Housing (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on S2M-3438, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, that the Parliament agrees that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Our partnership agreement gave a commitment to progress the recommendations of the housing improvement task force; the Housing (Scotland) Bill is the outcome. I thank the members of the task force and its subgroups who volunteered their time, effort and expertise over two years.
I also thank the many people who responded to the consultation, the members of the Finance Committee, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and, most of all, the members of the Communities Committee, who gave the issues such careful consideration. Once again, the committee system has been seen at its best: the committees have exerted influence in a way that does not happen at Westminster and have worked constructively with Johann Lamont in particular. Last, but not least, I record my appreciation of the Scottish Executive's bill team. The bill might not have raised a lot of passions, but it is an important bill that is driven by a concern that people in Scotland should live in houses that are fit for the 21st century.
Early in its existence, the Scottish Parliament tackled the social rented sector with marked success through the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. We always said that it would take longer to address the private sector because of the need for better information and more complex solutions. The bill has been driven by the view that the responsibilities that are attached to owning a house should be taken seriously. Failure to do so affects the quality of Scotland's housing stock and, more specifically, it can affect the next owners, the neighbours in a tenement or the tenant.
The bill is a response to sound but worrying evidence that, in 2001, privately owned houses in Scotland needed something of the order of £5 billion-worth of urgent or pending repairs. The task force delved into the reasons for that startling statistic, and it came up with more than 150 recommendations to help the nation to address that state of affairs. I say "help the nation" deliberately, because this is one of those areas where people who say that the Government should do something have got it wrong. It is owners, along with the Government of course, who should do something. The bill does not therefore remove owners' responsibilities but emphasises and supports them.
I will not pretend that the bill has been entirely plain sailing for the Executive. There has been plenty of discussion and differing views, and as I have already suggested, the Communities Committee's scrutiny challenged aspects of the bill. For example, we have moved significantly in our approach to assistance for disabled people to adapt their houses, on landlords' consent for central heating, on fire detection in the repairing standard and on tenancy deposits. Those examples show how we have listened to the issues and arguments and have been prepared to develop policy during the bill's progress.
Of course we have resisted legislating on some matters, but only after consideration of the arguments. Where necessary, we have put on record how we intend to achieve an objective through administrative action. For example, in answer to concerns that were expressed by the Disability Rights Commission, I confirm that a landlord dealing with a tenant's request under section 52 to make a particular adaptation should consider the individual's particular disability and not whether that category of disability requires adaptation.
A key part of the bill has been to give new rights to the 350,000 tenants in the private sector. If a landlord fails to carry out necessary repairs, the only recourse at the moment is to the courts. The bill will not only improve the standard that a house must meet; it will also give tenants the right to appeal to a new private rented housing panel, which will be able to order that work be done and to penalise landlords when that does not happen.
As one would expect, some issues have been more controversial than others. For example, we had interesting debates earlier today about energy efficiency and about the single survey. The single survey is based on two years of research, deliberation and consultation by the task force. It is utterly bizarre that when one buys a can of beans one knows more about it than many people do about the house that they want to buy when they make an offer. The single survey is a sensible approach that will provide detailed information on a property's condition to house buyers and sellers at the start of the transaction. That will help to avoid delays and the risk of transactions falling through and it will help to avoid unexpected costs after the buyer moves in.
We have been criticised for proceeding to legislate despite the outcome of the single survey pilot. The pilot demonstrated that the system will not work on a voluntary basis because, in general, there is a lack of incentive for house sellers to participate. However, the policy drivers remain: improving the information that is available to purchasers on property condition; addressing multiple valuations and surveys; and addressing the setting of artificially low upset prices. Nobody has identified a better way of achieving those objectives. I acknowledge that the single survey is controversial, but I welcome the commitment that has been shown by organisations in the house buying and selling industry to help us to deliver a system that will work for Scotland.
