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.

Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of Mr Mountain, appear to have the same ultimate effect as amendments 66 to 68 in the previous group, by expiring part 4 of the bill in June 2024. Amendments 66 to 68 would have reinstated mandatory eviction grounds now; amendments 70 and 71 would do that too, but at a later date.

Therefore, the arguments that were made against amendments 66 to 68 also apply here. Part 4 of the bill ensures that tenants are not evicted unreasonably; it also ensures that all the circumstances of the case—those relating to the tenant and those relating to the landlord—can be considered by the tribunal in any eviction proceedings.

Part 4 of the bill also introduces the pre-action protocol as a permanent measure, which is intended to assist landlords and tenants. I am aware of Mr Mountain’s concerns regarding those provisions applying to existing tenancies. The provisions only change the law for future eviction proceedings. The Scottish Government considers that that is a proportionate approach that is designed to prevent the unreasonable eviction of tenants.

As well as seeking to remove that reasonableness test and the protocol, Mr Mountain has lodged amendment 69, which seeks to oblige the Scottish ministers to introduce primary legislation to reform the law on residential tenancies, but without specifying what aspects should be reformed. Creating a duty in primary legislation to enact future unspecified primary legislation is a very unusual approach, and it is not one that has normally been adopted by Parliament.

As was reaffirmed to Mr Mountain at stage 2, and as I said to him in a meeting this week, the Government has already committed to legislation to reform the law on residential tenancies, which will deliver a new deal for tenants. Mr Mountain’s amendment 69 is therefore completely unnecessary.

For that reason, I urge Mr Mountain not to press amendment 69 and not to move amendments 70 and 71 and, instead, to work with us as we move forward with our commitment to examine the current private rented tenancy regime over the course of this session of Parliament, building on the constructive discussions that we have had only this week.

I absolutely agree that we have the problem. What we do not have is the solution—amendment 72 is not the solution, for some of the reasons that I have set out and because of the unintended consequences that I am quite convinced Mercedes Villalba would not want to see happen.

Beyond the question of unintended consequences, given that rent control will engage the convention rights of both landlords and tenants, consultation is necessary to help us to develop proportionate rent control measures that will appropriately balance the interests of landlords and tenants.

As we have reiterated throughout the process, we have committed to implementing an effective national system of rent controls during this session of Parliament. We are doing the hard work to ensure that the model that we deliver is evidence based and robust against legal challenge. This is not scaremongering; it is simply recognising that the law is the law. Bearing in mind that a legal challenge could delay the implementation of the entire bill, we have to do the hard work that is necessary to ensure that the model is robust against legal challenge. I know that there will be people who are disappointed about that but, for those reasons, we cannot in good conscience support amendments 72 and 73.

As someone who has been making the case for reforms of the private rented sector for many years, and as someone who now has the opportunity to make progress that has been a long time coming, I welcome the fact that this agenda now has wide and growing support. What has happened to the Scottish Greens, incidentally, is that we have gained the ability, as part of the Bute house agreement and the programme for government, to put these radical measures into practice.

When the Labour Party was in government, it facilitated a massive unregulated explosion of the private rented sector, while many of us warned of the consequences. It is obviously welcome that the Labour Party now accepts that it got that wrong, but it needs to understand that a quick fix simply will not work, and that this Government—the first in decades with the determination to introduce effective rent controls—is doing the work that is necessary to fix the broken system.

Private tenants are facing extraordinary financial circumstances. Tenants should be aware of the rights that they have now to challenge unfair rent increases imposed on them by their landlord. There are strict processes set out in law that a landlord must follow if they want to increase rent. Rent adjudication rights have been in place in Scotland since 2017, meaning that a tenant can apply to have their increase adjudicated where they think that it is unfair, but those rights are not well used. To ensure that people are aware of those rights and make use of them, I have instructed officials to work with tenant representatives to take forward a further awareness-raising campaign on tenants’ rights, with the key aim of increasing the use of and access to rent adjudication. That is the process under which tenants already have the right to challenge rent rises imposed on them by their landlords. As part of that process, I will listen carefully to how we can build on the way in which rent adjudication works.

In summary, although I cannot support amendments 72 and 73, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that what this debate demonstrates is that we understand and share the sense of urgency and are taking the action that is needed. However, that action must be informed by evidence, so that it is robust, stands the test of time and actually works in practice, because that is what tenants need. I must therefore urge Mercedes Villalba not to press amendment 72 or move amendment 73. If she does, I urge members to reject those amendments.

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.

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.

We certainly are aware of the work that that trust is doing. It pioneered the use of financial transaction loan money from the Government and has delivered housing with that. We have continued to work on that basis since 2016. We have provided £102.5 million of financial transaction loan funding, enabling private investment into large-scale mid-market rent housing projects.

As I said in my first answer, it is the wider affordable housing and social rented housing supply that will meet the critical need and be the more sustainable option for a great many people. The Government is delivering on that at pace.