Chamber and committees

I am very much looking forward to meeting the cabinet secretary at the opening of the new Hairmyres station on Monday. I will be travelling there sustainably by bike. How will she be getting there?

Kate Forbes is having the mickey taken out of her. Can she tell us which budget she is going to raid to fund the latest increase?

It is good to be able to follow on from Ben Macpherson, who set out very clearly the situation where we have landlords who are charging very fair rents and looking after tenants—they often charge rents that are below market value. He set that out very well, and that is the situation that I am attempting to address in a number of my own amendments.

The Scottish Association of Landlords carried out an interesting survey that, members might be surprised to hear, discovered that most tenants in Scotland are already paying rent that is below market value. Some 60 per cent of respondents said that that was the case; 15 per cent of people who responded to the same survey are estimated to be paying more than 20 per cent below the market value. Those were quite surprising figures, so there is an issue in that regard.

Amendment 61 proposes that if, at the end of a tenancy, the rent is more than 10 per cent below the open market value and no tenants from that tenancy will be named as tenants on the next tenancy, the rent can be increased to the open market value. An initial rent notice must be issued by the landlord to the tenant specifying the date on which there was last a rent increase and the final rent under the immediately preceding tenancy. The notice must also specify that the final rent under the immediately preceding tenancy was more than 10 per cent lower than the open market rent and that the initial rent is more than that but no more than the open market value. I hope that members can follow my explanation.

Amendments 62 to 64 provide for a system where tenants could go to a rent officer if they thought that the figures were wrong. I note that the minister, and now the cabinet secretary, are looking at that very issue in the on-going consultation. On that basis, and on the basis that there is on-going consultation on the other issue that I will come to, I am minded not to move those amendments today. However, I want to be very clear that it is an issue on which I expect clarity ahead of stage 3.

I know that the cabinet secretary said that we cannot predict when stage 3 will be, but I expect that it will probably be after summer. I am guessing that, but I think that we have time.

I want to comment on the welcome change of tone from the Government before I move on to speak to my other amendments. There have been very useful conversations with the cabinet secretary since the events of last week, which is positive. If parties can work together moving forward, that will be very productive. She wrote to a number of us and to the committee. In a letter that I was copied into, she offered to set up a meeting with the purpose-built student accommodation review group. I encourage her to do that. Having a meeting at which a number of MSPs were present—it should be an in-person meeting of at least half a day, because it will have many issues to cover—would be very welcome.

I will move on to the other amendments in the group. My amendment 63 deals with the issue, which has been mentioned, of when a landlord has had to spend money—often significant sums—on a property. My amendments propose that they would have to submit a detailed application to the relevant local authority, including a breakdown of the costs incurred, evidence of the necessity for and reasonableness of the costs and any supporting documentation. The local authority would then review the application and determine the eligibility and extent of the rent increase.

The intention of the amendments is not to allow landlords to recoup money for doing things to properties that should be standard practice, to address the question rightly raised by Maggie Chapman, because that would be entirely wrong. I know that she had that concern. If that were to happen, I would share that concern, but I think that enough protections are built into the amendments that such a scenario would be avoided.

I will not go into all the amendments, but I do not intend to press amendments 66, 67 and 68, given that a consultation on the issue is on-going. However, again, I want to see some progress on the matter, because it is important.

My other amendments in the group are fairly technical, so I do not think that I need to spend any more time on them. I will end it there.

It is 18 July.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us whether we will have the clarity that she talked about before stage 3? I am not necessarily saying that something should be put in the bill at stage 3, but will we have clarity at stage 3?

Okay. You have been looking at my proposals, but have you also had a chance to look at how councils handle these issues? The spark that made me come up with my proposals was that councillors can be removed if they do not attend without good reason for six months. That has happened in a number of cases. Have you had a chance to look at how councils deal with these issues?

I have only one. Emma Roddick has explored a really interesting area, which I am keen to consider further. Sarah, is it your understanding that, under the Westminster legislation, which I am largely mirroring, if voters say in the initial vote that the member should be recalled, the member ceases to be a member of the House of Commons? Is that correct?

That would be the same here, which plays into Emma Roddick’s very good questions about the power of the parties. I will reflect and come back to the committee on that.

If I vote in a normal general election or council election, I am told where I have to vote, and it is one place. If we have a recall petition in Scotland, should that be the same? This is the opposite question to the one that the convener asked, but should the elector be restricted to a specific place?

Do you accept that, if we are to have a recall process, it needs to apply to constituency members and to regional members? The new thing in that regard is regional members, and I have obviously had to wrestle with that question. If you accept that we need to have something that applies to all MSPs, would you also accept that any process that applies to regional members has to be fair to those regional members in that it should be as closely aligned as possible to the process that applies to constituency members?