Official Report 1669KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18992, in the name of Màiri McAllan, on the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
20:20
I am absolutely delighted to finally begin this last step of the Housing (Scotland) Bill with a debate at stage 3. It has been a long and thorough process. Before turning to the substance of what this groundbreaking bill will provide, I should like to offer some acknowledgements.
First, I want to mention members from across the chamber for their rigour in scrutinising the bill, and in particular the members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, all of whom have taken a keen interest in the bill.
I extend significant thanks to all the experts who gave evidence to committee and who worked with the Scottish Government to help shape the contents of this ambitious piece of work. I also want to acknowledge the former ministers Patrick Harvie and Paul McLennan as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Shirley-Anne Somerville, all of whom have contributed, at one time or another, to this momentous piece of work.
My thanks also go to the Scottish Government bill team, who have worked incredibly hard on the bill’s policies, as well as closely considering the policy purpose and legal effect of more than 1,000 amendments, and advising ministers on their implications. The team’s commitment to the service of Scotland has been abundantly clear throughout, and I want to thank them, as well as those in my private office, who have helped me to pull everything together—including the bill folder, which I have been carrying around for quite some time now.
Finally, and most importantly, I thank everybody with lived experience of homelessness or housing precarity whose advocacy will now help to change the law in Scotland in a significant way.
On that note, I should like to focus on just some of what the bill provides that the Government is particularly proud of. I will begin with the ask and act powers. We believe that everyone in Scotland should have the opportunity of a warm, safe and affordable place to call home. That is, ultimately, the cornerstone of a life of dignity and opportunity. Homelessness is not a one-off event. It is trauma, stigma and indignity, and it deprives people of the opportunity to live well, to succeed and to contribute fully in society. It must be ended, and we know that the best way to end homelessness is to prevent it from happening to people in the first place.
That is what our groundbreaking ask and act powers seek to ensure. They will sit atop Scotland’s already highly protective legal landscape and will ensure that ending homelessness is, ultimately, everyone’s business. Police officers, community link workers, social care staff, health visitors and social landlords are among those who will be expected to identify problems early and intervene if they believe that someone is threatened with homelessness. The approach is person-centred, flexible and responsive, and it will help to prevent the trauma and stigma of homelessness.
I mentioned the importance that the Government places on lived experience. I will share with the chamber a quote from a former service user, who was quoted by Advice Direct Scotland in September this year. They said:
“having experienced homelessness myself, I know how vital it is that people, regardless of their place in life, feel seen, heard and supported, with no judgement or feeling shame. ‘Ask & Act’ is a call to every front-line worker in Scotland to recognise the signs, to ask with compassion and act with purpose. The right question, asked at the right time, can change the course of a life.”
That is what the Government seeks, with the First Minister’s core objective for our Government being to eradicate child poverty in this country. The provisions of the big bill that we have been considering, together with the housing emergency action plan that was published at the beginning of the month, will help to serve that purpose. I hope that the Parliament will vote for the bill, offering as it does—and as was put to us by someone with lived experience and quoted by Advice Direct Scotland—the chance to
“change the course of a life.”
The bill does so much across a broad range of topics and, in the time that I have, I want to touch on a couple more. Since coming into post, I have been determined to do what I can to ensure that no one in Scotland—especially no child—has to live in a tenanted property with damp and mould. That is why we have been clear that Awaab’s law will be implemented across the social and private rented sectors in Scotland. My officials have already begun the series of round-table discussions with stakeholders that will help to bring in Awaab’s law from March next year.
By way of background, Awaab’s law is named after Awaab Ishak, who died in 2020 in Rochdale in England, having been exposed to mould in his home. Although standards in Scotland have been rising gradually, to the extent that 90 per cent of all homes in Scotland are substantially free from damp and mould, we will not take any chances, especially not when it comes to the health and life chances of children.
I am conscious of the time, and this bold and ambitious bill does so much that I would like to mention, but another area of great importance to me is domestic abuse. It is utterly abhorrent, it is one of the leading causes of homelessness among women, and we must do all that we can to end it. That includes supporting the housing needs of women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse.
Among other things, the bill will create new rights to end a joint tenancy without an abusive joint tenant’s approval. I have also confirmed that I will work to lay regulations under part 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 by Christmas to ensure that a victim survivor in a social home can stay in their home and remove a perpetrator of abuse. The bill will also require social landlords to implement policies to ensure that abuse or violence from a partner or former partner does not lead to somebody losing their home. That sits alongside a national fund to leave, which is backed by £1 million that the Government confirmed at the beginning of the month.
In opening, I have been able to touch on only three aspects of this groundbreaking bill. I have not yet been able to explore the system of long-term, evidence-based and balanced rent controls that the bill will create, nor the important rights to personalise a home. However, I will listen to members’ contributions and reflect on those other areas in closing. In the meantime, I commend the Housing (Scotland) Bill to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Housing (Scotland) Bill be passed.
