The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10438, in the name of Margaret Burgess, on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
I call Margaret Burgess to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have around 10 minutes, but at this stage we have some time for interventions.
18:01
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I will start by thanking everyone who contributed to the development of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, including members of all parties and stakeholders from across all sectors of housing. I am grateful to those stakeholders for their considered thoughts on the bill, both while the Government was shaping its policy and during the Parliament’s consideration of the bill, and I thank the members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. I was pleased to lodge a number of amendments at stage 2 in response to the committee’s recommendations.
I believe that the broad consensus in favour of the policies in the bill reflects our commitment to working with stakeholders on its provisions. Following its enactment, we will continue that dialogue as we develop draft guidance and proceed with implementation.
The Scottish Government published its strategy for housing, “Homes Fit for the 21st Century”, in February 2011. It included a number of measures that required legislation, and the bill fulfils our commitment. The bill will safeguard the interests of consumers, support improvements to the quality of housing and secure better outcomes for communities. It will introduce greater flexibility for social landlords to manage their houses and, by ending the right to buy, it will provide social landlords with more certainty in planning to invest in those houses as well as in new homes.
The committee and stakeholders had concerns that a three-year notice period was too long for ending the right to buy, and I reduced it to two years. I believe that a two-year period balances the need to stop social housing being sold at a discount as soon as is reasonably possible while ensuring that those who have the right to buy and are able to exercise it will have a reasonable opportunity to do so. A period of two years will give them time to consider their options carefully and to seek reputable financial advice without being rushed into a decision.
Ending the right to buy sits alongside the Government’s target to deliver 30,000 new affordable homes in the five years of this session of Parliament. By 31 March 2014, we had already delivered 19,903 affordable homes, 14,294 of which were for social rent. That represents 71 per cent of our social rent target. We are therefore on track to meet the 30,000 target, and we have now committed £1.7 billion to delivering those vital homes in the five years of the current session of Parliament. Yesterday, the First Minister announced that we had reached a spend of £1 billion, which is a substantial investment in housing. That spend is not only an investment in housing; it sustains 8,000 jobs each year.
The minister refers to the £1 billion spend that the First Minister announced yesterday. Do you recognise that there has been a 29 per cent cut in the housing budget, as a result of which we have seen the lowest number of completions since 1947? The effect of that is apparent in our constituencies, where there are growing waiting lists. That is the effect that the cuts in the budget are having.
The Scottish Government is investing more and is building more social houses than any previous Administration in the Parliament—more council houses and more houses by registered social landlords. That is a fact; it cannot be disputed. [Interruption.] We are doing that at the same time as we are investing in affordable houses in mid-market rent—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
We are committed to housing in this country. There are more houses per head of population being built in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. We are building the houses—[Interruption.]—no matter what James Kelly is trying to say. We are outperforming any other place in the UK in building houses.
The private rented sector has grown significantly over the past 10 years. That is why the Government consulted on and published the first private rented sector strategy for Scotland. The bill introduces measures that will strengthen the regulation of that sector. It gives local authorities increased powers to tackle poor conditions through third-party reporting to the private rented housing tribunal and the power to inspect a property. It gives local authorities new discretionary powers to tackle disrepair in the owner-occupied sector. It establishes a housing tribunal to deal with private rented sector cases.
What does the bill offer to tenants in the private sector who are facing rent rises of nearly 20 per cent? What is your answer to those tenants, minister?
Members should remember to speak through the chair, please.
The Government is absolutely committed to those who rent in the private sector. We introduced the first private sector strategy for Scotland. We are ensuring that the landlord registration scheme is being enforced. We will also regulate the letting agency industry, ensuring that tenants get a fair deal. We are already examining the tenancy regime, and I will discuss that later in my speech. We were considering that long before James Kelly ever talked about it.
All those measures were developed through consultation with stakeholders. I am clear that they will help to ensure that there are good standards across the private rented sector. There is broad consensus for the approach to regulating letting agents, and I believe that the framework has been strengthened during the scrutiny of the bill.
The Scottish Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders and others to develop the code of practice and to ensure that it delivers a robust regime. I hope that that answers Patrick Harvie’s earlier point: when we are considering the code of practice, it will be a very wide consultation, and not just with the letting agency industry. Members from all parties have been keen to understand what the code will cover, so it is right that it should come back to Parliament for consideration and agreement before being implemented.
Measures to improve standards in the sector have been strongly supported. The new requirements on landlords to have regular electrical safety checks and to install carbon monoxide detectors—provisions that were introduced by Bob Doris and Jim Eadie—have been welcomed by landlord and tenant organisations alike.
There are those in the chamber who have been critical, saying that the bill does not go far enough and that it should include measures on energy efficiency, increasing security of tenure and capping rent increases. The Scottish Government is pursuing work to develop energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector and will consult on them in 2015. The consultation will invite views on what those standards should be, as well as on the timescale for introducing the standards. It is right that we take time to work with stakeholders to identify the right proposals and to consult fully on them.
The independent private tenancy review group published its report last month. I have accepted its recommendation for a new single private tenancy that would cover all future lets in the sector. We will develop detailed proposals for that, and we will consult on them in the autumn. Those measures deal with issues that were identified by the private rented sector strategy group and the Government’s consultation on its draft strategy. That group, which was made up of stakeholders from across the sector, did not identify issues with rent levels or rent increases.
