Mark Griffin
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Driving down child poverty is a key priority of the Government and of the Parliament as a whole, but reviewing the targets that the Government is failing to hit does not seem to align with the rhetoric. The Scottish Government’s impact assessment of the child poverty delivery plan is that it will not meet the targets.”
“The minister set out the damage that is taking place in this country as a result of leaving a political and economic union, and there is nothing in his statement that I can disagree with. In his conclusion, he asked what we are prepared to do about it.”
“As I have said to others, I have engaged with and will happily continue to engage with Nick Thomas-Symonds, but if we consider that the potential benefits are 20 times less than the loss that we are sustaining, we see the impact.”
“We are content that there is a credible path to do so, despite everything that is happening in the rest of the UK and internationally. I go back to what I have announced, which is a review of the type of targets.”
“Our targets have driven our focus and delivery, but it is important to reflect on the investment that the Government is making in areas that do not impact directly on those targets.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the pay negotiations for 2026-27.”
The complete record
Every one of 217 lines we hold for Mark Griffin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Rebuilding that trust will take time and action. There has been lots of discussion and debate today about the detail in the bill and about whether it is even possible to get it right. However, if we do get it right, the bill can be part of the process that rebuilds that trust.”
“We are here to serve—to speak on behalf of our constituencies and regions and to champion people who need our help when life is at its hardest. There are 700,000 people across the Central Scotland region, any one of whom might need my help at some point, whether it involves celebrating the achievements of a particular school or organisation or advocating on someone’s behalf in a moment of crisis, such as for the parents of children in the Wishaw neonatal intensive care unit. All those people must be able to trust me. Our job is to be our constituents’ voice, and, to be that, we must earn and protect their trust. However, too often, we hear that trust in politics and politicians is collapsing. The Scottish household survey has shown clearly that trust in politicians and public institutions has fallen significantly in recent years.”
“I thank Graham Simpson for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I appreciate the work that it takes for a back-bench member to get their bill to this point. I will focus on the principles of the legislation for most of my speech, and I will perhaps touch on one detail from personal experience, as this is a stage 1 debate on general principles. We are all human, we all make mistakes and there is absolutely no doubt that political scandal grabs attention. However, there is a real difference between political scandal and its fallout and conduct that fundamentally betrays the standards that Parliament expects of its members. When one of us fails to meet those standards, it erodes public confidence in all of us. As MSPs, we are rightly held to a higher standard.”
“Conservative members support the general principles of the bill, but we will continue scrutinising it as it progresses through Parliament. 15:37”
“He was sanctioned by this Parliament for his actions, and rightfully so, but it seems that some in the SNP are still trying to ensure that such a sanction can never happen again. Scottish Conservative MSPs will not vote for that amendment, which would tear up a long-established process that has already seen misbehaving members being punished. SNP members might want to sneak that change through by the back door, but we will not give our backing to an amendment— Kevin Stewart: Will the member accept an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Webber is concluding—I hope. Sue Webber: I am closing, and in my final section. I will not be backing the amendment because it would fundamentally change what Parliament is voting on today. I urge colleagues in all parties to see through that amendment and to reject it.”
“We need a mechanism for accountability, but we cannot say that we want a Parliament that is representative and that welcomes working parents, carers and people with lived experience while passing rules that would penalise them for not being in the chamber every day and we cannot talk about democracy and integrity while allowing members to defect mid-term and still cling to seats that they won under a different party banner. I turn briefly to what I will call Kevin Stewart’s wrecking amendment, which would undermine the entire purpose of the bill, because I want colleagues to be clear what the member is about. The amendment is about some in the Scottish National Party trying to settle scores over Michael Matheson rightfully being punished for wrongly claiming £11,000 from taxpayers.”
“The system must be transparent and affordable, but it is estimated that the full cost of the bill’s proposals for the recall of a constituency MSP would be about £0.5 million and that the cost of recalling a regional MSP would be close to £2.7 million. I understand that there are moves to change that, but those costs are far too high to be acceptable either to Parliament or to the public. I recognise the challenges in the bill regarding the recall of regional members and I appreciate that amendments to simplify the process are being considered. That is sensible. Ultimately, it is a matter of balance.”
