Chamber and committees

That is helpful.

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.

I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives will support all the amendments in this group, if they are moved, given the importance of the issues that they raise.

My amendment 369 is a probing amendment. Through discussions with stakeholders, particularly MND Scotland, I have learned that local authorities do not have a clear definition of “accessible housing”. My concerns relate to people with accessible needs being allocated a house through social waiting lists only to find that the property is completely unsuitable for their needs. For example, one local authority defines an accessible home as a property that has up to four steps for access. If someone is wheelchair bound, that property will not be accessible to them without adaptations being made to it. That is why I welcome the amendments that Pam Duncan-Glancy has lodged. The report that she rightly referenced should offer more clarity in relation to definitions and accessibility, but that needs to be directed by the Government. The reason that we are debating the issue this evening is that that has not happened.

Too many people are waiting for adaptations. I have learned from discussions with MND Scotland that, in some circumstances, people who live with motor neurone disease are having to wait for up to a year for adaptations to their home. Those who know well the outcomes of MND with regard to people’s ability to live within their means throughout the rest of their lives will understand that they need adaptations to be made as quickly as possible. They cannot afford to wait years for adaptations to be made. That is why I believe that it is imperative for the Scottish Government to strengthen the definition of “accessible housing” to ensure that councils fulfil their duty to provide suitable homes for people with additional housing needs.

It is good to begin today’s housing bill proceedings on a positive note. I thank the previous cabinet secretary, Shirley-Anne Somerville, and Màiri McAllan for their work with me on amendment 111. I hope that it will give additional reassurance to survivors of domestic abuse that we are looking at all legislation to ensure that we are implementing measures that make it easier for people who have experienced, might experience or are currently experiencing domestic abuse.

Amendment 111 will amend section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 to enable Scottish ministers, when setting standards and outcomes in the Scottish social housing charter, to include standards and outcomes relating to the support that social landlords should provide to tenants who are affected by domestic abuse. It also inserts a cross-reference to the definition of “domestic abuse” in the Domestic Abuse Protection (Scotland) Act 2021.

I understand some stakeholders’ concerns that work is already set to be undertaken in relation to the social housing charter next year. However, when it comes to issues such as domestic abuse, I believe that, if the opportunity to do so arises through the bills that we are discussing in Parliament, we should look at ways in which we can strengthen the charter and other pieces of legislation to ensure that we are protecting people who need protection and that survivors of domestic abuse hear the message, loud and clear from across the parties, that we are looking at all pieces of legislation in order to support them.

I will not speak to the rest of the amendments in the group, because they have already been spoken to. I will leave my remarks there.

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.

Amendment 369 was a probing amendment so that we could talk about definitions and the need for clarity surrounding definitions of accessible housing. It is really important for the Scottish Government to take that away following our debate this evening. I am glad that there will be a review, but the cabinet secretary must look at the definitions used by the 32 local authorities, because they are inconsistent at the moment, creating a lot of uncertainty for disabled families up and down the country.

When the Scottish Conservatives led a debate on hotels and housing asylum seekers, I said that discussions about illegal immigration—no matter how difficult—are important.

I also raised the horrific attack on a 15-year-old girl in Falkirk, in my region, who was raped by an asylum seeker who entered the UK illegally. Distrust in politicians, locally and nationally, is rising because they are choosing not to listen to the valid concerns of communities.

Today’s debate does not address questions about the pressures on public services that are fuelling division in our communities. Minister, what is your response to my constituents who are concerned about what happened in their community, and what additional protections—

I was talking not about investment but about affordability and lack of supply, which I am sure are two issues that Maggie Chapman would agree with me on when looking at making improvements in relation to good practice. However, I genuinely believe that the aim of amendment 47 could be achieved without legislation and therefore without it being in the bill. That is where we disagree.

The conclusion that I have now come to relates to the work that I have undertaken as part of lodging the amendment at stage 2.

Regardless of whether Maggie Chapman and I agree or disagree, I am pretty certain that if amendment 47 is not agreed to, there will be future discussions about how we can strengthen good practice to ensure that the private rented sector works not only for landlords but for tenants. As we so frequently discuss in the context of the bill, finding that balance is very important.

The amendments that I have lodged in this group will strengthen the bill to include provisions on terminal illness when we are dealing with evictions. I thank the cabinet secretaries—Shirley-Anne Somerville and Màiri McAllan—and their officials for not only being sympathetic to my proposals at stage 2 but working with me to produce amendments to support families who are living with a terminal illness.

We have a lot of amendments to get through this afternoon, so it is not my intention to go through each and every one of my amendments. They will add provisions to the bill so that, when the courts or the First-tier Tribunal are looking at evictions, they can consider the impact on a tenant or a member of the tenant’s household who has a terminal illness. That is a compassionate way to look at evictions.

I thank Marie Curie for the exceptional work that it has carried out in trying to gain cross-party consensus on the issue. It has been working hard alongside colleagues and speaking to MSPs about how we look at evictions in a compassionate way. I will speak briefly about the evidence that Marie Curie has found and what led to the amendments being lodged. Every year, approximately 27,600 people in Scotland have to move home because of a close bereavement. The amendments will make huge improvements for terminally ill tenants and will provide bereaved families with every opportunity to succeed a property or remain in their own homes.

The “Dying in the Margins” research study by the University of Glasgow and Marie Curie, which documents the direct impact of financial hardship on terminally ill people, has been central to informing the amendments. In particular, there is the story of Stacey and Joost, who faced significant issues in getting an accessible home that met Stacey’s need, followed by a decision to evict Stacey’s widower from their home just 12 days after Stacey died. The amendments will go some way to preventing such instances from happening again and ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity throughout their end-of-life experience.

We need to thank the wonderful team at Marie Curie for raising the issue with me and other MSPs and for its tenacity in continuing to improve conditions for people with a terminal illness.

Given our time considerations, I will briefly speak to a couple of other amendments in the group, but I do not intend to speak to them all, because we are up against it.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 7 and 44 were also lodged at stage 2. Although I understand her argument, I still believe that the amendments are unworkable. I hope that, if they are moved, members will vote against them, because they could create more problems with evictions before the period begins or ends, which could put pressure on other housing options such as social housing.

Amendments 197 and 197A, on protection against eviction in the first 12 months of a tenancy, have prompted stark warnings from industry bodies. I have gone on the record to say that such a provision would be a gift to rogue landlords and would drive more good landlords out of the sector. In turn, that would worsen the housing emergency, so I hope that Maggie Chapman does not move those amendments.

Amendments 284 and 284A would require landlords to pay removal costs to tenants. They would impose unreasonable financial burdens, even in eviction cases that were lawful and accepted as necessary. We cannot afford to risk discouraging property letting, particularly among small-scale landlords, which could further reduce the housing supply. It would also add complexity and potential for dispute, which would strain the tribunal system even further.

There are other amendments in the group, but I will leave my remarks there for timing reasons.

We are discussing this amendment, not decisions that have been taken elsewhere.

When we consider balance and the parity of the sector, we have to be reasonable in the amendments that we lodge. I do not think that we can undermine confidence in the sector any more than it has already been undermined by decisions that have been taken in our consideration of the housing bill up to this point.

I believe that amendments such as this will lead to more landlords leaving the sector. We need a stable and predictable deposit scheme, which is good for maintaining landlord confidence. We will reflect that in what we vote for this evening.