I make no apologies for having introduced a substantial amendment at stage 3 to address the current issue in respect of Glasgow Housing Association. That we are able to react positively and firmly to deal with an urgent situation such as that shows the flexibility of the parliamentary process. Not to have done so would have been to let down the tenants in Glasgow who voted for transfer. The amendment will allow us to ensure that tenants in Glasgow can continue to enjoy local management of their homes. Tenants voted for the transfer to the Glasgow Housing Association to secure the much-needed investment in their houses and to secure the responsibility, in the first instance, for managing their houses. The ultimate goal of the transfer remains second-stage transfer, and our focus is now to see that that is delivered. I know that the GHA is also committed to that. In the meantime, it has important decisions to make on its reaction to amendment 64, which we debated earlier.
I have dwelt at some length on various aspects of the bill, but I would like to make one important point in closing. Housing issues are a complex area of policy; they affect the great majority of households in the country and a house is the most important investment that most people make. The main measures in the bill are about changing people's attitudes to the responsibilities of being a home owner and are also, as a result, about bringing about long-term improvements in the condition of housing in Scotland. The bill is the cornerstone to a culture change, and we are determined to make continuing efforts in implementation and communication to make it a lasting change. I warmly commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that time is pressing and that those who are called to speak in the open debate will get only three minutes. I call Tricia Marwick to open for the Scottish National Party. You have five minutes.
I thank my fellow members of the Communities Committee, which I joined just as it was starting stage 2 consideration of the bill. I also thank the clerks and, in particular, I thank my colleague, Linda Fabiani, who was the SNP's housing spokesperson immediately before me, for all the work that she has done on this and previous housing bills. I am extremely grateful to her. I also acknowledge that ministers have moved on a great number of issues as the bill has been debated, and that they have quite rightly paid credit to the Communities Committee and its members.
The bill will provide greater rights for people who rent privately. It will improve standards of repair and it will create a new body—the private rented housing panel—to adjudicate when landlords fail in their duty to keep repairs up to standard. We have had debates today and in the preceding months, about the single seller survey in particular. I am grateful that Johann Lamont has said that she will bring draft regulations before the Communities Committee. I urge her to take on board some of the genuine concerns that have been expressed in the chamber and to ensure that, when we consider the draft regulations, they are as good as they can be.
All of us who believe in a single seller survey and who congratulate the Executive on introducing such a proposal in the first place will examine the draft regulations closely because we all hope that they and the survey will do the job that we want them to do.
I turn to another issue. In last night's Edinburgh Evening News, the minister said:
"In the past five years, we've come a long way in addressing Scotland's housing needs, including improvements in the quality of homes in the social rented sector. Now it is time to focus on the private sector as well."
I have not been concerned about the range of bills that have dealt with housing because we all acknowledge that very little was done about housing during the years of the last Conservative Government—there was very little legislation on the subject during that time. When the Executive came to power, it was right and proper that it should address many of the needs that existed. I congratulate the Executive on doing that. We have supported its legislation.
However, housing in Scotland is now dealt with by a huge amount of legislation in several different acts and the Housing (Scotland) Bill seeks to amend a number of acts that Parliament has passed since 1999. This week the Communities Committee considered a set of antisocial behaviour regulations to do with private landlords. The bill that we have been considering today also deals with private landlords. In my view, it is time for the Executive to take stock, to reflect on where we are on housing and to consider introducing a consolidation housing bill to bring together all the legislation that we have passed since 1999. That would mean that there would be a single piece of legislation to which practitioners—whether local authorities, voluntary organisations or individuals—could go. I am not making a party-political point; I am simply looking at the issue from the perspective of people who need to understand the legislation and how it all works together. The Executive must examine the body of housing legislation that we have—which the SNP largely supports and has welcomed—and produce proposals for a consolidated housing bill. The SNP will support the Executive in that.
Tricia Marwick made some excellent points. I could not help remembering that both she and Linda Fabiani were housing professionals in their past lives. If even they have found the bill complex and technical, members can imagine how I felt last night when I looked through the 23 pages of amendments to decide which of them we should vote for. I found that to be an extremely difficult process.
