Chamber and committees

I do not mind admitting that there is a slight lump in my throat as I acknowledge what a privilege it is to be able to close this stage 3 debate on the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill. I know that many people across the country who do not necessarily follow every word that we speak in the chamber or follow politics closely will give a huge welcome to the important protection that the bill will provide.

It is not the first bill that I have taken through the Parliament. I led a member’s bill that, if memory serves me correctly, was one and a half sides of A4 with no amendments at stages 2 or 3 and no votes against from anybody. This bill, by comparison, feels like going in at the deep end.

It would be remiss of me not to observe that it is also the first Government bill led through Parliament by a Green minister in the Scottish Parliament or anywhere else in the UK. I am also pleased to note that it is the new King’s first bill. I am sure that it will be the start of an extremely productive working relationship.

As I have been pressing for reform for tenants for over a decade in the Parliament, the bill is extremely close to my heart. It is a product of working in genuine constructive partnership with the cabinet secretary and colleagues from both our political groups. It is an illustration of how much we can achieve by delivering on the collaborative approach to politics that is at the heart of the Bute house agreement.

We have heard members’ views over the past couple of days. I hope that, during the debates, everybody has kept in mind the close to 2 million people who rent their homes in Scotland, whether in the social sector, the private sector or student accommodation. The bill aims to help them through the challenging months ahead. Those challenges are not of their making and, in many cases, are out of control, as spiralling energy bills and soaring costs hit all households.

There are some members, of course, who fundamentally disagree with the action that we are taking and would, perhaps, take no action to prevent unaffordable rent increases being imposed on people who cannot afford them. There are others who perhaps oppose the need for balance and the safeguards for landlords who are also vulnerable. We have repeatedly restated that not all landlords are in the same financial situation. However, in truth, although the bill is needed, it will work in the real world only if it is balanced. That is what we have achieved. It is both radical and real; not demanding the impossible but delivering what is really needed.

One of the clear areas of concern throughout all three days of debate has been the importance of the social rented sector—not just the housing that it provides but its wider social role. The Government shares that concern. We share that priority, as do members from across the chamber. We are already working closely and collaboratively with the sector.

Bob Doris spoke about the importance of the tenant voice and the role that social landlords have in ensuring that all tenants’ voices are heard. In the longer-term work that we are doing, we seek to bring that approach into the private rented sector, too.

I have gone through some of the statistics that show the need for the bill. Tenants have, on average, lower household incomes and higher levels of poverty and are more vulnerable to economic shocks. That stark reality is why we have introduced the bill.

Members will remember that one of my first announcements on taking up my ministerial role was to commit to the longer-term work on the new deal for tenants. Although it is right that we responded to newly arising challenges by delivering emergency legislation, throughout the past three days of debate, many members have reinforced the arguments that we need to bear in mind as we develop that longer-term groundbreaking work to deliver on the new deal with a new housing bill in 2023, with new rights and protections. We will also establish a new regulator for the private rented sector to enforce standards as well as considering the scope of the existing Scottish Housing Regulator and working towards a national system of rent controls for the private sector by the end of 2025. There is a great deal more work to be done to deliver on all that and I look forward to working as constructively as possible with members across the chamber to do it.

I will finish in the way that I began on Tuesday: with some thanks. Although it is a privilege to stand in the chamber, present the bill and ask members to vote for it, it is never the work of one person; it is the work of a huge team. I thank members from across the Parliament, particularly those who have chosen to work constructively with the Government on some of their amendments to improve the bill. I also thank the Parliament officials, of course, who have worked hard, and external stakeholders who have contributed to the discussions.

I also acknowledge the work that has been done by people across Government: the First Minister, who made the commitment when she announced it in the programme for government; the rest of the ministerial team, including the cabinet secretary; and, in particular, our officials and advisers. Those officials and advisers do not get to stand here and present their work, but their work over the past few weeks has been amazing, and it has been conducted at an extraordinary pace. I have been proud to work with them, and they can have confidence, as can Parliament, that the work that we have done together will give real practical protection to people across Scotland.

The Scottish Government understands that emergency circumstances demand an emergency response, but we also recommit to move ahead with the longer-term reform that is badly needed.

With that, I am delighted to urge members to support the motion that the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

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.