20:27
Housing remains central to many of the challenges that our communities face. Our homes are the bricks and mortar that bind local cohesion. Access to good-quality housing should be the driving factor for us all. Sadly, the reality is that homelessness figures are at a record high, thousands of children are in temporary accommodation, there are unsustainable waiting lists, and local authorities are buckling under the pressure. There is a skills shortage and a declining housing sector.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill was born out of a pact that the Scottish National Party Government made with the Scottish Greens. At that time, the Government did not understand that the consequence of far-left policies would be a bill that could devastate the housing market. I will admit that there has been some movement in that space in a last-minute attempt to offer an olive branch to investors and the private rented sector. At its core, however, this is a housing bill that proposes permanent rent controls and does not include a single line about building homes. It is a housing bill that is too broad in scope, and it should have been named the tenants’ rights and homelessness prevention bill.
Rent control is a misguided policy. It is reckless and ideologically driven, and it could worsen the housing crisis. It could punish tenants, discourage investment and make Scotland a less attractive place to build the homes that we so desperately need.
We need to look at the facts. There were 19,288 homes built in 2024-25, which was down 4 per cent on the previous year. In the social sector, completions were at their lowest since 2016-17, with 4,490 completions, which was down 15 per cent. To reach the 110,000 affordable homes target by 2032, the Scottish Government needs to build around 10,000 homes a year, but it has achieved that only once since 2021, and it only built 7,444 affordable homes in 2024-25. Those figures are far below the figures that experts say Scotland needs each year to meet demand.
We know that developers and housing providers operate in a market that requires certainty. If rents are capped permanently and revenue streams are constrained, the incentive to build disappears. It is a simple economic fact that rent controls do not create homes—they prevent them. To compound the issue, damaging rent controls have already cost Scotland £3.2 billion in lost investment. That is the scale of the damage that is being wrought on the industry.
When fewer homes are built, tenants suffer the consequences. Competition for available properties intensifies, prices rise in uncontrollable sectors and homelessness continues to grow. That is not an abstract argument. In 2024-25, 17,240 households in Scotland were in temporary accommodation and, shockingly, that included 10,360 children. In 2024-25, there was a record number of 31,695 open homelessness applications. Behind every person who makes up that number is a heartbreaking story. All those numbers represent families who cannot find a safe roof over their heads, children who are moved from place to place, and vulnerable adults who live in uncertainty.
We ought to remind ourselves that the policies that we make and create in the Scottish Parliament have consequences. As I have said, people desperately need homes. People on long waiting lists need hope and need politicians to understand the gravity of the crisis. They do not need policies that will potentially worsen the housing emergency, agreed to for ideological reasons.
The housing crisis is further compounded by a significant skills shortage in the construction sector. Scotland faces a gap of thousands of skilled tradespeople, bricklayers, joiners, plumbers and electricians. Industry reports show that more than 20 per cent of construction firms struggle to recruit the skilled workers that they need. That is not merely an inconvenience; it is a barrier to delivering new homes. These are the issues that should have been in the housing bill and that we should have been debating tonight. However, I will touch on the economic consequences of rent controls, because those consequences are equally stark to what is being experienced in our skills sector.
Research from multiple jurisdictions, including studies in London and parts of the United States, consistently shows that strict rent caps reduce investment in new housing. Developers delay projects, projects are cancelled, and fewer homes come on to the market. We cannot afford that: Scotland needs investment, not deterrence. We need ambition, not artificial constraints.
Furthermore, we must recognise the immense pressure that is on our local authorities. In an environment of year-on-year decline in budgets, councils are struggling to maintain existing housing stock, fund homelessness services and invest in new builds. Rising inflation, which, once again, is on the move, increases the cost of materials, wages and borrowing. That combination of pressures will inevitably reduce the number of homes that can be delivered. We need to look at affordable housing. We have spoken in the chamber many times about the affordable housing budget and the consequences that it has on local government.
We cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that will harm the possibility of building more homes that people desperately need and at the rate at which they need to be built. I thank cabinet secretaries Shirley-Anne Somerville and Màiri McAllan for the productive conversations that we have had during stages 2 and 3, although we clearly differ on what we believe will tackle the housing emergency. I hope that they will reflect on the bill. It has been too broad, and it does not address the housing emergency that is a priority for Scotland.
20:34
There are—absolutely—positive things in the bill, but let us be clear that it is a housing bill that will not build a single house. It will not bring a single new home into circulation, it will not bring immediate reductions in rent and it will not give local authorities the resources that they need to prevent homelessness. I support the bill because it will result in important improvements, but we all know that it could and should have gone so much further in the context of a housing emergency and a severe shortage of housing supply.
I am pleased that the Government accepted several of our amendments, including one that finally recognises, in law, that Scotland is in a housing emergency. We also secured improvements to factoring legislation and strengthened the bill’s provisions on damp and mould through what is now being called Awaab’s law. We also welcome the commitment to review the current grounds for eviction, which is long overdue. However, let us be clear that, despite the rhetoric, no-one will wake up tomorrow and find themselves in a rent control area. No-one’s rent will go down because the bill has passed.