James Kelly’s proposals to cap rent increases would require major legislative change. Any such change should be based on a clear understanding of the nature and scale of the problem and of what the options are for addressing it, so that we can be sure that it has a positive outcome and that it avoids any unintended consequences. That should be done through discussion, consultation and careful drafting of provisions if required, not by an amendment that gives ministers very broad powers and sets unrealistic timescales for introduction. We will be looking at the issue in our consultation on the tenancy regime in the autumn.
A crucial factor in driving up rents in the private rented sector is limited supply. The Government is working with a range of partners to deliver homes for mid-market rent through initiatives such as the national housing trust, which is on track to deliver more than 2,000 much-needed new homes in communities across Scotland. We are also supporting Homes for Scotland in its work to attract new institutional investment into the sector, by funding a dedicated Scottish private rented sector champion who will be tasked with bringing developers and potential funders together to deliver new high-quality homes in the sector.
I am not complacent. As I said earlier during the consideration of amendments, the consultation on a new single tenancy will also explore issues relating to rent levels in the private sector.
The bill also introduces new rights for those living in mobile homes, many of whom are elderly people who live permanently on sites across Scotland, and they will benefit from the provisions that update legislation dating from the 1960s. The measures will ensure that site owners are fit and proper persons and will strengthen local authority licensing powers so that they can target those who are not complying with the law.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill brings together a wide-ranging package of measures that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee concluded will make improvements across the social, private rented and owner-occupied sectors. The measures were developed in consultation with stakeholders and have been strengthened by the scrutiny of the Parliament, and I commend them to members.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Mary Fee, to be followed by Alex Johnstone. I point out at this stage that we have a little time in hand, so I will be as flexible as I can.
18:12
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and I confirm that Scottish Labour members support the aims of the bill and welcome many of the measures that it brings to the housing sector.
There can be no denying that housing in Scotland faces some significant and complex challenges, and I am sure that everyone in the chamber will agree that we want a strong and growing housing sector. Although we support the principles of the bill, we feel that it is a missed opportunity, and I will expand on that as I progress.
This is the eighth year in which the current Administration has been in control of Scotland’s housing sector, and we are now about to pass its second housing bill. In the past eight years, the Scottish Government has failed to make housing a priority. More than 150,000 people are on waiting lists in Scotland, many of them in houses that are unsuitably small or in poor condition, and many in the private rented sector are paying far more than they can afford.
House building is at its lowest level since the end of world war two, with fewer than 15,000 homes completed in the past few years. However, we can hardly be shocked at that figure, as the capital housing budget was cut by 29 per cent between 2008-09 and 2011-12. Audit Scotland has estimated that Scotland will need 500,000 new homes over the next 25 years to meet demand. In the period from 2001 to 2006, there were 144,749 home completions under Labour, with a further 112,319 home completions between 2007 and 2012 under the Scottish National Party. It can be easy for both sides to assign blame, but it does not change the fact that not enough houses have been built.
When will Mary Fee point out that the decline has been due to a decline in the private house building sector but not in the public sector?
There is a decline across housing in general in Scotland. I remind the member that housing is devolved and that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility. The budget has been cut and we are facing a shortfall of 160,000 homes. I have carefully read the Government’s white paper and I would be grateful if a member could point out to me on which page it tells us how much more the Scottish Government will invest in housing to make it right and better when we are independent. There is no answer from any member on that.
It is not relevant.
It is relevant.
Will the member give way?
Can I just make a little progress?
When key stakeholders across the sector are saying that housing in Scotland is in crisis, we must listen to them. [Interruption.]
Ms Baillie and Ms Sturgeon, you are at it again.
I would like to progress.
One minute, Ms Fee. Ms Baillie and Ms Sturgeon, you are at it again. Will the two of you just behave yourselves?
I call Mary Fee.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill was an opportunity to take control of this crisis and start tackling the challenges that we face. We would have liked to have seen more progressive parts included in the bill and are disappointed that our proposed amendments to create sustainable committees, cap yearly rent rises and ensure security for tenants in the private rented sector did not gain support.
The abolition of the right to buy has been long overdue and needed to protect social housing, and we welcome the measure in the bill. However, we would have preferred, in line with the recommendation of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and the majority of those who gave evidence to it, for the right to buy to be abolished one year, rather than two years, from the date of royal assent.
Protecting social housing does not stop at ending the right to buy. Ensuring that everyone has a right to social housing that is suitable for their needs remains a priority for Scottish Labour. That is why we wanted the amendment on sustainable communities. With such an approach, we can consider sustainability by matching tenants to homes and, we hope, build long-lasting communities. Living in sustainable communities benefits everyone. Our local authorities and housing associations, working with community groups, know best what their communities need. Working to make sure that people can sustain their tenancy and tackle antisocial behaviour is a priority for Labour.
Part 3 of the bill, on the transfer of power to the first-tier tribunal, is a practical move. Sheriff courts across Scotland are struggling to support criminal justice proceedings, and it is a step in the right direction to take housing-related issues out of those courts. However, careful monitoring is required to ensure that tribunals remain fair and representative.
On the private rented sector, James Kelly proposed amendments on rent reviews and increases in tenancy lengths that would have improved the bill. Indeed, the SNP’s expert working group on welfare said in relation to the private rented sector:
“This means looking at the nature of tenancies, for example, giving tenants in the private sector longer-term tenancies than generally exist at present, as well as building into tenancy agreements that rents should increase in line with inflation but not above it”.
Another feature of the bill is the registration of letting agents. We need a strong, well-regulated private rented sector with meaningful sanctions that give confidence and security to both tenants and landlords. I am pleased that the minister has recognised the merit of my stage 2 amendments on short Scottish secure tenancies, and I welcome her amendment that ensures that tenants will get more information on why they are being transferred to a Scottish secure tenancy, what action will be taken and the right of appeal.
