Chamber and committees

I am afraid that amendment 5, in the name of Murdo Fraser, and amendments 66 to 68, in the name of Edward Mountain, fundamentally go against the principles of the bill.

I will first talk about Mr Mountain’s amendments 66 to 68. Like his amendments at stage 2, these amendments seek to remove the provisions that make all grounds for eviction discretionary. That would mean that the tribunal would be obligated to order eviction in certain circumstances. Where the eviction ground would be mandatory, the tribunal would not be able to assess whether eviction was reasonable, and it would be prevented from taking the circumstances of both the landlord and the tenant into account, including the circumstances that both Mr Fraser and Mr Mountain described in the examples that they mentioned.

Both members say that they want us to find the right balance between the interests and the rights of landlords and of tenants. As we set out at stage 2, the tribunal is the correct place to balance the rights of both parties when deciding whether an eviction is reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal cannot arrive at a decision that is incompatible with the convention rights of either party in determining whether an eviction order should be granted. Our view, as fully endorsed by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, is that the position under the temporary legislation should be continued so that all grounds for eviction remain discretionary.

Mr Fraser’s amendment 5 is essentially the same as his amendment on this topic at stage 2. The Government remains of the view that the amendment is not appropriate for a number of reasons. It seeks to create a further mandatory ground for eviction where a landlord seeks to recover possession of a property in order to rent it to an employee. There are already existing grounds to enable a landlord to evict a tenant from a property that is occupied for the purposes of employment where the tenant is no longer an employee. The eviction ground that is being proposed here is also open to abuse, particularly due to its mandatory nature—one employee could find themselves evicted in favour of another.

As the Deputy First Minister has said on several occasions, the purpose of the bill includes looking at measures that were brought in on a temporary basis during the pandemic, in the emergency legislation, and determining which of them has longer-term value and should be made permanent. We have reached the view that those measures have proved their worth and should be made permanent.

As was said at stage 2, when the 2016 act was brought in, there was a commitment to a review of all the grounds for repossession after five years, and that period ends in December this year.

I have already confirmed that commitment, and we will ensure that key stakeholders are consulted in the development of that work. It is right for us to fully consider the grounds for eviction together in a coherent way.

For all the reasons that I have set out, I urge Mr Fraser not to move amendment 5, so that all grounds for eviction can be reviewed together in the months ahead. I also urge Mr Mountain not to press amendment 66 and not to move amendments 67 and 68, because tribunal discretion enables the circumstances of landlords and tenants to be taken into account. If those amendments are moved, I urge members to reject them.

Pam Duncan-Glancy says that we cannot pick and choose which parts of human rights we can comply with. That is precisely the point that Ross Greer has been trying to make. If we have to strike a balance between those that protect people’s human right to adequate housing and the A1P1 property rights, there will be a range of views about what the balance should be. However, if we are going to strike that balance, we need to be able to answer this question: how do we prove that it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate end? I am not convinced that the amendment has fully answered that question, but I am determined that the Government will answer it in developing an effective national system of rent controls.

There is a great deal of my job, whether it is tenants’ rights, zero carbon buildings or other parts, that I wish had been started 10, 20 or 30 years ago. We do not have a time machine and we are where we are. I have the opportunity to do what can be done to achieve a lasting benefit. However, I am not willing to risk the kind of unintended consequences that I was just speaking about.

One of my main worries about the sweeping nature of amendment 72 is that it would prompt landlords to bring tenancies to an end and restart new ones, simply as a way of raising rents. I know that such a desire in itself is not a ground for an eviction, but, as MSPs, we have all heard too many experiences from our constituents about eviction grounds being abused in this way. That is why, as I said earlier, we have already committed to undertaking a review of all grounds for eviction, once the five-year period of operation ends in December 2022. The unintended consequences would undermine the purpose of the amendment, which could result in an increase in evictions and homelessness, in a bill that otherwise strengthens the protection against evictions.

As the member knows, a significant amount of work is being done on skills and the supply chain not only for new builds but for retrofitting, which is a particular challenge in many island communities. We are working closely with the sector to address those challenges. I am sure that there will be much more on which to update the member as we develop the supply chain delivery plan later this year.

We are of course aware of the global issues that are affecting construction and impacting affordable housing delivery. We are working closely with the construction industry and housing partners to mitigate that where possible, and we operate a flexible grant system that can take account of increased costs.

Despite those challenges and the challenges that have been caused by the global pandemic in recent years, including the necessary lockdowns, the Scottish Government has, as I mentioned earlier, delivered 111,750 affordable homes since 2007, with 78,000 of those for social rent. We have passed the target of delivering 50,000 affordable homes, and we are starting on the delivery of an ambitious plan for a further 110,000 affordable homes by 2032.

There is a great deal of work with the sector to examine the potential for modern methods of construction. We already deliver homes using off-site construction methods—predominantly timber-frame methods—and will continue to support proven approaches. Given the real potential benefits to housing delivery, tenants and the environment, we are considering how we can increase uptake of and investment in off-site construction to support the delivery of more efficient high-quality and net zero affordable homes in the future.

The Government is determined to increase and accelerate the affordable housing supply across all tenures, including mid-market rent, and to support local authorities to deliver their strategic housing priorities.

Mid-market rent housing is supported where it is identified as a strategic priority and meets a recognised need. In the four years up to March 2021, 1,817 mid-market rent homes were completed in the Lothian area. In the current financial year, we expect there to be 449 mid-market rent home approvals in the Lothian area and around 200 further mid-market rent homes should be available through the mid-market rent invitation.

Yes, indeed. As I said in my answer to Mr Balfour, mid-market rent is one of a range of affordable tenures. We are actively looking at how further innovative delivery mechanisms can provide much-needed affordable housing of all kinds and all tenures.

However, we recognise that social rented housing is the more affordable option for many. That is why we have committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, with 70 per cent of those being for social rent. That comes on top of the announcement yesterday that we have surpassed the target of delivering 50,000 affordable homes since the start of the previous parliamentary session. It is worth saying that 9,757 affordable homes were delivered in the previous financial year; that is the highest figure in a single financial year since 2000-01. The Government will continue with this important work, benefiting communities right across Scotland.

I have now had three opportunities over the course of two questions to remind members that, just this week, we have announced that we have surpassed the target of delivering 50,000 homes since the start of the previous parliamentary session. We are already making progress on delivering a longer-term and even more ambitious target of delivering 110,000 homes by 2032. In my previous answer, I think that I mentioned the figure of 9,000 homes, which have had the most significant impact in any financial year to date.

We are making significant progress. That contrasts very sharply with the approach of the United Kingdom Government, which is contemplating rebooting the desperately damaging right-to-buy policy, which this Government prevented from being introduced in Scotland. We have no intention of repeating the mistakes that the UK Government looks about to repeat.