Like Tricia Marwick, I thank the clerks and the bill team for their help and co-operation during the bill's passage. I also thank everyone who gave evidence, whether oral or written. I appreciate that a great deal because I do not have a background in housing. I thank my colleagues on the Communities Committee; although none of them supported any of my amendments, their opposition was never mean-spirited. As the minister said, the teamwork of cross-party committees is often underestimated or ignored in coverage of Parliament's work.
The bill is interesting in that it covers a range of issues, including housing renewal areas, the repairing standard, new rights for tenants and the repair, improvement and demolition of houses. The main debate today has been on the single seller survey, on which a wide variety of measured, considered and thoughtful views have been expressed. The Scottish Conservatives welcome the main contents of the bill, but it will be no surprise to learn that we do not support the single seller survey, for the reasons that we gave this morning.
Last week's stage 3 consideration of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill was much more controversial and did not result in the type of parliamentary proceedings to which we aspire. Today's proceedings have been much more straightforward and ministerial engagement has been good. However, issues arise in terms of timing and consultation. The stage 3 debate is the normal time for issues of this kind to be raised. During stage 2, 26 pages of amendments were published on the Monday, with members and organisations having little more than a day to comprehend, respond and—in the case of organisations—advise committee members, prior to the committee meeting on the Wednesday morning. I hope that the Procedures Committee will examine that matter, along with other measures. Not only parliamentarians but organisations that are interested in the subject matter of legislation need time to examine amendments.
I echo Tricia Marwick's point that, in our consideration, we were dealing not only with the bill, but with its impact on other legislation. We need to consider the context in which the bill is set. Her point is a good one.
I enjoyed all the pre-legislative consultative meetings. They were most helpful in assisting committee members to gain an understanding of the impact of the eventual legislation.
The Communities Committee is wasting no time following completion of stage 3 of the bill today. Tomorrow, we are back in Parliament to meet planning directors from around Scotland as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny of the forthcoming planning bill. There is no rest for members of the Communities Committee.
I repeat the thanks that committee members have given to the clerks for guiding us through the bill's progress. I think that I came to the committee later in the process than Tricia Marwick did, so I am grateful for the background information that I was given. I also thank my colleague Donald Gorrie for his initial work on the bill, which lasted until the middle of the committee's stage 2 consideration. I also record my thanks to the people who participated in the housing improvement task force, and the consultees and witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. Moreover, I express my appreciation for the way in which the ministers responded to the points that committee members raised. Before and during my time on the committee, ministers have responded to a considerable number of points, both at committee and in the debate today.
I welcome the provisions of the bill. Clearly, the bill is important in addressing a number of persistent problems in the housing market; it addresses them comprehensively. First, I want to thank ministers for lodging amendment 67, which amended section 160. I did not have the opportunity to thank them for that earlier. The amendment focused on whether licensing is required for houses in multiple occupation. As they were originally framed, the provisions in section 160 might have implied that information had to be provided for other more general purposes. That would have been inappropriate, so amendment 67 is helpful in clarifying the position.
Turning to the general terms of the bill, I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that it will confer new and perhaps long-overdue rights on tenants. It is particularly welcome that local authorities can now develop housing renewal areas. It was clearly important to upgrade the tolerable standard, linked to which is the development of the repairing standard. Section 13(1) is an admirable expression of what is required to give reality to the concept. I wish that the local authority powers to require the owner of a house to carry out work had been available years ago. I cannot believe that many members will not have encountered a case involving a derelict or semi-derelict property that is an eyesore or worse, and perhaps prominently located. The maintenance order will further assist the process and is particularly important for tenants. Clearly, the reforms on licensing HMOs will deal with the difficulties that the sector has generated in the past, some of which have featured prominently in newspapers. All of us know of the difficulties that HMOs can cause.
During its passage, the bill has been improved in a number of ways. The notable improvement was the important amendment on energy efficiency. The Executive has to be clear, however, that in rejecting the inclusion of statutory targets in primary legislation, the significance of the strategy is increased. I welcome the fact that the strategy will be forthcoming. I am sure that the Communities Committee will be particularly interested to assess and test it.
