Chamber
Plenary, 18 Jun 2008
18 Jun 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate. In doing so, I reflect on the frustrations of falling on hard times, since the words that were quoted earlier were said when I was in a position to make decisions rather than only urge the minister to do so.
It is important to congratulate groups such as Shelter, the NUS and Citizens Advice Scotland that persist in highlighting a range of issues that they want us to take up—I am grateful for the written and verbal briefings that were provided today. I also congratulate the constituents who continue to bring cases to us.
As Jim Tolson said, the problem with deposits affects not only students. The problem is largely invisible, but it can cause great difficulties for vulnerable members of our communities. It is right that the Government should respond to it in the context of communities issues.
In a previous life, I was a schoolteacher, and I am always looking for object lessons. The proposal in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 for a mandatory deposit scheme was an object lesson in how the Parliament can work effectively. We hear a lot of talk about consensus. There is a huge amount of rewriting of the history of this Parliament, but we built consensus around a number of significant issues. The proposal was not originally included in the legislation as introduced to Parliament. It was the work of committees and members of all parties, supported by groups outside the Parliament, that put it on the political agenda.
Members of all parties reflected on the scheme, and Christine Grahame, Tricia Marwick, Lib Dems and Labour members—I cannot remember the Tory position—all pursued the matter with me as the then Deputy Minister for Communities. They raised it with me not to gain party advantage, but because they believed that it needed to be done. At stage 2, the decision was taken that the proposal as it had emerged was to be supported. Nobody claimed victory or said that there were U-turns, but a little bit of political business was done to ensure that we could take it forward. Acting in that way was important, because it gave a message about the importance of the Parliament's walls being breached by those who really understood how policy should be developed.
I hope that SNP back benchers will recognise their role in challenging their own front bench members. If I were still the minister, and if I were operating at the pace of the current Minister for Communities and Sport, I would not wait to be chided by the Opposition to act—Labour's own back benchers have a record of doing that. It has been said that we need research and consultation, but there is concern about the pace. I understand that the working group that was set up has met only once since May. I understand the need for research, but there must be action.
The argument has been made that we already have landlord accreditation and registration, but we cannot be in a position where the argument is that if everything cannot be done, nothing can be done. Mr Maxwell has my permission to disregard the commitments that I have made and to act more quickly. Stuart McMillan identified problems with the scheme down south—in that case, other options should be consulted on. We need a driver and a commitment.
The private sector has an important role to play, particularly in times of credit crunch, in meeting housing needs and homelessness targets. The landlord sector needs to be open and transparent, and we want the sector itself to recognise the damage that has been done to its reputation. Good landlords have nothing to fear.
I urge the minister to recognise that simple steps should be taken, such as bringing forward a timetable and committing to a mandatory scheme. We will ensure that there is consensus in the Parliament in dealing with consultation in parliamentary committees and in our communities. That will give students and families confidence as they make decisions about their accommodation ahead of the academic year. The important small step of building consensus in the Parliament will make a difference in our communities. I urge the minister to make the commitment tonight.
It is important to congratulate groups such as Shelter, the NUS and Citizens Advice Scotland that persist in highlighting a range of issues that they want us to take up—I am grateful for the written and verbal briefings that were provided today. I also congratulate the constituents who continue to bring cases to us.
As Jim Tolson said, the problem with deposits affects not only students. The problem is largely invisible, but it can cause great difficulties for vulnerable members of our communities. It is right that the Government should respond to it in the context of communities issues.
In a previous life, I was a schoolteacher, and I am always looking for object lessons. The proposal in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 for a mandatory deposit scheme was an object lesson in how the Parliament can work effectively. We hear a lot of talk about consensus. There is a huge amount of rewriting of the history of this Parliament, but we built consensus around a number of significant issues. The proposal was not originally included in the legislation as introduced to Parliament. It was the work of committees and members of all parties, supported by groups outside the Parliament, that put it on the political agenda.
Members of all parties reflected on the scheme, and Christine Grahame, Tricia Marwick, Lib Dems and Labour members—I cannot remember the Tory position—all pursued the matter with me as the then Deputy Minister for Communities. They raised it with me not to gain party advantage, but because they believed that it needed to be done. At stage 2, the decision was taken that the proposal as it had emerged was to be supported. Nobody claimed victory or said that there were U-turns, but a little bit of political business was done to ensure that we could take it forward. Acting in that way was important, because it gave a message about the importance of the Parliament's walls being breached by those who really understood how policy should be developed.