When the bill was introduced, there was no detail on what rent controls would actually look like, which caused more harm than good to efforts to build the homes that we so desperately need. After pressure, we now have a step forward. However, although the bill no longer threatens to harm supply, make no mistake: this is just a beefed-up version of rent pressure zones, and we all remember how effective those were.
We support mid-market rent and build-to-rent housing as part of a diverse housing mix, but the way in which those exemptions were introduced—late in the process, after a chaotic stage 2 and a change of minister two times over—raises serious questions across Government about how that policy was made and drafted in the first place. Initially including those sectors seriously risked housing supply, and I am not sure why it took so long for the Government to clarify its position on exemptions when it knew about the concerns about mid-market rent. It knew that it was an issue as much as three years ago, when we debated the emergency cost of living legislation.
As we finish our third day of consideration of this bill, 10,180 children are living in temporary accommodation, more than 40,000 families are homeless and rough sleeping is on the rise. We might grumble about the policy process of the bill, and we have valid complaints, but we cannot forget why, fundamentally, we are considering and voting for this law.
There are families, children and individuals out there who are being failed in horrendous ways by a system that is stretched to breaking point. That is why we welcome, in particular, the bill’s focus on homelessness prevention, and particularly the new ask and act duty on public bodies. However, I have to say that those duties will work only if local authorities are properly resourced, and I feel that the Government’s financial assessment of what it will take to implement specifically the ask and act and prevention duties is wildly optimistic. I hope that I am wrong and that the money that goes to local authorities will be enough to cover the costs of a proper and adequately resourced prevention system that stems the flow of people into the homelessness services, which are at breaking point.
We will support the bill because it contains improvements to the current system. However, it is not the transformative legislation that Scotland’s housing crisis demands. We want to build houses and end homelessness, and we want rent controls that work not just in theory but in practice, and without harming supply. The bill is a step forward, but it is a very small step forward. We wish that we could vote for a more radical bill, but, in any case, we will vote for this one at decision time.
20:38
New year’s day 1989 was a day of celebration for some—but, for many, it was the first of almost 40 years of runaway rip-off rents. Margaret Thatcher’s Housing Act 1988 swept away rent controls, and working people have paid the price ever since.
Since 2010, rents for a two-bedroom flat have increased by 104 per cent in Lothian and by 82 per cent in Glasgow, but renters’ wages have not gone up by anything like those amounts. So, what has happened? Exactly what that Maggie intended: a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to those lucky enough to own property.
However, owning an asset is not an occupation. A basic human right to live in a warm, safe home has become a platform for profiteering. Today, Scotland rejoins the ranks of the many countries around the world that use rent controls to support affordable living. I am so proud that it was the Greens who introduced this bill and that I am another Maggie in the team, making it stronger and bringing back rent controls.
This bill, along with the rent controls that it will introduce, is the first stage of the new deal for tenants that the Scottish Greens promised. Renters will know that their rents should never increase by more than 6 per cent. The bill will give them certainty and will help them to better plan their finances and lives. When rent notices are higher than they should be, renters can challenge them, and they will have more time to do so thanks to the Greens.
However, the system will not be as strong as it might have been. The bill will lock in above-inflation rent increases without considering the ability of renters to pay. The Parliament rejected my proposals for rent freezes and rent cuts, and it has opened the door to a range of exemptions. We should not build a two-tier system of protections in which some tenants are shielded and others are left to the mercy of the market. All renters deserve the same stability, no matter what roof they live under.
I am pleased that we are improving the evictions process by including more scope for delays during the winter months, although the outright winter ban that the Greens proposed would have been better. No one should live with the threat of eviction at a moment’s notice, and I remain disappointed that Scottish renters will not have the same protections as English renters for the first 12 months of a tenancy.
If properly funded and implemented, the duty for public bodies to prevent homelessness—to step in when risk is first identified rather than when it is too late—will be a potential game changer. Housing first is another game changer. Giving homeless people with complex needs a long-term stable home and offering—but not forcing—health and other support services is tried and tested.
It will benefit so many people if the bill takes us closer to removing the cruel concept of intentional homelessness. Allowing someone to be assessed as intentionally homeless is a moral disgrace. Actions that might seem intentional often stem from trauma, violence and disadvantage.
It is right that we have made it easier for animal lovers who rent to keep pets and for people to make appropriate adjustments so that they can really feel at home. Although the introduction of Awaab’s law is significant, there is still much more to do to drive up the quality of rented homes.
We are in the grip of a housing emergency not because we lack resources or capacity, but because, for four decades, our policies have prioritised profit over people—those who are homeless because of exploding rents and who are fighting for dignity in a system that is stacked against them. Housing instability crushes a person’s spirit—it steals hope, erodes dignity and worsens inequality. We must not create another generation that is resigned to paying too much for too little. Instead, we must create a future in which everyone can say, “I have a home, I am safe and I am respected.”
20:42
I praise the clerks and officials for their talent, their tolerance of this Parliament and their stamina. Their stamina has been outstanding throughout what felt like months at stage 2 and years at stage 3. I want members to show their appreciation. [Applause.]