The single seller survey is a controversial provision that will require detailed consideration. The regulations will have to address the practical difficulties that were clearly articulated in the debate on the amendments to part 3 of the bill. I commend the bill to Parliament and hope that it will be passed.
Because some speeches were shorter than expected, I can give Karen Whitefield, the Communities Committee convener, four minutes, but other members will get three.
I hope that that means that I will not have to cut anybody out of my thanks, which is the most important part of my speech.
I am pleased to say a few words about the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which is part of the Parliament's on-going commitment to improving housing conditions in Scotland, and puts in place the final piece of the jigsaw to deliver good-quality housing for everyone. It creates a framework that should ensure that people who live in private accommodation—whether as owner-occupiers or private tenants—have the same right to live in good-quality housing that is currently enjoyed by people who live in the social rented sector.
The bill provides home owners with various forms of assistance to improve housing conditions, while placing a reasonable responsibility on them to maintain their homes to a reasonable standard. I welcome that approach. The scheme of assistance will provide far greater flexibility than the current repair grants regime, and will allow better targeting of valuable resources.
I welcome the streamlining of powers for local authorities to compel action to be taken on individual homes, combined with the new housing renewal areas, which will provide a powerful tool in the battle to regenerate some of our most run-down areas. I appreciate the assurances that were given in response to Tricia Marwick's amendment on mandatory grant. The minister's commitment that the matter will not be kicked into the long grass is welcome. I hope that that will reassure organisations such as Ownership Options in Scotland.
Not surprisingly, I am pleased that my amendment on energy efficiency was successful, as I firmly believe that it provides a sensible and realistic way of achieving the aim of improving and monitoring energy efficiency in our homes in the coming years.
Before I conclude, I thank all those who assisted the Communities Committee in its scrutiny of the bill. I thank the committee clerks for their invaluable assistance, in particular Katy Orr for her diligence and commitment. I thank the Executive bill team and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance in providing detailed information and advice, as well as all members of the Communities Committee past and present who contributed to the process.
A number of local authorities hosted pre-legislative meetings, which were invaluable in informing the committee of key issues relating to the bill. I pass on the Communities Committee's thanks to Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Perth and Kinross Council.
Finally, I thank all the key stakeholders—organisations and individuals—from across the housing sector who gave written evidence to the committee. In particular, I highlight the importance of the evidence from Citizens Advice Scotland and Shelter Scotland. They proposed the creation of a rent deposit scheme, which will happen as a result of the bill.
To conclude, I will welcome the passing of the bill, which is a vital part of the on-going commitment of all members to improvement of the housing conditions of all the people of Scotland. I have considerable sympathy with Tricia Marwick's point that we have done enough. I am unsure whether we need a consolidation bill to bring together all housing legislation, but I agree with her that we have done enough and that now we need to reflect on what we have done. I commend the bill to Parliament.
I have been away from the Communities Committee for a wee while, but I was pleased to learn from Tricia Marwick and from today's debate that the spirit that existed before has continued, with the Executive genuinely taking on board the committee's suggestions. To some extent, that is evident in the bill. It is a great thing, and it is how we should be working.
I hope that ministers will take my comments as being constructive, because that is how they are meant—I will get on to the non-constructive ones in a minute. It is great that the housing improvement task force was set up. It was an excellent way to promote the housing legislation that was so desperately needed. However, announcements and legislation are not always guarantees of delivery. I am concerned that we have done so much—admirably—that we are perhaps missing some bits somewhere, that we are not quite on top of the situation and that we are not where we want to be.
I will mention the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 at this point. We had a debate on homelessness recently. I do not think that any of us are convinced that the situation has advanced as we would have liked it to. It is time to take stock of all the housing legislation that we have put through. As Tricia Marwick mentioned, there is other legislation relating to housing. I have some concerns about whether there are contradictions in some pieces of legislation.