“If the recall process does not meet the public’s understanding of integrity and accountability, it will not meet the objective of enhancing trust in democracy, which we need right now. Done badly, it risks further undermining trust, so any recall system must be clear, consistent and credible and it must not become a political weapon or a tool for personal or partisan vendettas. It must also be proportionate, so we must ensure that the threshold for triggering a recall is high enough to maintain stability in this chamber without being so high that it becomes meaningless. That is a fine balance.”
“To suggest that a member could lose their seat simply because they were not physically present for a period of time risks undermining the process and it could discourage people with caring duties, disabilities or whatever from standing for election, and we want this place to be inclusive. It is a goal to ensure that our MSPs are doing their jobs, but there are better and fairer ways to measure that than simply counting the days that they are in the building. Thirdly, on recall itself, the overarching objective of a recall provision is to enhance the trust that citizens have in their elected politicians and to empower them to act if an elected member breaches the code of conduct or behaves in a way that does not befit the privilege of holding public office.”
“I understand the desire to ensure engagement and accountability, but I have concerns about how that would work in practice. We have embraced hybrid working, not just in response to the pandemic but as a reflection of modern working life. I also take into consideration Mr Carlaw’s comments. We know that being a good MSP is not just about sitting in the chamber. It is about being in our constituencies, meeting community groups, listening to businesses, visiting schools, representing local people and picking up the casework that Mr Stewart spoke about. We also know that things sometimes happen in our lives that are out of our control. Members might have long-term health conditions, caring responsibilities or other legitimate reasons for needing to work flexibly.”
“I have no strong opinion on that either way, but I reflect on Ms Webber’s colleague Mr Kerr, who has been a strident campaigner on loosening the grip of party whips on business in the Parliament. Does she not feel that removing or recalling an MSP who has changed party could strengthen party business managers’ grips on their own groups and therefore the business in Parliament? Sue Webber: Mr Kerr has been a whip in our party, and I am sure that he enjoyed every moment of it. As I said, I am giving my opinion and I feel passionately about the party that got me here. That is where we are. Secondly, I return to the proposal that members should be removed for failing to physically attend Parliament for 180 days. We have heard a lot about that from Mr Stewart.”
“I will not set one for starts, although we monitor starts, and they will be a strong indication of the number that will ultimately be completed.”
“Mark Griffin: That is a welcome change in Government policy. We need to dramatically increase the amount of house building across all tenures. The Government could and should have been more ambitious than that 10 per cent to address the need. However, the key point is the baseline that the cabinet secretary sets out, because numbers in recent years have been so low. As well as the completion figures, will the Government have targets on approvals and starts to give an all-round target to the housing sector? Can the cabinet secretary set out explicitly how many more houses the Government expects will be built as a result of the three-year target? Màiri McAllan: I will take the latter point first. We expect 10 per cent increases on the figure each year during the course of the three years. The target is for completions.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it anticipates to be the baseline figure for its ambition towards all- tenure housing delivery of a 10 per cent increase in house building each year over the next three years. (S6O-05121) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The Government has instituted a new all-tenure delivery ambition. Working with the house building sector through close collaboration, we will seek to increase delivery across all sectors by at least 10 per cent each year during the next three years. As I stated at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee on 7 October, the figure on which the delivery ambition will be based is that for all-sector new build completions for the year to the end of June 2025. The figure was published on 30 September and is 18,869.”
“I would expect COSLA’s role to be to make us aware if there is a particular issue of concern with any piece of legislation. If Mark Griffin wants to write to me with more details, I am happy to follow that up with COSLA. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rachael Hamilton to ask question 8.”
“At the point where legislative requirements are imposed on local government, we pass a financial resolution and local government is given the funds to cover the costs. Has the Scottish Government done any analysis of how the costs of implementing that legislation have varied from the financial memorandum and how it has tracked the burden on local authorities on that basis? Shona Robison: Mark Griffin raises a reasonable point. We would expect the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to raise those issues with us. If there is a change in the implementation of any legislation that is passed by this Parliament and there is a cost to local government that had not been foreseen, COSLA is pretty quick to raise such issues with us.”