The Liberal Democrats will vote for the bill. It is not the bill that we would have introduced, nor would we have gone through this process, which has knocked confidence within the sector at various stages. However, it is now a better bill and it is a bill worth voting for.
We are in a housing emergency. It is disappointing that it has taken a housing emergency for housing to get the priority that it has deserved for a long time. However, it has that priority now, and there should start to be some changes so that we can deal with the housing emergency.
This very day, Homes for Scotland told us that the number of new starts across all sectors is the lowest since 1996. We have a long way to go to build confidence within the sector. We need every part of the housing sector—it should be seen as one sector—to play its part in dealing with the housing emergency. Those who seek to demonise parts of it are undermining the very objectives that we are trying to achieve. We need the private sector—all those house builders who battle away through the various barriers at different times to build houses in communities that they care about. They want to deal with the housing emergency and to be partners, and we should welcome them as partners just like the public sector and charities. They will help us through this difficulty, and we should welcome their help.
There is a delicate balance to be struck in making sure that tenants have the rights that they deserve and the homes that they need, including family homes. However, we also need to do everything that we can to incentivise investment, and we have been pretty poor at that in recent years. There is still quite a bit of work to be done. I hope that the exemptions will be as generous as we can make them, in order to incentivise investment in mid-market rent and build to rent, but also significant investment by landlords. There should be measures to exempt them so that they can get a return on the investment; otherwise, we will find that we are not getting the appropriate investment in all properties, which is the thing that we desperately need.
We need to do an awful lot of work on planning, which is still seen as a barrier in many areas. I know that Ivan McKee is working hard to overcome that. We also need to work very carefully on heat in buildings and on accessibility measures. I am in favour of them, but we need to get them right so that we incentivise that investment and get the best possible homes. Most of all, we have to build confidence, and for that we need stability and certainty—sometimes boring certainty—to make sure that house builders can invest for the longer term.
We will vote for the bill because it contains some really good measures on domestic abuse, homelessness and Awaab’s law, and we will continue to work constructively with the Government, as we have done throughout the bill’s passage, to make improvements. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
We move to the open debate.
20:46
As someone who frequently raises the issue of affordable housing in relation to my constituency, I am pleased to speak in support of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, as well as the measures that the cabinet secretary set out recently in the Government’s housing action plan.
Housing pressures remain acute across much of Scotland, and the lack of a private rented sector in many rural communities adds to the pressures there. I think that everyone acknowledges that, despite significant investment in housing over the SNP’s time in government, challenges remain across our cities, towns and rural areas, but the bill will tackle those problems head on. This primary legislation will be useful in achieving those ends.
Under the SNP, Scotland is already the fairest place in the United Kingdom to rent, and the bill will build on that to create a sustainable, well-regulated sector. The bill is an essential piece of legislation that will help to advance tenants’ rights and tackle homelessness in Scotland. As we have heard, measures in the bill will empower tenants, proactively prevent homelessness and provide certainty to encourage continued investment across the housing sector.
The recently published housing action plan outlines nearly £5 billion of investment over the next four years and focuses on three key areas—ending children living in unsuitable accommodation, supporting the housing needs of vulnerable groups, and supporting growth and investment in the housing sector.
Since coming to office in 2007, the SNP in government has built 40 per cent more affordable homes per head of population than England over the same period, and 70 per cent more than Labour-run Wales. That is all against a backdrop of increased costs and challenges as a result of the financial crash, Brexit and the pandemic, as well as the severe limits that are placed on Scotland’s borrowing powers.
In my constituency, work has begun this year on 12 new social housing units in Leverburgh in Harris. That might not sound a big number but, to a small community where no social housing has been built for 50 years, it could represent the difference that means the local care home staying open, a business continuing to be able to operate or local health services being able to function. The local community council and housing association are to be commended for their efforts in bringing that project to fruition.
At the other end of the scale, I can think of the 74-home development at An Allt Dubh outside Stornoway, which was visited recently by the First Minister and is one of a number of larger projects under way to improve access to affordable housing in the islands.
It is important that we continue investing in affordable housing to ensure that it is available to all of Scotland’s communities. That flexibility ensures that the higher cost per unit of building in rural communities is not a barrier to progress. We must also continue helping community organisations and landowners to build affordable homes by using tailored support such as the rural and islands housing fund.
There remains much work to do to ensure that everyone in Scotland has a high-quality, long-term and affordable home, but the measures set out in the bill demonstrate the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling the housing emergency. I commend the cabinet secretary for her on-going efforts in bringing the bill, and the accompanying housing action plan, to fruition.
20:50
I have struggled with this housing bill because I have wanted to engage with it, but every time I have tried to engage, it has proved difficult.
At the stage 2 amendment stage, the relevant committee met on the same day as the committee that I am on, so I was unable to attend most meetings, although I managed to attend on a few occasions to try to speak to some amendments. However, the amendments that I did manage to lodge and that were debated and agreed on at the committee stage were promptly reversed when it came to stage 3. That is really hard to take when a member has worked hard on a bill.