I remember that the rest of the Communities Committee was terribly amused when I expressed great excitement at the visit of the Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers to the committee to give evidence. From what its members were saying, I felt that they had concerns about how the Housing (Scotland) Bill related to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, the new building regulations and so on. We need to reconsider that.
You have one minute left.
I have one minute, so I now have to be non-constructive. Although I welcome the assurances the minister has given today about Glasgow Housing Association, I am surprised at the near complacency that exists, according to which we seem to be saying, "Aren't we good, having reacted as we did?" It should not be about having a reaction; the situation should have been sorted before we had the reaction and before the debacle that took place. After all, the GHA is a creation of the Executive, which should have been on top of what was happening.
A huge tranche of funding went to the GHA—that is not to be denied—but can the minister confirm that the money required to allow second-stage transfers of all the stock in Glasgow that was transferred to the GHA was given and that it is still there? I do not know whether the money is still there. I ask the minister to enlighten us. Such transfers can be expensive, and funding needs to be front loaded to create savings later on.
Please wind up now.
In closing, could I also ask yet again whether—
There is not time for "also".
When it comes to future transfers, will the rights of tenants be preserved in respect of community ownership?
All members have begun by thanking the clerks. I, more than any other member, have reason to express thanks to them. My habit of lodging ridiculously complicated amendments at the very last minute shames me. I have stopped doing it now—I promise not to do it again.
I thank my fellow committee members. The process has been more enjoyable than I expected when I first read the bill, which I initially thought quite dry. Some issues of interest came out of it. I thank Donald Gorrie not so much for his work as a former member of the Communities Committee as for pressing repeatedly the point about having adequate time for stage 3 consideration. Today's debate clearly shows that a half day is not enough for that process; it is good that we have had enough time overall today.
As I have said on a number of occasions throughout our consideration of the bill, the Greens support the single seller survey. The opportunity to make the culture change that will come from making the single survey a mandatory scheme rather than a voluntary pilot is one that we should take, and we should be glad that it is in the bill.
Earlier, I mentioned the equality amendment to which Johann Lamont spoke. I am very glad that, in addition to the existing equality strands, discrimination on the grounds of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation will be added to the fit-and-proper-person test that landlords will have to meet.
I regret that some of the amendments that I lodged will not appear in the bill as passed. I believe that management standards offered a natural extension of the regulation of private landlords, which Cathie Craigie addressed through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. They would have given tenants the right to access the relevant panel over any breaches of those standards, rather than oblige them to resort to the courts. That would have been a positive move.
I also regret, of course, the fact that the bill will not contain statutory energy efficiency targets. That is a serious loss to the bill. I am sure that the energy efficiency strategy—when we eventually see it—will place clear targets on the Executive for the energy efficiency improvements that we want to see, but I regret that Parliament did not take the opportunity to impose those targets with a timescale today.
I welcome the Executive's moves to introduce a tenancy deposit scheme, which I think will give a huge sense of safety and security to tenants who feel that their deposits are at risk. I will be pleased to add my support to the bill when we vote on it tonight.
The debate and the deliberations that we have had today will make a real difference to individuals and families throughout Scotland. I am pleased to have been involved in the process to put in place legislation that will enforce better standards in the private housing sector.
I am delighted that the registration scheme for private landlords will come into force next March. Minor amendments to the bill have been coupled with a scheme developed by the Scottish Executive and an expert group with experience in the private housing sector, including private landlords.
The Communities Committee was in the privileged position of considering a package of measures that will make an enormous difference to the communities in my constituency and throughout Scotland such as by ensuring that landlords and their agents are fit and proper people to take on the significant role of a landlord. Thanks to the bill, tenants will be protected from the worst practices of private landlords; private tenants will have many more rights; and local authorities will have a modern package of powers that will help them develop policies for dealing with private sector housing, deal with decline before houses are fit only for demolition, assist owners practically and target resources where they are most needed.
I am delighted to have been part of the process to get us where we are today. Like others, I thank everyone involved, from the task force right through to the committee clerks and the civil servants.
