 Good morning and welcome everybody to the 15th meeting in 2014 of the infrastructure and capital investment committee. Can I remind everyone in the room to switch off their mobile phones or other devices as they do affect the broadcasting system? I have received apologies from Mark Griffin and welcome James Kelly, who is attending as a substitute. Item 1 today is the housing Scotland Bill. We will continue to consideration of the housing's Scotland bill and we will go no further than the end of part five of the bill. I welcome Margaret Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare under officials and Patrick Harvey will be joining us for his amendments. Can I remind members that ministers officials are here in a strictly supportive capacity, they cannot speak during proceedings or be questioned by members. Everyone should have A wnaeth o'r bell hon i'r dweud y ddydd cychwyn, theualau arwyn o gweithio sy'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio, a ddiddordebau'r bwysig o ddweudio'r ddweud o'r ddweudio'r gweithio. Beth ydw i Hyfrif Iddo'r Cymru, ar gyfer y dweud i'n meddwl am gyfrewidau i'r gweithio i'r gweithio i gweithio i gweithio'r congoedd, i gweithio'r gweithio i gweithio i gweithio yn yr unig, neu'r gw plainwasiwn 아닌ion'r gw standards mewn spidery. Mae'r gwurable f 사건 yn sicr mae'r gwâm o'r cyfle i'Shoreysio' complaint yr wrth. Mae'n golygu y freshlyg ni etnwg y gallan fel awr Everydayumen. Mae'r wider o'r newid, leolon o'ch effeithio merthwi a gweithiau. Rydym am ei chydnodómenu'n Thedoryme'i gwel limb, ond bydd peth yn c Fleet Cadg Mai'i chyrnas pl gave i phenwydd. Preifrw hefyd, mae'n gwsungain wirddol beth chi arni reddyme cywestiwyr home, any member objects to it being withdrawn." If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, not moved. Any other MSP can move it, but I will not specifically invite other members to do so. If no one moves it, I will call the next amendment. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section a ch familiar o'r byddenoedd. The appropriate point is to put a question on each section. We are discussing section 26, access to register of letting agents. I call amendment 59, in the name of Alec Johnson in a group on its own. Alec, to move and speak to your amendment please. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 59 in my name. The reason for this is a It is to ensure that those who wish to consult the register can do so without a charge being levied. Members will be aware that I am the sort of person who quite often likes to see charges put in place to ensure that these measures are self-financing. However, if the register of letting agents and a bunch of this bill is to function effectively it will rely on the access being given to the register to people who may be of limited means or experiencing hard times. For that Felly, rydyn ni oedd yn fawr y cyfrydd y bydd yn ddod yn y cyfrydd. Rydym ni'n unig ei wneud eich ffaith a'r rhywbllaeth. Y languagefadaeth 59 mae'n ffaith o'r ffaith ymddwr ymddech chi'n ddim erbyn gyfan y cyfrifiad o'i cyrydydd y bydd yn cyrnynogi'r cyfrifiad oedd. Ond y bydd hwn ddechrau i'ch cyfrifiad o'r bydd eich cyfrifiad. Mae'r cyfrifiad wedi unrhyw yn y cyfrifiad o'r cyfrifiad, neu ddau'r cysylltwd fydd yn gwah o taeth. Mae dwarflai sydd yn ymyrgynnu dda iawn. A gwdae'r Alex Johnson i ddaf y cael ei ddweud hynny. Alex, bydd cysylltu'r cyffredinol o'r ddweud hynny? E сейчасr ddweud eich ddweud, fel ddaf yn ei ddweud hynny'n'n gwneud y dyma. Maen nhw'n gwneud eich ddweud sydd yn cysyllwyd cyfunenol ond ydych chi oedd ei ddweud hynny. Does any other member object to the amendment being withdrawn? No. So the question is that section 26 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. The next is registered letting agents training requirements. A call amendment 60 in the name of them... Sorry. oOp, Mr Page. Sorry. Gweithgaredd y gael eich llwysofrwn i Llywodraeth o hynny, o Polo handwriting o Unedwaith 134 yn y bydd Meri Ffee, yn y gweithio ym Gweithgaredd i'r rhanion a'r anhygoel a'r anhygoel. Felly clrwp ac gweld eich llwysofrwn i Llywodraeth i Llywodraeth, yn mynd i ni, ond bydd hynny o llwysofrwn i Llywodraeth. Mae llwysofrwn i Llywodraeth yn y bydd yna ac mae'n dod tspin o servys hynny o llywodraeth o athgoffi arni yn gweith. Solicitor letting agents operate after notifying the council of the law society and work in accordance with standards of practice issued by the law society, and any breach of that standard would mean a solicitor would be guilty of professional misconduct and dealt with appropriately. Solicitor letting agents are already registered with the council of the law society and subject to their sanctions. My amendment would prevent dual regulation of solicitor letting agents. The law society are of the view that they are the body who should regulate and sanction their letting agents. I do, however, note the concerns that have been brought to my attention from Shelter and the Scottish Association of Landlords and would be happy to meet with the minister to discuss how this sector could be recognised within registration. I'll finish my remarks there and I move the amendment in my name. Alex, you want to come in on this? Yes, very briefly. Having looked at the situation that is likely to exist under the current provisions of the bill, there appears to be duplication in the case of solicitor letting agents. For that reason, I'm concerned that this may generate additional costs within the industry, as well as the confusions associated with dual registration for solicitor letting agents. I am, however, also aware that a single system of registration has its advantages. We are very keen to hear, if the minister has any ideas, about how this might be simplified and aligned so that it may be easier to impose and not have duplication of costs in some cases. The Scottish Government is committed to improving standards across the letting agent industry. The bill's provisions intend to give tenants and landlords confidence in a consistent standard of service. The bill will also improve the framework for dealing with disputes through a single authority, the First Tier Tribunal, underpinned by a code of practice. I'm clear that they will be registered for all letting agents, including solicitors. I'm also clear that all letting agents must comply with the code of practice. This will ensure consistency of desired standards across the industry. While I appreciate that solicitors have their own redress arrangements, I'm not convinced that they should be exempted from the regulations set out in the bill. I recognise that solicitors must be registered with the Law Society. I have already informed the Law Society that I will consider what might be done for solicitors in the registration process to avoid unnecessary duplication in the fit and proper person test. However, I'm clear that all those in the industry must be on the register and that includes solicitors who operate as letting agents. The Scottish Government will work with stakeholders to develop the draft code of practice before going out to full public consultation. The Law Society and other professional bodies will therefore have an opportunity to help shape it, and it will take account of their current requirements. If solicitors want to operate as letting agents, they must be subject to the same rules as all the other letting agents, including the same code of practice and the same means of redress for consumers. I'm clear that there has to be a consistent approach to regulating all letting agents, and this amendment would undermine that consistent approach and could result in confusion for landlords and tenants. Any complaint relating to the breach of code of practice for letting agents should be taken to the first-year tribunal, but the Scottish Government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the regulation of letting agents works in a joined-up way with other regularity regimes, for example, by maximising any potential overlap with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the tribunal. I'm clear that the approach taken will be comprehensive and as simple as possible for letting agents and clients, and I would therefore ask Mary Fee to withdraw her amendment. I've listened carefully to what the minister has said, and while I accept that she says that there will be consultation, I don't feel that I have got the commitment that I was hoping to get in the recognition within the legislation for solicitor letting agents. I accept that there has to be one code of practice and that there has to be one set of rules which everyone abides by, but the Law Society of Scotland are simply looking for some form of recognition within the legislation, which would recognise that they are a body which governs and rules themselves and will comply with a code. And for those reasons, I will be pressing my amendment. The question then is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment please show. Three. Those against please show. Four. The result is yes, three, no, four, so the amendment is therefore not agreed. The question then is that sections 27 and 28 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Those are agreed. We move to registered letting agents training requirements. I call amendment 68 in the name of the minister grouped with amendment 69. Minister can ask you to move amendment 68 and speak to both amendments in the group. Present letting agents are not required to have any training before they can operate a lettings business. During stage 1, representatives of the sector argued strongly that all letting agents should have a level of training before they can be registered. I have listened to the points made and I agree that training is an important element of raising standards across the sector as a whole. For this reason, amendment 68 provides that training is required as a condition of registration for letting agents. Amendment 68 converts the power on the Scottish ministers to specify in regulations the content and timing of the training and those persons who must undertake it. This will be done in consultation with key stakeholders. This will provide ministers with flexibility to take accounts of the views of the sector to ensure the training is fit for purpose and to change the training requirements to suit future circumstances within the sector. The power will also allow ministers to require other persons, for example front-line staff, who are carrying out letting agent work to undertake training should it be considered necessary. Amendment 69 enables a letting agent to be removed from the register if the agent no longer meets the training requirements. Those amendments will ensure that a letting agent must demonstrate knowledge of letting agent work in order to be registered and will provide an important additional assurance to consumers in addition to the fit and proper person test. I move amendment 60. The question is then that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Alec Johnson, grouped with amendment 71. Alec, to move amendment 61 and speak to other amendments in the group. We're getting on at tremendous speed, can we not? This is in relation to... I'm going to indulge me a second. Register of letting agents giving reasons for decisions. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that anyone who has refused access to the register is made aware of the reasons for that refusal. It's reasonable to expect that anyone who has refused access may wish to consider a position and possibly appeal against that decision. For that reason, it's important that the reasons for the refusal are made available at the earliest possible opportunity. The function of amendment 61 and 71 would be to achieve that objective. I therefore move amendment 61 in my name. Any comments? Thank you. I thank Alec Johnson for bringing forward amendments 61 and 71. Amendment 61 requires Scottish ministers to provide a reason for the decision to refuse an application to the letting agent register or renewal of application. Scottish ministers would give reasons as a matter of good practice. However, I do accept that this amendment would ensure that this would happen. Amendment 71 seeks the same provision for ministers to provide reasons for their decision but in the context of removing someone from the register. Those amendments ensure a consistent approach to the notification provisions and therefore I support amendments 61 and 71. Alec, can I ask you to... There's nothing I can say to that. Thank you very much. So the question is that amendments 61 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 29 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to register of letting agent time limit for determining application. I call amendment 62 in the name of the minister in a group on its own. Minister to move and speak to amendment 62. Amendment 62 requires Scottish ministers to make a decision and an application for registration or renewal to the register of letting agents within 12 months of receiving the application. Scottish ministers will have the power to apply to the first tier tribunal to extend the deadline. However, in practice, a decision would be made within a much shorter timescale. If Scottish ministers do not make a decision within 12 months, then it will be taken as tacit approval of the application. A person whose application has been tacitly approved will stay in the register for one year only before being required to reapply. Scottish ministers will still have the power to remove such a person from the register under section 35 of the bill if they are not a fit and proper person to carry out letting agency work. I move amendment 62. Anyone else wish to speak? Yes. Of course, Mary. Thank you, convener. It's really just a point of clarification. When you say that the decision should be made within 12 months, but the reality will not be made within a much shorter timescale? What timescale are you referring to? Every application has to be looked at in its merits. Very often, a renewal will be much quicker than a new application. This ties in with other registrations, the exact same procedures we have for landlord registration and other forms of registration. It shouldn't lie there and not a decision taken. The idea is that if there is a lot of work or information required to be gathered to make a decision if sufficient application is not provided by the applicant, then there is still an onus to get that done within a 12-month period. But with all the other registrations that we have, it generally would not take 12 months. It would only be in unusual circumstances. It would take anything close to that. The question then is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we're not agreed. So we'll move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 62, please show five. Those against, please show two. The result is yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed to. We move to register of letting agents monitoring compliance. I call amendment 63 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 80 to 84. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 63 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I know that the committee's stage 1 report identified some concerns about how the regulatory regime will tackle unregistered letting agents. During the stage 1 evidence session, letting agent representatives also put forward a strong argument for further powers to be added to the enforcement measures contained in the bill. I've listened to the committee and to stakeholders and have considered their views in deciding to bring forward these amendments. Amendment 80 enables Scottish ministers to serve a notice requiring a letting agent to provide information. Scottish ministers will use this power to get evidence of whether a letting agent is complying with the code of practice or the registration requirements. This may include relating to how a letting agent manages its client accounts or the type of fees that it may charge to tenants. However, that does not include information that would be unlawful to disclose, for example, where it could be a breach of confidentiality. Amendment 81 allows Scottish ministers to authorise an inspection of a letting agent's business premises in order to check compliance with the regulatory requirements. This power could be used in situations where ministers suspect that an unregistered illegal letting agent is operating or when it would be more appropriate to inspect for compliance with the code of practice on site. Amendment 82 provides that a court can grant a warrant for entry in certain circumstances, including where access has been refused. A court may grant a warrant where it considers that there are reasonable grounds to do so. Amendment 83 sets out further detail about the carrying out of inspections, including in particular provision about giving notice and providing evidence of authorisation. Amendment 84 sets out offences at level 3 on the standard scale for non-compliance with certain aspects of the new powers to obtain information and inspection. Finally, amendment 63 ensures that if a letting agent fails to comply with an inspection or a request to provide information, that failure can be taken into account in determining whether the agent is a fit and proper person. There's overwhelming support for letting agent regulation, and I'm clear that the framework should be robust, should have teeth, and that it will be enforced. I want to see a regularity system which boosts the confidence of landlord and tenants and which raises the professional standards of the industry. I believe these amendments will help to achieve this and then move amendment 63. Yn elfwist cwmaint. Do you want to say anything else, minister? The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I move to fit and proper person criminal record information. I call amendment 64 in the name of Alec Johnson, grouped with amendments 65, 66 and 66A. Alec can ask you to move amendment 64 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. I move amendment 64 to initiate this discussion. The purpose of my amendment 64 is to change me to must, a typical amendment that we see often enough. The function in this case is to ensure that the applicants for registration are required to provide a criminal record certificate. My amendment 65 would have the effect of removing subsection 2. However, within this group is also amendment 66, which will remove the section to which these previous two amendments apply. As a consequence of my expectation that the minister's amendment 66 will pass, I have introduced amendment 66A, which is designed simply to make the same change to the new provision that I was proposing for the old, and that is to remove me and replace it with must to ensure that the bill has the effect of requiring applicants for the register to provide a criminal record certificate. Anyone else? Minister? I speak to my amendment 66 and respond to Alec Johnson's amendments. Amendment 66 is a technical amendment to modify section 31 of the bill so that it better reflects operational practice. It will not change the intended effect of section 31, and this aims to provide Scottish ministers with access to information on criminal records where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the information provided to them under section 30 brackets 2 of the bill is false or has become inaccurate. Alec Johnson's amendments 64 and 65 and amendment 66A are intended to have the same effect, but the latter amendment would change my proposed replacement of section 31 rather than the existing section 31. The amendments would mean that Scottish ministers must have regard to information that would normally be contained in a criminal record certificate where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the information under section 30 brackets 2 is or has become inaccurate. I do not think that this change would create a proportionate process as it would mean that ministers would have to look at criminal record information in every case, even in cases where the information provided under section 32 did not relate to a criminal offence. Amendment 66, as currently worded, proposes that Scottish ministers may have regard to this information. It is important to retain this discretion to enable Scottish ministers to determine whether it is proportionate in the circumstances to have regard to what is highly sensitive information. Applicants will be required to provide information on any criminal offence when they make their application and it is where it is thought later that that information was inaccurate or has changed. That is when we would look to having been able to may have discretion to determine to look at the full criminal record. It is important that we keep that discretion to enable Scottish ministers to determine if it is proportionate in the circumstances because it is highly sensitive information that we would be talking about. In conclusion, I would ask the committee to support my amendment 66 but not to support amendment 64, 65 or 66A as they would create a disproportionate process. To wind up and press a withdrawal. Mary, what do you want to say? Thank you, convener. Can I again ask if the minister could perhaps clarify something for me in relation to her amendment 66? Because amendment 66 would leave out section 31 and the last paragraph of section 31 would require that if a criminal record check has to be done, you have to wait till that check is back before proceeding. But your amendment would remove that section and I am just a bit concerned that that section is being removed. I wonder if you could perhaps explain to me why you have done that. It is a technical amendment about operational practices about ministers who are responsible for the disclosure in the system for disclosing criminal records. Ministers can get that information if necessary straight from disclosure as opposed to going through a circuitous route to get it. That is what we are saying when someone applies, they have to supply the disclosed criminal information. If we think that that is not accurate, we can then obtain criminal information direct from disclosure. So, it is not. That is actually strengthening it and just making it operationally more effective than previously. So, Alec, can I ask you to wind up a press or withdraw your amendment? Thank you very much. Although it seems a bit strange, there is a strong likelihood that it will support amendment 66 in the name of the minister. However, for chronological consistency, I will press amendment 64 at this stage. So, the question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 64, please show. Those against, please show. The vote is yes, three, no, four, so the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 65 in the name of Alec Johnson, already debated with amendment 64. Alec, to move or not move. I call amendment 66 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 64. Minister, to move formally. I call amendment 66A in the name of Alec Johnson, already debated with amendment 64. Alec, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 66A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 66A, please show. Three votes. Those against, please show. Four votes. The result is yes, three, no, four. The amendment is not agreed to. Minister, to press or withdraw amendment 66. Yes. