John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 14.
“I strongly encourage the cabinet secretary to consider the particular issue of insurance, because my proposal would mean that repairs to the common fabric could start quickly, residents could return sooner and the hold-out problem with absentee landlords, invalid policies and missing signatures would no longer block everyone else and lead to a spiral of unintended consequences. I am sure that members will have heard similar accounts in their constituencies. The situation is simply unacceptable. The public sector is paying through having to provide homelessness support and having to deal with the health impacts, and communities are paying through empty buildings dragging down streets, often for years. In the case of Pollokshields, that resulted in a building collapsing into the street and people being made homeless.”
“It is clear to me that atomising things into separate insurance policies for flats is not sufficient and that we need to rationalise the system, with all owners in a tenement building having a clear legal duty to maintain a single common insurance policy that covers the entire building fabric. Having one insurer and one claim for one building is essential. I say that as a consequence of my deep study of the issue as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust and as someone who has dealt with several complex cases in the city in that regard over the past few years.”
“Ultimately, I ask Mr Sweeney not to move the amendment, but I am sure that members will be interested to see the results of that work. The Presiding Officer: I call Paul Sweeney to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 336. Paul Sweeney: I accept the points that the cabinet secretary has made, but the Government’s lack of urgency, hitherto and currently, is unacceptable, given that the inadequacy of existing legislation is causing significant public harm. I disagree with the cabinet secretary on whether there is a need for the obligation on owners.”
“The cabinet secretary has acknowledged that insurance is an issue, but there is a wider issue with tenement maintenance. Graham Simpson and others have led a Scottish parliamentary working group on the subject. Does the cabinet secretary accept that we need to look at tenement maintenance as a whole, including the point about insurance? Màiri McAllan: I am quite sure that a number of issues have to be looked at, and I know that members have been engaged in that work. Some of the cases that Mr Sweeney referred to indicate why such issues ought to be considered closely. Amendment 336 will not do the job, but it is worth mentioning to John Mason and others that the Scottish Law Commission is currently consulting on reform of the 2004 act, with a view to making recommendations next year.”
“He left behind his young son, who one day will know how brave his daddy was and how he is a true hero to so many. Audrey now works closely with the specialist nurse in the organ donation team, promoting and sharing her passion for organ donation, and I thank her for this permission to make public her experience. I thank all others who, in similar circumstances, have done that. Nothing can illustrate how important organ donation is more than that example. [Applause.] 17:16”
“There are currently around 600 people waiting for an organ transplant in Scotland at any one time. Those patients are in urgent need of life- saving or life-enhancing organs, with the majority waiting for a kidney transplant. One donor can save up to nine lives. Nothing illustrates the significance of organ transplant better than an example. Audrey Cameron is here in the Parliament today. Her son James Borland died in February 2024 at the young age of 25. Audrey chose to donate James’s organs, as she felt that that was fitting for him, as a kind and gentle young man. James went on to donate his heart, lungs and both kidneys, saving the lives of four people. His becoming an organ donor has given his family so much comfort amid their grief. James’s story has not ended, and he has changed so many people’s lives.”
“The specialist nurse whom I referred to is one of a team of 23 who are based in intensive care units across Scotland. They support consultants and nurses who are having end-of-life discussions with families. They cover all aspects of the donation process, from the initial referral from the intensive care unit team, to building a patient’s profile— bloods, electrocardiogram, chest x-ray, medical notes—organ matching, offering and placement; organising theatre; and organising for the national organ retrieval service team to arrive at the donor hospital. Time is always of the essence. Those nurses co-ordinate the retrieval operation to the very end, when they perform last offices with donors and ensure that organs are safely dispatched to their recipients. They also provide a bereavement follow-up service for donors’ families.”
“I thank the member for giving way. Does she think that most of the public understand that? I have to say that I was a bit confused about it until I spoke to the folk today. Christine Grahame: The reason for the debate is partly to highlight that. That is where understandable difficulties arise. Specialist nurses must—without delay, for obvious reasons—raise the issue of consent to use some of the deceased’s organs in the most distressing of circumstances. If a person has registered their wishes one way or another, it makes that discussion much easier. Therefore, although there is presumed consent, it is still better to register. Let me also stress that only 1 per cent of the population who die can be considered to become an organ donor—only those who are in intensive care and ventilated—so it is a niche set of circumstances.”
