Graeme Dey
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“As the First Minister set out in the chamber on 19 March, the Scottish Government has, since the start of 2024, answered more than 13,000 freedom of information requests, of which 95 per cent have been responded to on time. The Scottish Information Commissioner has raised compliance concerns about two of those cases.”
“Any other Government would be utterly ashamed, but this lot are brazen and think that they can get away with it. Does the minister understand that the Government’s behaviour on that case and so many others has led the public out there to tell me that they think that Scottish National Party ministers and the SNP Government are a bunch of c…”
“[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Graeme Dey: The Government has an excellent track record in responding to FOI requests.”
“The order responds to a European convention on human rights compliance issue that was identified in relation to voting rights for Scottish Parliament elections and which requires to be remedied ahead of the 2026 election.”
“That bill remains the only bill of this Parliament to have required a two-thirds supermajority in order to be passed and to have obtained that.”
“In moving the business motion on behalf of the bureau, I want briefly to provide members with context and a clear understanding of what adhering to it and avoiding the need for exceptional sittings of the kind that we have had today will require.”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Graeme Dey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“Amendments to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill that the supplementary legislative consent motion covers were tabled only on 3 October. The supplementary LCM was also lodged on 3 October. The United Kingdom Government has advised that the bill will reach the last amending stage on 15 October, while the Scottish Parliament is in recess. Therefore, the only options that I have are to seek to suspend standing orders so that the LCM can be considered by the Parliament before the October recess or to leave it until after the October recess, at which point the bill will have gone through the last amending stage. On balance, I have taken the view that it is preferable for the Parliament to have an opportunity to consider the LCM while the Parliament’s views can still influence the final form of the bill.”
“Beyond that, I am planning to arrange a gathering of local authority armed forces and veterans champions in due course and commit to include the issue on the agenda. I hope that, if we discuss the issue effectively, we can avoid the need to issue the guidance that the member has called for, but I am open to exploring the issue further with him in the aftermath of my meeting. Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo (Overseas Tours and Performances) 8.”
“In some cases, the gravestones are collapsing and have not been maintained to a standard that allows people to read the inscriptions on them. Graeme Dey: I take the opportunity to place on record that I, like Edward Mountain, have enormous respect for the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. In Scotland alone, it maintains in excess of 1,300 sites commemorating more than 21,000 casualties. It is even more to its credit that it prioritises repair over replacement in order to uphold the long-term integrity of those spaces and protect them as dignified places of remembrance. I am very concerned to hear what the member has said and I am happy to explore it further with him.”
“During my two spells as Minister for Veterans, I have had no engagement with ministerial colleagues regarding the role of local authorities in maintaining Commonwealth war graves to a national standard as it has not been raised with me, but I look forward to hearing the concerns that I suspect that Mr Mountain intends to bring to my attention. Edward Mountain: There are nearly 1,500 war graves across the Highlands, spread over 192 graveyards, with veterans of the first and second world wars buried in them. Will the minister undertake to speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that proper guidance is issued to local authorities regarding the upkeep of those graves? During my travels in the past 10 years, I have found too many war graves to be in very poor condition.”
“The upcoming stage 3 proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are a case in point, as there are almost 400 amendments to be considered—in that instance, we have been able to give members advance notice. As I said, I offer the member an assurance that, where business managers can mitigate the impacts, they are seeking to do so.”
“Lastly, some members’ bills before Parliament are more complex and lengthy than has been the case in previous sessions, and that increases the time that is required for Parliament to scrutinise the detail. I absolutely understand the frustration of members when business runs late on a regular or semi-regular basis, especially when it occurs at relatively short notice and has an impact on childcare, travel and the need to stay over. The Parliamentary Bureau is very much alive to that, and I offer Meghan Gallacher the assurance that I and other business managers are doing all that we can to minimise the impacts. It is, however, very difficult to do that at times when there are large bills that attract huge numbers of amendments at stage 3, which—more often than not—are pressed to a vote.”
“Alternatively, is it the case that MSPs will be sitting late into the night, which might not produce legislation that will be beneficial for the people of Scotland? Graeme Dey: There is a lot in that, so—with your indulgence, Presiding Officer—I will take a bit of time to cover it all, because Meghan Gallacher posed an important question. Our data suggest that there are no more bills or Scottish statutory instruments before Parliament than is normal at this point in a parliamentary session. We believe that committees are taking a little bit longer to scrutinise bills than in previous sessions, which has seen bill timetables slip across the session. There has also been an increase in the number of amendments being lodged by MSPs, which impacts the time that is required at stages 2 and 3.”
