhan, that is my last speech in the chamber. As usual, Siobhan gave a very measured, considered speech and thought out the tribunal system that she raised and has raised with me before. I can say that the introduction of the tribunal will not impact—the introduction of our private tennis in the tribunal will align with each other, and I think that it is important that Siobhan knows that. I wish her well and the birth of her new baby. I am quite sure that her father is not just a bookend. Well, we will go in that, that he is not just a bookend. I just want to say another couple of things. As I said, this will probably be the last debate that I will have in the chamber, because, like many others, I am standing down. However, what I do agree with Siobhan Macintosh and every other speaker who has made their last speech in this chamber is that we all recognise what a privilege it is to be here. Every day, I recognise that it is a privilege to represent the people in the area that I live, and it is also an honour to be part of the Government of my country. That is something that I would never have envisaged when I joined my political party almost 50 years ago. Yes, that is me giving away if I am retiring, perhaps, Presiding Officer. I want to thank all the staff in the Parliament, the security staff, the catering staff, the maintenance staff, the staff and all the committees, the allowance staff for the help, because they not only make this a great honour to have this job, but it is also a great place to work because they make it so, because if they can do, they can help approach. I think that all of Scotland should be proud of this Parliament. Finally, all of us, no matter what party we are in, involve ourselves in politics to make a difference to the lives of people and in communities. I believe that this bill, if we pass it today, we will make a difference, we will make a difference, a very positive difference to those who rent in the private sector in Scotland. To put what Shelter said, I do believe that we are getting renting better and that this Parliament should be proud of that also. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, minister, and we thank you for your service and wish you well for the future. That concludes the debate on private housing tenancy Scotland Bill, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 15980, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out revision to the business programme for Tuesday 22 March 2016. Could I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now and to call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move the motion, please? Moved. Many thanks. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, I will now put the question to the chamber, and the question is that motion number 15980 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. The motion is therefore agreed to. We now come to decision time, and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion 15944, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on the private housing tenancy Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now, please. Order, please. The result of the vote on motion number 15944, in the name of Margaret Burgess, is yes, 84. No, 14. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed, and the private housing tenancy Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes the decision time, and I now close this meeting of Parliament.