“As I think I have made clear, the Greens are not completely sold on the bill, but we think that there is a significant opportunity with it. We do not want to miss that opportunity, as it is the last one of the parliamentary session. We want to see more alignment in the system, more access to apprenticeships for small businesses and far better value for money. The bill could do at least some of that. Our list of amendments is growing, and I look forward to speaking to the minister about them. That is why we will vote to progress the bill to stage 2 to give us a final opportunity to see whether we can get such alignment and value for money before the dissolution of the Parliament at the end of this session. 16:36”
“If you are not from one of those sectors—particularly if you are a small business that is not from one of the sectors that has an assertive trade body that has its foot in the door— you have a very different experience of Scotland’s apprenticeship system. Willie Rennie and John Mason both mentioned the £4 million cost for IT that has suddenly emerged late in the process. I am deeply suspicious of that figure and the motivations that might have been behind it. I cannot understand for the life of me how, when no new functions are being created and some systems are simply being moved from one organisation to another, there is a £4 million IT cost. Again, those organisations are both arms of the same Government. That cost does not ring true at all.”
“I respect those who believe that we can fix it without the bill, but some of the voices who have contributed to the debate outside the Parliament to argue that everything is absolutely fine should reckon with the fact that it simply is not fine—that is not the case. I think that that is why the Federation of Small Businesses says that the bill is a way to align the apprenticeship system with the needs of our economy. I will briefly pick up on a couple of things that have been mentioned in the debate. Willie Rennie was right to say that Skills Development Scotland has a good relationship with employers, but I would caveat that by saying “with some employers”. If you are a member of a trade body that got its foot in the door some time ago, you have excellent access to SDS and you get what you need from it.”
“John Mason posed the question to me whether it is worth £22 million. That is still one that I am wrestling with. There is the question whether the one-off cost is worth it for potential significant recurring value, better alignment, better value for money and more effective use of the money that is being spent. I recognise that the bill splits opinion. I respect some of those with whom I disagree but who are arguing on the basis of quite specific concerns. However, I am not at all convinced by the argument that some have made that, if the system is not broken, we should not fix it. Audit Scotland and Withers have shown what is broken about the system.”
“I have heard elsewhere that the figure is above half in some cases, and is potentially as high as 60 per cent. I believe that in England, there is a cap on how much money the managing agent can take. SDS could have taken such action long before now, but it did not; however, the bill is an opportunity for us to take action. All the money that the managing agents take means less money going to the apprentice, less money going to the college and less money for the businesses that are involved in the system. The bill is an opportunity for us to get far better value for money, which would align with the Government’s medium-term financial strategy. The bill is also, let us be frank, an opportunity for us to maximise the amount of money that is going to our colleges in what is otherwise a really squeezed financial situation.”
“I urge some self-reflection on the part of senior management at SDS—far more self-reflection than we heard at stage 1, in particular when it was confronted with the outcomes of Audit Scotland’s review of SDS’s work and its relationship with the SFC. There was simply no engagement with the pretty scathing judgments that Audit Scotland came to. There is one striking example of where leadership at SDS would have resulted in far more effective delivery and better value for money; it relates to the share of apprenticeship funding that goes to managing agents, which George Adam and others mentioned. We heard in evidence from one trade body that it takes 40 per cent of the funding per apprenticeship; that funding goes to the trade body acting as the managing agent. That is 40p in every pound that is not going to the apprentice or to the college.”
“That makes processes more inefficient and more costly, and it makes public bodies’ costs much higher than they need to be because those bodies are not sharing that information with one other. That is an easy problem to solve, but it requires a bit of ministerial direction. I recognise the upset felt by a number of individuals in Skills Development Scotland about what is proposed here. In many ways, it feels familiar to the upset in the leadership of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the process that we went through to replace it. I absolutely believe that far more substantial trade union engagement than originally took place is essential. I believe that more substantive engagement has taken place since the unions gave us their initial views, which I welcome.”
“The Scottish Government leads by example on that; it operates an open government licence. Any information that is held on its website, other than the Government’s logo and brand, is freely available for others to use as they see fit. Both the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland have copyrighted websites. They are restricting access to even the most basic information that they have. Is it any wonder that they cannot communicate with each other effectively when they have taken the unnecessary step of copyrighting their websites? That is an issue on which some clear ministerial direction would be of significant benefit. The David Hume Institute has estimated that north of £2 billion in value is lost to the Scottish economy every year due to the sheer volume of public data that is not available to the public.”
