Chamber and committees

I will.

The Government is aware of the impact on people in care homes and of the issues that the member raises, but I am afraid that they go significantly beyond the issue of rented housing, which is what the bill seeks to address. I suggest that the member engage in dialogue with the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care to address those issues further. I entirely respect the intention with which he has raised them, but I am afraid that the amendment goes beyond the purpose of the bill. Therefore, I urge the member not to move amendment 31. If he does, I am afraid that I must ask the chamber not to support it.

I might take that argument seriously if it came from the kind of tenants’ rights campaigner who argues that, at a time when mortgage payments are less than rental income, the difference should be repaid to the tenant or the public purse. However, I do not think that that is Mr Greene’s position on how private renting ought to work.

The idea that we should have public payment of people’s repayment of their mortgages in these circumstances is astonishing. We have seen unfunded tax cuts from the Conservative Party recently, but the idea of unfunded repayment of landlords’ mortgages is astonishing.

Who would end up repaying? It would be those who benefit from the services that the Government would have to cut in order to fund that uncosted measure. Who should pay for that? Should we pay for it by scrapping the Scottish child payment or free prescription charges? No. The Government has introduced a balanced bill that reflects the interests of tenants, who need protection from rising rents in these difficult times, and the interests of landlords, not all of whom are in the same circumstances. The bill is balanced already, and amendment 72 would unbalance it fatally.

I urge members to reject all the amendments in the group.

Indeed—not only is there nothing to prevent them from consulting, that consultation is a fundamental and important part of the way in which the social rented sector operates. We encourage landlords to continue—and tenants to participate in—those consultation processes, which will inform the decisions on rent setting after the end of March.

Mr Rennie said that the zero per cent cap that is in place for the first six months could be decoupled. Not only could it be decoupled, it—very clearly within the bill—operates as a separate cap in the social and rented sectors. Yes, it could be decoupled, but I cannot commit now to a guarantee that it will not need to operate at any level after 31 March. To do so would pre-empt and potentially undermine the very positive and constructive dialogue that we are having between Government and the social rented sector.

Finally, amendment 82 would delete section 6 entirely, which would mean that the bill could not be extended beyond 31 March next year. Members will understand that, quite obviously, I cannot support that.

Once again, I urge members not to move the amendments in this group. If they are moved, I urge Parliament to reject them.

I am grateful to the member for being clear about the intentions behind his amendment. I must say that he raises some issues that relate to arguments about the longer-term future of the rental sector. My experience as a regional MSP for Glasgow is that a great many people would disagree with him that the market is not leading to inflated rents. Indeed, I have many constituents who are paying more for a rental property than they would for even a repayment mortgage on the same property, despite the fact that their rights and security of tenure as a tenant are less than those of a homeowner.

Therefore, there is very clearly a long-term argument about whether the open market rent approach secures what the Scottish Government wants to secure, which is for the human right to adequate housing to be met for everyone. However, as I said, some of that is a longer-term discussion that will be taken forward through the work that we are doing under the new deal for tenants and permanent legislation in the future.

As for the emergency legislation, it is clear that, if and when circumstances change and we reach the view that the emergency measures are no longer proportionate and justified by circumstances and necessity, we will have to move away from them. It is essential that we have a bridge away from that process rather than a direct return to open market rents.

All the amendments in this group would, in essence, remove the ability to modify the rent adjudication process so as to prevent a cliff edge. If we took that approach, there is a genuine possibility that the ending of the emergency measures would lead to a frankly unsustainable position for a great many people around the country—not just in areas such as Glasgow and Edinburgh but in areas such as those that the member represents.

It is not enough to say that a tenancy that is agreed at whatever rent is agreed freely between the landlord and the tenant, because a great many people in our society are unable to afford owner occupation because of inflated house prices. The Scottish Government is determined to press ahead with the increase in the provision of social housing because many people have found that to be unavailable. Therefore, for far too many people, the private rented sector is their only choice. They have no freedom to make a different choice. They have only the option to accept what the private rented housing market offers them. For many, that is good quality housing at an affordable price, but, for far too many others, it is unaffordable housing that is of a poorer energy performance standard than the rest of the housing stock.

The emergency measures that we are taking are about these current circumstances, but it is essential that we retain the power to modify the rent adjudication process—again, on a temporary basis—as a bridge out of the emergency measures. Therefore, I strongly urge Parliament to reject the amendments in the group.

I will turn to the amendments. In response to one of the last points that was made, I remind the members who are moving amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23 that, fundamentally, the commitment to a zero per cent rent cap for the first six months has reduced the income of no social landlord in Scotland and no decision has been made about the future. We are working constructively with the sector in order to inform those decisions. Amendments 4, 5, 21 and 23 would have the effect of removing registered social landlords, their wholly owned subsidiaries and local authorities from the rent cap.

As we discussed yesterday, we propose the application of the rent cap until 31 March in the first instance and having it separately variable between the private and social rented sectors in order to take account of the sectors’ distinct nature. That date was set with the social rented sector in mind, as we are aware that rents in that sector are not generally set until 1 April and will not increase before then. We set that date specifically to ensure that those emergency measures do not immediately impact on the finances of the social rented sector without full consideration of its perspective.

