Meeting of the Parliament 25 June 2014
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this evening’s debate. The bill is important, and I hope that it will begin to make the private rented sector more fit for purpose. The sector has experienced extraordinary growth in the past decade, and more than 300,000 households are now renting privately. That is little wonder when one considers that, since March 2007, more than 11,000 properties have been lost from social renting housing stock and the ever-increasing length of waiting lists has driven people towards the private sector.
It is long since time that we ensured that standards in the sector were improved, and I reiterate my support for the regulation of letting agents; the introduction of a tribunal system; the inclusion of basic safety measures; and the scrapping of the right to buy. It is for those reasons that I and the Liberal Democrats will vote for the bill later on.
Since I last had an opportunity to debate the policy measures in the Government’s bill at stage 1, a series of interesting amendments has come to the fore. Many of those amendments genuinely enhance the package of measures that the Government has laid before the Parliament, and I am pleased to see that some—although not all—of them are included in the final bill on which we will vote later.
I was disappointed when my amendments were defeated at stage 2, in particular my amendment that sought to clarify the position regarding legal representation for tenants participating in the new tribunal process. I felt that it was important to reintroduce the amendment at stage 3, but—as I said earlier—I am satisfied, after discussions on the issue with the minister and Homeless Action Scotland, and following the minister’s positive words earlier in today’s proceedings, that the matter is now in hand and that a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. I am grateful to the minister for her words in that regard.
My inbox, like those of many of my colleagues, has been inundated in the past week—and even during today’s debate—with emails from landlords. I understand their concerns, and there is no doubt that the majority of landlords are diligent, fair and provide a good level of service. However, there is also no doubt that a minority operate in a predatory fashion and prey upon the vulnerability of some tenants. We need to weed those people out of the sector, and I appreciate the fact that letting associations agree with that.
I had some sympathy with the proposal to introduce more secure tenancies. Had amendment 50 been agreed to, a landlord would have retained the ability to terminate a tenancy after the first six months for antisocial behaviour, the accrual of rent arrears or if the landlord had planned to change the use of the property or even use it for his or her own living accommodation. The amendment would have afforded the tenant two months’ notice to vacate a property, and I believe that to be a fair compromise, given the upheaval and inconvenience caused by such an event.
Although I appreciate that many tenants in the private rented sector are struggling with unreasonably high rent increases, I could not support amendment 49, which related to rent control. The new duty that was set out in the amendment was so significant that it could not have been reasonably introduced without the sector having the opportunity to comment on it first or, for that matter, without full parliamentary scrutiny. That said, I reiterate that some people are struggling with exorbitant rent increases. The Minister for Housing and Welfare must reflect upon that and consider how she can assist with that in the future.
An important amendment that I did not lodge at stage 2 because it was not supported by any other party related to the fact that local authorities do not always use referrals under section 5 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003 for homeless families or individuals. I wonder whether the minister will at least keep an eye on that matter.
We had the usual SNP rhetoric about its building more houses than we built but, as Mary Fee has already pointed out, completions of social rented houses are at a lifetime low. We also heard again the change in language with regard to the 6,000—