At stages 1 and 2, concerns were raised regarding mobile home site owners adding further charges for utilities. Again the minister took on board my proposed amendment on that issue and has amended the bill with her amendment.
I can confirm that Scottish Labour will support the passing of the bill. As I mentioned earlier, the housing sector in Scotland faces some complex and difficult challenges going forward. It is disheartening that the bill does not contain any new or radical proposals, but that highlights the lack of vision on housing from the Scottish Government.
Scottish Labour’s vision would be for a strong and vibrant housing sector. We would engage with key stakeholders across Scotland to build a policy that makes a real difference, with a long-term strategy for rural and urban housing. We would seek to regenerate our town centres and to tackle the empty properties that affect all of Scotland. We would be innovative and have a long-term housing action plan that would tackle Scotland’s housing crisis head on.
18:19
It has been an exciting afternoon. I can say that because sitting on the front benches dealing with the amendments allows the time to pass rather more quickly than it does for the poor unfortunates who find themselves sitting at the back trying to do paperwork and watching the clock. It has been an exciting day. I have made a spirited defence of the negative procedure, which puts me in a minority in the Parliament. I also managed to lead my party into voting against an amendment that was consequential to one that we had agreed to earlier in the proceedings. It has been an eventful day so far. By the way, Presiding Officer, that was a mistake, but these things happen.
In this debate on the motion that the bill be passed, I will cover a number of key issues. The bill has some things that are of value. Commendable work is being done to reach a position in which those who work in the private rented sector and who are reputable can succeed in providing housing for those who need it. The work that the Government is doing with the private sector representative organisations—the landlords organisations—is commendable.
The bill is the first attempt to bring letting agents into line. Landlords and letting agents have an enormous amount to contribute to housing in Scotland in the long term. By bringing them into the regulatory structure, we can ensure that, as I have said before, all landlords do what the good landlords have been doing for ages. That is important.
In Scotland, our housing structure is creaking at the seams. I know that I have been accused of defending some of the issues that might have caused that. However, there is hope in the discussion that we have had today. I believe that our obsession with social housing masks a fault or flaw in the market in Scotland. We seem to take the view that government responsibility at local and national level is to deal with those who are in the greatest need through the provision of social housing. Implicit in that is the idea that everyone else can look after themselves, but I do not believe that that is the case. We need to think long and hard about the shape of the Scottish housing market. That is why I was particularly delighted to hear the minister talk in her opening remarks about the Government making efforts to bring together developers and investors so that they can go on and build affordable houses in Scotland.
The greatest pressure on social housing today comes from the fact that there is no process by which those who are in it can move up the ladder. We can provide the next rung on the ladder by taking the investment opportunities that I know exist to build affordable housing for mid-market rent in large quantities. The reason why there is such demand in the private rented sector is our failure to provide an alternative in the centre of the housing market. What I heard from the minister suggested that the Government might put more effort into achieving what can be achieved through private or institutional investment and through the developers that are in a position to build homes and relieve the pressure in the market.
Another positive element of the bill is the move to first-tier tribunals in dispute resolution. From the evidence on the bill, it was obvious that there is an appetite for that. In fact, those who saw the opportunities that are offered by introducing that for the private rented sector want to extend it to the social rented sector. The minister has spoken about that in previous debates. We can take heart from the fact that the Government’s view is that, if the tribunals are a success in their proposed form, a future opportunity will be taken to consider extending their range so that we make more effective use of their powers.
There are, however, things that I wanted to see in the bill that are not in it. The change to the allocations policy that would have allowed age to be taken into account in allocations was in the original draft of the bill but was removed by the minister at stage 2. I tried to put it back in today, but my amendment was rejected. We have problems in our allocations policy that we need to address, and I saw taking age into account as a criterion as a small first step towards dealing with some of those problems. The Government’s failure to press ahead with the recommendations of its consultation in that area is, I believe, a weakness in the bill.
Another issue that was addressed in the original consultation draft but which never saw the light of day when the bill was published is the concept of starter or initial tenancies. At stage 2, I lodged a detailed amendment on the subject that was rejected. I would have liked something in the bill that would have given us a specific tenancy to be granted to those who have the greatest difficulties and required those who supply tenancies to provide the necessary support to individuals.
Can you bring your remarks to a close?
Sorry—I thought that I was still in time, Presiding Officer. I will bring my speech to a close.
My key point relates to the right to buy. I understand that I will have the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of my party, so I will leave that part of my speech until later.
Thank you, Mr Johnstone. I appreciate your efforts.
We move to the open debate. At the moment, I can offer members five minutes each instead of four minutes.
18:27
I am pleased to take part in the stage 3 debate on the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
In the stage 1 debate, I welcomed the general principles of the bill, particularly the abolition of the right to buy, which will result in more than 15,000 homes in the social rented sector being retained over the coming decade. We must remember that the right to buy led to a significant reduction in the number of houses that are available for rent. Over the years, since it was introduced, the right to buy has greatly diminished the amount of housing stock of good quality that is available for rent to families throughout Scotland. We have a duty to provide homes of good quality for all families, including those who cannot afford to buy. The abolition of the right to buy will ensure that better properties in the more desirable areas will no longer be sold off, reducing the number of homes that are available for social rent. The abolition of the right to buy is long overdue, which is why it has been widely welcomed across Scotland. It will enhance social housing and protect the investment that is made in it.
