Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011

17 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Private Rented Housing (Scotland) Bill

Tolson, Jim LD Dunfermline West Watch on SPTV

I thank my colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee, the committee clerks, the bill team and the minister for their hard work and dedication in bringing forward this important housing bill, which the Liberal Democrats will support at decision time.

The bill will prove to be an important piece of housing legislation, which will protect many vulnerable people while ensuring that private landlords can function in a profitable and good-quality market. The amendments to which we agreed today, the vast majority of which were uncontentious and technical in nature, tidy things up, but given the problems that can arise from subdivision of HMOs and the friction that sometimes exists between permanent residents and students in HMO areas, it was never going to be plain sailing.

Liberal Democrats had sympathy with Ted Brocklebank’s amendment 15, on overprovision of HMOs, although we were concerned that it could restrict the availability and raise the price of student accommodation in our university towns and cities. The amendment seems to block further HMOs, but in fact it gives local authorities an option to restrict the number of HMOs, to suit local needs. As Ted Brocklebank said, the provision is not retrospective, which is important.

The Liberal Democrats hope that amendment 15 will not be used to restrict student accommodation unnecessarily and to drive up costs for those least able to afford it. We have some concerns about the possible adverse effect on our student populations, but that must be balanced against the needs of permanent residents in our towns and cities. On balance, we agreed with amendment 15, and we hope that it will be used wisely by our local authority colleagues to ensure a good balance of accommodation needs for all residents.

Pauline McNeill’s amendment 1 proved just as controversial—and Alex Johnstone has just referred to the oddness of the vote. On first reading, amendment 1 seemed to be a bit all over the place. It seemed to provide more questions than answers. However, we examined it more closely and again, on balance, we felt that it provided important protection not just to the residents of subdivided accommodation but to other residents outwith subdivided properties. A lot of this bill’s aim is about discouraging landlords from practices such as subdivision and ensuring that they are able to operate in a fair and profitable market.

There has also been some disagreement over Mary Mulligan’s amendment 2. Mary, never one to court controversy—much—has upset the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities over her subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d), which COSLA claims will

“place unrealistic expectations on local government.”

In the Local Government and Communities Committee, through a number of bills and Scottish statutory instruments, I have highlighted similar concerns on a number of occasions. However, with a number of possible uses of parts of this bill, we feel that a reporting mechanism is essential to ensure that the bill is used wisely once enacted.

This bill has been one of the more difficult to work through for a whole host of reasons. Amendments at both stage 2 and stage 3 have been controversial but, on balance, we feel that it will lead to a very worthwhile piece of legislation. The Liberal Democrats will be happy to support the bill at decision time.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011

In the same item of business