Chamber and committees

I do not accept the premise that it will, and I do not accept that that is the only issue affecting rent rises. It is not the only one; there are also landlords who are raising rents simply—I quote a landlord—

“to keep pace with the market”.

That is simply exploitation.

I want to address some of the slightly more technical points that have been raised. In particular, there are valid questions around reporting duties on Government and decisions about how any possible extensions of the measures will be taken forward. There are questions about whether there will be robust planning and reporting. Those are very fair questions—

I would like to make some progress.

I engaged with the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee this morning and offered to remain engaged with it on that point.

It is clear that, under the bill, we have to review its operation every three months and consider whether the provisions “remain necessary and proportionate”. We will have to review whether the rent freeze and eviction moratorium remain necessary and proportionate in the light of changing economic circumstances, and that will include considering the available evidence on the impact of the measures and how that changes over time.

That figure is not an absolute. A provision exists in the bill for the Government to change it, and we will look at that in the light of changing circumstances.

Throughout the debate, there were a number of calls for the Government to spend more money on all aspects of housing. Members should understand that, if we were able to throw more money than we have done already at direct tenant support, social housing provision, retrofitting, the cost of running the tribunal and the wider cost of living measures that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned, we would. We have a strong track record of prioritising those things, but we also have to say that we do not yet know what scale of brutal cuts are coming down the line from the United Kingdom.

We are working at pace to get this legislation in place within weeks, and we are working in close dialogue with the social rented sector. Already, good and creative ideas are coming forward about how we will work together with the sector.

The provisions on evictions prevent the enforcement of eviction action in the private and social rented sectors, and in college and university halls and PBSA, except in a number of specified circumstances.

I will make a little progress on eviction measures and will let members in in a moment or two.

Again, it is vital that the emergency legislation reflects a range of circumstances that tenants and landlords face, and ensures that responsible landlords continue to offer properties in the private rented sector.

In recognition of those factors, as was the case with the eviction measures in the coronavirus legislation, we have allowed for a number of exemptions from the moratorium. Those are a mixture of existing eviction grounds and new temporary grounds for eviction that we have developed. They include allowing evictions in cases of criminal or antisocial behaviour, to protect other tenants and neighbours from behaviour that can have a hugely damaging impact on communities; in cases in which a tenant has abandoned a property; in cases of repossession by lenders, to ensure continued lender confidence in the sector; and in cases in which a landlord intends to sell or live in the property specifically in order to alleviate financial hardship or to prevent their own homelessness. Those last two grounds are new. In effect, they are versions of existing grounds but have the important caveat that financial hardship must be demonstrated. We will work with the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland to support the implementation of that.

I invite Mr Balfour to come in.

I welcome Roz McCall to the chamber—I have not had the chance to say that on the record. However, I strongly disagree with her suggestion that the situation that is faced by students—particularly by the new intake of students in Glasgow and Edinburgh—is a response to the bill. There is no connection.

I mentioned the private rented sector. There are critical differences between the private and social rented sectors. For social landlords, there are already requirements about how rents are consulted on and agreed, and tenant participation and consultation in rent setting is a valuable part of our current system. Social landlords are not-for-profit bodies. Their rents are channelled back into the quality of homes, services for tenants and public investment in housing. That is why we are working in partnership with the social rented sector to consider the implications of any use of the rent measures after 31 March.

I told Parliament last week and emphasise again now that no decision has been made about any use of the measures after March. Any such decision will be informed by dialogue with the sector.

I am sure that the member will appreciate that, although many landlords would not have behaved in this way, if the information had come out that we were intending to introduce a rent freeze and we had consulted on the proposal, a great number would have gone for an immediate increase of as much as they could have got away with. Surely the member is aware of his constituents seeking 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent rent increases. We should not have decided to introduce the rent freeze in a way that would have exacerbated that problem.

I am afraid that I need to finish up in the next minute or two.

The power will be subject to affirmative procedure, ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is given to the necessity for any temporary changes proposed.

Finally, on the general provisions, we are seeking to commence the bill the day after it receives royal assent. We propose the flexibility to extend the provisions in part 1 for two subsequent six-month periods, if the Parliament agrees, and that the powers in part 3 on rent adjudication will expire at the end of March 2024, with the option of extending them by periods of up to one year. There will be powers to suspend and revive the provisions in part 1 and powers to expire those provisions earlier than 31 March. Similar to the coronavirus legislation, there will be a requirement to review and report on the necessity and proportionality of the provisions in part 1, and ministers will be required to bring forward regulations to suspend or expire any provision that is no longer appropriate.

In conclusion, we are bringing forward the emergency legislation in recognition of the fact that people who rent their homes are—right now—being hit the hardest by an extraordinary cost crisis. The bill’s primary purpose is to provide the protection that is necessary for tenants while also recognising the circumstances of landlords. The bill significantly strengthens the protection against unwarranted rent rises and eviction, it sends a strong signal to landlords about the damages that can be awarded for unlawful eviction and it provides a bridge into the longer-term reforms that I set out in the new deal for tenants last December.

The safeguards in the bill provide a total package of fair and robust measures. This is a Government that is confronting the cost crisis head-on; a Government that is giving people stability in their homes and assurance about their rents—in sharp contrast with those who want to cut taxes for the wealthiest and let bankers’ bonuses soar.

The bill demonstrates our determination to use all the powers that we have to protect the people of Scotland from the harshest of times. Let us hope that all members of the Parliament will do what is necessary to support tenants.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill.

I have laid out exactly why this needs to be a balanced package, and I have been saying since the member’s colleague moved an amendment back in June that a universal blanket approach would almost certainly fail the test of proportionality. I am a little confused as to why the member is using his speech simply to read out what I have already said is the Government position and is doing so in an ever-angrier tone of voice.