I want people to know about the protection that the bill will give them, the rights that they will have and the responsibilities that some people will have to take on. We will have to broadcast to the nation. The Scottish Executive should take on that responsibility—ministers can fight among themselves about who should have the responsibility. We have to tell people about the bill and their rights and responsibilities. I know that the bill states that local authorities will have to provide information to tenants and private landlords, but we as an Executive should publicise more widely this excellent piece of legislation, coupled with the other housing legislation that has gone before it. We have a modern package that we should be telling people about so that they exercise their rights in law.
I commend the work of the Communities Committee. It is always salutary to see that one is not missed. When I departed from the committee, it seemed to get on very well without me.
The committee has done well. It is clear that there has been good interaction between ministers and the committee, which is not always the case.
On Patrick Harvie's point, although the timetable for this stage 3 was much better, it was still far from perfect, so I would not like him to think that we had it all right.
The bill has dealt well with a number of issues, such as the rent deposit scheme, adaptations, quality of management and energy conservation. We can disagree about the targets. I think they should be in the bill; it is just a question of how we put them in.
The single survey was an issue on which there was strong feeling on both sides. A lot more work has to be done to ensure that the system works as well as possible.
The main problem with housing is that for many years it has not been high enough up the agenda. That is not a party-political point. All parties say that education, health and public safety are perhaps the top three issues. That means that housing can, at the very best, be the fourth most important issue and it is perhaps lower on the list of priorities than that.
Housing has often not received the investment and attention that it should have. Some of the bills that we have passed have brought more attention to it and should improve the quality of houses and the management of them, but we must do a lot more non-legislative work. Ministers have a big task ahead of them to ensure that investment is made in the right way. They must not just pour money in; they must ensure that the quality and quantity of new houses are much better and that existing houses are maintained, because housing is fundamental to our whole way of life.
We have made quite a good start. The bill is good on the whole and I hope that ministers can now devote their attention to investing intelligently in housing and ensuring that local authorities do so. The planning bill that the Executive is to introduce could perhaps include some sections that ensure that there is good provision of housing.
People deserve credit for the bill. The committee gets on very well without me and I urge its members to keep going.
I am grateful to Mary Scanlon for waiving her closing speech. Christine Grahame has five minutes.
I will probably not need five minutes, as much has already been said with which the SNP agrees. I thank Mary Scanlon for reminding me that I am back here tomorrow afternoon, as that had slipped my mind. I am beginning to eat, sleep and dream about the Communities Committee—that is a bad sign.
Improving housing standards is crucial. I support what ministers and committee members have said about the state of Scotland's housing. Donald Gorrie said that housing comes far too low down the priority list and the budget list. In fact, many of our health problems and some of our educational problems and antisocial behaviour problems might evaporate if there were better-quality housing. We know that those who are disadvantaged tend to live in the worst housing. Children do not get to school because they are ill owing to damp housing conditions and so on. I hope that the bill moves the issue up the agenda.
I welcome tenants' rights being strengthened, particularly in the private sector. In many circumstances, tenants were frightened to speak up because they felt vulnerable in their tenancy. I welcome the fact that there will now be a housing panel to deal with issues. I also welcome the minister's commitment to allowing the president to exercise their discretion and to developing mediation in circumstances where it is appropriate. Of course, the repairing standard is essential. As I said, there are far too many damp, cold, ill-supported and ill-maintained properties.
The tenants rent deposit scheme was probably first suggested in the committee by Donald Gorrie, although the rest of us agreed with the suggestion. It is a simple but effective measure. Tenants have frequently found that the landlord has used their rent deposit for fictional repairs, for cleaning carpets or for fresh painting. Tenants would have to go to the small claims court to get that money back, so they give it up, although it is sometimes hundreds of pounds. I support the scheme. The right to adapt for the disabled is essential and it is high on the list of priorities for this Parliament.