I have also found it hard to be in the chamber and hear, in line with a point that Willie Rennie made, all landlords of rented accommodation being tarred with the same brush. I am not embarrassed to say that I am a landlord and that I provide good-quality houses for long-term homes—I do not do short-term lets. During the course of this meeting, we have heard landlords being described as “wolves” of the private sector, being accused of a lack of concern and being said to weasel their way out of things. We have heard about grotesque and ludicrous rents, but that is not something that I recognise in the sector that I have worked in for 30 years. In 99 per cent of cases, landlords want to provide a home and to have a long-term relationship with their tenants, because those relationships make it easier for everyone. They allow the house to be well looked after and the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement on areas where there may be issues. I am bitterly disappointed when I hear that sort of language about landlords being used in the Parliament.
I remind Ms Chapman, the member who used that language and who is here, that there are something like 300,000 private rented properties across Scotland. However she might view landlords, they help by providing homes for individuals who cannot afford to buy their own homes. This Parliament has made legislation in the past about rent increases, and I think that that has worked in most cases.
I must also allude to the fact that I lodged 69 amendments during the course of stage 3. I did that because I thought that they were necessary, so to hear comments about them being unnecessary, not appropriate or not the right approach to take, and to hear others say that they “cannot commit today” or “might talk later” or that they “support the principle” but cannot agree to the amendment actually makes a mockery of the process. I am in the chamber to try to make the bill better, but I do not think that I have managed to do that in any shape or form.
I say to the cabinet secretary that she should remember the results of a survey carried out recently by Safe Deposits Scotland and published while we were here this afternoon. That survey found that 33 per cent of landlords want to get out of letting properties—that is 100,000 houses that would be taken out of the rented sector. Some in the chamber would argue that those would become homes that people would be able to buy, but only 62 per cent of those homes would go into private ownership and not all would be affordable for the people who need to rent properties.
Will the member accept an intervention?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
There is no time in hand.
I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but I cannot.
I do not think that the bill strikes the right balance between getting it right for tenants and incentivising landlords to make their properties better and to invest in them in the future. They will have a huge amount to do to reach net zero, but this bill will put them off.
20:54
The big problem with the bill is that, from its outset, it looked to address the symptoms that we see in our housing sector rather than the underlying problems. However, we must acknowledge that the bill will mean some relief for those who are at the sharp end of the rented sector. Clearly there has been too much uncertainty and confusion, as well as loopholes. The bill takes a few steps forward when it comes to evictions, succession to tenancies, the rights of pet owners and homelessness, to name but a few issues, so it has positive aspects.
However, although the powers that it provides to introduce rent control areas may sometimes be necessary, they will not be sufficient to stem the tide of rising rents that are affecting the bottom end of the market. For a young family who are looking to guarantee their future and for parents who are looking to help their child to take that big step on to the housing ladder, the bill does nothing.
The bottom line is that there is a lack of affordable housing, which is putting strain on councils and registered social landlords alike and driving up rents. That is a key factor in the process.
By and large, the most common complaint that I receive from constituents is from families who are stuck in housing that is too small for them. They might be in their parents’ house or their grandparents’ house. In some cases, they leave one of their older children to live with other members of the family. The bill does not solve that issue, but it should have had a plan for that.
As I said a couple of weeks ago in the chamber, Scotland has 250,000 homes with damp, mould and condensation issues. We have had amendments that relate to how quickly landlords can fix those issues, but the bill should have challenged the reasons why there are 250,000 damp and mouldy homes in the first place.
I will close on this point. Post-first world war council house building was incredibly ambitious for the time, with revolutionary ideas—it seems strange to say this nowadays—such as indoor toilets for the working class. I believe that, in 2025, the Parliament of this country ought to be equally ambitious. That ambition should start with the idea that everybody should be able to afford to live somewhere that is warm, safe, dry and energy efficient. The bill combats some issues in the housing sector, but not the issues of housing.
I will vote in favour of the bill as a stepping stone towards something better, and I encourage all members to do the same.
20:57
I start by agreeing with Willie Rennie that we should give a big thank you to all the clerks who have worked so hard on the bill and helped us with it. I also thank third sector organisations, particularly Crisis, for their positive engagement over the past years.
For me, this is a disappointing night—a night of missed opportunities. The bill was an opportunity for us to do something really quite radical and different around housing and homelessness. I fear that after we have passed the bill—as we will do in a few minutes’ time—people will look back and see it as a missed opportunity.
I cannot vote for the bill for two reasons. First, as a representative of Edinburgh and Lothian, I say that rent controls will have a devastating effect on the Edinburgh property market. If we look at the evidence around the world, we know that that will be the case. There will be more homelessness and more people struggling to find accommodation because of that measure.
Secondly, I believe that the work on preventing homelessness represents another missed opportunity. Like Mark Griffin, I hope that history will prove me wrong. I think that the ask and act provisions could have been so much better; we are being asked to jump into darkness. We will not have the benefit of a pilot programme to know whether that will or will not work. Having no data sharing, a lack of money and pressure on local authorities, on the third sector and on the national health service will all work against us.