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. Those in favour of amendment 66, please show. Those against, please show. The vote is yes, four, no, three. The amendment is agreed to. The question then is that section 631 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I move to letting agent registration number. Amendment 67, in the name of Alec Johnson, in a group on its own. Alec, to move and speak to the amendment. Again, if you dare with me for a second. The effect of this amendment makes it obligatory to include the letting agent's registration number in old documentation. I hope I've got the right amendment there. Yes. There is no practical reason why a letting agent's registration number cannot appear in the old agent's documentation. The requirement should be obligatory. Minister. I'll speak to amendment 67. At present, the bill will require letting agents to take all reasonable steps to include the registration number in communications with landlords and tenants in adverts and other publications. This represents a stringent test for letting agents to adhere to. Failure to use the registration number contravenes the fit and proper person requirements and could lead to the person's registration being revoked. This amendment seeks to remove the qualification. It would mean that any failure not to include the registration number in a document advert or publication would then become part of the fit and proper person consideration. This would include situations where, for example, the number hadn't been included because of an IT failure or because of human error. I want to see a robust effective regime in place. However, this seems a bit draconian, and I consider that the qualification provides for a more equitable approach and should be left in place. I invite Alex Johnson to withdraw his amendment. I think that my position in that at the minister leaves a considerable gap in the bill. I think that the brief discussion with hard, I think that my position in that at the minister leaves a considerable gap which I still think needs to be addressed. Therefore, I'm content to seek leave to withdraw this amendment at this stage, but I will reserve the right to bring back something at stage 3 which seeks to fit into the gap, which this discussion is quite obviously left open. Does anyone object the amendment being withdrawn? The question then is that section 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? You move to duration of letting agent registration. I call amendment 135 in the name of Mary Fee grouped with amendment 136. Mary, to move amendment 135 and speak to both amendments in the group please. Thank you, convener. Amendments 135 and 136 would change the duration of registration from three years to one. The result of my amendment would be that it would tighten up the sector and it also does sit with comments that were made by the minister earlier this morning in relation to length of registration. We need to have a well-regulated private rented sector if those within the sector are to have confidence in it. Annual registration would ensure a well-run, well-managed and well-regulated sector and any breaches would be caught quickly and the potential for poor practice would be minimal, which would strengthen the sector and demonstrate good governance. I move amendment 135 in my name. Anyone else wish to speak on amendments 135 and 136? Minister. Present the bill provides that a letting agent's period of registration should be for a three-year duration and Mary Fee's amendments seek to reduce the registration period in one year. As it stands, the Scottish ministers are able to consider a breach of the fit and proper person test or the code of practice at any time during the three-year period of registration. Section 35 provides Scottish ministers with the power to revoke a registration if the agent is no longer a fit and proper person. I consider the three-year registration cycle to be a proportionate approach which safeguards clients without placing an onus burden on the industry. I therefore invite Mary Fee to withdraw amendment 135 and not move amendment 136. Mary Fee, can I ask you to wind up and press her withdraw your amendment? Thank you, and I will be very brief, convener. I note the minister's comments, but I simply wish to reiterate what I said. We need a well-run, well-maintained, well-governed private rented sector if the people within it are to have confidence in that sector. My amendment would ensure that that would happen, so I move amendment 135 in my name. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 135, please show. Those against, please show. The vote is yes, three, no, four, so the amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 136, in the name of Mary Fee. Already debated with amendment 135, Mary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 136, please show. Those against, please show. The result is yes, three, no, four, so the amendment is therefore not agreed to. The question then is that section 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Move to register of letting agents, minor and technical amendments. Call amendment 68, in the name of the minister. Grouped with amendments 70, 86, 88 and 89. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 68 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Amendments 68 and 70 are technical amendments to maintain consistency of terminology in section 35 of the bill. And amendments 86, 88 and 89 ensure that certain key definitions apply throughout part four of the bill. And accordingly I move amendment 68. Question then is the amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 69, in the name of the minister. Are already debated with amendment 60. Minister, to move formally. Move. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Call amendment 70, in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 68. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Call amendment 71, in the name of Alec Johnson. Already debated with amendment 61. Alec to move or not move. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Move to register of letting agents cancellation of registration on request. I call amendment 72, in the name of Alec Johnson, in a group on its own. Alec to move and speak to your amendment. Thank you, convener. The bill lacks provision for the voluntary removal from the register of letting agents. A person may wish to be removed from the register for a number of reasons including change of career, retirement or sale of the business. This amendment provides that Scottish ministers can remove a person from the register at their request if they are satisfied that the letting agent has made adequate arrangements with respect to the business in hand and that is otherwise appropriate to do so. Anyone else? Amendment 72 provides a mechanism for a letting agent to apply to Scottish ministers to terminate registration. Otherwise, an agent's registration will lapse after three years if no application to renew is made. The amendment requires Scottish ministers to grant this if they are satisfied that the agent has made adequate arrangements for their letting agency work. I am sympathetic to the aim of this amendment. However, it is important to get it right in light of the significant consequences of not being registered and to ensure the robustness of the register. I would like to take time to consider the technical points here and come back at stage 3 with an amendment addressing the issue that I am confident will work. I hope that Alec Johnson will take that as sufficient undertaking to withdraw amendment 72 today. I would like to wind up and pressur withdraw your amendment. Thank you, convener. I hear what the minister has said and I am therefore confident that if I seek leave to withdraw, the minister will bring forward an alternative proposal or an equivalent proposal at stage 3 and therefore seek leave to withdraw. Does anyone object to this amendment being withdrawn? No. The question then is that sections 36 and 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. Move to letting agency work without registration. I call amendment 73 in the name of Alec Johnson grouped with amendments 74 and 75. Alec, can I ask you to move amendment 73 and speak to all amendments in the group? I move amendment 73 in my name. This amendment voids all contracts for letting agency concluded between a landlord and a letting agent where a letting agent is refused access to or removed from the register. The bill prevents a proposed or former letting agent from recovering costs or charges incurred in respect of letting agency work carried out after a person has been refused registration or has been removed from the register. These penalties do not affect the existence of a contract or letting agency work. This amendment will impose a real sanction on the proposed or former letting agent by reducing the contract by making it void. No contractual claims can then be made. Minister. I understand the wish to deter unregistered letting agents from continuing to operate after the date of their deregistration, but I have some concerns with this amendment. Firstly, while it might seem appropriate to make contracts void on the basis that the person should not be carrying out letting agency work, this could have unintended adverse consequences for third parties. For example, where a letting agent has entered into a contract with a landlord after the relevant date to provide letting agency services. If a letting agent then contracts a third party to undertake maintenance or cleaning of the property, then this could have adverse consequences on the third party's contract and may affect the recouping of legitimate costs for the work. I can reassure the committee that there are already provisions for dealing with unregistered letting agents who continue to operate. Section 39 makes a criminal offence to do so. Amendment 75 in my name seeks to increase the level of the fine from level 5 on the standard scale to a maximum of £50,000. Additional amendments in my name will seek to set up a monitoring system with powers for Scottish ministers to inspect and require information from persons appearing to operate as a letting agent. These will help to identify unregistered letting agents and therefore it is not clear what amendment 73 would usefully add. Therefore, I would invite Alex Johnson to withdraw his amendment. In turning to my amendments in this group, amendment 74 relates to section 38 in the bill. This section provides that letting agents are not able to recover costs where they have been refused entry to or removed from the register. The amendment makes clear that costs incurred by a letting agent before they are removed from the register are still recoverable. This will allow letting agents such as those who let their registration lapse for a legitimate reason such as retiring from the industry to recover costs that may still be owed to them. Amendment 75 seeks to increase the level of fine for the offence of operating as a letting agent without registration to a maximum of £50,000. This amendment will provide a significant deterrent to anyone operating as a letting agent without being registered. Alex, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment? At this stage, I will take the opportunity to press my amendment. We will look forward to seeing what the minister has to say on this subject at stage 3. I will press. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Those in favour of amendment 73 please show. Those against please show. The vote is yes, one, no, six so the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 74 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 73 minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 75 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 73 minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. We move to letting agent code of practice and I call amendment 76 in the name of Alec Johnson grouped with amendment 77, 137 to 144, 130, 126 and 127. Alec can I ask you to move amendment 76 and speak to all amendments in the group please? I will move my amendment 76 and I will briefly speak to that amendment alone. This amendment has the effect of replacing a May with a must. The amendment, section 41, gives Scottish ministers a discretion as to whether they will issue a code of practice about letting agents. The code is key to the scheme of regulation under the bill and therefore ministers should not have an option not to issue the code. This amendment therefore amends section 41 by removing from the Scottish ministers the discretion to issue a code of practice. Eight minister can I ask you to speak to amendments 77 and the other amendments in the group please? Respond to amendment 66. The bill currently provides that Scottish ministers may by regulations set out a code of practice for letting agents. This amendment would place a duty on Scottish ministers to do so. My amendment 126 will require the first code of practice and replacement codes to be subject to the affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. If my amendment is accepted, the Scottish Parliament will require to approve the regulations setting out the first and any future replacement code before they can be made. As Scottish ministers will not be able to make these regulations without parliamentary approval, putting this duty on ministers would pre-empt Parliament's ability to agree or not to agree the code. Therefore it would not be appropriate to do so. On that basis I invite Alex Johnson to withdraw his amendment. As introduced the bill provides for Scottish ministers to develop a code of practice on professional standards in consultation with stakeholders. At stage 1 Parliament called for further detail of what is to be included in the code of practice and put in the face of the bill. Amendment 77 responds to this request and ensures that important matters of client money protection and professional indemnity arrangements will be included in the code. As introduced the bill provides that the code of practice will be subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee expressed concerns about this. It considered that the affirmative procedure would be a more suitable level of parliamentary scrutiny given the significant legal consequences of failure to comply with the code. I have reconsidered that and as I have indicated amendment 126 applies affirmative procedure to the first code and any replacement code. Any adjustment to the codes will be subject to negative procedure and I believe this is a balanced approach. Amendment 77 is therefore intended to reassure Parliament by providing more detail in the face of the bill of what the code will cover. Amendment 126 will also allow for an increased level of parliamentary scrutiny of the first and any future code. Padget Harby's amendment 127 also aims to ensure that the code of practice for letting agents will be subject to the affirmative procedure. This would mean that any change to the code no matter how minor would be subject to affirmative procedure in the Parliament. My amendment 126 provides for the first code and any full revision of the code to be subject to affirmative procedure and I would invite Padget Harby not to move his amendment in favour of the more balanced approach. I will now address Padget Harby's amendment 130. I share his wish to see progress being made to develop the code of practice but I want to ensure that the code is drafted with proper consideration of its aims, the desired outcomes and how. There is no question of any delay in my part in implementing the code. It is however important to allow sufficient time to enable the Scottish Government to consult fully with the industry and with the public. In further more the code cannot be finalised until the association tribunals legislation has been commenced. The tribunals act was recently enacted by Parliament. Tribunal reform is now progressing and the first tier tribunal is expected to be up and running by 2016. Therefore I wish to reassure Mr Harby to my commitment to progressing the development of the code which I would expect to be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the Bill's enactment. So I ask him to draw his amendment as it doesn't allow sufficient time for the practicalities of full public consultation. I will now address amendments 137, 138, 139 and 143. Again I have given careful consideration to these amendments because, like Mr Harby, I also have heard of the many and varied practices of some letting agents and the adverse effects that these can have in tenants. That is why we are proposing the regulation of the letting agent industry. However, matters of rent deposits, matters of providing documentation and compliance with the repairing standard are the legal requirement of the landlord. There are a number of legal requirements already in relation to these matters. For example, the tenancy deposit scheme sets out what the legal obligations of a landlord are if they choose to take a deposit. Letting agents need to comply with the law when managing a property and acting on behalf of a landlord. That is why it is important that the code of practice will set out the standards that both tenants and landlords should expect and that letting agents can demonstrate that they have the necessary training for registration. I want to be clear that I want this regime to be effective. I am willing to consider what people have to say and important issues covered by these amendments and their views and what should be included in the code of practice. I think that the right time to do this will be when consulting on the draft code. The code will be subject to public consultation and because it is to be affirmative procedure, the committee will have the opportunity to consider the detail of the code once drafted. I therefore cannot support amendments 137, 138, 139 and 143. I will now address amendment 140, 141 and 142. I sympathise with people who are struggling to find affordable rented property while in receipt of state benefits and those whose immigration status is uncertain. However, there are a number of practical difficulties with these amendments. It is ultimately the landlord's decision who to let their property to, not the letting agents, although the letting agent may provide advice and support to the landlord. I am not clear how amendment 140 could be enforced because most landlords would want to check that the tenant can afford the rent. For amendment 141, I want to be absolutely clear that I disapprove of the use of the term no DSS. The issue of discrimination and the matters that Patrick Harvie raises in his amendments is something that the Scottish Government will take up with the letting agents industry through the process of developing the code of practice. The Scottish Government will encourage equal opportunities throughout the industry in addressing the matters that Patrick Harvie raises. I therefore cannot support amendments 140, 141 and 142. Turning to Mary Fees amendment 144, it proposes a specific reference to the need of a letting agent to comply with the letting agent code of practice. However, the bill already provides for compliance with the code of practice to be a key aspect of the fit and proper person test for registration. The code will be enforced by application to a tribunal and decisions found against the letting agents. A letting agency will be reported back to Scottish ministers. In like Mary Fees and as I have already alluded to like Patrick Harvie, I have also heard and know of the many and varied practices of some letting agents trying to avoid protecting tenancy deposits with one of the three approved schemes. The tenancy deposit scheme has its own enforcement requirements, so paragraph A is unnecessary. Unintentionally, the provision could also be problematic if a landlord wants to receive the deposit from the letting agent so that the landlord can put it into a scheme that is permitted. With regard to paragraph B, I am well aware of letting agents who have charged premiums on the effect that charges can have on tenants. That is why we have already clarified the legislation to make it crystal clear what is allowed. Turning now to paragraph C and D of amendment 144, I sympathise, as I have said, with people who are struggling to find affordable rented property while in receipt of state benefits, especially families. All Scottish Government policies reflect Scottish values of fairness and opportunities and promote equality and social cohesion. As I said in my response to Patrick Harvie's earlier amendments from 140 to 142, the Scottish Government will discuss equality issues with the letting agents industry through the process of developing the code of practice. That will be something that we take seriously. We do, as a Government, encourage it, and it will be part of the code of practice, so I would invite Mary Phee not to move her amendments. Can I ask Patrick Harvie to speak to amendment 137 on the other amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Can I begin by acknowledging the extensive treatment of the amendments in this group by the Minister? If I could start with the procedural aspects, first of all, Alex Johnson seeking a requirement that Ministers make regulations setting out the code and the Ministers objection that that is not compatible with the affirmative procedure. I can understand the argument that's been put there, but I would suggest that, at the very least, a requirement that the regulation setting out the code be laid before Parliament within a clearly defined period, I would hope that the Government is comfortable with that to some extent. It's been said by the Minister that 18 months might be a reasonable expectation. I would have no objection delaying an amendment at stage 3 that sets out more or less what my amendment 130 does, but giving 18 months instead of a year after royal assent. So, when it comes to that amendment 130, I won't move that. And the amendment 127 also won't be necessary given the Minister's decision to apply the affirmative procedure for the first code and for revisions to it. The other amendments from me in this group do seek to explore what the code will in fact cover. And I think it's been clear during the course of the committee's discussions that the content of the code is really going to be crucial to whether any of this bill has the effect that is being sought. There are several, as the Minister says, of my amendments in this group, which address matters which are legal requirements or where some legal requirements exist. And my intention in lodging amendments that engage with those issues is simply to explore and to confirm whether the code of practice itself will be a relevant instrument where a letting agent has not complied with a legal requirement. For example, we know of several workarounds, including some legal workarounds for landlords to avoid complying with the intention of the deposit protection scheme. I want to ensure that where tenants find themselves in that situation at the mercy of the kind of letting agents that I think most responsible agents would do want to see changed or challenged, I want to see tenants in that situation know that they can use the code of practice as their means of redress. And so the amendments on rent levels, on deposits and on the provision of information, I think, would help to ensure clarity that the code of practice will be relevant in those circumstances. Repairs, again, or I'm sure all members will acknowledge, are one of the complaints that people may start off making and eventually stop complaining because they just figure out they've got to put up with basic repairs not being done. Now that applies to landlords as well as letting agents, but we have a bill that allows us to put requirements on letting agents, so let's make a start there, I would suggest, and give a clear time limit within which repairs need to be done. The three amendments relating to discrimination, 140, 141 and 142, I think it's regrettable that the minister focuses on the use of the term, no DSS. I hope that we would all like to see an end to the use of the term, but more important than the use of the term is the practice itself. If people stop using the term, but continue the practice of discriminating against benefit recipients, we won't really be much farther forward. And I do hope that the minister can give some kind of indication that these matters will be addressed in the code when it is laid before Parliament. It does seem to me that discriminating against people purely because they receive benefits, not because they can't actually afford the service they're seeking to buy, is completely unreasonable and destructed to the social cohesion that I think the government has a commitment to. Finally, I want to say something about the amendment on discrimination on grounds of immigration status, and I would encourage the minister, if the minister has a further chance to respond, I know that's at your discretion, convener. I would encourage the minister to say something more specific about this one, because members will be aware of the statement of concern about the impact of the immigration bill on housing as well as health matters, on devolved matters, which the UK government has passed immigration legislation, which impacts on, in this