Chamber and committees

Before I turn to the amendments, I will respond to those last points on energy efficiency. The Government has given not just a clear indication but a clear commitment on investment in energy efficiency across our built environment and in social housing, in particular. Edward Mountain is quite right to draw attention to the critically important nature of that investment in reducing our emissions and tenants’ energy costs. I would refer Edward Mountain to the recent comments of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, which, in giving advice to the UK Government, said that it should follow the Scottish Government’s lead on the support that we are giving in the area.

If it is brief.

I wonder whether, as a number of members are already commenting, Jeremy Balfour would reflect on and acknowledge the cause of the increases to which he refers and where political responsibility for those reckless choices lies.

The problem of empty homes has existed for a long time, and successive Governments—not just this one but previous ones going way back to the days of the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration—have continued to increase the effort that has been put into bringing empty homes into use. There will always be work to do—I am sure that there is more that we can do—to create the right incentives to bring empty homes into use, but I do not think that that should be achieved by reducing the protection of tenants for whom those properties would become homes.

On amendments 37, 38, 41 and 42, which attempt to remove or weaken some of the safeguards that are needed around substantial rent arrears, I recognise that the provisions on rent arrears are one of the controversial areas in the bill. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I thought long and hard about whether to present those measures as part of the package of safeguards. I believe that the support that tenants facing substantial rent arrears really need is not necessarily the same as the support that is needed in other areas. They need direct support, and that is coming through discretionary housing payments, the tenant grant fund and the work that we are doing to raise awareness of tenants’ rights and ensure that people are able to exercise those rights. I think that those particular amendments would weaken the package of safeguards to the point of not having a bill that strikes the appropriate balance.

I will be coming on to Mr Kerr’s amendment in a moment. I see that he is happy to wait until I get to that point.

The existing contracts stand and, generally speaking, they allow providers to charge extra fees for excessive use. The provisions would be interpreted in that context.

Finally, I turn to Jamie Greene’s amendment 72. The cabinet secretary was right to challenge the fundamentals of the amendment and the idea that the public purse should pay people’s mortgage costs. However, perhaps the cabinet secretary was a little kind in this instance, in referring to “interest”. The amendment from Jamie Greene states:

“The Scottish Ministers must make a scheme or schemes for the making of payments to landlords who are able to demonstrate that their monthly mortgage payments ... exceed the rental income”.

Amendment 72 would cover not just interest payments but the repayment element of the mortgage.

Mr Greene says that the costs should not fall on the wider public, but that is precisely who they would fall on. The Scottish Government holds the public purse and holds money on behalf of the wider public, and he is asking for that to be dipped into to repay the personal debt of landlords—not to service their interest payments but to service all of their monthly mortgage payments. The idea that we should use public funds in that way is astonishing. It would be astonishing to somebody on the right of the political spectrum, and it is certainly astonishing to the rest of us.

Yes. The measures on pre-action protocols, which have been a requirement in the social rented sector for a long time and which Parliament earlier this year agreed to make permanent in relation to the private rented sector, will not be bypassed in any way. Indeed, if an eviction measure goes to the First-tier Tribunal, the requirement to take all circumstances into account and to apply the test of reasonableness is still important.

On amendment 44, if it was accepted, evictions could still go ahead as they do now, negating the point of including college and university halls of residence and purpose-built student accommodation in the moratorium. It would also place a new duty on the First-tier Tribunal to consider whether a student tenant has failed to comply with the tenancy agreement and determine whether that is reasonable. Not only would that have an impact on the workload and the costs of the tribunal, it would represent a new type of tenancy agreement for it to consider.

Mr Kerr quite properly and rightly says that universities have a serious responsibility and a duty of care, which they take seriously, including in situations in which one student might pose a risk to others. However, the move to eviction is a serious measure and it requires there to be a high bar of evidence around it. I am concerned about the possibility that, if we accepted Mr Kerr’s amendment, any breach in the tenancy agreement—even a minor one—could be used. Even though that test of reasonableness could be applied if the case reached the tribunal, students in that situation would not have the security of knowing that, if they breached their tenancy in any very minor way, they could not be evicted.

I do not disagree for a moment with that, and I hope that my remarks recognise the substance of the issues that Pauline McNeill has raised. I agree that there are substantial issues here. I suspect that they are best addressed in the longer-term review of the repossession grounds, to which the Government is already committed in terms of making permanent change to the law. They are not best addressed through the temporary measures in this emergency bill.

I am happy to ensure that, after we have finished with this legislation, officials get in touch with Pauline McNeill and other colleagues to make sure that our longer-term work is well informed by the concerns that she has raised. Like other members, I recognise the issues from my local postbag. I suspect that there is great scope for working together on the longer-term work, but the emergency legislation is not the right place for it.

If Mark Griffin is asking whether we continue to commit to collaborate with colleagues on our longer-term work under the new deal for tenants, I absolutely give that assurance. As I said, I do not think that it is appropriate to make longer-term, permanent changes within the emergency legislation.

I offer as sincere an apology to the member as he offered to me earlier. I may have glanced over some of my speaking notes on amendment 70, which seeks that ministers make sure that advice is available for landlords on how to recoup rent arrears. A landlord will be able to go through the usual eviction proceedings in cases where a tenant has not paid their rent, and will also be able to pursue any existing remedies for recovery of arrears owed to them. Nothing in the bill impacts on the existing processes for landlords’ recovery of rent.