“16:30 Ross Greer: In opening, I laid out some of the general principles that the Scottish Greens subscribe to in relation to the bill, but there were specific points that I did not have time to get into, so I will do that now. The first is on data sharing, which came up very often during stage 1—it is something that John Mason and I are familiar with from being on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and it is a recurring issue in the public sector. There are huge limits on the sharing of public information—information that belongs to the public but is not available to them. I have taken to doing a litmus test when I am trying to get a sense of whether a public body is effective at sharing information and making its public data available— and that is simply to check whether its website is copyrighted.”
“However, this is the second time this week that we are being asked to give a bill the go-ahead when we are still very much in the dark about the details and the actual costs—the other instance being the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill introduced by Liz Smith. I am not at all happy about that way of doing things, where we head into stage 2 with so much uncertainty. I am not guaranteeing that I will vote for either bill at stage 2. I, for one, will look for a lot more certainty to emerge before then. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You rose to the challenge of completing your speech within the six minutes admirably. We move to the closing speeches.”
“However, it has certainly not worked at the University of Dundee, where it seems that some senior figures did not understand their responsibilities let alone flag up problems to the SFC or anyone else. Going forward, I want the Funding Council to be much more proactive in that regard. It is true that universities are independent institutions and are not in the public sector. However, if something goes wrong, as it did at Dundee, they clearly expect the public sector to bail them out, so we need to pick up such problems earlier on. Overall, I am prepared to support the bill at stage 1 and will vote for it at decision time.”
“In its response to the committee report, SDS argues that it has been as helpful as it could have been all the way along, but, as George Adam said, it still appears that it has been dragging its heels a fair bit. Having said all of that, I welcome the Government’s letter of 19 September. Although it does not represent the final picture, it is a lot more specific about costs than what we had before. My view is that the SFC needs to be much more proactive about monitoring the health of our universities. From the evidence that we received, it seems that the SFC has largely been passive and has waited for universities to report any problems that they faced. That is fine for an institution such as Queen Margaret University, whose principal, Sir Paul Grice, we heard from.”
“I am particularly intrigued that SDS should now come up with intentions to restructure and potentially make a number of staff redundant. That suggests that it has not been operating very efficiently until now. However, the Government paper on revised costings, which apparently quotes SDS, says, among other things, “This efficiency will diminish.” I do not know exactly what that means. It also says: “SDS has identified that there is likely to be the need for restructuring after the transfer has completed and taking at least three years involving headcount reductions which might cost £4 million to £8.5 million”. We certainly need to know more about that. The Government says that it wrote to SDS and the SFC in June, asking them to develop a plan for staffing arrangements. That seems a bit late in the day.”
“From a Finance and Public Administration Committee perspective—Mr Greer and I are still here—we have repeatedly asked for an improvement in the quality and detail of financial memorandums, yet, once again, we see significant costs not appearing in the FM at all. Most of the members of the finance committee are visiting Lithuania this week so, perhaps fortunately, members listening to the debate are not having to hear the same message from all of them. As the education committee’s convener and other members have said, the one-off costs were a major factor in our not endorsing the bill in our report. Although it is now only £21 million, that is still a lot of money for internal restructuring that is not affecting the front line.”
“Douglas Ross: I return to the point that I made in my speech, which was echoed by Miles Briggs. The finance committee was not able to do a full report and asked the education committee to look specifically at the finance elements of the bill. There have been massive changes, but there are still further questions about its financial aspects. Therefore, does Mr Mason think that the updated financial memorandum—and the new figures from the minister—should go back to either of those committees for further scrutiny? John Mason: Even some of the new figures that we have from the Government, which are dated 19 September, are provisional and are still estimates, so I absolutely agree that somebody needs to look at them in more detail. That is very much a theme that I want to emphasise.”
“As we took evidence at committee, I and others had concerns about the one-off costs for the bill— especially the pensions figure, which was shown in the financial memorandum as being between £1 million and £23 million. I am pleased to see that the upper limit for that has now been reduced to £8 million. However, at the same time, considerable new costs are appearing. Information technology system costs are up from nil in the financial memorandum to £4 million, and SDS restructuring costs are up from nil to between £4 million and £8.5 million. I find it remarkable that such substantial costs did not appear in the financial memorandum at all. It makes me wonder whether it would cost less if SDS were just to be merged with the SFC and, therefore, took on its existing IT system.”
