Chamber and committees

I think that I was looking for a more concrete commitment, not just to work constructively across all areas, which I look forward to, but on that particular point on the policy and principle of a winter moratorium on evictions. However, given the discussions that we have had, I look to continue the conversation as other legislation progresses.

I seek to withdraw amendment 74.

Amendment 74, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 75 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Expiry of Part 1

Amendment 76 not moved.

Amendment 77 moved—[Miles Briggs].

I thank members for engaging in the debate, and I thank the minister for his comments in response. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 51.

Amendment 51, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 52 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Groups 3, 4, 5 and 6 have a number of amendments that work across the groups and are linked together. The amendments would ensure that exceptions related to substantial arrears and financial hardship on the part of landlords can apply only where a high test of financial hardship applies as a result of those financial arrears. We are saying that landlords should not just—

Thank you, convener.

Yesterday, I outlined substantial concerns about the freeze and about the social rented sector’s ability to continue its plan to build new affordable housing, which directly tackles Scotland’s housing crisis, as well as its ability to maintain and upgrade its existing properties. The sector has rung the alarm bell. For one association in my region—Abronhill Housing Association—that could mean suspending all its investment programmes well into 2024.

Given that seven out of 10 social tenants receive housing benefit or universal credit, the majority of them will not benefit from a freeze but could potentially lose out on investment in their homes. Where rent is paid by the UK Government, so, too, are any increases. The Scottish Parliament information centre’s modelling shows that approximately £30 million would be lost from the housing sector, based on a 3 per cent rise next year, with the UK Treasury retaining that money instead.

I lodged amendment 87 because absent from section 8 is any provision to consult relevant parties in the review process that is required to consider whether part 1 remains necessary and proportionate. The amendment would add such a provision; its absence has led to the emergency legislation process being severely criticised. I hope that having formal consultation would go some way towards resolving that issue. I ask members to support amendments 80 and 87.

I move amendment 80.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments and her support for amendments 85 and 87.

I have a degree of sympathy for amendment 81, which is in the name of Jamie Greene, because it gets to the heart of the issue that has plagued the housing market for longer than the Parliament has been here—the lack of data on rents and rent increases within tenancies. There is in the sector a dearth of data to help us to come to a reasoned assessment of whether a policy position is right or wrong, so I appreciate the motivation behind the amendment.

On amendment 80, I think that it is fair to say that the subject of the impact of a cap on the finances of housing associations has been a key point in the debate, and one that has been raised not just by me but by members from across the chamber. Amendment 80 seeks to provide a specific requirement that an assessment be carried out of the financial impact of extending the provisions of part 1 on housing associations and, in particular, on their funding for the affordable housing supply programme. That is key, given that it is an area in which the good action that the Government is taking in the short term—which we support—to get us through the cost of living crisis is at odds with our long-term ambition of boosting the number of affordable houses that are built.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the work that was on-going, and I welcome that. I also heard what she said about the fact that the measures that I am suggesting would be included in a comprehensive review that will be carried out anyway. I gently say that if what I propose will be included in that review, there would be no harm in supporting it. That would give an assurance to Parliament that serious account will be taken of the financial viability of registered social landlords, as well as giving comfort to the sector.

I press amendment 80.

The uncertainty was caused by the First Minister announcing in her programme for government statement that rents would be frozen from that day. That created uncertainty for tenants, who would rightly expect that rents would be frozen from the time when the First Minister made her announcement, not from well into December. If the minister will not accept my amendments, does he accept that the First Minister should change the record?

I apologise to you, convener, and to other members in the chamber. I should have drawn members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as the owner of a rental property in North Lanarkshire. I apologise for not doing that at the start of the debate.

Amendment 7 not moved.

I ask members to support amendment 74 and the other amendments in my name in this group.

Amendments 74 to 76 would ensure that an eviction ban was in place from October 2023 to March 2024 regardless of whether the remainder of the bill’s provisions had been extended. All exceptions that are already in the bill—for example, those that concern antisocial behaviour, criminal behaviour or abandonment—would apply. These amendments relate to the whole of schedule 2 and provide that, if the schedule is suspended, it must be revived over winter. The amendments expire the provision on 31 March 2024 so that it is not subject to the expiry date in the bill or any earlier one that could be provided for in regulations.

The consultation on the Scottish Government’s draft strategy “A New Deal for Tenants” found that a substantial majority—90 per cent of people who answered the question—thought that additional protections against the ending of tenancies during winter were needed. The intention of the amendments is to ensure that such a winter eviction ban is in place for this winter and continues next winter ahead of the proposed new housing bill becoming law.

I move amendment 74.

I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am the owner of a private rented property in the North Lanarkshire Council area.

My question follows on from Paul McLennan’s question. It is for Aaron Hill and John Blackwood. Have you considered, with regard to the review period and the option to extend the rent freeze, whether there should be a separation of the social and private sectors, given that they operate in different legal and regulatory environments? Should there be a separate review and decision for each sector?

Good morning, minister. I want to ask about the effective rent cap period. I think that you said in your opening remarks that the cap will apply to notices made on or after 6 September this year. Does that mean that any notice given to a private tenant before that date is still actionable? In other words, can rent rises still go ahead up until 5 December?