I want to nail the lie that the Government’s record is anything other than a good one. The Government is outperforming the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration’s record on council house building. Since 2007-08, 4,618 new council homes have been completed, compared with only six under the previous Administration. In fairness to James Kelly, whenever the issue has been raised in the chamber, he has always pointed to the fact that that statistic ignores the number of housing association homes that were completed. However, the SNP Government’s record in that area is also impressive. Since 2007-08, 30,292 housing association homes have been completed, which represents a rise of 12 per cent on the 27,000 homes that were completed under the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration.
The bill has been greatly enhanced and strengthened by the improvements that have been made during its passage through Parliament. In a number of key areas, the Government has worked with stakeholders and MSPs from across the chamber to strengthen the bill. The Minister for Housing and Welfare, Margaret Burgess, deserves credit for the positive way in which she has entered into constructive dialogue on a range of issues. She has been willing to listen to and reflect on the arguments that have been presented to her, and the bill is better as a consequence of the approach that she has taken.
I am particularly grateful to the minister for meeting me and my colleague Alex Rowley to discuss temporary accommodation for homeless families. We were both concerned as a result of representations that we received from Shelter Scotland that, although the number of homeless families being placed in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation had reduced significantly since changes to legislation were introduced in 2004, a number of families, particularly pregnant women and children, were still being placed by some local authorities—by no means all—in accommodation that, to be frank, was not suitable for human habitation and was unacceptable in a civilised society.
The outcome of our discussions is that the Government will amend the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2004 to include a reference to accommodation being wind and watertight. The amended order will provide further clarity to local councils regarding the provision of temporary accommodation. All people, regardless of what type of accommodation they find themselves in, have a right to enjoy their lives in comfort, safety and dignity. I look forward to the amended order coming into force by the end of the year to achieve that. I very much welcome the progress that has been made on that during the bill’s passage. I am grateful to Alex Rowley for his support and to Shelter Scotland for its expertise on the issue.
I was also grateful for the opportunity to meet the minister along with Sarah Boyack to discuss a number of issues on behalf of the City of Edinburgh Council. As a result of that meeting, the Government introduced further changes in relation to the recovery of costs under a repayment charge that will allow local authorities to determine a repayment period of between five and 30 years and provide a right of appeal for any person who is aggrieved by the period of the charge.
The final area on which progress has been made is making carbon monoxide detectors mandatory in the private rented sector. Again, I am pleased to have worked with Shelter Scotland to bring about that change and I am glad that the Parliament has acted to address the issue so that all private tenants can feel safe from the threat of that so-called silent killer.
18:32
In the stage 1 debate, I welcomed much of the bill and said that the problem was the issues that were missing from it. That is still the situation at the end of stage 3. In between, of course, some amendments have been accepted. I welcome that, but I regret that several that would have been useful have been rejected today.
I came at the bill from two points of view: first, because of the problems on housing that constituents regularly bring to me and, secondly, because of the issues that the City of Edinburgh Council highlighted. Jim Eadie referred to the latter in his speech.
In the stage 1 debate, Jim Eadie and I raised some of the issues that the Labour-SNP council in Edinburgh had brought to our attention. Although it is true that the council will be pleased that there has been some flexibility on the 30-year repayment period, it is fair to say that it will be disappointed that none of the other proposals that it made has been accepted. The Government rejected today the amendment on maintenance plans, which was a reasonable proposal by Sarah Boyack, modifying the original position. Of course, all the amendments that I lodged, which were all based on the council’s submission, were also rejected. The City of Edinburgh Council will not be pleased that the main amendments that it highlighted for the bill have not been progressed.
Over and above that, I came at the bill from the point of view of constituents. I am sure that all members deal with housing issues regularly at their surgeries, so I will pick up on four of the issues that I am regularly asked about.
Supply is obvious. We all know about issues with housing supply. I do not object to the abolition of the right to buy, but there is a danger that we will overstate its effect on housing supply. It is not the most important measure that can be taken to improve the supply of housing in the social rented sector, but I certainly do not object to it, although it would have been better to accept the amendment that Mary Fee moved at stage 2 to reduce the notice period for abolition to one year.
The more significant issue with regard to supply concerns the housing association grant and the declining trajectory of the number of social rented houses that are being built. A lot of the half-respectable figures that are presented to us in that respect are based on the higher HAG levels in the earlier years of the SNP Administration. Given the current HAG levels, we will have increasing difficulties in keeping up the number of social rented homes. Nicola Sturgeon changed the levels slightly last summer, but the housing associations all tell us that there is still a problem.
The second problem that constituents bring to me—and, I am sure, to every other member—is antisocial behaviour. I hope that the short SST will help in that respect, but Mary Fee was quite right to lodge an amendment, which was agreed to in committee, to require more information on all the safeguards that are needed.
The number of tenants who cause problems is obviously very small, but we all have examples in which massive problems are caused by a very small number of people. I welcome the increased availability of the short SST, which I hope will make it easier to evict the very small number of people who unfortunately require to be evicted because of their behaviour.
With regard to tackling antisocial behaviour, it would have been better if Drew Smith’s amendment on holiday lets had been accepted. In general, we could do more to beef up the landlord registration system in order to get more effective action from landlords in the private sector.
In general, it is on the private sector that there are the most parts missing from the bill. I mentioned briefly the issue of repairs. Even Alex Johnstone and his colleagues almost supported my amendment on common repairs, and I was very encouraged by that, although they did not press the right button in the end. Nevertheless, he and his colleagues recognised that—as people bring to our attention all the time—there is a big problem with regard to repairs, so it is a pity that my amendment was not accepted.
