Chamber and committees

I thought that we were somewhere else earlier, so I apologise if my previous supplementary questions were off topic.

Will the minister outline the different circumstances in which the Scottish Government considers it appropriate to hunt a wild mammal using a dog under the exceptions and when it would be inappropriate?

One witness said that they would have to apply for licences repeatedly throughout a given season. There is a concern that a few loopholes remain. I accept the Government’s intention, but I am not sure that the bill will achieve it.

Are you saying that the detail will be in the bill at stage 2 or is that something for when the bill becomes an act? I am not sure about the process.

There is some concern among wildlife campaigners that the exceptions are broad and cover a lot of circumstances. Will you take this opportunity to confirm that the intention of the bill is to prohibit all use of dogs to hunt wild animals and that any exceptions will be applied narrowly and subject to rigorous scrutiny?

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I recognise the minister’s sincere concern about unintended consequences around evictions. Does he not recognise that the lack of legislative change this year—I am not saying that he is not doing research and preparation on rent controls, but they will not come in this year, because there is nothing on the table—will mean that landlords will continue to increase rents, which will cause evictions because people will be unable to afford their homes and will have to move out? Either way, we have the problem of evictions, but with my proposal, we could prevent some of that.

Ross Greer. Sorry, Presiding Officer.

Amendments 72 and 73 merely freeze rent, rather than reducing it. I have sought to strike a balance between the rights of the landlords, by giving them the ability to appeal and by providing a deadline of 2024, and the interests of the community, given the cost of living crisis.

The measures that I propose in my amendments are less drastic than those taken in Austria and even the Austrian legislation did not breach the ECHR. Given that that case has been used as authority in Scotland, I ask the minister to reconsider his opposition and instead join Labour in supporting them today.

The minister also made a point about the risk of increased evictions. What we have proposed is not a blanket freeze but a proportionate time-limited measure that allows for exceptions. Indeed, it allows for further exceptions, should the minister wish to work and engage constructively.

The amendments, which are entirely consistent with case law, are a short-term solution to mitigate the cost of living emergency. I do not think that what we propose could be successfully challenged. However, even if a private individual or a company challenged a provision in the Court of Session, that would not jeopardise the entire legislation or future legislation; the challenge would be against a single provision.

I urge the minister—I feel that the Government is scaremongering at this point—to come on board and join us. Today, we have the power to legislate in the interests of tenants. There is no excuse not to do so.

Tenants need urgent financial support now, after a decade of rent hikes and in the face of the current cost of living increases. To turn our backs on tenants now would signal to them that we are not acting in their interests. The amendments enjoy support from tenants through Living Rent and of workers in every sector through the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Let us show tenants which side we are on; let us show them in whose interests we are working; and let us come together to deliver the emergency rent freeze that we so desperately need.

I thank John Mason for his question. I am pleased to hear that he recognises the cost of living crisis and the rising inflation facing workers and tenants across the country—and his constituents. My priority in moving amendments 72 and 73 is to alleviate the pressures on renters. As Mr Mason will find out if he reads the amendments, an exception clause is built in for cases where landlords would face “severe financial hardship”. The amendments are therefore reasonable and account for individual circumstances.

Members will know from contact with their constituents that successive rent hikes are taking their toll on tenants. At stage 2, I shared some tenants’ testimonies with the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, and I would like to share further testimonies with the Parliament today. One tenant who reported a rent hike said:

“Our landlord increased our rent from £1,250 to £1,318 per month to bring it in line with market rates. On top of that, our flat is very poorly insulated and our gas bill has tripled.”

Another tenant explained:

“The landlord increased the rent from £1,760 to £2,400, an increase of £640. The reason he gave was that it’s below current market value. We can’t afford to stay and are looking to move but are struggling to find somewhere else in our budget.”

I believe that the final testimony that I would like to share with members today underlines just how vital it is that we support tenants now. The tenant said:

“My landlord raised my rent from £545 to £688 because he found out that the universal credit limit had been raised.”

The experience of those tenants emphasises that we must tackle rip-off rents if we are to truly build a fair recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The Scottish Government, by its own admission, recognises—

Yes, I will give way to, er, that man.

I thank Mr Simpson for his intervention, and I apologise for forgetting his name.

I do not recognise that there will be a loss of housing in the sector. Although private landlords can seek to evict a tenant on the ground that they wish to sell their property, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 made that ground of eviction a discretionary one. The bill makes that change permanent, so it would be wrong to assume that a private landlord has an automatic right to sell—the position is actually more complex than that.

Although landlords are currently limited to seeking a rent increase once a year, there is no restriction on the level of increase that they can propose. It is clear that the right of tenants to challenge unfair rent increases is not preventing above-inflation rises. Indeed, in its consultation on “A New Deal for Tenants”, the Scottish Government acknowledged that adjudication has

“not achieved the desired policy outcome.”

That is why tenants need urgent support now, until the Scottish Government brings forward its national system of rent controls, which it promised to do by the end of 2025. Tenants cannot endure up to another four years of rent hikes. An emergency rent freeze is an immediate but temporary measure to support tenants now.

I reassure members that this is not a political stunt, an ill-thought-through proposal or mischief making, and that it is not incompetent or unworkable, as some members have suggested to their supporters. This is a reasonable measure, and it is a minimum measure that enjoys support from tenants and workers, who are bearing the brunt of rent costs now. That is why members have received letters urging them to support the amendments from Scotland’s tenants union, Living Rent, and from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, whose member trade unions represent workers across the country.

Ultimately, we need a national system of rent controls, but we cannot afford to do nothing until then. An emergency rent freeze would provide interim relief for tenants who are struggling with rent costs now.

I move amendment 72.