“That is why, on 2 September, our housing emergency action plan committed to a number of actions to turn around that trend, including setting out multi-annual funding for affordable homes, record investment in affordable homes over the coming years and other changes, including changes to the planning system so that it facilitates the change that we are determined to see.”
“The actions that we have taken to date—not least the delivery of 140,000 affordable homes since we came into government, more than 100,000 of which have been for social rent—have meant that, in Scotland, we have access to 47 per cent more affordable homes per head than in England and 73 per cent more than in Wales. Despite that, Mark Griffin is right that there is considerable strain in the system. I do not want any children to spend longer in temporary accommodation than they need to.”
“This year, it is just 15,104, which is a 35 per cent collapse. Social sector starts are at their lowest level since 1997, when we started publishing the statistics. Since 2018, 3,435 more children have ended up in temporary accommodation and, tragically, 1,188 more people have died homeless. How will the cabinet secretary and the Government reverse that devastating trend? Does the Government have a target date for ending the use of hotels and bed and breakfasts as temporary accommodation for children? Màiri McAllan: The availability of temporary accommodation is a vital safety net under Scotland’s housing and homelessness legislation, but it ought to be just that—it ought to be temporary.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the “Housing Statistics for Scotland Quarterly Update: New Housebuilding and Affordable Housing Supply to end June 2025”. (S6O-05044) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that are set out in the latest housing statistics. That is why we have increased the 2025-26 housing budget to £808 million. We did that in September, when we doubled our funding for acquisitions to £80 million under the housing emergency action plan. That will help family homes to be acquired now to relieve evident pressure. We are also committing up to £4.9 billion over the coming four years, which is a major increase. An uptick in delivery will follow. Mark Griffin: In 2018, Scotland saw 23,337 housing starts.”
“I move amendment S6M-19252.4, to leave out from “because” to end and insert: “; regrets that the previous UK Conservative administration left the immigration system in a state of collapse; recognises the progress made by the UK Labour administration to clear the backlog of asylum claims, and believes that the failure to tackle the challenges facing Scotland’s local authorities, public services and housing system, for which the Scottish Government has devolved responsibility and has received record levels of funding from the UK Government, is the root cause of the housing emergency.” 15:10”
“Labour is fixing the broken system, driving down the numbers and restoring fairness, and we will build homes at a record level. A Scottish Labour Government would deliver a new direction. We would prioritise building homes, properly funding local authorities and addressing this crisis. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Mark Griffin: We would serve all Scots, new and old, with the dignity and fairness that they deserve.”
“Looking at the evidence, it is painfully clear that none of the other parties is interested in offering solutions for those who are trapped in housing need. One party virtue signals and one dog whistles, and now they both point fingers and stir division in service of their own political goals. They stay very quiet about the fact that their Governments created this mess. While the Tories have chosen political amnesia and rank hypocrisy, the SNP waves flags when it should be building homes. We cannot vote for either the motion or the Government’s amendment. We cannot vote for Tory hypocrisy or SNP complacency. Since the present UK Government was elected, the number of asylum decisions has doubled and the backlog has fallen by a quarter.”
“Kevin Stewart: Will Mr Griffin give way? Mark Griffin: I am sorry, but I only have four minutes in which to make these points. This year, social housing starts in Scotland were at their lowest level since we started collecting the data, in 1997. Those figures are from September this year. Meanwhile, around 220,000 people are waiting for a social home. There are more children in temporary accommodation in Glasgow than there are in the whole of Wales, yet the SNP Scottish Government still had to be dragged into accepting that we are in the middle of a housing emergency. Make no mistake: the SNP Government uses immigration as a political tool just as much as the far right does. The only difference is in who it decides to blame.”
“The Tories’ record is appalling, and their aim is purely to escape the annihilation that they are expected to receive at the hands of Reform next May. Gimmick responses were all that they offered at a UK level, and it is the exact same with their response here. In Scotland, the housing emergency is deepening on the SNP Government’s watch. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that refugees entering the homelessness system are not the cause of the housing crisis; the system is broken because the SNP Government has not built enough homes. In the year to September 2025, the number of housing completions fell, as did the number of housing starts. Private sector completions have been at their lowest level since 2018. In the social sector, the number of completions dropped to its lowest level since 2017 from an already low base last year.”