The provision for electrical safety checks is a step forward, but what will happen with all the existing tenancies? I do not know why the minister did not accept my amendment on that point.
My time is nearly up, but I highlight, as one of the most important amendments—possibly the most important—that was lodged at stage 3: James Kelly’s amendment on capping rent rises. Again, the minister used the standard response of, “Oh well, it’s very complicated and we would need to do more work.”
You need to bring your remarks to a close, Mr Chisholm.
James Kelly’s amendment would have required the introduction of regulations, and the work could have been done in the context of those regulations. It is deeply regrettable that his proposal—which was also a proposal of the SNP’s expert working group on welfare—was not accepted.
18:37
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this evening’s debate. The bill is important, and I hope that it will begin to make the private rented sector more fit for purpose. The sector has experienced extraordinary growth in the past decade, and more than 300,000 households are now renting privately. That is little wonder when one considers that, since March 2007, more than 11,000 properties have been lost from social renting housing stock and the ever-increasing length of waiting lists has driven people towards the private sector.
It is long since time that we ensured that standards in the sector were improved, and I reiterate my support for the regulation of letting agents; the introduction of a tribunal system; the inclusion of basic safety measures; and the scrapping of the right to buy. It is for those reasons that I and the Liberal Democrats will vote for the bill later on.
Since I last had an opportunity to debate the policy measures in the Government’s bill at stage 1, a series of interesting amendments has come to the fore. Many of those amendments genuinely enhance the package of measures that the Government has laid before the Parliament, and I am pleased to see that some—although not all—of them are included in the final bill on which we will vote later.
I was disappointed when my amendments were defeated at stage 2, in particular my amendment that sought to clarify the position regarding legal representation for tenants participating in the new tribunal process. I felt that it was important to reintroduce the amendment at stage 3, but—as I said earlier—I am satisfied, after discussions on the issue with the minister and Homeless Action Scotland, and following the minister’s positive words earlier in today’s proceedings, that the matter is now in hand and that a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. I am grateful to the minister for her words in that regard.
My inbox, like those of many of my colleagues, has been inundated in the past week—and even during today’s debate—with emails from landlords. I understand their concerns, and there is no doubt that the majority of landlords are diligent, fair and provide a good level of service. However, there is also no doubt that a minority operate in a predatory fashion and prey upon the vulnerability of some tenants. We need to weed those people out of the sector, and I appreciate the fact that letting associations agree with that.
I had some sympathy with the proposal to introduce more secure tenancies. Had amendment 50 been agreed to, a landlord would have retained the ability to terminate a tenancy after the first six months for antisocial behaviour, the accrual of rent arrears or if the landlord had planned to change the use of the property or even use it for his or her own living accommodation. The amendment would have afforded the tenant two months’ notice to vacate a property, and I believe that to be a fair compromise, given the upheaval and inconvenience caused by such an event.
Although I appreciate that many tenants in the private rented sector are struggling with unreasonably high rent increases, I could not support amendment 49, which related to rent control. The new duty that was set out in the amendment was so significant that it could not have been reasonably introduced without the sector having the opportunity to comment on it first or, for that matter, without full parliamentary scrutiny. That said, I reiterate that some people are struggling with exorbitant rent increases. The Minister for Housing and Welfare must reflect upon that and consider how she can assist with that in the future.
An important amendment that I did not lodge at stage 2 because it was not supported by any other party related to the fact that local authorities do not always use referrals under section 5 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 for homeless families or individuals. I wonder whether the minister will at least keep an eye on that matter.
We had the usual SNP rhetoric about its building more houses than we built but, as Mary Fee has already pointed out, completions of social rented houses are at a lifetime low. We also heard again the change in language with regard to the 6,000—
You must bring your remarks to a close, Mr Hume.
The 6,000 socially rented houses that were promised have now become 6,000 affordable houses, and as we all know, there is quite a difference in that respect.
I welcome the passage of the bill, although I still believe—
I am sorry, Mr Hume—your time is up.
18:42
I feel honoured to have played a part in taking the bill through Parliament, and I look forward to its being passed at decision time.
For me—and, I am sure, for many in the Parliament and in wider Scottish society—this is landmark legislation. Abolishing the right to buy social rented housing will have a very positive effect on all those involved in the sector. It will protect and enhance social housing, and it will protect the public investment that has been made in such housing over generations.
Since the right to buy was introduced, around 455,000 properties have been taken out of the social rented sector, and that continual depletion of social housing stock is unsustainable in the face of continued high levels of need for social housing in Scotland. As a representative from Shelter has said, the right to buy is like trying to fill a sink without the plug in. Moreover, David Bookbinder of the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland told the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee:
“The key benefit is supply. ... The certainty that abolishing right to buy will give local authorities, landlord local authorities and housing associations with regard to their strategic and business planning roles—they will know how much rental income they will have and how much stock they can use for allocations and homelessness—will be a huge benefit.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 22 January 2014; c 2429.]
Removing the right to buy will give social landlords greater confidence to build new homes, and 15,500 social rented houses will be safeguarded for future generations.
As we know, many right-to-buy properties end up in the private rented sector, where the rents are higher and higher benefit claims can be made.
The protection of the social rented stock, together with the Government’s commitment to build new social housing, is welcomed by the sector. Some 30,292 housing association homes have been completed since 2007-08, which is a rise of 7 per cent on the previous seven years, and 1,324 council houses were completed in 2013-14 alone. That is a far cry from the six that were built in the last four years of the Labour-Lib Dem Administration.
Abolition of the right to buy and other aspects of the bill will increase the flexibility that social landlords have when they allocate homes to allow them to better respond to their communities’ needs and make better use of affordable rented housing.