“Meghan Gallacher: The minister will be aware that it has taken 53 months to get through more than 40 bills, yet Holyrood is now expected to get through more than 20 bills in just six months. If we want good, well-scrutinised legislation through a process that offers Opposition members and back benchers as well as Government members the time to debate it, that needs to be planned well in advance. It cannot come at the expense in particular of MSPs with young families and caring responsibilities, because that goes against the premise that the Parliament was to be family friendly. Does the minister accept that he will need to relook at the matter and see whether bills will be able to progress all the way to stage 3?”
“The scheduling of parliamentary business is proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau, and it is for Parliament to agree to business motions. In contributing to scheduling discussions at bureau, ministers take into account committee and plenary capacity, as well as Parliament’s capacity, to support bills’ progression. As with any final year of a session of Parliament, the period leading up to dissolution will be extremely busy, and there is a responsibility on all MSPs in all parties to ensure that we make the most effective use of that time. For my part, I am happy to commit to working constructively across the chamber to ensure that we can make progress with all legislation that the Parliament has to consider. However, once the Scottish Government or a member introduces a bill, its timetable is for the Parliament to determine.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motions S6M-19137 and S6M-19138, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the timetabling of a bill at stage 1. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 23 January 2026. That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 30 January 2026.—[Graeme Dey] Motions agreed to. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 17:52”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 7 October 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 6.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 8 October 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Ministerial Statement: Secure Accommodation – Capacity and Future of Secure followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.40 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 9 October 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills followed by Ministerial Statement: Youth Mental Health Support followed by Stage 1 Debate: Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - UK Legislation followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time Tuesday 28 October 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 9.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 29 October 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Land Reform (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 9.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 30 October 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Stage 1 Debate: Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution: Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 6 October 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“On the point about allocating time for contributions in the chamber, I am sure that the business bureau will consider that when it meets next week. I am certainly open to considering that possibility. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. We move to the vote on the motion.”
“We will share the Government’s amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill as part of those discussions, in the interests of transparency. To be clear, there is no intention to pause but there is an intention to move ahead. In doing that, we will look to work constructively with members who are of a mind to engage constructively. If a statement of any kind were to be sought or felt necessary thereafter, the Government would give due consideration to that. On the points that Patrick Harvie raised, as I said in my letter to the Green business manager, Lorna Slater, we are absolutely mindful of the need for Parliament to have the correct scrutiny period. I expect that Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the SSI prior to the October recess.”
“The Minister for Public Finance has made it clear that the Government is engaging with industry partners, local authorities and others to understand how we can best provide more flexibility in the implementation of the visitor levy to support local circumstances and requirements. As part of that on-going process of engagement, the minister will shortly write to all parties, offering to meet to discuss options on how to address requests for the introduction of flexibilities as to how the levy is applied and administered. I acknowledge the constructive correspondence that we have had from the Conservative Party. The minister has also made it clear that the Government has been considering the most appropriate legislative vehicle to make any required changes to primary legislation.”
“Amendment 138 disagreed to. Amendment 65 moved—[Màiri McAllan]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 8, Against 103, Abstentions 0.”
“I appreciate that the Scottish Greens’ view is a minority view in the chamber, even though it is the same as the view of Living Rent and other tenant campaign groups, so I do not expect my amendments to be agreed to. However, I will engage closely on the forthcoming discussions about exemption regulations. We must ensure that renters and their rights and ability to live safely and securely are at the heart of the regulations. I wish to press amendment 138. The Presiding Officer: I remind members that, if amendment 138 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 65, due to pre-emption. The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Maggie Chapman: We believe that all renters should have the same rights, protections and securities, regardless of the type of property that they live in. That is the principle that underpins our position on exemptions. I have spoken about specific types of properties, especially build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties. However, I also stress that exempting from rent controls properties that do not meet basic standards for healthy living really sends out the wrong message. Landlords who do not maintain their properties or who take far too long to remedy serious issues should not be rewarded with the ability to hike rents.”
“In particular, given that we are dealing with a housing bill in the middle of a housing emergency, I had a real concern that the bill would not contribute to the building of a single house and would actually—if we did not develop the work on exemptions—lead to fewer houses being built during a housing emergency than would have been built ordinarily. I support the work that the Government, stakeholders and others have done on exemptions in relation to MMR in particular but also build-to- rent properties and other areas of construction and expansion in the housing stock, which we could see, but which we would not otherwise see without the exemptions in the bill. The Presiding Officer: I invite Maggie Chapman to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 138.”