case, landlords to check immigration status. Now, a range of organisations, including the Scottish Association of Landlords, Shelter, a wide range of other organisations and individuals have set out their serious concerns about this. Not only that it's inappropriate in principle for that requirement to be placed onto the private rented sector, but the potential for increasing discrimination and inequality in our society through this measure, particularly potential disadvantage for prospective legitimate tenants, but whose status is unclear, or those not able to produce the required documents quickly, and people who are members of visible minority communities who are seeking accommodation. They said that rather than targeting the so-called illegal migrants, the tenant checking scheme may drive both those with irregular status and prospective legitimate tenants with unclear status and documents to unscrupulous landlords and boosting the rogue market. That's the very opposite of what this bill is intended to achieve, and it may be the consequence of the UK government's legislation, which clearly impacts on the devolved policy area of housing. If the minister could be encouraged to respond, not only to my amendment, but to the concerns that have been set out by this wide range of organisations working in the private rented sector in Scotland, I think that would be very helpful. I ask you to speak to amendment 144 and the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Amendment 144, in my name, relates to the code of practice. Working with Citizens Advice Scotland, the amendment clarifies some of the issues that I have previously acknowledged around placing a duty that any person carrying out letting agency work must comply with the letting agent code of practice. The amendment would also ensure that anyone acting as a letting agent must comply with the Tenancy Deposit Scheme Scotland regulations of 2011 and section 120 of the 2006 act. Point D of my amendment would prohibit letting agents from discriminating against anyone receiving state benefits under the acts listed or responsible for a child. Citizens Advice Scotland have briefed that they have cases where potential tenants are discriminated against because they have children or are in receipt of housing benefit. I listened with interest to the minister's comments earlier. However, I do believe that my amendment would strengthen the legislation as it is drafted and would ensure that the code of practice is clear and ambiguous. More importantly, it would ensure compliance and I move amendment 144. Anyone else wish to speak? Thank you, convener. There has been much discussion about the code of practice through the consideration of this bill in Parliament and on the committee. I think what many feel is that it's important that the code of practice is actually meaningful and has teeth if it's to be effective. From that point of view, Mary Fee's amendment 144, establishing absolute compliance with the code of practice, brings that into force. Patrick Harvie's amendment 137, 138, 139 and 143 deals with some of the practical issues that we have discussed in consideration of this bill. We can give some specific requirements, for example, on advanced rents, the level of deposits, the requirement to provide a standard tenancy and also on repairs. We can actually make a difference and it would be meaningful. Similarly, Patrick Harvie's amendment 140, 141 and 142, in terms of discrimination, lay out something specific and ensure that people in the terms laid out in these amendments wouldn't be discriminated against. The minister has acknowledged some sympathy with a lot of the issues raised in these amendments. However, if we are actually to give meaning to make a difference in these areas, then I think the code of practice does have to be more specific in these amendments to address some of the practicalities and would make a real difference. I'll make a couple of comments and respond to some of the issues that Patrick Harvie raises. Most of the issues that he has raised, I would certainly anticipate, will be part of the code of practice, which will go through the affirmative procedure at Parliament and give stakeholders, the public and the committee the opportunity to have their views heard on this as well. As the committee is aware, immigration is a reserved matter, but the Scottish Government does not agree with the UK Government's position on landlords checking the immigration status of tenants. We have made that very clear to the UK Government. I would say that, when the code is being developed and consulted on, all of those matters will be taken into account, as will our position, and we've made our position very clear with the UK Government on this. We agree that we can't break the law, but we've made it clear to the UK Government that we don't think landlords should have to do that. We will proceed with that argument with the UK Government. We would also anticipate that the code of practice will cover areas of discrimination, equality legislation and the other issues that he raises. In terms of Mary Fee's point, I'm saying that we already have provision that, if someone breaches the code, they can lose their registration or they can be fined considerable sums of money. That is already there in the bill. Therefore, I don't think what has been proposed adds anything to that. I agree with James Kelly that the code of practice will be the important document of what we want to see in it, but it is right and proper that we consult properly in that code. I took on board that we would take it through an affirmative procedure for this code and any subsequent replacement code, and that is something that we will recognise. Alec, can I ask you to wind up and pressure withdraw your amendment? Thank you very much, convener. It seems like a few minutes ago now, but I listened with some interest to the minister's response to my amendment 76. I think it was. I accept that, where there is a procedural issue, it would be appropriate for me to seek leave to withdraw at this stage, with a view to coming back and having another crack at stage 3. Does anyone object to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 77 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 76. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 137 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of amendment 137 please show. Those against please show. The result is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 138 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move? Ysbryddon, would it be appropriate to suggest moving these up to 143 on block? I suspect the result will be the same for all of them. Does anyone object to those amendments being moved on block? No. It's going from 138 to 143. So, the question is that amendments 138 to 143 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. Now we have to put up that question. So, we have to go individually. So, the question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. Those in favour of amendment 138 please show. Those against please show. So, the vote is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 139 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to division. Those in favour of amendment 139 please show. Two. Those against please show. Five. The vote is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 140 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Moved. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 140 please show. Those against please show. The result of the division is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 141 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move. It's moved. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. We move to division. Those in favour of amendment 141 please show. Those against please show. The division is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 142 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick has moved. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We move to division. Those in favour of amendment 142 please show. Those against please show. The result is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 143 in the name of Patrick Harvie, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move. Never know your luck. It's moved. The question is that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to another division. Those in favour of amendment 143 please show. Those against please show. So the division is yes, to, no, five. Call that again. No, but I missed the vote. Call that division again. Those in favour of amendment 143 please show. Those against please show. Vote is yes, to, no, five. That amendment is not agreed to. Call amendment 144 in the name of Mary Fee, already debated with amendment 76. Mary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 144 please show. Those against please show. The result of the division is yes, to, no, five. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Call amendment 130 in the name of Patrick Harvey, already debated with amendment 76. Patrick, to move or not move. Not move. The question then is that section 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. The question is that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. So I think we'll take a couple more sections before we have a break. So we move to enforcement of code of practice. Call amendment 131 in the name of Patrick Harvey, grouped with amendments 78, 132, 79, 133 and 145. Patrick, can I ask you to move amendment 131 and speak to all the amendments in the group please? Thank you, convener. The amendments in my name in this group are somewhat simpler than the last you'll be glad to know. There are two basic objectives that I'm proposing here. One is captured in both amendment 131 and 132, which is to ensure that a tenant who wishes to apply to the first tier tribunal for determination that their letting agent has failed to comply with the code of practice can authorise someone to do that on their behalf. It doesn't specify who that might be, but obviously we could envisage a range of voluntary organisations or support services might wish to take on that role. There are clearly going to be tenants who will be assertive enough and clear in their own mind enough that they want to raise a complaint about their letting agent failing to comply with the code. There will be others who frankly don't feel confident enough or feel that they need a bit of help to do so, and it seems fairly reasonable that that initial application might be made by somebody on their behalf who can work with them, so I hope that the government will be willing to accept that. Amendment 133 is perhaps a little more substantial. It suggests that when a letting agent has been found in breach of the code and in fact has an enforcement order against them, that until that enforcement order is complied with, the tenant won't be due to pay any rent for that period. Now it may be that the government might be sympathetic to the intention but would like to imply that in different circumstances or limit the application, but I do hope that the government can acknowledge the argument that at least where there is a serious breach of the code and where an enforcement order has been made, for the time between that enforcement order and the order being complied with, the letting agent should not be under any expectation that they can charge rent for that period from a tenant who is not having the service delivered on the standard that we are all hoping to set out. I move amendment 131 and hope that the minister will respond positively to both of those suggestions. Can I ask the minister to speak to amendment 78 and the other amendments in the group, please? I'll first respond to Patrick Harvie's amendments 131 and 132. The bill already provides for a tenant or landlord to apply to the first tier tribunal for a determination that a letting agent has failed to comply with the code of practice. I know that there will be cases where a tenant needs support to make an application to the tribunal. Amendments 131 and 132 propose that tenants should be able to authorise third parties for them in this regard. However, I