I turn to the legislation on mobile homes. There are a number of mobile homes in my constituency and I welcome the strengthening of the protection for those who live in them. People in my area who contacted me about the legislation seemed to be content with the way in which their site was run, but I was really surprised by how little they knew about the existence of organisations that represent those who live in park homes. Many sites are well run, but there is definitive evidence of unscrupulous landlords. Giving local authorities more powers in that area is therefore very welcome. I look forward to seeing the new model standards for mobile home sites reflecting up-to-date best practice.
I cannot conclude without commenting on Labour members’ cynical stance on the bill. Mary Fee said that the abolition of the right to buy was long overdue. Labour had eight years to abolish it, but it did not do so.
James Kelly said that he spoke about rents in one of Labour’s debates in December. I cannot recall that, but why did he not therefore support Patrick Harvie’s amendment, which specifically called for rent controls? Labour members on the committee did not ask any questions of witnesses or stakeholders with whom the committee engaged during its consideration regarding rent controls.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Mr Kelly, but the member is in her last 30 seconds.
Labour members had to wait until Ed Miliband gave them their lead from down south. Their conflation of private and public house building is typical of them, but they are not believed by the sector or, indeed, the public, who are much more savvy than Labour gives them credit for.
You need to end, Ms Watt.
Yes. Alex Johnstone mentioned the Government’s initiatives in ensuring that the private sector and the public sector get together to build more houses.
I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.
18:47
I thank the minister for meeting Jim Eadie, Shelter and me, and for the positive response that we got.
I will certainly support the bill because, as Sarah Boyack and others have said, there are a number of positive measures in it, although it must be said that it would be a fairly dire situation if a housing bill that did not address some of the concerns that are out there was brought forward at this stage.
I think that it is fair to say that the bill will not be judged as something that grasped the issues of the time; nor will it be remembered for trying to tackle the many problems out there. It lacks that level of ambition. I say to Margaret Burgess that the next Labour Government that is elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2016 will cap rent increases, because that is the right thing to do. Hiding behind technicalities is not an excuse for not doing the right thing.
I remember the poverty trap in the 1980s and the 1990s and the number of people who were caught in it and therefore unable to progress, take employment and move forward. The excessive rents in the private sector now are creating that poverty trap again and holding many people back from getting into work and taking jobs that are not necessarily the best paid.
We can talk about the facts. Mary Fee mentioned the Audit Scotland report “Housing in Scotland.” The report says that one of the major challenges is a 29 per cent real-terms cut in the capital housing budget from 2008-09 to 2011-12. It also acknowledges that the number of new homes in the private sector has more than halved in recent years, despite the pressures of an ageing population.
The fact is that there are fewer affordable homes available for rent now than there were in 2008, 2010 or 2011. As Jim Hume said, we can have a bun fight over who built more houses, but to the people who come to my surgeries and the families who are homeless, it does not matter who built what. The fact is that we have a major housing crisis in every community the length and the breadth of the country but we are not making any radical proposals that would begin to tackle that. Therefore, I intend to work with Shelter over the next year or so to highlight why its policy to build 10,000 houses a year is the right one to begin to tackle the issues that are out there.
The private sector cannot solve the housing crisis; it is a flawed strategy that believes that the private rented market can tackle the housing crisis. I am not ideologically driven by public over private, but in this particular sector we need to build council and housing association housing now and at a much faster rate.
There are many families and people who are trapped in housing that is not suitable for them. Some families’ houses are massively overcrowded. I would have thought that every MSP must have a massive housing caseload and be engaged with their local authorities.
I also make the point to the minister that a lot of the housing that is being built up and down the country is being built by councils. Those councils have been quite innovative in working with tenants to raise money to build houses, so when we are giving credit for the houses that are being built, that credit should go to the local authorities.
You need to wind up, Mr Rowley.
I will conclude, Presiding Officer, by saying that, while I support the bill, we have a housing crisis that the bill does not begin to address. That is what we need to do.
18:53
The private rented sector is not just a market; a tenancy agreement is not just a transaction. A home that is available for rent is not just an investment: it is someone’s home; it is where they live. That is its primary function in public policy terms—it is not an investment; it is a home.
If the private rented sector wants to continue to grow and manage more of our country’s housing stock, it must recognise that meeting someone’s housing need is not just about giving them the keys. It is a much more complex job than that. There are landlords and letting agents who get that and who understand that their responsibility to a tenant is not just to give them the keys and rake in the cash; rather, their responsibility goes much deeper than that.
It may be that we should be seeking to support and cultivate social enterprise to get involved in the private rented sector—the people and organisations who understand more than just a financial bottom line. It may be that we should be supporting the landlords and letting agents who understand the issues, but there are many—I suggest that this applies to most of them—who do not, who regard their property merely as an investment and who are not interested in meeting someone’s housing need, but simply in gaining the profit from that investment.
If we continue to see the private rented sector growing and if, at the same time, economic recovery leads again to a period of rising house prices and property values, then we are sowing the seeds of greater inequality. In the long run, people will continue to spend their money on rent that makes somebody else wealthier, and we will see rising inequality.
We need to recognise our responsibility to regulate the private rented sector for the public good, particularly at a time when so many—a growing proportion of our population—do not just spend a year or two in the private rented sector while they are a student or while they are moving from one job to another. There is an increasing proportion of people who have no other choice, for whom we have made no social housing or not enough social housing available, and for whom we have allowed economic conditions to make owner-occupation unaffordable.