“However, this area is complicated, and we will need to consider how the system runs in the long term and what particular areas of the investment that I would like to see work in practice—and how long the exemptions would run, how much that would cost and what types of investment would be required to meet the criteria. It is appropriate that that is done through consultation and then regulation, and I urge the chamber to support the Government’s approach of doing that to get it right for the longer term. Mark Griffin: I will be brief, given that I do not have an amendment in this group. On the principle of exemptions, at stage 1, the committee had two big concerns about clarity in the bill: one was about how rent controls would operate—that was settled at stage 2—and the second was about exemptions.”
“That change is welcome, but the result is that we are now having to play a bit of catch-up and do a consultation in order to consider regulation. Regulations have the advantage of flexibility over time, as we learn, but I fully accept what Graham Simpson said. At stage 2, I lodged probing amendments to try to get the Government to tell us a bit more, which the minister did when she gave her statement to the Parliament earlier. She made it clear that mid-market rent and build- to-rent properties will be excluded, and I take her at her word.”
“We might have a change of Government next year—some of us hope for that. In addition, as Willie Rennie knows fine well, if we leave things to regulation, there is less scrutiny; with regulation, the Parliament just does not have the chance to shape things that it has at this point. Willie Rennie: As always, Graham Simpson makes very fair points. It is a balancing act between the different ways of dealing with exemptions. I would love to have had them in the bill itself. I would love to be absolutely certain that the provisions would last for ever. I would love to have had a consultation well in advance so that the committee could have fully looked at exemptions for its stage 1 report. However, we know that the policy has evolved over time and that the Government has changed its approach midstream.”
“Putting the exemptions in regulation allows us to have flexibility to have different types of exemption, and maybe take out certain exemptions as we progress and learn. I am persuaded by the need to have consultation and regulation, rather than having provisions in the bill. I agree with everything that Graham Simpson said—other than the process. If we proceed with his method, there is a danger that we will have a rigid system that is perhaps not legally robust. Graham Simpson: I hear what Willie Rennie says. However, at stage 2, he was arguing for the issue to be in the bill—and I think that he agrees with me that it should be in the bill. I read out words from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which wants amendment 160 in particular to be agreed to. As the SFHA points out, things can change, and Governments can change.”
“I also wanted an exemption for a certain period of time for landlords who invest significantly in their properties, so that they could recoup that investment. I thought that that approach was reasonable, but I was persuaded by the cabinet secretary when she was before the committee that the best way of doing this was through consultation leading to regulation, for the reason that the Government wanted a legally robust approach, given that this is an area where there could be legal challenge. We need it to be as robust as possible. Secondly, we need flexibility, because we will need to learn as we progress. We will need to understand what exemptions work, and the particular ways in which they work.”
“Not everybody can get into a social home— people will not have enough points and will not be in sufficient housing need to get into those properties. They need other properties of an affordable rent in their community. We need housing associations to use the opportunity to invest. We agree, I think—we should agree—that an exemption is needed for housing association mid-market rented properties. If we agree that exemption, we need to consider what other exemptions would also be appropriate. This is not about whether we have exemptions—we saw what happens if we do not have an exemption for housing association mid- market rented properties. The issue is the types of exemption and how we exempt properties. I lodged amendments at stage 2 because I wanted exemptions in the bill for build-to-rent properties and for mid-market properties.”
“I am fed up with the Parliament not being able to deliver an environment that incentivises investment and encourages the construction of more homes. It is important that we get the exemptions criteria right, because I want more homes to be built. To do that, we need to involve everyone—RSLs, councils, charities, those in the private rented sector and institutional investors. We must consider them all as partners, not enemies. We must work together to make this work. We saw what happened with the emergency rent cap. Mid-market rented properties were not exempt, as the social landlords went with social homes instead. The result was a massive decline in housing association investment in mid-market rent.”
“Given that the stage 3 proceedings on the bill are planned to take place over several days, I hope that at some point in the process we will be able to tease out from the Government what further exemptions could be included as part of the consultation process, because it is hugely important that we provide the required certainty and clarity. I will finish on this point: we have to be incredibly careful about what we put in the bill. It is important that we have debates on exemptions; however, it is also important to note that if we put in some but not others, we could harm investment opportunities and, therefore, the people whom we are trying to help by passing the bill. Willie Rennie: I get really depressed when I meet my constituents who are desperate for a home.”
“I have no idea how we will get out of the housing emergency if we do not build more homes. I welcome the announcement that confirmed that MMR and BTR properties will be exempt from rent controls. I hope that Maggie Chapman will also welcome that announcement, even if she does so solely because we need homes to tackle the housing emergency. However, I understand that the Greens have quite defined stances on exemptions and rent controls in general. I will touch on Graham Simpson’s amendments 158 to 160. He will be aware that Scottish Conservatives support the exemptions to rent controls. We would prefer to see them in the bill, but the Scottish Government has announced that MMR and BTR properties will be exempt from such controls once the secondary legislation has been approved.”