I hope that SNP back benchers will recognise their role in challenging their own front bench members. If I were still the minister, and if I were operating at the pace of the current Minister for Communities and Sport, I would not wait to be chided by the Opposition to act—Labour's own back benchers have a record of doing that. It has been said that we need research and consultation, but there is concern about the pace. I understand that the working group that was set up has met only once since May. I understand the need for research, but there must be action.
The argument has been made that we already have landlord accreditation and registration, but we cannot be in a position where the argument is that if everything cannot be done, nothing can be done. Mr Maxwell has my permission to disregard the commitments that I have made and to act more quickly. Stuart McMillan identified problems with the scheme down south—in that case, other options should be consulted on. We need a driver and a commitment.
The private sector has an important role to play, particularly in times of credit crunch, in meeting housing needs and homelessness targets. The landlord sector needs to be open and transparent, and we want the sector itself to recognise the damage that has been done to its reputation. Good landlords have nothing to fear.
I urge the minister to recognise that simple steps should be taken, such as bringing forward a timetable and committing to a mandatory scheme. We will ensure that there is consensus in the Parliament in dealing with consultation in parliamentary committees and in our communities. That will give students and families confidence as they make decisions about their accommodation ahead of the academic year. The important small step of building consensus in the Parliament will make a difference in our communities. I urge the minister to make the commitment tonight.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1865, in the name of Claire Baker, on a tenancy deposit protection scheme for Scotland...
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is concerned that the withholding of deposits unreasonably continues to be a problem for tenants in the private rented sector; notes that...
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I am delighted to speak on tenancy deposit schemes in my maiden members' business debate. It is always a pleasure to be involved in a debate about a matter o...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD):
LD
I apologise, Presiding Officer, as I may have to leave before the end of the debate. The debate is important and is on an issue on which several members, par...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I thank Claire Baker for bringing the debate to the Parliament. The issue is important to many people and this is an important time to conduct the debate, gi...
Claire Baker:
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Stuart McMillan:
SNP
May I just make some progress first? Thank you.The scheme in England and Wales has been in operation for only one year, and no formal evaluation has yet been...
Claire Baker:
Lab
I believe that enough research—by the NUS, Shelter and other organisations—has been carried out to allow the Government to make progress.A circular was issue...
Stuart McMillan:
SNP
I am sure that, if what Ms Baker says were the case, the Government would look into it, but I am not sure that it is the case. I am sure that the minister wi...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I, too, must apologise for having to leave before the end of the debate.I congratulate Claire Baker on securing tonight's debate. Scottish Conservatives full...
Robert Brown:
LD
That is fine for the good landlords. Does the member have a remedy for the bad landlords, which is where the issue arises?
Jamie McGrigor:
Con
I will come to that in my conclusion.I acknowledge the concerns that lie behind Claire Baker's motion, but ministers should tread with caution before burdeni...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing this important debate. I was president of the Scottish Union of Students almost 40 years ago and failure to return de...
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD):
LD
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing this debate on a tenant deposit protection scheme, which I am sure that most of us would agree is an important subjec...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate. In doing so, I reflect on the frustrations of falling on hard times, since the words that were quoted ear...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD):
LD
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing this worthwhile debate.As several members have remarked, everyone has an anecdote about someone whose rent deposit wa...
The Minister for Communities and Sport (Stewart Maxwell):
SNP
I congratulate Claire Baker on securing the debate.I listened carefully to the debate and appreciate members' concerns about the impact that unfairly withhel...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
I am concerned that the minister suggested that the Government is inhibited by the timescale for the evaluation of the schemes in England and Wales. Is it no...
Stewart Maxwell:
SNP
I will come to many other points, but the fact is that the scheme in England has not been formally evaluated. Many members said that it is a shining example ...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
I may have the wrong information, so will the minister clarify when the group last met and when it will meet again?
Stewart Maxwell:
SNP
The group last met in June last year. A meeting was offered to the group in September, but its members decided that they could deal with the issues at hand t...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
Will the minister give way?
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
The minister is just winding up.
Stewart Maxwell:
SNP
Jamie McGrigor said that there was only a 2 per cent dispute rate in England. That is true, but only two thirds of landlords have joined the scheme. I sugges...
Meeting closed at 18:29.