“I was not expecting to get as long as six minutes, so I will certainly be prepared to take interventions along the way. I agree with much of what has been said already. I, too, offer my commiserations to the minister on his being thrown in at the deep end on the bill. Overall, I am supportive of the bill’s aims, because it will somewhat simplify the public body landscape in Scotland even though, as Stephen Kerr has pointed out, it will not reduce the number of public bodies. It could be argued that the Government might have gone further by abolishing Skills Development Scotland altogether. It seems that there is scope for developing the apprenticeship landscape, including by rolling out a wider range of graduate apprenticeships, as well as foundation apprenticeships, which seem to be strong in some parts of the country but not in others.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. 15:07”
“Will the minister give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister should be starting to conclude his remarks. Ben Macpherson: We want to consider what improvements can be made to the range of different models for vocational pathways so that we can build on good practice and protect a variety of approaches, while making improvements where we can. In my closing remarks, I will touch on SDS staff, trade union engagement, sector sustainability, governance and widening access. In conclusion, the bill has the potential to be an important step towards simplifying and modernising the funding landscape for tertiary education funding in Scotland. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.”
“The measures that I have raised are all reasonable and would have been of great benefit to the sector. I would have enjoyed having a greater opportunity to engage in discussions around them, but it seems that the changeover of ministers has militated against that. It is unfortunate that we cannot do something with the proposals in the bill. I press amendment 101. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“Bringing the threshold up to two thirds is a prudent and benign measure to ensure that we do not have another situation such as that involving Reidvale Housing Association, where a community has had to fight a rearguard action to save its housing association stock. Similarly, in a situation involving a transfer of engagements, priority should be given to ensuring that community-based housing stock goes to another community-based housing association in the first instance. If that does not prove to be viable or appropriate, the opportunity could be opened up more widely to national housing groups. There would be a bit of a sliding scale— we should not lock national housing groups out of the process, as it might be appropriate for them to be involved.”
“It is important to recognise that there are valid and genuine concerns that have not been heard by the Government either today or at other times during the passage of the legislation. We need proactive support to protect community-based housing associations that are clearly vulnerable to takeovers by large national housing groups, and to sustain housing co- operatives, which are actively being chastised by the regulator, which says that having committee membership restricted to tenants is not good enough. It is broadly recognised that, when transfers take place, they should enjoy supermajority support. When they do not enjoy such support, that should be a red flag and a matter of concern.”
“Particularly at a time when Scotland is celebrating half a century of community-based housing associations, it is a pity that the Government is snubbing the sector in that way. Màiri McAllan: With the greatest respect to Mr Sweeney, I want to say on the record that I have been engaging extensively with members over the summer and I have had a number of engagements with the Scottish Labour Party generally. Some members have been more able to meet than others. Paul Sweeney: Unfortunately, no invitation was extended to me. I was keen to work across the chamber to reach consensus on the amendments, but that co-operation was not forthcoming. The amendments have the support of the co-operative sector and the community-based housing sector in Scotland.”
“Again, the issue relates to the fact that, in carrying out its regulatory function, the housing regulator does not have a role in promoting one type of housing over another. However, as I noted to Mr Sweeney, I am very supportive of co- operatives. I had an excellent meeting with the West Granton Housing Co-op and I saw the wonderful work that it was doing. I would therefore be pleased to continue working with Ms Burgess and Mr Sweeney on how the Parliament and the Scottish Government might support it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Paul Sweeney to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 101. Paul Sweeney: It is disappointing that the Government is not minded to support the amendments. It is also disappointing that I have had no engagement whatsoever with the Government to try to reach a point of consensus on them.”
“The bill already contains measures for social landlords to take action to support tenants with rent arrears, particularly those arising as a result of domestic abuse. Ariane Burgess’s amendment 337 would add a requirement on the Scottish Housing Regulator, “when preparing, revising or withdrawing guidance”, to “have regard for a range of different housing models including co-operative models.” Much as with Mr Sweeney’s amendment 304, I absolutely appreciate the intention behind amendment 337, but I am afraid that it would not operate as intended in the context of the regulator’s guidance on how it should assess each social landlord’s progress towards meeting the relevant standards.”
“Mark Griffin: I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s position, but surely the Government accepts that children in an overcrowded property did not contribute to the arrears. The quantum of the arrears and whether a repayment schedule is being met is not the fault of those children, so they should be given the opportunity to move to a house that meets their needs, regardless of the debt that has been incurred by others. Màiri McAllan: I absolutely appreciate that. I am sure that Clare Haughey, as the constituency representative for Rutherglen, would be very glad to take up the case that Mr Griffin raised. She will be able to point the family to the fact that social landlords already have discretion to agree a mutual exchange between their properties when there are rent arrears.”