There is more to welcome in the bill than the abolition of the right to buy, but I will say a few words about that. It is true that the abolition of the right to buy will deliver maximum benefit only in the context of increased investment in supply. However, the supply of social housing is not just about how much money the Scottish Government is spending from its budget each year. That is a big part of it, but it is not the whole of it. I encourage members and ministers who work on housing issues to look again at what the land reform review group had to say about the affordability and availability of land. That is crucial if we want to improve the affordability and availability of housing, and if we want to make it easier for developers, whether they are in the private sector or the social rented sector, to build more housing of the type that is needed. I encourage members to take a look at that.
There are three areas in which there is work to do and to which the Government has committed. There is security of tenure. There is also a code of practice for letting agents and, again, I welcome the clear and fixed timescale that has been committed to on that. There is also energy efficiency. There is work to do within the current term of the Scottish Parliament and opportunities to influence those pieces of work to ensure that they meet the public good, and pressure will be needed. I will continue to advocate for that pressure, and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee will also have a role to play.
I have welcomed the opportunity to engage with that committee in recent weeks and months. I know that the political atmosphere is charged right now but, frankly, I was dismayed at the level of hostility on display between the two larger parties in that committee. The committee must understand that it has a responsibility to hold the Government to account, not to go in to bat for ministers. Large parties in Opposition and Government will have the responsibility to come together once our political atmosphere is less charged in a few months’ time, and find common ground on which they can work together for the common good.
18:57
All of us in the chamber come from a diverse range of backgrounds and arrive here with political priorities that differ greatly. Our responsibility is to serve those who put us here and to serve the Scottish people as a whole.
Political principles often mean that individuals or parties in the Parliament will hold to a philosophy that sets us out on a limb. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the Conservative Party’s steadfast support for the right to buy.
Many people in Scotland aspire to own property and we have a responsibility to understand and support that where appropriate. We all agree that a house is not just a house, but a home; Patrick Harvie said that just a few moments ago. It is, however, appropriate for Scots to aspire to own the home that they live in and we should be willing to support that.
Many of us are lucky enough to be in a position to be homeowners through choice. We are able to participate in the market and use the resources that are available to us to buy our homes and live in them. That is a privilege and we should all consider ourselves lucky to have it. Should it be a privilege for only the most wealthy in our communities? We should aspire to give the right to own their home to everyone in society who is willing to make the necessary sacrifice to achieve that objective.
This Government appears to understand that. It has gone some way towards introducing shared equity schemes and other opportunities that will allow people to become home owners. However, the problem is that, as yet, we have failed to find an alternative way to enable that objective to be achieved on the scale of the right to buy.
Many people who used the first right to buy were long-term tenants. As we have seen from the figures that are available from last year, the vast majority of those who continue to seek to exercise their right to buy are, themselves, long-term tenants. By ending the right to buy, we free up very few houses, and we end the opportunity for many to become home owners.
It is an essential part of our responsibility to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to enable people to aspire to property ownership. The Minister for Housing and Welfare has, in recent speeches in the chamber, talked about the need to ensure that people can accrue wealth. For many, the only opportunity to accrue wealth in a modern society is to borrow against the value of a house and then pay it up over time.
We need to make mortgages more affordable and make the opportunity to buy homes more available to those on lower incomes.
The Conservative Party, through its support for the right to buy, has changed the dynamic of Scottish housing. It has turned us into a country in which we are home owners, not simply home renters. It has turned us into a country in which people aspire to improve themselves.
There is much that is good in the bill—although less than there was when it was published at stage 1. However, as a result of this Government’s decision to use the bill to end the right to buy, the Conservatives will vote against it at decision time.
19:02
In her initial remarks, the Labour Party’s Mary Fee said that we will be supporting the bill at decision time, in recognition of the fact that some of the issues that are addressed in the bill will improve the housing sector and help us to make progress. However, Mary Fee and Alex Rowley also gave an accurate portrayal of some of the issues that are faced in housing in Scotland: the pressures that exist in relation to supply, the consequences of that in terms of a lack of affordable housing, and the impact of the growth of the private sector on rent levels that people are having to endure. There are wider issues that need to be addressed, aside from the issues with which the bill deals.
I was a bit disappointed by the process around the passage of the bill. I feel that Labour interacted quite positively with the bill. We lodged an awful lot of amendments that were, on the whole, rejected. Listening to the minister during the course of the debate, I was struck by the fact that we have a plethora of consultations and working groups. The minister herself said that the Government’s housing strategy was launched in February 2011, which means that it has taken three years for the bill to come to fruition. We seem to have a lot of talking shops, but what people really need on the ground is action and practical support.
The bill’s headline issue, which the Government wants to promote, is abolition of the right to buy. We have supported that; it is the right thing to do. However, I do not think that abolishing the right to buy will have the grand consequences that the Government envisages. The figure that Maureen Watt quoted—15,500 social rented houses being safeguarded over 10 years—is welcome, but when we have 155,000 people on social housing waiting lists, its impact will be minimal.
As for action on letting agents and landlords, a number of members have spoken about the growth in the private rented sector, which means that proper regulation is needed. Many letting agents and landlords are responsible, but there are a number of unscrupulous individuals, which is why proper regulation is needed. The bill will improve the situation, but if some amendments that were not agreed to had been taken on board, the bill could have improved it more.
A similar point is true of the measures on maintenance plans, which Sarah Boyack raised, and on electrical safety. Such provisions could have been strengthened.
