Meeting of the Parliament 25 June 2014
In the stage 1 debate, I welcomed much of the bill and said that the problem was the issues that were missing from it. That is still the situation at the end of stage 3. In between, of course, some amendments have been accepted. I welcome that, but I regret that several that would have been useful have been rejected today.
I came at the bill from two points of view: first, because of the problems on housing that constituents regularly bring to me and, secondly, because of the issues that the City of Edinburgh Council highlighted. Jim Eadie referred to the latter in his speech.
In the stage 1 debate, Jim Eadie and I raised some of the issues that the Labour-SNP council in Edinburgh had brought to our attention. Although it is true that the council will be pleased that there has been some flexibility on the 30-year repayment period, it is fair to say that it will be disappointed that none of the other proposals that it made has been accepted. The Government rejected today the amendment on maintenance plans, which was a reasonable proposal by Sarah Boyack, modifying the original position. Of course, all the amendments that I lodged, which were all based on the council’s submission, were also rejected. The City of Edinburgh Council will not be pleased that the main amendments that it highlighted for the bill have not been progressed.
Over and above that, I came at the bill from the point of view of constituents. I am sure that all members deal with housing issues regularly at their surgeries, so I will pick up on four of the issues that I am regularly asked about.
Supply is obvious. We all know about issues with housing supply. I do not object to the abolition of the right to buy, but there is a danger that we will overstate its effect on housing supply. It is not the most important measure that can be taken to improve the supply of housing in the social rented sector, but I certainly do not object to it, although it would have been better to accept the amendment that Mary Fee moved at stage 2 to reduce the notice period for abolition to one year.
The more significant issue with regard to supply concerns the housing association grant and the declining trajectory of the number of social rented houses that are being built. A lot of the half-respectable figures that are presented to us in that respect are based on the higher HAG levels in the earlier years of the SNP Administration. Given the current HAG levels, we will have increasing difficulties in keeping up the number of social rented homes. Nicola Sturgeon changed the levels slightly last summer, but the housing associations all tell us that there is still a problem.
The second problem that constituents bring to me—and, I am sure, to every other member—is antisocial behaviour. I hope that the short SST will help in that respect, but Mary Fee was quite right to lodge an amendment, which was agreed to in committee, to require more information on all the safeguards that are needed.
The number of tenants who cause problems is obviously very small, but we all have examples in which massive problems are caused by a very small number of people. I welcome the increased availability of the short SST, which I hope will make it easier to evict the very small number of people who unfortunately require to be evicted because of their behaviour.
With regard to tackling antisocial behaviour, it would have been better if Drew Smith’s amendment on holiday lets had been accepted. In general, we could do more to beef up the landlord registration system in order to get more effective action from landlords in the private sector.
In general, it is on the private sector that there are the most parts missing from the bill. I mentioned briefly the issue of repairs. Even Alex Johnstone and his colleagues almost supported my amendment on common repairs, and I was very encouraged by that, although they did not press the right button in the end. Nevertheless, he and his colleagues recognised that—as people bring to our attention all the time—there is a big problem with regard to repairs, so it is a pity that my amendment was not accepted.
The provision for electrical safety checks is a step forward, but what will happen with all the existing tenancies? I do not know why the minister did not accept my amendment on that point.
My time is nearly up, but I highlight, as one of the most important amendments—possibly the most important—that was lodged at stage 3: James Kelly’s amendment on capping rent rises. Again, the minister used the standard response of, “Oh well, it’s very complicated and we would need to do more work.”