“The Tories gave us record net migration, record small boat arrivals and thousands of people stuck in more than 400 asylum hotels across the UK, waiting endlessly for their claims to be processed with no hope of resolution. Craig Hoy: If the Labour Government is taking the issue seriously, why has the number of small boats arriving on UK shores doubled since you came to office? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please. Mark Griffin: The member should pay attention to the latest figures, which came out in September. I cannot believe that Mr Hoy would again come to the chamber and talk about immigration, given the absolutely woeful performance by the Tories: 1 million despite a promise of 100,000.”
“Once again, the Conservatives have brought this issue before the Parliament not to offer solutions, but simply to replay what they think are their greatest hits. In reality, this Tory debate is political hypocrisy of the worst kind. The Conservatives are trying to seize political capital from the wreckage of a chaotic immigration system that they designed, presided over and, ultimately, broke. Moreover, they are not doing it make improvements to a single person’s or community’s life; the only reason for it is that they are terrified of political extinction at the hands of Reform next May. Under the previous Tory Government at Westminster, net migration quadrupled in four years to nearly 1 million, despite repeated promises to reduce it to under 100,000.”
“The bill is a step forward, but it is a very small step forward. We wish that we could vote for a more radical bill, but, in any case, we will vote for this one at decision time. 20:38”
“However, I have to say that those duties will work only if local authorities are properly resourced, and I feel that the Government’s financial assessment of what it will take to implement specifically the ask and act and prevention duties is wildly optimistic. I hope that I am wrong and that the money that goes to local authorities will be enough to cover the costs of a proper and adequately resourced prevention system that stems the flow of people into the homelessness services, which are at breaking point. We will support the bill because it contains improvements to the current system. However, it is not the transformative legislation that Scotland’s housing crisis demands. We want to build houses and end homelessness, and we want rent controls that work not just in theory but in practice, and without harming supply.”
“As we finish our third day of consideration of this bill, 10,180 children are living in temporary accommodation, more than 40,000 families are homeless and rough sleeping is on the rise. We might grumble about the policy process of the bill, and we have valid complaints, but we cannot forget why, fundamentally, we are considering and voting for this law. There are families, children and individuals out there who are being failed in horrendous ways by a system that is stretched to breaking point. That is why we welcome, in particular, the bill’s focus on homelessness prevention, and particularly the new ask and act duty on public bodies.”
“However, although the bill no longer threatens to harm supply, make no mistake: this is just a beefed-up version of rent pressure zones, and we all remember how effective those were. We support mid-market rent and build-to-rent housing as part of a diverse housing mix, but the way in which those exemptions were introduced— late in the process, after a chaotic stage 2 and a change of minister two times over—raises serious questions across Government about how that policy was made and drafted in the first place. Initially including those sectors seriously risked housing supply, and I am not sure why it took so long for the Government to clarify its position on exemptions when it knew about the concerns about mid-market rent. It knew that it was an issue as much as three years ago, when we debated the emergency cost of living legislation.”
“We also secured improvements to factoring legislation and strengthened the bill’s provisions on damp and mould through what is now being called Awaab’s law. We also welcome the commitment to review the current grounds for eviction, which is long overdue. However, let us be clear that, despite the rhetoric, no-one will wake up tomorrow and find themselves in a rent control area. No-one’s rent will go down because the bill has passed. When the bill was introduced, there was no detail on what rent controls would actually look like, which caused more harm than good to efforts to build the homes that we so desperately need. After pressure, we now have a step forward.”
“There are—absolutely—positive things in the bill, but let us be clear that it is a housing bill that will not build a single house. It will not bring a single new home into circulation, it will not bring immediate reductions in rent and it will not give local authorities the resources that they need to prevent homelessness. I support the bill because it will result in important improvements, but we all know that it could and should have gone so much further in the context of a housing emergency and a severe shortage of housing supply. I am pleased that the Government accepted several of our amendments, including one that finally recognises, in law, that Scotland is in a housing emergency.”
“Those are not isolated stories, and they point to a wider problem in the system that needs to be addressed at its root. Ultimately, the proposals are about rebalancing the system and protecting tenants from unfair eviction while ensuring that landlords can still act when there is a genuine need. I ask members to support amendments 286 and 287.”