The minister referred to the fact that people know more about a can of beans than they do about the house they want to buy—I hope that this does not turn out to be a can of worms. I am open to suggestions and I wait for the guidance to come out. If at times I appear to be difficult, it is only because I want the legislation to work. I am afraid that I am a bit of a doubting Thomas. As I have not seen the draft regulations and I am not convinced that they will operate properly, I have concerns that the Parliament will fall into disrepute for producing legislation that does not work. There are reservations across the chamber—and across parties—about the cost of the purchasers pack, the single seller survey and so on. Those issues have not yet been resolved.
No member has mentioned mobile homes. I regret that there was no amendment that allowed us to debate that issue. The mobile home sector is very important. Many rights have been given to people, but people in mobile homes are sometimes more vulnerable than people in other private sector tenancies because they have few rights. I am glad that they are included in the bill's provisions.
On Glasgow Housing Association, I note carefully the minister's words, which can be founded on if anyone tries to challenge the bill as incompetent under European procurement law. We have the minister's words to tell us that no one can make such a challenge. Linda Fabiani mentioned the funding of the second-stage transfer. Issues have been raised with members about that funding. I seek an assurance that the funding will be in place, so that the people of Glasgow who voted—rightly—for the democratisation of social rented housing can see it happen expeditiously.
I, too, wish to thank the clerks. I am even worse than Patrick Harvie, because I go to the clerks with bits of paper with pencil scribbles and ask them to knit it up and make it into an amendment for me. I thank them for the assistance given to me in that regard.
Because we are now so far ahead of the clock, I can give the minister nine minutes in which to close.
Even I could not bear to listen to myself talking about housing for nine minutes, but I shall do my best.
I welcome the opportunity to sum up not only the debate, but what has been a long journey. I must say that, at some points during consideration of the bill, the kindest thing that I would have said about it was that it was worthy but dull. It sometimes made me feel that I had lost the will to live. There are times when we do things that are difficult and challenging but not necessarily interesting, but that does not mean that they are unimportant. Among all the other jobs that we have to do, we have to get the nitty-gritty right and do the hard work; we have to identify needs and problems and work with people to reach practicable solutions.
I am struck again by the degree to which the Scottish Socialist Party quits the field when it comes to the legislative process. Lodging one small group of amendments that are piggybacked on to another at stage 3 is hardly working to shape legislation that will have a huge impact on local communities. All the headlines in the world will not give us a dry house, a safe place to stay or a caring and safe community in which to live. I recognise that, as the Parliament matures over time, no matter where we disagree, even if it is in committee, the fact that we engage in debate and listen to the people of Scotland about their problems and about what they think the solutions are gives us the opportunity to make a real difference to people's lives.
I say this near the beginning of my speech because I know that members will be anxious to know about it. I confirm that Her Majesty has given consent to the bill and its application to the Crown in Scotland. Having informed members of that, I will move on to some of the issues that have been highlighted around the bill.
It is recognised that a huge amount of work has been done in Parliament on housing. In the early days, we concentrated on the social rented sector, so it was important to move on to the private sector and recognise that some of the issues in the private sector impact on the broader community. It was also important to recognise the changing nature of housing tenure, which I mentioned earlier. Twenty-five years ago, 70 per cent of the population lived in rented houses; now, 64 per cent are owner-occupiers and 6 per cent are in the private rented sector. All those sectors have an important role to play, and whatever sector we live in, it is important that properties are properly maintained. As well as the bill's challenge to the mechanisms of buying and selling, there is the challenge of ensuring that people are aware of their responsibility to maintain their properties and that it is wise to know what one is buying before one buys it. It is difficult to legislate for cultural shift, but it is important to try.
As members have said, the bill is wide ranging and deals with important aspects of the private rented sector, including tenants' rights and responsibilities and landlords' responsibilities. I cannot overstate the importance of the work that has been done—first, through the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and, now, through the bill—to confront landlords with their responsibilities towards their tenants and the communities in which they own properties. No good landlord has anything to fear from the bill, and I am sure that our communities will welcome the fact that those who simply rip off people and take their money for their private interests without delivering anything into their communities will be confronted with registration. It has been said that there is an important link to antisocial behaviour.
