Chamber and committees

I understand and am pleased to hear that that work is moving in the right direction. However, will the cabinet secretary please keep the committee updated on the progress that is being made? When it comes to the housing to 2040 board, we are not always in receipt of information, which can cause a lot of frustration to members who are trying to find out where we are, the progress that is being made and the outcomes and objectives that are coming from the Scottish Government and the board.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Following on from what Willie Rennie said, the housing emergency and the introduction of emergency legislation through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022 highlighted a significant gap in the Government’s understanding of the private rented sector. Given that that sector provides for approximately 13.5 per cent of Scotland’s population, its role in the housing system is not only substantial; it is indispensable. Had a comprehensive strategy been implemented earlier, it is possible that Scotland could have avoided a lot of the housing shortages that we are seeing today. Although I understand why Willie Rennie is wary of bringing in another strategy, his amendments 1 and 2 come from the right place. It is an area that we have to look at as part of this housing bill.

I will touch on amendments 135 and 135A. The charter proposed in amendment 135 would offer a clear and accessible framework to support both landlords and tenants. I hope that the amendment itself would serve as a straightforward tool for communicating key information. I do not want to be overprescriptive when it comes to implementing a charter. The reason for the amendment is to make sure that the rights of the private rented sector are being upheld. The important balance between the sector and tenants would be met through the charter.

Amendment 135A would change when the charter would be published, from 12 months to six months after the proposed new section came into force. I do not intend to move amendments 135 and 135A today, but I would be grateful to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say on the introduction of a charter. I believe that something of this nature—whether it is a strategy, a charter or something else—must be explored as part of the bill.

I fully understand that. What the cabinet secretary has said reflects our conversations on these issues.

I feel that if I do not move my amendments now, that would represent a missed opportunity. However, at the same time, I understand the need for consultation—I have called on the Scottish Government to do that many times myself, and it needs to happen before important decisions are taken. I have a difficult choice to make, but I also understand where the cabinet secretary is coming from.

Convener, I might take a minute or two to reflect on my amendments so that when you call them I will be able to say whether I wish to move them.

I believe that there is something in amendment 130 and was grateful to hear that the cabinet secretary is willing to work with me ahead of stage 3, because there are potential benefits for tenants and landlords. There will be benefits for tenants because of the reasons that Graham Simpson has outlined, and the administrative burdens on landlords would also be reduced. Does Mr Simpson believe that that is the right way forward and that the amendment would benefit both tenants and landlords?

I care really deeply about this issue. The cabinet secretary and I have had many a conversation about it, and I think that we stand in the same place on succession to secure tenancies. The families of terminally ill people are often their full-time carers and live in the same property to enable them to fulfil their caring duties.

I am in two minds about moving my amendments 520 and 521. I know that I seek to do the right thing. I know, too, that Marie Curie really wants to see this issue resolved in the bill, and that is what we need to move towards. Given the cabinet secretary’s comment that amendment 521 could bring about a reduction in rights, I am concerned that my moving it might lead to potential tenants not being afforded the opportunity to access the relevant support networks.

However, my question for the cabinet secretary would be, why have those rights not been exercised to their full potential? That has perhaps led to the situation in which we find ourselves, where stakeholders do not feel that the right support networks are in place and therefore have to work alongside MSPs to put legislation in place. We have discussed that problem throughout the bill process. I know that the cabinet secretary is keen to work on that aspect, but in my view we must address why that is not already common practice for people who need help and support.

I turn to the social rented sector issues covered in my amendment 520. I might be able to pre-empt members’ concerns, given my experience as a councillor who sat on housing committees in North Lanarkshire. I will not apologise for highlighting that families need adequate time to get themselves together after they lose a loved one. The general point that I seek to make through these amendments is that, although social landlords might be within their rights to reuse properties and allocate them to other tenants, that is usually not done in the right way, and it often happens within a short period of time. I have certainly had casework where tenants have been expected to move out of a property a matter of weeks after the death of their loved one, a period in which not only must they start to move through the grieving period but they must box up the deceased person’s possessions and ensure that they themselves have somewhere to go. That is the reason for my lodging these amendments.

I do not plan to move amendment 119.

If I might speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments—

Amendment 130 relates to the payment of tenancy deposits. It seeks to include a framework for those payments in the bill so that tenancy deposit regulations must include a provision to ensure that a tenancy deposit is paid by the tenant directly to the scheme administrator. More than anything, it is a probing amendment. It will be helpful to hear where the cabinet secretary sits on including the provision in the bill.

I move on to the amendments in the name of Edward Mountain. Amendment 184 would add a fund for improving or securing the provision of social housing to the list of possible uses for transferred unclaimed deposits. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as does Edward Mountain. The amendment is about ensuring that we utilise unclaimed deposits in a positive way—in this case, by investing them in social housing, which is under huge pressure. The amendment seeks to find better and more positive solutions for the use of that money. Through discussions with the cabinet secretary, I understand that there are other areas where the money could also be better utilised, so I look forward to hearing her response to amendment 184. Any positive use of that money would be of great benefit to tenants.

I want to go back to the really interesting and important issue of guarantors. It is perhaps not an issue that we can solve through amendments today, but it could certainly be solved in the future. We have spoken a lot about students and young people who are trying to access further and higher education, and we need to be able to look after students who are from here but also students who are from elsewhere in order to utilise our education system. We need to be mindful that they have needs and requirements, including housing, and we must ensure that we recognise those issues throughout the bill.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response and the other contributions on this group of amendments.

Good morning, minister. You are on record as saying that

“Planning has not created the housing emergency, but it can help us to find solutions to the challenges that we face.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2024; c 12.]

Surely what is being proposed here goes against what you have previously said about trying to secure more planning developments in order to tackle the housing emergency. As Mark Griffin has rightly asked, will the fact that the consultation said one thing but you are going to do another squeeze out SMEs?

If small and medium-sized developments cannot progress, though, that will not help tackle the housing emergency. Is that something that you would charge for?