Chamber and committees

Amendment 4, in my name, would remove the social rented sector from the bill and exempt it from regulations. The social housing sector is already highly regulated and has taken important steps in keeping rent increases as low as possible. Furthermore, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has warned of unintended consequences from the bill for social housing and the development of affordable housing, as well as potential consequences for construction costs, which have increased, and for meeting net zero targets. We therefore ask members to support my amendment 4 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 5.

Amendment 23, in my name, looks towards mid-market rent properties, which are an affordable housing tenure that housing associations offer. They are homes that are for rent to households that are on low to middle incomes.

Rents for MMR homes are generally set lower than private rents but higher than housing association rents for social housing. The tenure is an important part of the housing mix to support those who may not be eligible for or who cannot access social rented homes but who struggle to afford higher rents in the private rented sector. The issue is that the tenancy type is a private residency, so it is the same as homes that are rented from private landlords. We therefore hope that members will support my amendment 23.

My amendment 26 relates to rent increase notices that are sent to tenants before the legislation expires. The bill states that any rent increase notice that is served while the rent cap is in force will have no effect. That means in effect that no rent increase notice can be served on any tenant prior to 1 April 2023, if we assume that the rent freeze expires the day before that, so the rent freeze would remain in place until the end of April—not the end of March, as ministers have outlined—given the requirement to give 28 days’ notice of any rent change in the social sector. We therefore believe that landlords should be able to provide such notices before 1 April.

I move amendment 4.

Convener, I think that that is maybe the wrong group.

I listened to the flawed logic of the cabinet secretary. What she is saying also applies to the social rented sector. In other words, it is this SNP-Green Government that is trashing the social rented sector in Scotland.

Amendment 39 relates to landlords having the right to decant or evict tenants in the case of essential work and demolition, which has not been discussed. Essential work, such as the removal of asbestos, can be dangerous to occupants. Therefore, landlords should be able to decant tenants from properties that are undergoing essential maintenance. Furthermore, landlords should also be able to evict tenants when buildings have to be demolished. Demolition could occur because a property is too old and unsafe for occupants. Therefore, we propose the amendment to keep tenants safe as well.

My second amendment in the group, amendment 43, relates to landlords having the right to evict unlawful occupants. An unlawful occupier is a person who lives in a property without the consent of the home owner. They could include people who were not initially agreed on when the lease was signed. Therefore, landlords should have the right to evict them. A landlord is unable to charge those occupants rent, as they are not the tenant so, if the landlord is unable to evict due to the moratorium, it would represent a significant financial loss. That ground is already used commonly to evict tenants who have ended their tenancy but not notified the landlord and not moved out.

I hope that the Government considers those amendments workable.

In the light of the minister’s commitment with regard to stage 3, I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Murdo Fraser].

I heard what the minister said, but the Government is now proposing a review at 31 March, and I am not sure whether he said that the potential additional work that the tribunals system will face if that is extended beyond 31 March would be financially supported. Would that be done at a six-month review or for the next financial year if the Government gives resources from April?

I understand that, but my concern is that—given the additional work that the tribunals system could face and the fact that it already has an eight to nine-month waiting time and backlog—that will not help the system if it is not in a good place financially. I intent to press the amendment, and I hope that ministers will take on board the need to ensure that the tribunals system works—otherwise it will collapse.

Before we reach Mr Cole-Hamilton’s crowning glory, I wanted to introduce an opportunity for the Parliament to consider the unintended consequences of the bill. Jamie Greene’s amendment 81 was an incredibly important attempt to provide real-world data on the impact that the bill will have. The sector is talking about the unintended consequences of the bill.

We want the Scottish Government to provide the information requested as soon as possible, as well. Therefore, my amendments look towards a draft of the proposed regulations being provided before the end of the year. That would enable us to consider the impact of the bill and the data that ministers will use to take decisions on extending the bill, on increasing the cap further than 31 March and on when the emergency powers will end. We believe that a draft of the plans that ministers will develop around those decisions should be published before the end of the year, and we ask for that to take place so that Parliament can properly scrutinise future plans and the data that ministers will use in taking decisions to then increase people’s rent in the coming parts of this bill.

I hope that members will look to how that will provide Parliament with far more scrutiny of the regulations.

I move amendment 96.

I have heard what the minister has said, but I would say that, based on our work, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee is concerned about the total lack of data around the measures and the need for us to develop that.

Having listened to the minister, I am happy to withdraw my amendment 96 and to not move amendment 99. However, I hope that the minister has understood the view across Parliament, which is that we need to see that the future decision on this issue is taken on the basis of real-world data. That is important with regard to any unintended consequences, and it is important that Parliament does not take decisions without that data being provided across the parties.

Amendment 96, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 97 to 100 not moved.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

Before section 11

Good morning. I will ask a few short questions; first, about legal competence. Can the minister confirm whether the legislation is compliant with article 1 of the European convention of human rights?