“I am simply saying that, if we want to drive rents down, we have to make sure that there is a more ample supply of mixed-tenure housing up and down the country. That is a sensible and pragmatic point, and it explains the current state of the housing economy more generally. I hope that John Mason will look at that in relation to housing demand in his area, including how many people are looking for mid-market rent properties or for social housing, the latter of which we know has incredibly long waiting lists. I hope that that explains the position that I am trying to lay out. Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Meghan Gallacher: I have more amendments to speak to in other groups, but I say to Mr Greer that I hope that we can debate those when we reach them. I return to the point about removing exemptions.”
“We must learn the various forms of housing tenure that we need in order to determine the stock that we will require to have up and down the country. I note how diverse our communities are— John Mason: Will Meghan Gallacher give way again? Meghan Gallacher: Okay—we will have a debate. I will take one more intervention. John Mason: I thank the member for being generous. I do not want to extend this discussion for too long. If her aim is to lower rents, that would imply that they are too high at the moment. I accept that they might be too high because there is not enough housing, but she seems to be saying that rents are generally too high at the moment. Meghan Gallacher: John Mason has not pointed out what he would determine high rents to be.”
“This afternoon, we have heard unfortunate language being used in relation to landlords. There are accidental landlords, landlords with a single property that they intend to let to self-employed individuals, and landlords who hold properties as part of pension arrangements. There is a whole landscape of landlords, which is why we need to look at any exemptions carefully. On that point, I will give way to John Mason. John Mason: I agree with Meghan Gallacher that we need more housing, but does she accept that there is not much point in having new houses if people cannot afford to rent them? Meghan Gallacher: I hope that John Mason agrees that, in order to lower rents, we need to build more homes so that we have more supply to meet the demand across the country. That is the only way that we will get out of the housing emergency.”
“Removing exemptions would be a disaster for the housing industry, and especially for future investment opportunities. We are in a housing emergency, and the whole Parliament is agreed on what we need to do to address it. The solution that will get us out of that emergency is to build more homes. If we vote through legislation that prevents investment opportunities from coming through and homes from being built, we will not address the problems that we have all agreed exist up and down the country. It is essential to have clarity about exemptions to rent controls to ensure that we protect the supply of rented housing, given the diverse nature of the private rented sector. John Mason: Will the member give way? Meghan Gallacher: I will give way when I have finished this point. Landlords are not always as they are often characterised.”
“My amendment 278 seeks to probe the Government on how it will address that issue, should it arise if the bill passes at stage 3. On the point about energy efficiency of properties, we still await a heat in buildings bill— we do not know what it might contain. I am concerned that, for landlords, extra costs will be associated with bringing their properties up to the standard that I assume will be set out in that piece of legislation. The Government must understand such associated costs, including the fact that it is even more expensive for landlords in rural areas, and for those with more complex properties, to bring their properties up to EPC level C or above. That absolutely should be considered. I will touch on Maggie Chapman’s amendments 156 and 157.”
“The amendments that I speak to today I also lodged earlier, at stage 2. However, many landlords up and down the country still face a great deal of uncertainty about properties that they own that contain combustible cladding or RAAC. As we have discussed previously, like many homeowners, a lot of those landlords are in limbo over whether the Government will be able to provide them with financial support or remuneration and about what they can do to remediate their properties. Edward Mountain is correct to say that when works are being undertaken while a tenant is living in a property, the rent is usually lowered. If rent control is brought into an area, the ways in which the landlord could bring the rent back up to market value will be limited.”
“If they were in a rent control area, when that work had been completed and the property brought up to a much higher standard, there would be limits on how much the rent could be increased. That causes me concern, because it is this Government—and this Parliament—that is telling landlords across Scotland that they must improve the condition of their rental properties. Therefore, if the rent was low while such work was being undertaken, it would be self-defeating not to allow landlords to put it up when they had completed the work. Those are my points. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary, and from Meghan Gallacher about her amendments. Meghan Gallacher: Following on from where Edward Mountain left off, although my amendments 278 and 279 are probing amendments they raise incredibly important points.”
“You are looking forward to that. Edward Mountain: I will give way to Mr Dey if he wants say something, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I do not think that Mr Dey is seeking to intervene. I ask members to allow the member who has the floor to carry on. Edward Mountain: What I am trying to do with amendment 162 is to get the draft regulations laid early. I agree with the aim of the cabinet secretary’s amendment 155 that when a property is advertised, it should be declared whether it is exempt. Meghan Gallacher still has to speak to her amendments. I will be interested to hear her address the point that often, when properties are taken on for which substantial works are required, such as works for EPCs and the removal of RAAC, the rent will be at a reduced level.”