The bill is a missed opportunity. The Government should go back and rethink it. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.
21:00
This has been a real marathon; however, it has felt as though we have run this course before—as we have. Many of the stage 3 amendments, which have been debated over three long nights, were also debated at stage 2, when they were mostly not moved following promises of talks with the Government. Some of those talks took place, but some did not. We have ended up with a bill from which good ideas have been jettisoned, and the Government has got its own way on everything.
The bill is well intentioned but fundamentally flawed. It risks undermining the very goals that it claims to pursue—affordable, quality housing and a thriving rental sector. Instead, it introduces sweeping rent controls that will deter investment, reduce housing supply and, ultimately, hurt the very people it aims to protect.
I lodged amendments to help students, but none of those made it—not even the one that said that councils should include student housing in their local housing strategies. I proposed exempting build-to-rent and mid-market rent properties from ruinous rent controls. Even though the cabinet secretary agreed with that, those amendments did not make it either. We have ended up with a system in which those sectors will be exempted through regulations so as not to stifle investment, but the private rented sector will not be exempt. Quite why that will not stifle investment is beyond me—because it will.
Rent controls are a blunt instrument. They do not address the root causes of housing unaffordability, which are a chronic lack of supply and planning bottlenecks. The bill centralises too much power in ministers’ hands by leaving key decisions to secondary legislation with limited scrutiny.
There are some good measures on homelessness; I want Awaab’s law; and the measures on domestic abuse are good. However, I cannot vote for the bill because of the rent control measures, which will be extremely damaging.
We move to closing speeches.
21:02
As we close our debate on the bill, let us return to the fundamentals: who the bill should serve and what we must demand if we are serious about delivering justice in housing. Too often, in the Parliament and in the media, discussions about housing are dominated by landlords, developers and big finance. We must recentre our debates so that they reflect the needs of the people and communities who rely on us to speak up for them.
The Scottish Greens have always insisted that housing is a human right, not a profit engine. That is why we have pushed hard for rent controls that have real teeth, tougher standards to improve housing quality for everyone and the rectification of the unjust imbalance between tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights. The very fact that a housing bill is in front of us is due to the Scottish Greens. I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie, who introduced the bill and its key measures while serving as a minister. His work is a tangible demonstration of the fact that, when Scottish Greens are elected, they get things done.
The bill offers real progress. It introduces powers for local rent controls to cap annual rent increases in designated areas. It strengthens rights around repairs and security of tenure. Scottish Green amendments also pushed the Government to make changes in key areas.
The bill is a huge step forward for renters, although I am disappointed that it has been watered down in some areas. Improvements that were suggested by us in concert with experts such as Shelter Scotland and Generation Rent have not been agreed to.
The Scottish Greens highlighted how second homes and long-term empty properties must be part of the solution. Unlocking those homes is essential for communities from which local people are priced out. We have been clear that we must support community-led housing and co-operative models and provide stronger powers for local authorities to tackle landlord inaction on safety issues such as damp and mould.
I am concerned about some of the bill’s shortcomings. Exemptions risk creating a two-tier rent control system, and above-inflation rent rises are still possible. Tenants must wait until 2027 for full protection, even though they need that now. Students risk being abandoned to the wild west of unregulated accommodation, and we need stronger compulsory purchase powers for empty homes. Ross Greer’s focus on fairer taxation would have provided tools to deal with that. [Interruption.]
The bill is a test of our values. Will we side with working people and the vulnerable or with powerful interests? Too many Scots are in despair. Families are struggling with rents, students are in poor-quality overpriced housing and communities are being hollowed out by second homes. The Scottish Greens have put forward a vision of tenant empowerment, local accountability and community-led housing solutions. I championed tax relief for co-ops to make them viable, Maggie Chapman warned us not to reinforce inequality and Ross Greer challenged us to create a more just system.
I, too, recognise the work of MSPs from other parties and thank them for it. Mark Griffin worked diligently on a wide range of issues, including emphasising issues to do with the housing emergency; Meghan Gallacher has introduced some welcome changes; and I share Richard Leonard’s concerns about the shameful condition of accommodation for agricultural workers, which must be acted on urgently.
Renters, families, students and all who are at risk of homelessness are watching us tonight, and they need us to act with courage and integrity. Let the bill be the beginning, not the end. Let us deliver housing that works for people all over Scotland.
21:06
Deputy Presiding Officer, I apologise for the interruption earlier. I was looking for a figure on my phone, but when clicking on the message with the answer in it, I accidentally clicked on a message with sound, so forgive me for that.
I am pleased to close today’s debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We have heard numerous times throughout this debate, and many others, that Scotland is in the midst of a housing emergency. Although that terminology is now commonplace, the gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. As my colleagues Mark Griffin and Davy Russell have set out, Scottish Labour will support the bill today because it recognises the emergency in law and it moves us forward on other crucial areas, including Awaab’s law, reviews of eviction grounds and rules on factoring.