I was disappointed that the Government did not accept my amendments to control rent increases and to introduce longer and more stable tenancies. I was particularly disappointed because between stages 2 and 3 I changed my amendments to give the Scottish ministers more time. I was looking for the Government to lay regulations by April 2015, which would have given it nearly 10 months to work up proposals. I thought that that was a reasonable way forward; the response that the task would be too onerous or too difficult is not satisfactory.
In such debates, members always trade a lot of statistics to back up their arguments—I acknowledge that I do it, too. However, in a lot of ways, I do not need to look at the statistics on housing. I can look at the area that I grew up in, which I am lucky enough to represent and where I still stay. Almost weekly, I see people at my surgeries who stay in overcrowded accommodation and who cannot access adequate housing. I see houses that have been in my constituency since before I was born and that are falling into disrepair but where people still stay. We have problems with people getting on the housing ladder, accessing social housing and living in inadequate accommodation.
Can you bring your remarks to a close?
The challenge for the Government and all political parties is to come up with a plan for housing that addresses the supply issues and which does something for people who do not stay in good-quality accommodation and who are struggling to find a house. We all have a responsibility to improve the lives of our constituents and people throughout Scotland. We should bear that in mind when we bring forward legislation and plans for housing.
19:08
We have had a lot of consensus throughout the debate, although we still disagree on some issues. I reiterate that I appreciate stakeholders’ support for the bill. I say to James Kelly that that is not about talking shops; we talk to and listen to our stakeholders. We worked up the bill in consultation with and along with them, which is why many aspects of the bill have so much stakeholder support. That is an important point.
In all the discussions with stakeholders, were excessive rent levels and the length and security of tenure raised with the Government?
I said when I was speaking to amendments that, during the discussions, rent levels were not raised with us, other than by Patrick Harvie. Shelter Scotland mentioned security of tenure early on, but the bill had progressed through a stage by then. We discussed the issue, which is why we set up the review group to look at the tenancy regime in the private sector. The group is not a talking shop. It is chaired by Douglas Robertson and its 18 stakeholder members include representatives from landlords associations, letting associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Scottish Property Federation, Shelter Scotland, Homeless Action Scotland and Edinburgh private tenants action group. The group came together to discuss the tenancy regime, and I have said today that we will take forward its recommendations. We will consult in the autumn, and as part of that we will look at rent levels.
Alex Rowley and Mary Fee also talked about capping rents. I say to them that we are absolutely keeping rent levels under review. We are aware that rising rents are an issue in parts of Scotland—in particular in Aberdeen. I repeat that it is important to be clear about the nature and scale of the problem and the options for addressing it, so that we can be sure that action that we take has a positive outcome and does not have unintended consequences. I stand by that.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently reported that households in Scotland spend a smaller share of their income on housing than households in England. In the same report, the foundation said that poverty rates in Scotland are lower than they are in England, across all housing tenures. However, the Scottish Government is not complacent about the matter. That is why we continue to support affordable and mid-market rents and to work with the house building industry to increase institutional investment in building new homes for private rent.
That is the right way to take on an issue of the magnitude of the one that James Kelly talked about. It is right to consult and take evidence from stakeholders, to work up proposals and to bring them to Parliament for full scrutiny. That is what we intend to do, and it is the right approach, as opposed to parachuting in proposals at stage 2 of a bill. If we tried to give the Scottish ministers more powers, James Kelly would criticise us for doing so, so I find it strange that we are being criticised for following due process on an important issue. We must get it right for all tenants in Scotland.
Patrick Harvie was right: this is about people and their homes. Yes—there is a lot of political to-ing and fro-ing, but the Government is committed to improving the housing stock and to increasing supply. Opposition members talked about figures being bandied about, but we cannot get away from the facts: this Administration has built more houses for rent through registered social landlords and councils than previous Administrations in Scotland built. Even during a recession, more private houses for sale have been built per head of population in Scotland than have been built in England and Wales. That is a fact. We know that we need to increase supply, and we are working to do so with our stakeholders across the sector.
We also have the help to buy scheme.
Does the minister accept that completions of social rented houses are at a lifetime low?
We are building more houses than previous Administrations built—they are not at a lifetime low. We are building social houses.
I take Alex Rowley’s point about local authorities building council houses. We very much appreciate the contact that we have with stakeholders and we appreciate the way in which councils and RSLs have got together to get houses built. Part of that is due to our abolishing the right to buy for new supply in 2010, which gave local authorities the confidence to start building council houses again.
Maureen Watt said that this is a landmark bill. I agree that it is in a number of ways, and not just because of what we are doing on the right to buy—although that is the right action to take and this is the right time to take it. We are supporting many other schemes that will help people on to the housing ladder and we will continue to do so, but the right to buy has had its day in Scotland, and I think that all parties support us on that except, of course, the Conservatives. That does not surprise me.
This bill will introduce other landmark measures, such as tribunals for the private rented sector, which will ensure that there is fair and easy access to justice in the private sector. That is new and it is a landmark. It is something that we have been asked to do for some time. We have worked the measure out. It is a very important thing, which tenants will very much appreciate.
Regulation of letting agents is another landmark. It was good to get the support of the letting industry and landlords organisations for the measure. We got that because we worked together with them. We listened to what they had to say and took some of it on board, but we made it absolutely clear from the outset that we intended to regulate and that our regulation would have teeth. That is what we will do. When we work out the code of guidance our view on that will not change. The regulators of the private sector will have teeth. The private sector welcomes that as well, because it does not—
Can you bring your remarks to a close, minister?
Sorry, Presiding Officer.
I ask members to support the bill. We have done something today that we should all be proud of. We have got there by working together, and I hope that that continues.
Previous
Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3Next
Business Motion