“The changes made to eviction grounds during the pandemic demonstrated that reform is possible and can make a real difference to tenant security, but it is clear that more comprehensive action is needed to address the underlying issues in the system. Part 2 of the bill takes important steps to tighten the rules around evictions, but amendments 286 and 287 go further by calling for a full review of the framework, to ensure that our tenancy laws are fit for purpose, based on lessons learned since the 2016 act came into force and since the subsequent changes. We will all have heard of tenants having been told that a property has been listed for sale and having been evicted only for them to see it listed for rent at a higher price a few months down the line.”
“Amendments 286 and 287 would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 and in other tenancy types within 24 months of the bill coming into force. Over the past few years, evidence from the First-tier Tribunal and the experiences shared by tenant organisations have highlighted that some of the current eviction grounds do not always deliver a fair balance between tenant and landlord rights. Although many of those grounds are technically discretionary, there are still loopholes that can be exploited, leaving tenants at risk of losing their homes unfairly.”
“At that time, the Government discounted the proposal, arguing that it did not allow for extenuating circumstances to be considered for landlords. Having listened to that feedback, and in response to it, I have amended my proposal at stage 3 to address those concerns. The revised amendment makes it clear that, where a landlord has received an ECO4 grant—under the energy company obligation scheme—in the previous 12 months, “the Tribunal must not grant an eviction order” on certain grounds, such as an intention to sell, to carry out destructive works or to move in themselves, unless, “having considered the landlord’s circumstances, it is reasonable” to do so. I think that that is a solid compromise position coming from the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, and I ask members to support amendment 285 today.”
“Amendment 285 seeks to place sensible restrictions on the issuing of eviction orders when a landlord has recently received an ECO4 grant to improve the energy efficiency of a property. For members who are not aware, landlords are selected to receive such grants entirely on the basis of the income and personal circumstances of the tenant in their property. Amendment 285 seeks to give the tenant protection from eviction for 12 months. It would seem strange for the Government to grant money to a landlord for upgrading a property in order to improve energy efficiency and save a tenant money, based on that tenant’s circumstances, if the landlord removed them after receiving that grant. Members will recall that I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 126 to 130? As no member objects, the question is, that amendments 126 to 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is now closed.”
“Màiri McAllan: The definitions of rent in the bill are clear, but they were separated at stage 2. I am saying that we need to undo that separation, because one of its effects is that, in a rent control area, a tenant will not be afforded protections for utilities that they would otherwise be afforded for rent. I simply ask members to think carefully about how they vote on that question, as well as on amendments 60, 61 and 62. Amendment 125 agreed to. Section 3—Interim assessment and reports by local authorities Amendments 126 and 127 moved—[Edward Mountain]. Section 4—Scottish Ministers to review local authority report Amendment 128 moved—[Edward Mountain]. Section 5—Further assessment of rent conditions and report by local authority Amendments 129 and 130 moved—[Edward Mountain].”
“Similarly, with regard to the definition of “rent payable”, I stress again to members that the effect of not voting for my amendment 64 would be that, in a rent control area, landlords would be able to raise utility payments—perhaps exorbitantly— outwith the controls that would otherwise apply to rent. Again, members have to think carefully about that. Edward Mountain: I may have jumped the gun a bit, as the cabinet secretary may be about to tell me that she believes that things such as private water supplies and private drainage ought to be considered. Nevertheless, by taking that definition out of the bill, is she not creating more problems? Should she not have taken a sensible approach to the matter and defined what could be included in rent, rather than just saying what cannot be included?”
“Màiri McAllan: I am afraid that there is no way of backing out of rent controls in Scotland, regardless of the way that members vote on this particular issue, but the decision will have a considerable impact on their operation. Rent controls are being taken forward—they are the right thing to do where the evidence suggests that that is the case in a local area, where the local authority has gathered that information and referred it to ministers, and where ministers have made our assessment that it is proportionate to accept the proposal. I stress again, therefore, the vital importance of members across the chamber considering amendments 60, 61 and 62 very carefully.”