“I absolutely appreciate that the intention behind amendment 305 is to support tenants with rent arrears to obtain a mutual exchange. However, the provision would go much further than that, as it would prevent a landlord from refusing consent for a mutual exchange on the basis of rent arrears if the number of criteria that Mr Griffin has set out in amendment 305 were satisfied. That would apply regardless of the total amount of rent arrears or whether the tenant was currently paying the rent arrears or keeping to a repayment plan. In fact, the landlord could refuse consent only if a notice of proceedings had already been served on the tenant on conduct grounds or if an eviction order had been granted against the tenant for the current tenancy.”
“My concern is that the amendment would be overly restrictive. It would not take into account the financial or organisational ability of the community-based RSLs in the area or their views on whether they wished to take on the assets of a failing RSL. Therefore, ultimately, it might not be in the best interests of existing tenants for such a transfer to go ahead. In addition, legislation already requires that, before directing a transfer of assets, the Scottish Housing Regulator may consult tenants who would be affected by the transfer and any secured creditors. Furthermore, an RSL may already request that the regulator direct a transfer of its assets to another specific RSL. Such provisions exist, and they contain the relevant safeguards that are required.”
“Paul Sweeney: Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in the context of providing ostensible neutrality, bigger housing associations will inevitably dominate smaller ones and that positive protections should be in place? Màiri McAllan: On the contrary, it is important that the regulator is allowed to carry out its regulatory functions without drawing out one type of registered social landlord or another. However, that is not to say that co-operatives cannot be promoted in an alternative way, and I would be happy to work with Mr Sweeney on that. Mr Sweeney’s amendment 338 would require the assets of an RSL to be transferred to a community-based housing association that was operating in the area if there had been misconduct or mismanagement or if landlord viability was in jeopardy.”
“Amendment 304 would add a requirement for the Scottish Housing Regulator, in performing its regulatory functions, to encourage “a diversity of social housing models, including housing co- operatives.” That sounds absolutely fine, but the regulator does not differentiate at all between different types of registered social landlords in its work. The amendment would present a change to the regulator’s functions, and it would present technical challenges, as housing co-operatives are not defined in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010. I am sympathetic to and supportive of the amendment’s intention—namely, the promotion of co-operatives—but imposing a loosely defined additional duty, under the regulator’s general functions, would present a challenge that we ought to avoid.”
“Will Màiri McAllan give way? Màiri McAllan: I will take one more intervention, and then I will move on. John Mason: Would the cabinet secretary agree that it was very unfortunate to use a term such as “asset stripping” in the case that was mentioned? Places for People Scotland is a reputable association and it is seeking to help the people of Reidvale, but the jury is still out as to whether Reidvale can survive on its own. Màiri McAllan: It is clear that Glasgow representatives are very well acquainted with the detail of the matter. Given that I am not, I will be careful not to use or endorse any of the terms that are used, but if either member wants to speak to me about the matter further, I would be happy for them to do so.”
“I have major reservations about the announcement, and I want to press the minister further. What kind of cost are we committing to? Is this a blank cheque? Is it £40 million? Is it £60 million? Natalie Don-Innes: As I have said, members have details of the finances in front of them, and I am aware of Mr Mason’s concerns, which we have discussed at length. I have been clear today that, although this is the approach that we are taking, the Government is still concerned about some of the specific aspects of affordability. I assure Mr Mason that we are not issuing a blank cheque. What we will do at stage 2 is try to make the bill more affordable and deliverable. Ultimately, members will have the option to support the bill or not when it comes to the time to vote on the bill.”
“Throughout the proceedings I have made the point that, when there is uncertainty in the market, the market will react to it. Through amendment 162, I aim to get the cabinet secretary to make draft regulations within six months of the bill being passed. The cabinet secretary is seeing the legislation through the Parliament, but it might not be the cabinet secretary herself who is in a position to lay those draft regulations. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary thinks that it will be her. Let us wait until the election, when the people of Scotland will decide.”
“There might be times when, due to a shift in their employment, they move from one property to another and, therefore, it might be appropriate to increase the rent because they are no longer in one place—for example, they might have been given a reduced rent for working full-time on a farm. 17:00 That is one aim of amendment 161. The other relates to property given to people whose work requires them to be in the location—that is the only reason why there can be an exemption under the benefits in kind system. Should the position change, the property would probably end up having a very low market rent, and if it was within a rent control area, there would be restrictions on how much the rent could be increased. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that and perhaps to speak to it when she sums up. I turn to amendment 162.”