However, we are clear that the bill is a missed opportunity. It fails to solve the fundamental problem of the lack of housing supply in Scotland, which is desperately needed to end the housing emergency, and it does not introduce proper and workable rent controls.
The reality is that the Government has done far too little far too late, so homelessness has risen on its watch. Figures that were released last week lay bare the stark reality of the situation in my region of Glasgow alone. More than 1,000 cases of rough sleeping were reported last year, and the overall number of people sleeping rough is rising to a record high across the country.
In Glasgow, there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of people living in temporary accommodation—that is more than 4,000 people and is the highest number since 2022. Those people are living in Glasgow without somewhere permanent to call home. Furthermore, there has been a 9 per cent increase in homelessness applications.
Despite the current situation in Glasgow and across Scotland, the SNP Government has cut funding for the affordable housing supply programme in real terms.
As I said, we will support the bill on the basis that I have set out, but it was an opportunity to change the direction of all that. Nonetheless, it brings some improvements, including those that were added by my colleagues and me.
I am pleased that the Government was supportive of amendments that sought to make it easier for students to end their tenancy in specific circumstances. However, it is disappointing that my proposals on a purpose-built student accommodation charter and strategy were rejected.
I am also disappointed that other crucial amendments, such as my colleague Katy Clark’s amendment to support women fleeing violence, Paul Sweeney’s amendments on common buildings insurance, which would have protected many residents in Glasgow and elsewhere, or Mark Griffin’s amendment that would have allowed people with rent arrears to move to more suitable accommodation, have not made it into the bill. I hope that the Government will take urgent action in those areas, and Scottish Labour will continue to press it to do so.
I want to mention briefly the experience of disabled people. First, I thank members, including Jeremy Balfour and Meghan Gallacher, for their support on those issues today. Many disabled people require accessible homes. That means adapting old ones and building accessible new ones. That is why I moved the amendments that I did today.
I am pleased that the Government has committed to updating building regulations to make provision for accessibility and suitability for disabled people within two years of the act coming into force. That will be welcome news to the tens of thousands of disabled people waiting on housing lists for a home that suits their needs. With 25 years having passed since accessibility standards were reviewed, that is a significant step forward, but there is much more to be done in this space. Adaptations are a key part of that—they are a truly tangible, preventative approach to future proofing our homes.
It is, therefore, incredibly disappointing that the Government failed to support amendments on that aspect today and instead opted for a review. The time for reviews is over, and the time to act is now; I hope that the Government will reflect on that.
As I have set out, the bill moves us forward on some areas, so Scottish Labour will support it. However, as a whole—with no more homes built as a result; in the absence of proper and workable rent controls; and in the face of more reviews, with no action—the bill is a missed opportunity to address the housing emergency in Scotland. On such an emergency, the SNP has not met the challenge and, for that reason, we encourage it to go further and faster to end the housing emergency in Scotland.
21:10
I am happy to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
The bill has had a long and difficult journey to where we now find ourselves. It was 10 months ago that we started stage 1; stage 2 covered numerous weeks of meetings of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee; and stage 3 has taken up almost three full days of parliamentary business.
However, the legislation, despite all the time that we have spent on it, still does not represent the response to Scotland’s housing crisis that we so badly need. Despite all that time, we will not see one single home built as a result of the bill, and it also risks fracturing the lives of hundreds of thousands of privately rented households in Scotland.
Many stakeholders, including organisations such as Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Association of Landlords, have continued to warn that the rent control proposals in the bill will hurt supply in the private rented sector. Members on the Conservative benches have raised concerns about those proposals since the start of the process, and we have spoken about examples in countries such as Sweden and Germany, where rent controls did not lead to proper investment in housing. The SNP’s failed experiment with rent caps in 2022 has not stopped the Government trying to make those damaging measures permanent. As I said, stage 3 has been a long time coming, and yet the bill will not contribute anything.
In the debate, Meghan Gallacher said that improving the supply of houses should be a driving factor. That is not happening, but the bill will put in place permanent rent controls, which is misguided, as it will ensure that investment does not take place. Rent controls do not make homes. The bill will see fewer houses built and homelessness continue to grow. It is a missed opportunity. Councils will struggle to cope, and the bill will not do anything to help the housing emergency.
Willie Rennie spoke about stamina. We have had a huge amount of stamina in going through stage 2 and stage 3, but the outcome is disappointing. What we have achieved is a long way from building confidence in the sector. It is not what the sector needs—the balance is not there, and planning is still a barrier. What we needed was confidence, stability and security, and we have none of that.
Edward Mountain spoke about the way in which landlords have been demonised in the bill process, and the language that has been used. The needs of both residents and tenants and landlords need to be looked at in the long term to ensure that things will get better. In reality, the bill will not make things better—it will mean that there are still inequalities. Edward Mountain highlighted the finding that 33 per cent of landlords no longer want to continue in the business, and that is not the balance that we want to see.