“16:15 Similarly, I ask those members who are more sceptical about rent controls to consider the effect if a council was disproportionately seeking to apply a rent control. Members who do not vote for amendments 60, 61 and 62 would be completely taking out the Scottish Government’s role in assessing the proportionality in that regard, and I ask them to think extremely carefully about doing so. Meghan Gallacher: Does that not highlight the problems with rent controls in their entirety? The fact that we are arguing about whether the power should lie with the Scottish Government or with local councils, and about the political make-up and political ideologies, shows that rent controls are going to have an impact on the sector and that, regardless of which way members vote this evening, there are going to be problems with rent controls.”
“Therefore, Maggie Chapman’s formulation of ministers having a veto over local authorities’ powers is completely wrong. The effect of Ms Chapman’s amendment would be that ministers would be forced to designate a rent control area—which is not a small action—even where we considered it to be disproportionate. We would be in that position because a very unusual constitutional approach had been taken in the formulation of the power that was passed in Maggie Chapman’s amendment at stage 2. I ask Maggie Chapman to consider a situation in which a local authority is ideologically or politically against rent controls. That would prevent ministers from having any say on whether rent controls were put in place in that local authority.”
“I therefore urge members to back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, and not to support amendment 64, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Màiri McAllan: Despite the time constraints, I will take a bit of time to wind up, because there are some really important provisions in this section. I appeal to members to think very carefully about them, as I know they will. In the past, decisions have been taken on this bill that have proven to be the wrong decisions, so I ask members to think carefully, first, about amendments 60, 61 and 62, in respect of rent control. This is an absolutely critical provision about when rent control will or will not come into play in Scotland. The application of rent control is not a power for local authorities; it is a power for Scottish ministers, with parliamentary scrutiny.”
“For example, a Scottish Association of Landlords report revealed concerns that increasing regulation has led to a loss of more than 50,000 homes in the private rented sector. The decisions that we make on this bill will have a direct impact on our housing market in the private rented sector. On amendment 64, the cabinet secretary took an intervention on this from me moments ago, but I go back to our argument in relation to rural properties and the comments that Edward Mountain made. I believe that if we do not back amendment 270, in the name of Mark Griffin, we will be creating a huge disparity between urban areas and rural areas when we look at the differences in how rent is collated. That would show that the Government is not standing up for rural areas.”
“Should extensive costs be associated with the current bill, I believe that landlords will find it harder to keep pace with rising costs, as rent increases would no longer be directly linked to improvements or specific features of their property. I have raised with the cabinet secretary, when we have met, the need to incentivise landlords to keep them in the housing market to ensure that we have homes available for people to live in. I believe that landlords have faced significant financial losses and many, as we know, have left the market due to temporary rent controls. Increased regulation and hostility towards landlords will not result in ensuring that the supply of homes meets demand.”
“We need to look at the full picture when it comes to rent controls and make sure that decisions are fully evidence based so that there are no unintended consequences for the rental market. I believe that, if Maggie Chapman’s amendment was passed, what would be implemented would be the opposite of the aims that she is trying to achieve on the back of this amendment. We need to look at everything as a whole. On amendment 63, in the name of Màiri McAllan, again, I have raised the issue of fairness in terms of rent controls and the need to make sure that the bill is proportionate. Parliament has been waiting for the heat in buildings bill.”
“I absolutely understand the point that Maggie Chapman is trying to make about local authorities and localism—about local authorities being able to make decisions about what is right in their own area—but this decision will impact whether more homes are built across the country, which is something that we, as MSPs, should be kept up to date on and be able to scrutinise. However, it seems that the Government will attempt to remove that from the bill this afternoon. I was reassured to hear that the cabinet secretary would not support amendment 136, in the name of Maggie Chapman. Again, I think that it is appropriate that the provision about the requirement for rent controls includes the point about it being “necessary and proportionate”. I believe that that is the right terminology when we are looking at this particular area of the bill.”
“I have therefore lodged amendment 270 to ensure that the amendment that was passed at stage 2 is future proofed to include the wider definitions of district heating and broadband. I ask members to support the amendment. Meghan Gallacher: Similar to my colleague Edward Mountain, I am concerned about amendments 60 and 61, in the name of the cabinet secretary. That concern is around the need for scrutiny, given the unpredictable nature of rent controls and what we have seen happen across the country in relation to the loss of investment when rent controls have been placed in certain areas.”