“Edward Mountain: I want to disprove something that Maggie Chapman said to members earlier about landlords weaselling out by exempting properties. I am not doing that. I am not doing it through cunning and deceit; I am doing it quite openly. Amendment 161 would mean that, where a tenant is an employee of the landlord and the property’s rent is below the market rent, the property would be exempt from rent controls. The reason why I am making this point—I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to this—is that she will be aware of the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Order (No 72) 2025 and how much one can charge for properties that are supplied to people who are agricultural workers: it is a very low market rent.”
“Actually, I know that Mr Rennie will be listening to this, and I am sure that he will back these amendments. Amendment 159 deals with another issue that I raised at stage 2, which is where a landlord has been charging below-market rent or where they have incurred significant costs to improve a property. In both those cases, they should be able to have exemption from rent controls. It is news to me that the cabinet secretary thinks that there is a drafting issue with the amendment. She has had time to raise that with me, yet this afternoon is the first that I have heard of it, which is a disappointment. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 278 on cladding and amendment 279 on meeting energy performance certificate regulations deal with broadly similar themes. She will have my support for those amendments.”
“The SFHA continued: “We’re already seeing less MMR development among our members due to the uncertainty caused by the potential introduction of further regulation and its impact on investor confidence. MMR rents rise slower than typical PRS rents, and our sector does not raise rents above the levels required for business planning and viability. We are therefore strongly in favour of amendment 160.” That position is backed by the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, which wants that amendment made to the bill, as it said, “in case there is a change of approach (for example, from a new government next year).” Amendment 160 has the backing of the people in the sector, who are the people on the ground. I know that nobody is listening to me, but they should listen to the people in the sector.”
“I cannot help thinking that, if she had lodged the amendments before I did, her thinking might have been different. The sector is strongly in favour of amendment 160. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has said: “We have consistently called for mid-market rent homes to be excluded from private sector rent controls under the housing bill. We’re therefore pleased that the Scottish Government announced their intention to do so in the housing emergency action plan. This mirrors what the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee have already called for, as well as the housing investment task force. However, to provide certainty as soon as practically possible, we would like to see an exemption for MMR on the face of the bill.” “Certainty”—the cabinet secretary has used that word several times already today.”
“However, that leaves us in a position in which PBSA is exempt from rent controls but build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties are not, which was the Government’s original intention. If the situation stays like that, investment will go into student flats and not into the other sectors, which is a completely incoherent position. The new Cabinet Secretary for Housing has said that she agrees that build-to-rent and mid- market rent properties should be exempt, which is good. My amendments 158 and 160 should, therefore, make her very happy. However, she has already argued that we do not, after all, need anything in primary legislation and she will consult instead. The Government loves to consult—who knows, there might be a pilot or a task force, if we are lucky.”
“I do not consider that setting a legislative timescale is the best way to achieve the aim. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that, as we are nearing the agreed time limit, under rule 9.8.4A(c), I consider it necessary to allow the debate on this group of amendments to continue beyond the limit, in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. Graham Simpson: We have already heard that, at stage 2, I moved an amendment that would have included purpose-built student accommodation in rent control arrangements. For anyone who was at that committee meeting or who was watching it, it would have been perfectly obvious that I did that merely as a tactic to get the Government to the table. To some degree, that has worked—although it caused quite a hullabaloo. The cabinet secretary has successfully reversed the position.”
“As I have set out, I believe that any exemptions should be set out in regulations and should have been consulted on, and I cannot support anything that does not pursue that. Edward Mountain’s amendment 162 would require the Scottish ministers to lay draft regulations setting out properties that are exempt from rent control within six months of the act receiving royal assent. As I have said, I agree that it is vital to give certainty, and I intend to do that as soon as possible. I have already committed to bring forward secondary legislation on these matters at the earliest opportunity following royal assent. However, as I am sure all members would agree, it is critical that we get the provisions absolutely right and that those affected have a chance to have their say, so allowing time to consult on the regulations is necessary.”
“For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 278. Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 279 would require any regulations defining an exempt property to include specific exemptions for the duration of time that the landlord is taking steps to improve the energy performance certificate— EPC—rating “from less than C to C or above.” That would exempt from rent control properties where the landlord is “taking action to improve” the EPC rating. The amendment does not specify what would constitute “action” to improve that rating, or why it would be reasonable to exempt the property from controls for the entire duration of that action—which does not appear to be limited in any way. It is not clear that that would necessarily offer a benefit to the tenant or to the landlord, and I cannot support the proposal.”