Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will be familiar with the Withers report and perhaps also with the Audit Scotland report from a few years ago, which was quite critical of the skills landscape and the lack of leadership within it. The Withers report was also quite critical, saying that there were

“competing narratives and approaches and duplication ... lack of clarity ... lack of leadership and effective governance”,

and that the landscape reflects the

“harmful, false division that fuels its persistence”,

which is a reference to the persistence of divisions between the various parts of the system.

Do you recognise any of that? In your work, do you see any of those elements?

Why do you think that there needs to be a change?

Bluntly, do you think that the SFC can cope with the proposed changes, given everything else that is going on?

Does the modelling for the member’s proposals include the effect on investment in the sector? Does she understand what they would do to house construction?

What you have said about the purpose built student accommodation and the wider approach is welcome. We have learned that we cannot tackle the housing emergency on our own, just using the public sector; we need the private sector and private investors to be included. We are not talking only about specific proposals, but about the rhetoric that we use. Using language such as “exploitative” in relation to landlords in a generalised way does not help to provide confidence to those who are seeking to invest. On that front, I have seen a change of direction from the Government, and we now have a much more inclusive approach to tackling the housing emergency.

We are witnessing the effects of the Scottish Government’s welcome change of direction on housing policy over a period of time. It is an example of the need to understand how, when we consider only one side of a debate and do not have a comprehensive understanding of the effect of any proposals, there can be negative impacts, as we have seen with the massive decline in the build-to-rent market, which is down by something like 26 per cent over the past year.

Too many of my constituents, and many people across the country, are desperate for a house. We cannot simply consider one side of the argument. We need to consider investment and demand, but also supply. We are broadly getting to that position now. The reason why there are lots of proposals on exemptions—including mine—is that we want the Government to confirm that it understands that, and to ensure that there is a complete change of direction. I have to say that the confidence was not there before, but we are moving in that direction now, which I am pleased about.

I would prefer my amendments to become part of the bill to give clarity and confidence to investors, but I understand the process that the minister set out on a consultation on exemptions. However, for the sake of it, I will go through what I am proposing, which I hope is reflected in the conclusion of the consultation.

I am looking for specific exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties, which is what the Government has indicated in its consultation paper. In particular, I want the proposals in amendments 329B and 329G, which ask that registered social landlords be excluded, to be considered. Mark Griffin is right to say that there was a discussion on mid-market rent when we discussed the emergency measures, so this is not a new debate. At that time, we were unable to get that nailed down, which knocked the confidence in the RSL sector, which, of all the sectors, is the one that we should be encouraging to build more. I would like it to be excluded altogether from the rent control measures.

Amendments 329D and 329I try to give a definition of mid-market rent for landlords who are providing accommodation. That would be set at around half the amount of open market rent.

The build-to-rent proposals in amendments 329C and 329H state that build-to-rent properties should be defined as those that are “purpose built”, are in “institutional ownership”, are “professionally managed” and are “self-contained”. Those phrases are included in the Government’s consultation, but I would also like to see them in the bill.

I suspect that the cabinet secretary will not give us any response to those proposals, but I hope that she hears the strength of views that have been expressed by many members.

Why do you not publish that?

It will be months late.

I will come back on one of those points. Does that not slightly push against what Clare Reid expressed a desire for, which was pace, in order to make sure that we can get on with dealing with the substance rather than the structure? If you are saying that the process will take time, does that not undermine the solving of the very things that Clare wants to solve?

I am sorry—I am talking about the people in SDS who would be transferred over. Surely they would be distracted by thinking, “Will I have a job next month?”, “Where will I be?” and “What will my terms and conditions be?”, instead of focusing all their efforts on trying to do the things that you are talking about.