don't believe that putting this provision in the bill is necessary. The arrangement for representation would be a matter for the tribunals rules in due course. I think that I made it very clear at the previous session that there would be an expectation that people could be accompanied at a tribunal. There is nothing in the bill as it currently stands to prevent a tenant seeking support from a third party in assisting them with progressing with their complaint. I therefore ask Patrick Harvie to withdraw amendments 131 and not to move amendment 132. I will speak to amendments 78 and 79, which are in my name. Those amendments seek to expand the provision at section 43 to allow Scottish ministers to make an application to the first tier tribunal. That will strengthen the enforcement provisions in the bill by enabling Scottish ministers to act on information obtained either through their own compliance checks or from information from third parties, including tenants. I have some concerns about Patrick Harvie's amendment 133. It is the stopping of rent until the letting agent complies with the enforcement order. It could primarily penalise the landlord rather than the agent. I absolutely accept where Patrick Harvie's intention was. It is about the letting agent here and the code of practice that we are dealing with. If the applicant is a tenant and their suffering loss or suffered a loss as a result of the letting agent's failure to comply with the code of practice, then the tribunal could make an order under section 43, 8b, of the bill to provide compensation to the tenant. There are other enforcement measures that Scottish ministers can take if a letting agent doesn't comply with an enforcement order, which would have greater impact on the letting agent and the stopping of rent payments. The tribunal is able to inform Scottish ministers of the failure to comply, which could result in a letting agent's registration being revoked. In addition, it is an offence to fail to comply with an enforcement order, and that could result in a fine or conviction. On the basis that the other penalties exist in the bill, which rightly target the letting agent rather than the landlord, I invite Patrick Harvie not to move amendment 133. I now speak to amendment number 145. In the context of the fit and proper person test, Scottish ministers currently have discretion over whether they wish to take into account a contravention of an enforcement order, but they are not required to do so. However, amendment 145 seeks to compel Scottish ministers to deregister a letting agent who commits an offence by not complying with an enforcement order. Any letting agent that fails to comply with an enforcement order without reasonable excuse commits an offence under section 46 of the bill. Scottish ministers will also be able to deregister a letting agent in these circumstances. We will take a robust line with letting agents through these regulations to promote compliance, but ministers should retain discretion on the matter in order to ensure proportionate response depending on the circumstances of each case. Amendment 145 goes on to require Scottish ministers to note the deregistration in the register. Thereafter, Scottish ministers must make provision for the consequences of that deregistration for tenants of properties managed by the agent. However, it is more appropriate for the landlord to make those arrangements, not Scottish ministers. I appreciate that Mary Pee wants to ensure a robust consequence for failing to comply with an enforcement order, but the bill already provides for a robust approach. I therefore ask Mary Pee not to move amendment 145. I agree to her amendment 145 and the other amendments in the group please. I will be glad to hear you quite brief in moving my amendment 145. The amendment would provide extra protection for potential victims of rogue landlords who may be acting outside of the code, and anyone found to be acting in such a manner must be removed from the register by Scottish ministers and that must be noted on the register. The amendment would also allow for ministers to make provision for tenants in properties where an agent has been removed from the register, because it is unclear at present what the circumstances would be if that was to happen. I listened to the comments that the minister made in relation to enforcement, but I come back to a point that I made earlier. We need to make this sector as strong as possible. The rules surrounding regulation have to be clear and unambiguous, and my amendment would strengthen the legislation as drafted. I am supportive of the other amendments in the group, and I move amendment 145 in my name. Minister, do you wish to comment on that? Patrick Harvie, would you like to wind up and pressur with Draw Your Amendment please? Thank you. On amendment 133 around the stopping of rent, I understand the minister's concern that effectively what looks like a penalty could be passed on to the landlord rather than borne by the letting agent, but it does seem to me that that is a matter between the landlord and the letting agent, and that if the agreement between a landlord and a letting agent specifies that the letting agent will pay the landlord for every month that they are managing the property, then the stopping of rent would fall to the letting agent, not to the landlord. I think the priority surely should be to ensure that tenants who are not being given the service that they have a right to expect shouldn't have to pay for it during that period. However, I'm content to not move it on the basis that I'll revise the amendment and return to the chamber at stage 3 with that in a way that tries to take account of the concerns that the minister expressed. On amendments 131 and 132, I was a wee bit disappointed that this relatively small change wasn't accepted by the Government. I think the enabling tenants to authorise someone else to make an application of the tribunal on their behalf does go further than simply allowing somebody to be accompanied in that process or supported in that process. There will be people who simply, for whatever reason, find it beyond their level of confidence to make that application at all, but somebody else would be able to do it for them. There will be other circumstances, for example, where I'll be thinking of situations that I've been aware of personally in Glasgow, around student accommodation, where a number of students are being treated badly by the same letting agent in similar circumstances, but many of them may be moving on shortly and simply don't think it's worth their while or the hassle or the time of making any kind of formal complaint about that. Whereas if these amendments were passed, a third party such as their student welfare rights service could make an application collectively on behalf of all of them, that would not only give the application greater weight with the tribunal, but it would also ensure that the treatment of all tenants in that circumstance were addressed in the application rather than simply a small minority who might be willing to raise the matter themselves. In short, convener, when it comes to amendment 133, I won't move that, but we'll seek to return to it at stage 3 for the moment I press amendment 131. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 131, please show. Those against, please show. The result of the vote is yes to no five. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I call amendment 78 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 131. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 132 in the name of Patrick Harvie already debated with amendment 131. It's not moved. I call amendment 79 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 131. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 133 in the name of Patrick Harvie already debated with amendment 131. Patrick, to move or not move. The question then is that section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that sections 44 and 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 145 in the name of Mary Fee already debated with amendment 131. Mary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We move to vote. Those in favour of amendment 145, please show. Those against, please show. When the result of the vote is yes to no 5, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The question is that section 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 63. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 81 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 63. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of the Minister already debated with amendment 63. Minister, to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. yw ysgrifennidol arbligwydol? Dyma'r cyfnodau wrth iddyl, mae'r wordig ar fynddyn nhw'n gwybodaeth agennau. Felly, rwy'n gwein iawn awr inni i ni wneud y newid yn y ddechrau Allex Johnson, yw y ddiwrnod y Llyfrgellydd yna ddwy i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i ni i neid yiorion, when you're putting the sections together and reading them in the appropriate order, something leaps out at you that just doesn't seem right, and my amendment 85 is inspired by that experience. The function of the amendment would be to leave out section 51 paragraph 1b. Section 51 provides the definition of letting agency work. Section 51a is clear when it ond y bwysig o'i gweithio gweithio ar y dyfodol yng nghymru yn cymrydol gweithio o'i cyfnod i'r ddweud o'r lland o'r hyn o ddillog. Dysgu, rydyn ni'n dechrau'r cyfnod, cyfnod o'r ddillog o'r cyfnod, mae'n byw yn eu ffordd o'r troi'r cyfnod, ac mae'n bwysig o'r cyfnod o'r ddillog o'r cyfnod, cyfnod o'r cyfnod, cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod, cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyd-gareddau hyfforddol. Eich cyd-dredig eich gynhyrch maes o gychydag o fyndod gwagoddiadau i'r effigig oedd hynny yn fyrdi angen i fueldd y llythg annaton gyda ni rydw i fwy i'r caf hynny i ddifesio i chi corech nesaf yng Nghymru, mae'r cyrchau iawn, o'r cyd-dreddau, bwldau, gofynau, cyd-dreddau, wych, ac yn gwybod nhw'n gwybod nhw'n ddifesio i chi. Gwelwch y byddwch am hyn o ymloedd y ffrifonfyrwyr 1b ar oeddennig 11.1 i ffordd yma gweithio a phelwch dim yn ein bod yn ymlaesu fynd i'w ffordd. Can I ask you to speak to amendment 87 and to the other amendments in the group, please? Amendment 87 adjusts the existing power in section 513 to change the meaning of letting allwn i ddweud gyda digon iawn. Mae'n fwy o'r sgolwch gyda'r sgolwch gyda'r ddyfodol a'r ddweud cyfrifwyr yn yr unig i ddefnyddu cyflym o hynny i gwrsiau cyfle a ddyfodol i adnodau bêisol o'r dyfyniadau ddiweddion seithioiciadol i gynnwysau o'r ddyffredinol mewn y cyfrifodol i sylfaenau cyfrifodol i gyrsiaeth â'r dynnu cyfrifodol i gynnwysau It is a scheme that includes the rent deposit guarantee schemes which carry out activities such as facilitating lettings, which letting agencies work in the means of PARP4, and they are not intended to be brought under the letting agency regularity regime, so this power is needed. The power to specify bodies is intended to allow the Scottish ministers the option of excluding organisations such as not-for-profit bodies, whose letting agency work includes activities other than those relating to rent deposit schemes. Those powers are required to allow ministers to respond flexibly to any future changes in the letting agent sector, and amendment 128 will enable provision of this kind to be made in an order subject to the negative procedure. An order that otherwise modifies the meaning of letting agency work will continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure as before. I'll turn now to Alex Johnson's amendment number 35. I'm aware that, at stage 1, the law society raised some concerns about the definition of letting agency work in section 51. I've looked at those concerns and I'm satisfied that the definition captures all of the activity that should be regulated. The key factor that Alex Johnson talked about refers and slaters in various workmen, but the key factor is that that work has to be done in the managing of the property. It is not someone doing work as another contract if it's involved with the managing of the property, and that's in the bill as it stands. Amendment 85 would remove on-going property managing functions from the meaning of letting agency work when a property is being managed. I consider that those functions form a core part of the remit of many letting agents, and that amendment could narrow the coverage of the regulation, and therefore I can't support that amendment, and I would invite Alex Johnson to withdraw amendment 85 and ask the committee to support my amendments. Anyone else wish to comment? Alex Johnson, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw your amendment, please? I will press my amendment 85 in this case. I have absolute faith in the intent of the minister, but I am not 100 per cent confident that the wording that appears here has the effect that the minister intends, and as a consequence I think we have an issue here still to clarify, so therefore press my amendment and look to continue to inquire into this before stage 3. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are not agreed. I move to division those in favour of amendment 85, please show. Those against, please show. So the result is yes, three, no, four, so the amendment is not agreed to. I call amendment 86 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 68, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed. I move to division those in favour of amendment 87, please show. Those against, please show. Those abstaining. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, zero, abstention, two, so the amendment is agreed to. I move to division those in favour of amendment 87, please show. Those against, please show. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, zero, abstention, two, so the amendment is agreed to. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. It smells of section 51. Oh sorry, section 51, not amendment 51. Section 51, are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 68, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 68, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that section 52 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And the are. Noodles at sections 53 and 54 be agreed to are. We all agreed, we are agreed and that comes to a natural break so we'll have a five minute adjournment. The First Minister 1, 4, 6 yn y name of Mary Fee in a group on its own. Mary, to move and speak to your amendment. Amendment 1, 4, 6, in my name, is required to protect tenants and residents on mobile home sites. Licences must not be approved where concerns or complaints have been raised, and in order to ensure that unscrupulous site owners do not continue to operate, the local authority must make angen inspection to assess whether issues are being addressed or have been resolved. Citizens Advice Scotland have briefed in favour of this amendment, as clients have approached them over issues that can be tackled under this amendment. My amendment would improve governance in this sector and provide additional safeguards for residents, and I move amendment 1, 4, 6. Amendment 1, 4, 6 seeks to impose further requirements in local authorities in terms of their duties under the new licensing regime. I agree that local authorities should be thorough when considering whether a licence should be granted. I also agree that it is important for site visits to be carried out. However, I want to leave local authorities with some flexibility to focus resources on the most problematic sites. That is why I have lodged an amendment to the bill enabling ministers to issue guidance which local authorities will have to have regard to in carrying out their functions under the new licensing regime in the bill. The Scottish Government will develop that draft guidance in consultation with all stakeholders. This guidance would be able to cover site visits, including when these should be carried out and set out various circumstances in which a local authority would be expected to inspect a site. I believe that that strikes a right balance between flexibility and the clear expectation that, in certain circumstances, a site visit will be necessary. I can reassure Mary Fee that I am also keen to ensure that the regime is robust and effectively enforced by local authorities. I believe that the guidance route will be effective, but section 6 of the bill will also allow ministers to make regulations on the procedure to be followed when licensing a site. Those regulations could potentially include a requirement for a local authority to visit a site as part of the licensing process. I understand the thinking behind Mary Fee's amendment, but as it stands, it would require that the local authority visit a site if there had been a single complaint, even if the local authority had already visited that site in relation to that complaint and found it without merit. I believe that the amendment is not necessary and I recommend that it is resisted. Mary Fee can ask you to wind up and pressur withdraw your amendment. Minister, for the comments that she has made, and in light of the comments that the minister has made in relation to developing guidance and looking at when site visits should be carried out and the responsibility that is put on local authorities, I am happy not to move the amendment and look forward to that guidance being published. Mary Fee wishes to withdraw her amendment. Any objection? I move to section 1a, site licences giving of reasons for local authority decision. Amendment 90, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 92, 96 and 97. Minister, to move amendment 90 and speak to all amendments in the group. During consideration of the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee highlighted the importance of a local authority providing reasons for its decisions. While measures were introduced that required a local authority to provide reasons in most situations, the committee believed that those should be applied more consistently. Those amendments are in response to the committee's comments, which we have considered carefully. They will place consistent duties on a local authority to provide reasons for its decisions on a licence application, including renewal, a licence transfer and the revoking of a licence. Amendments 92, 96 and 97 mean that a local authority must tell the relevant people about its decision and provide reasons after those decisions are made. Amendment 90 addresses the earlier situation where a local authority is considering refusing its consent to a licence transfer. The authority is required to indicate that fact to the applicant and set out the reasons why, which allow the applicant to be involved 28 days to respond. I move amendment 90. Does anyone else want to speak? The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. We move to part 1A, site licence time limit for determining application. I call amendment 91 in the name of the minister, in a group on its own. Minister, to move and speak to your amendment. The bill is introduced, including a provision that if a local authority did not make a decision on a site licence application within 12 months, the application was deemed to be approved. That was included in the bill as a back-stock measure and the Scottish Government's expectation is that local authorities will make decisions in a shorter timescale. However, at stage 1, some stakeholders expressed concern that it would give a local authority an unacceptably long time to determine an application. In light of that, the amendment will remove the 12-month deadline from the bill and give ministers the power to set time limits and regulations. That will enable the Government to consult with the industry and local authorities about realistic timescales that can be put in place and adapted as necessary. The amendment will also enable ministers to set different timescales for different types of application. That might be used, for example, to set a shorter timescale for a new and existing licence than for an application for a new licence. I think that amendment 91 is a sensible way forward and I move amendment 91 in my name. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 91, please show. Those against, please show. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 90, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Move to duration of part 1A site licence. Call amendment 93 in the name of the minister and a group of its own. Minister to move and speak to the amendment. One of the issues raised during the stage 1 consideration of the bill was the move to fix term licences of three years from assistance. A system where licences run in perpetuity. Fix term licences provide a regular check that a site licence holder continues to be a fit and proper person and an opportunity to review and update site licence conditions. Therefore don't support a system where licences run in perpetuity which is the system we currently have and it has proved to be weak and ineffective. I've listened to the points raised by stakeholders at stage 1 and in light of that this amendment seeks to change the bill so that licence periods run for five years rather than three. This longer period will give greater stability to site owners and reduce administrative work for local authorities. In the committee's stage 1 report it highlighted the importance of clear, accurate information being provided to residents and site owners on the changes that they meant in practice. That is something that the Scottish Government has committed to doing when it puts the new licensing system in place. Other government amendments to the bill will also further strengthen the residency provided by agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and it will make it clear that that right remains even if a site owner loses his or her licence. This amendment provides greater stability for residents, site owners and local authorities while keeping the important principle that a site licence is for a specific period of time. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I'm not agreed. I'll move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 93 please show. Those against please show. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that section 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. I'll move to duty two inform where change, period and offence. I call amendment 94 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 95, 107 and 108. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 94 and speak to the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. The amendments make it an offence not to provide a local authority with relevant information on change circumstances in specific timescales. If convicted of an offence someone can be fined up to level three in the standard scale, which is £1,000. Those amendments strengthen the measures already in section 57 of the bill that require a licence holder to tell a local authority of any relevant changes in circumstances. With the move to five-year licences, rather than the three years originally in the bill, it's even more important that licence holders are required to tell a local authority if their circumstances change. I therefore ask the committee to support these amendments and I move amendment 94. Anyone else wish to comment? The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can you say no, please? Not to shake your head. The question is that we are not agreed. We move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 94, please show. Those against, please show. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed. Call amendment 95 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 94. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We move to a division. Those in favour of amendment 95, please show. Those against, please show. The result of the vote is yes, five, no, two. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The question is that section 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are agreed. Call amendment 96 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 90. Minister, to move formally. Moved? The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed. No. We are agreed. Call amendment 97 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 90. Minister, to move formally. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Wrth g cohidwch eich lle— Gwraith gynt�od eich lle— – Mae gynt答h gy halls i eisio bydde— 99, 204, minister, to move amendment 98 and speak to the other amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. Amendments 98 to 104 respond to points helpfully made by the Delegated Power and Law Reform Committee in their stage one consideration of the bill. They had a concern that the power in sector in 60 of the bill in relation to appeals was too broad and didn't reflect our stated The amendments are therefore proposed to clarify our policy intentions. The various amendments to section 60 of the bill in amendments 9 to 8 to 104 ensure that Scottish ministers can make regulations covering the administrative procedures to be followed for the various measures under the bill. For example, procedures around issuing and renewing a licence and also the procedure to be followed in relation to appeals. I do not intend to go any detail on the further detail of these amendments at this stage and would ask the committee to support all of the amendments in the group and I move amendment 9 to 8 in my name. Thank you, convener. I just really wanted to make a very brief comment. In general terms I am supportive of what the minister is trying to achieve but my concern with amendment 98 is that this would be done through negative procedure and I have a concern around lack of scrutiny and I wonder if the minister could perhaps make a further comment on that. We were providing, as I said earlier, from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and we were providing them with a detailed explanation in the supplementary Delegated Powers memorandum lodged on my behalf after stage 2. The main amendment is amendment 98, which is adjusting the focus of the power that others are consequential amendments but we are doing this to satisfy what the Delegated Law Reform Committee requested and that is how we are proceeding. Question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendments 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 all in the name of the minister and all previous to be previously debated. I invite the minister to move these amendments on block. Does anyone object to a single question being put on these amendments? The question is that amendments 99 to 104 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question then is that section 60 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move to part 1, a site licence fit and proper person test. I call amendment 105 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 147, 148 and 106. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 105 and speak to all amendments in the group? Amendment 105 is an amendment that makes it clear that local authorities must have regard to whether a site owner has breached an agreement under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in applying the fit and proper person test for site licensing decisions. Those are personal contracts that individuals have with site owners with which local authorities are not usually involved but which are very relevant to how site owners conduct their business. This amendment will ensure that local authorities can take into account all relevant factors when making decisions about site licences. Amendment 106 is a technical change that specifically enables local authorities to share information relevant to the application of the fit and proper person test as part of the process of making site licensing decisions. That will enable greater consistency of decision making across different local authorities and reduce the risk that a site owner may pass the test in one area but fail it in another due to lack of relevant information. I will turn now to many fees amendments 147 and 148. Those seek to make explicit that a local authority must, when running the fit and proper person test, take into account any issues around the site owner providing utilities to residents. For example, taking into account a situation where a site owner has been profiteering from providing utilities when running the fit and proper person test. We believe that the situation is already covered in the bill as a local authority must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and that would include any profiteering from utilities. However, I recognise that the bill does set out some of the more important matters on the face of the bill, and I am happy to include that issue in that category. However, there are some issues around Mary's Fees amendment as a stand, which we would need to do some further work on. Specifically, I want to ensure that the correct guidance and the correct bodies are identified in the legislation. I am therefore happy to bring forward an amendment for stage 3, which is specific on the matters that Mary Fees has raised, but which also takes into account the further work that we need to do in identifying all the relevant guidance. I would hope that that undertaking is sufficient for Mary Fees to agree not to move amendments 147 and 148 today, and I would ask the committee to support my amendments 105 and 106, and I move amendment 105. I have to speak to amendment 147 and the other amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener, and I will be very brief, and I won't rehearse the comments that I was initially intending to say. Just following on from the minister's comments in relation to my amendments 147 and 148, which seek to provide additional protection for residents of mobile home sites who may be subjected to profiteering, I am grateful for her comments, and I am happy not to move them, given the assurances that the minister has given me. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to, or we all agreed. Yes. That is agreed. I call amendment 147 in the name of Mary Fees. I feel ready to debate it with amendment 105. Mary Fees to move or not move. Not moved. The member wishes to withdraw the amendment. The question is then 148 to be agreed to. Mary Fees to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that section 61 be agreed to, or we all agreed. That is agreed. The question is that section 62 be agreed to, or we all agreed. Call amendment 106 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 105. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to, or we all agreed. We are agreed. That is agreed. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to, or we all agreed. We are agreed. Call amendment 108 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 94. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to, or we all agreed. We move to power to vary maximum fine. Call amendment 109 in the name of the minister in a group on its own? Minister to move and speak to the amendment? Amendment 109 removes the power for ministers to vary the maximum fine for licence offences. I noted the concerns expressed by both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee which were supported by this committee at Stage 1. Report about the power and the suggestions for amending it. It is not clear, however, how the provision could be amended to meet the views expressed the Delegated Powers in law reform committee. Have therefore concluded that the safest course of action is to simply remove the power to vary the maximum fines and that is what amendment 109 does, includeـan amendment 109. Anyone else wish to comment? The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to Are we all agreed? We are agreed, the question is that section 63 be agreed to are we all agreed. We are agreed, has we moved to improvement notices mewn penulti hanes bod gennych 191 amser angwybgiadau, 211 ar 111 yn hwnnw fantasyf y安 ymgyrch gyda'r cyfodol iawn o'r cyfodol, branches, a cyfarwyr, ac y gallai ddweud i gaelio'r ganllunog yma, a'r cyflinwys yma, ymgyrch gyda cyflinwys cytwb premiumau. Mae'r cyflinwys cyflinwys gyda'r cyflinwys cyflinwys cael eu gallu fathgiliau sylfaen, ac yn cyfrwyr o'r cyflinwys gallu fynd i'r gyflinwys gan lwy kiwfyr Cymroedd. Rwy i fynd i ychydigau'r cyflinwys cyfrwyr noledau sydd gyda i'r cyflinwys cyflinwys cyflinwys cyfrwyr I don't comply with the terms of this legislation, I don't want these to impact negatively on residents and this amendment will achieve the right balance. The remainder are technical amendments which affect the period set out for a licence holder to carry out steps for an improvement order or a penalty notice issued by a local authority. An offence cannot be committed until the period set out and the notice expired and I ask the committee to support all of the amendments in the group and I move amendment 110. Anyone else wish to make any comments? Okay, the question is that amendment 110 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed, I call amendment 111 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 110, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed, the question is that section 64 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed, I call amendment 112 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 110, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed, I call amendment 113 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 110, minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to, a siarad point efo psycho pedagüe'r cyfnod diikkawn, creot rhwng ohono fel y Cymru'n siarad gwheidiad ein piots. Mae y cwestiwn ynghylch y s ag hallent efo pleiddiad Cymru. Rwatch menw, Cymru yn ddiweddol iawn wedi cyfnod o'ch gyfnoddau bobl yn south o'r hynny o'r Cyflodau Menachai Lleidw, yn cael lleol iawn o mi'n ei ddesigiad lleol iawn o'r Gerfxell ei gymwysgau yn ardal i'r Lleidw wedi cyfle. Fe fyddwch ar gyfer ledd adael mewn cyfrifiadau o'r cyfrifiadau newid o i'r cyfrifiadau newid o how local authorities will enforce the regime. I agree with the committee's recommendation that it is important that residents, site owners and local authorities have clear and accurate information. It has always been the Scottish Government's intention to provide information to accompany the new licensing system, including guidance for local authorities. The Government's view is that local authorities should be able to take a risk-based approach and focus their work in sites with problems. Itd ei ffarneddo i'r gweithio agelio gyda'r fawr o dylai fod yn ôl cymhwyr ar gyfer maen nhw. Felly, mae'r byl yn gwneud eu ddafennol yn gwneud yn gwneud y bydd mwy o ddweud o gwneud i gafodd hynny o gymryg? Mae maen nhw'n ddig hatıru'r hyn yn gweithio'r gweld. Mae'n wneud y ddal? Does that amendment 114 iddyn nhw'n ddig triple? Mae angen i ddiddordeb i wych i ddiddordeb gael i amserio gan 500 oes a chael unigol arwythnos cyhoeddfa o 170-deg ar gyfer hyn yn ymgwneud ynghylchurol liwr. A gוi dda ni i, a ddiddordeb i gael i unwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyrwyr. Mae y gallach oes iar i ddawn ar gael y cyfarfod ychydig yma morhaodol i gy Weinidide cyffredigio is the case. These amendments replace the current provisions in the Bill on residents' rights with a new, even stronger section. The amendments also address the committee's concern that there was not a measure in the Bill to prevent the cost of enforcement action being passed on to residents in pitch fees. These amendments now do that, so if a local authority recovers the cost of enforcement action from a site owner, that site owner can't pass the costs on to residents shooter, and pitch fees. Those amendments address two important areas of concern for residents. I invite the committee to support them. I move amendment 115. Y cwestiwch yn달io. Y cwestiwch ynnallydd àniwn, ayenwi ond yint anghyfwrn nifer? Felly yna teithasol Cymru 116 yn ei gweithio, neu'r cyflnwys, ond roeddwn yn gwneud eu misiau'r cwestiynau. Mae Cymrueg ei gweithio gan y tynai o'r cwestiynau llwyftol yma tangledgau Cymru wedi'i gweithio'r cwestiynau o hyffordd gyfan o'r Cyfrannau aethon, ac mae gennym daeth peirwyrau PE1-425 ar gyfer bach o bobl Scotland and Petition 1481 on blog listing. The committee will also consider its annual report and I now pleasure on closing this meeting.