In the debate, we have heard a narrative that pitches tenants against landlords. As I have said, that is not the narrative that we need to hear, but it is the inference from the proposals in the bill. Despite the Bute house agreement ending more than a year ago, the SNP appears to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the narrative that rent controls need to be in place.
It is time to talk about that narrative. We need to talk much more about the solutions that are needed. We need an attempt to increase the housing supply, and we have tried to move that forward. The bill was an opportunity to realise that and to deal with the housing emergency, but it has catastrophically failed to achieve what was set out. The bill is a missed opportunity, and it will risk making the housing crisis even worse—[Interruption.] For those reasons, Scottish Conservatives will certainly not support the bill at decision time—[Interruption.]
I would discourage members on the front bench from repeatedly heckling in that way.
21:14
After that lively contribution from the other side of the chamber, I wish to begin on a point of consensus, by acknowledging the considerable cross-party support for the bill that we have managed to foster. We ought to be proud of that, as that has not always been the case. We have been on a journey with certain aspects of the bill. Recently, though, when I have been speaking to housing stakeholders, among the many things that they have regularly remarked to me is how pleased they are to see politicians from across the chamber working together—not least on the very important exemptions from rent control that we have agreed today.
On that point of consensus, I particularly acknowledge Willie Rennie’s contribution. I agree with him about much of what he has observed, and I thank him for his considered approach and his support.
I also acknowledge something that Alasdair Allan said. In a landscape of statistics and much strain on the system, we can get caught up in requiring a significant shift in the numbers, but Mr Allan pointed out that even comparatively small developments of affordable homes can be transformational in communities. That, among many other things, is what the Government’s affordable housing supply programme is supporting.
I am very pleased that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have confirmed that they will vote for the bill tonight. However, I am frankly astonished that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have—that they will not support the bill. That is utterly appalling. I want to be clear to them that what they are voting against is what somebody with lived experience of the indignity and trauma of homelessness described as the chance to change the course of a life.
I am astonished that the cabinet secretary has made that statement, to be frank. If members consider what I have said and what the Scottish Conservatives have said this evening, they will find that we are principally opposed to rent controls. That is what we are against. As I have said, the bill is not a housing bill; it is a renters’ rights and homelessness prevention bill. If the Government had embarked on that track, it might have had much more success. We cannot and will not vote for a bill that does not tackle the housing emergency. We cannot and will not vote for a bill that will stifle investment—but it looks as though that is what the Government’s priorities are.
However much Meghan Gallacher tries to explain it away, the Conservatives have completely undermined any credibility that they remotely had on impacting homelessness—
Absolute nonsense.
Let us hear one another.
—or on dealing with the housing emergency. We will not let the Conservatives forget it, and neither will the people of Scotland.
In her contribution, Meghan Gallacher said that the bill will not build houses, and Mark Griffin echoed that to an extent. Let me tell them both what will build houses: the housing emergency action plan that the Government published just four weeks ago, which provides for nearly £5 billion-worth of investment in the coming years. That is enough to build 8,000 affordable homes this financial year alone and up to 36,000 such homes over the next four years. We published that plan just four weeks ago. Today, I hope that we will vote for a bill that will prevent homelessness in the first place, that will protect tenants from damp and mould, that will support the housing needs of women who are suffering domestic abuse—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—that will create rights for tenants to end their tenancies and to personalise their homes, and that will create a system of evidence-based rent controls.
I am afraid that the characterisation of rent controls by members at both ends of the chamber is a little skewed and inaccurate. On the one hand, the Conservatives have to acknowledge the severe strain that tenants face when their rents become uncontrollable and begin to rise or escalate in an uncontrollable way. That feeds homelessness from the private rented sector. On the other hand, I have to appeal to Green colleagues to see that the care and balance that I and Willie Rennie have been talking about are absolutely critical to our housing system. The exemptions that I began by talking about are therefore very important. What the Government has presented in the bill responds to the needs of tenants who are struggling with escalating rents; equally, it provides confidence and ensures investment in our housing system that will ultimately increase availability and, therefore, affordability.
I was asked recently what a home meant to me—[Interruption.]
It is fair to say that this debate has been carried on over several days in a courteous environment. I would be grateful if we could carry that through to the end.
I am just coming to an end—I realise that it has been a long session for everybody.
I was asked recently what a home meant to me, and I answered, fairly off the cuff, that it was about safety, relaxation and a place to spend time with family. However, I have been thinking about it since, and it reminds me of something that I used to do when I was training as a lawyer. I would be travelling early in the morning, trying to get to work before the partners—although that never worked out. It was always dark, and I would just sit and rest my head against the bus or train window and look at all the houses that I was passing. Some of them would be in darkness, where the family was still asleep. Some of them would have a little sign of life—a smoking chimney—and others would have a little glowing light. To me, that is what a home is: it is that little burning light against a dark, cold morning.
That is exactly what the Government wants—it wants that opportunity to be available to everybody in Scotland. Through a combination of the bill and our housing emergency action plan, we are absolutely providing that to the people of Scotland.
Previous
Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3