On the single survey, Christine Grahame used probably the most elastic definition ever of the word "support", which was interesting.
I recognise that people want legislation that works. There is a general point about legislation and consolidation bills. The Parliament and the Communities Committee, in particular, have an important role in keeping hold of, and keeping attention on, the legislation as matters proceed, and I am happy to be part of that dialogue. We will all be diminished if the legislation that we pass has unfortunate consequences.
I know that the minister has some extra time; therefore, I want to raise the issue that we discussed informally in another place—I will not say where. Will the minister bear in mind the suggestion that I made? It might meet the objections that Mary Scanlon raised this morning and address the concerns about the single seller survey that I have shared with the minister if houses were required to have logbooks, just as cars have logbooks to be passed on when they are bought and sold.
I am happy to consider any options and suggestions that might help people to maintain their homes and understand what they are buying. We know what an MOT is, but there seems to be unease about people getting the equivalent of an MOT for a property before they invest a large quantity of money in it.
I recognise that a lot of work on single surveys has still to be done, and it is important that we seek to build confidence about the single survey's purpose. We do not want to reinforce a market in which people often feel ripped off; we want a stable market that can give people confidence.
On houses in multiple occupation and the work that Pauline McNeill and others have done, people recognise the challenge of the HMO sector for those who live in it and for communities in which HMOs exist. We have made an important advance today in recognising, once again, that people must deal with the consequences of having unlicensed HMOs.
We recognise the role of housing renewal areas in our regeneration policy and the capacity that the policy gives to local authorities to identify areas of importance.
Several proposals were made at stages 1 and 2 that did not make it into the bill. I will not reflect long on Helen Eadie's point about developers failing to complete work on time, but she gave a good example of a problem that is experienced throughout our communities and to which there is no easy solution. The Communities Committee and the Scottish Executive are keen to work with those who address such problems, which can be brought into the political domain but do not always need a legislative solution. Such work provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the things that matter to people.
The issue of timings has been highlighted. I agree that the Parliament and people who are well versed in such matters must consider timings.
Christine Grahame said that it was unfortunate that we could not discuss mobile homes, which was rather ironic as no amendments relating to mobile homes were lodged. All members can lodge amendments, and if Christine Grahame was keen to discuss mobile homes she should have lodged a relevant amendment.
The GHA is obviously an important issue for those of us who fought and argued for stock transfer. Stock transfer was not only about transferring stock to a housing corporation; part of the deal that was written into the GHA's work was that it was about devolution and decentralisation. What was done was done not only because it made people feel better, but because of the redistribution of wealth—a huge investment that ought not to be dismissed—that there would be from UK taxpayers to rent payers in Glasgow. That investment will stick better if those who benefit from it can shape where it goes, and that is at the heart of the work of the Executive and the GHA. We would never give legal advice unless we had confidence in it and had examined it ourselves. It is ironic that some of the people who are engaging in the debate around the GHA and the next stage are the very people who said that GHA stock transfer was privatisation. The two things do not match at all.
In relation to community ownership in other places, we should not take a one-size-fits-all approach. In the Western Isles, the issue concerned geographical disparity; in Glasgow, it was about understanding a culture and using tenant-management co-operatives and housing associations. We will work with local authorities and tenants who are engaged at a local level to find what fits them best, rather than prescribing from the centre what community ownership should look like.
I recognise the points that were made about homelessness. We will, of course, make an announcement about that at a later stage.
Patrick Harvie referred to religious organisations. He will be aware that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 excludes religious orders from registration in order to restrict that exclusion to situations in which the person is committed to a whole way of life. That is the distinction that is made.
We recognise the importance of publicising the bill in order to make it work. We must ensure that people know their rights and responsibilities and that they are aware of the challenges ahead. We can use adverts: I am happy to spearhead that process, by popular acclaim, if people want me to. However, we all have a responsibility, as elected representatives in our local communities, at least to convey to people in our communities the solutions to some of their problems that have been identified in the bill.
I commend the bill to Parliament.