Clearly, this group of amendments has opened up the opportunity for some of the fundamental differences in approach that were debated yesterday to be heard again today. Obviously, we welcome a robust exchange of views. We have very divergent opinions, although I expect that those divergent opinions on the fundamentals are between the Conservatives and all the other parties in the chamber. Even if some colleagues might disagree on some of the details, I think that we are mostly on the same page on the fundamentals.

In addressing Mr Balfour’s amendments, I want to look at some of Mr Greene’s comments about balance. Fundamentally, in crafting the bill, we have had to ensure that there is a balance of interests between landlords and tenants. The purpose of the package of safeguards that we have built into the bill is to recognise the exact point that Mr Greene makes. Not all landlords are hugely wealthy, with hugely profitable businesses and extensive property portfolios. Some are, but some landlords are the kind of people that Mr Greene described. The package of safeguards in the bill is designed precisely to address their circumstances.

Indeed, the Scottish Association of Landlords has recognised that. On the radio this morning, John Blackwood said:

“We all support the idea that tenants do need protection.”

He went on to say:

“Certainly we do welcome the mitigations in the bill”.

On several occasions outside of that interview, Mr Blackwood has also recognised the work that the Government has done to produce a balanced package. Indeed, if we had not produced a balanced package, we would not have been able to satisfy ourselves or the Presiding Officer that the bill is within the Parliament’s competence. It has to achieve that balance in order to be within competence, and that is what it does.

Just a moment; I will make some progress first.

It is right and proper that the provider can seek recovery of that from the tenant where the tenancy allows it.

Mr Fraser’s amendment 30 would create a loophole. It would allow providers to circumvent the rent freeze by increasing the utility part of the rent, even if the utilities are being used normally rather than excessively.

On the questions about definition that Mr Fraser raised, the term “excessive” is part of the contracts. It would not be appropriate to have a global definition in the bill, because the matter is provided for in individual contracts that govern purpose-built student accommodation.

I promise the chamber that there is nothing deliberate in the fact that the cabinet secretary chose to lead on the group in which we are being magnanimous and I am once again having to ask Parliament to vote against the amendments in a group.

Amendments 74 and 75 would require the moratorium on evictions to be in place over next winter, regardless of whether ministers consider the provisions to be necessary and proportionate at the time, and, if they had expired before then, they would have to be revived.

As we have stated on a number of occasions, this emergency legislation needs to be justified in terms of its necessity and its proportionality in relation to the context that we are living in, and I am afraid that those amendments would undermine that. The proposal would be a dilution of the on-going requirements that we have built into the bill in recognition of the fact that emergency legislation is a serious step for Government and Parliament to take. The on-going requirements will allow the provisions to be extended for two six-month periods, where we consider them to be necessary and proportionate. That is an important safeguard and I do not think that it would be appropriate to set it aside.

Amendment 76 supports amendments 74 and 75, so I cannot support it either.

Amendment 77 would remove the power of the Scottish ministers to extend the provisions for those two subsequent periods of six months. Amendment 78 removes that power too, and also says that any extension would have to be done through a further primary act of the Scottish Parliament. We consider that the ability to have the provisions in place for a potential period of 18 months is fundamental to the protection for tenants that we are proposing in the bill, so I cannot support amendments 77 and 78.

Mr Balfour said that it would be appropriate to come back and review these measures in an appropriate way, but that is precisely what is already built into the bill, just as it was for previous emergency legislation. There are very clear provisions on review periods and a requirement for Parliament to be consulted if any future decisions on extension or expiry are proposed.

Amendment 79 would prevent the power to extend the expiry of the bill with regard to Scottish secure tenancies and Scottish short secure tendencies. As I set out, tenants in the social rented sector are some of the most vulnerable to the cost crisis in our society, and we require to be able to extend the provisions, if necessary, to those tenants beyond 31 March.

Again, I will emphasise the confidence that we have, from the conversations that we have already been undertaking with the social rented sector, that we can work collaboratively with the sector, and that might be an alternative to an extension after the end of March. However, amendment 79 would pre-empt the work that we need to take forward with the sector.

The effect of amendments 96 and 99 is to require a draft of the proposed regulations three months before the expiry of the bill. Regulations made under schedule 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that they will be subject to 54 days of parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.

Given that the provisions of schedule 3 will apply in anticipation of the expiry of the emergency measures, it is envisaged that any regulations that are made under schedule 3 would be introduced 54 days before the expiry of those measures. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. In addition, it might not be possible to fulfil the requirements of the amendment, because we do not know when the emergency measures will expire. I am sure that, if circumstances change and the Government is no longer able to demonstrate the on-going necessity and proportionality of the measures, Conservative members will be keener than anyone for us to expire them as soon as that becomes possible. It would not be appropriate to place this additional requirement for advance publication of a draft, given that it might not be possible to do that in time for expiry in those circumstances. Therefore, I do not believe that the proposal would be workable, and I urge the member not to press the amendment.

I stress that we are keen to ensure that the decisions and policy development around the regulations are transparent, and I commit to publishing a draft for consultation and working with Parliament and stakeholders on their development and to ensuring that that opportunity is as significant as possible. However, I cannot support the specific measures in the amendment.