Chamber and committees

Ross Greer. Sorry, Presiding Officer.

Amendments 72 and 73 merely freeze rent, rather than reducing it. I have sought to strike a balance between the rights of the landlords, by giving them the ability to appeal and by providing a deadline of 2024, and the interests of the community, given the cost of living crisis.

The measures that I propose in my amendments are less drastic than those taken in Austria and even the Austrian legislation did not breach the ECHR. Given that that case has been used as authority in Scotland, I ask the minister to reconsider his opposition and instead join Labour in supporting them today.

The minister also made a point about the risk of increased evictions. What we have proposed is not a blanket freeze but a proportionate time-limited measure that allows for exceptions. Indeed, it allows for further exceptions, should the minister wish to work and engage constructively.

The amendments, which are entirely consistent with case law, are a short-term solution to mitigate the cost of living emergency. I do not think that what we propose could be successfully challenged. However, even if a private individual or a company challenged a provision in the Court of Session, that would not jeopardise the entire legislation or future legislation; the challenge would be against a single provision.

I urge the minister—I feel that the Government is scaremongering at this point—to come on board and join us. Today, we have the power to legislate in the interests of tenants. There is no excuse not to do so.

Tenants need urgent financial support now, after a decade of rent hikes and in the face of the current cost of living increases. To turn our backs on tenants now would signal to them that we are not acting in their interests. The amendments enjoy support from tenants through Living Rent and of workers in every sector through the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Let us show tenants which side we are on; let us show them in whose interests we are working; and let us come together to deliver the emergency rent freeze that we so desperately need.

I did seek to work with the Government. I was met with some support, and an acknowledgement that we were facing an emergency situation and that a cap on increasing rents would benefit renters, but I did not receive any constructive counter-proposals or any suggestions for how I could strengthen or improve the amendments.

I thank everybody who has spoken in favour of amendments 72 and 73, and I also thank the minister for his response. I am disappointed that I was unable to intervene on his colleague on the case law relating to the human rights legislation. I recognise that members have sincere concerns regarding the potential for legal challenge and so, to that end, I would like to put their minds at rest by drawing their attention to relevant case law on this issue.

The case of Mellacher v Austria concerned restrictions on the rent that a property owner could charge. Rent control legislation reduced rents to 20 per cent and 17.5 per cent of their initial levels. The court held that the Austrian legislature had had regard to striking a fair balance between the general interests of the community and the right of property landlords in general. There was no breach of the ECHR. That case has been used as authority in Scotland, which suggests that the rent freeze proposal does not breach the ECHR and is, accordingly, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Now is not the time, Ross—I do not know what I am supposed to refer to him as.

I am 100 per cent pressing the amendment.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of Living Rent and ACORN tenants union.

My amendments 72 and 73 would provide urgent support for tenants right now by introducing an emergency rent freeze from the date that the bill receives royal assent until 31 December 2024. A rent freeze cannot wait, because we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis that is seeing ever-greater financial pressure being exerted on households across Scotland, and one of the greatest costs facing many households is rent.

Even before the current cost of living crisis, rents across the country were rising at a rate that was increasingly unaffordable for many tenants. In the past year alone, average rents have risen by 8.5 per cent, with much higher increases in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee. That is part of a longer-term trend, with average rents rising by nearly 35 per cent over the past decade.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed many of the underlying inequalities in our society. From insecure work, to the undervaluing of our key workers, the pandemic highlighted the need for us to make real transformational changes. However, the bill before us today, which is supposedly focused on building a fair post-pandemic recovery, leaves many injustices untackled—and none more so than rip-off rent hikes, which continue to cause so much financial hardship for tenants in the private rented sector.

Today, the Scottish Government had an opportunity to act in the interests of tenants, but those in power have voted for the benefit of landlords. I welcome the tenancy provisions in the bill, but they will do nothing to address the rent costs that tenants face now. Changing eviction grounds from mandatory to discretionary on a permanent basis will strengthen private sector tenants’ rights, as will provisions that relate to putting the pre-action protocol on a permanent footing.

However, we should reflect on the landscape that tenants will still face, irrespective of those changes: tenants will continue to face years of potential rent hikes until the Scottish Government delivers on its promise to introduce rent controls by the end of 2025; there will be no restrictions on the level of rent increases that landlords can propose until then; and there will be no relief from the Scottish Government, with not a single rent pressure zone having been designated yet.

If the Scottish Government had supported an emergency rent freeze, tenants across the country would have had urgent relief. They would not have been subjected to further rent hikes for a period of two years. Given that average rents in Scotland have increased by nearly 35 per cent in the past decade, that would have been a welcome reprieve for tenants ahead of the introduction of a national system of rent controls. Instead, the Scottish Government has shown that it is unwilling or unable to take action in the midst of the cost of living crisis.

Although there are notable exceptions on the Government’s back benches, ministers seem to have been cowed by the vested interests of landlords and the threat of legal challenge. That is concerning, given that the Scottish Government would have us believe that it will introduce rent controls later in the session—in the face of opposition from landlords and the threat of legal challenge. After watching every other party vote down a rent freeze this evening, it is hard not to question the promises that those parties have made about bringing in a national system of rent controls.

The bill presented us with a unique opportunity to address the underlying injustices in our society. Green MSPs once championed a rent freeze. In 2020, Scottish Greens criticised the SNP for

“lining up with the Tories and landlords to vote down Green proposals for a rent freeze”.

Today, Scottish Greens deployed the same spurious arguments to talk down rent freeze amendments—the same arguments that the SNP used against them in 2020. As progressive parties, we should be working together to outnumber Tories and landlords, to win a rent freeze for tenants, rather than undermining redistributive policies using the establishment’s tactics.

The Tories are a minority in our communities. We should be making their profit-hoarding, wage-robbing beliefs a minority in the Scottish Parliament, too.

Thank you. Does anyone else want to come in on theme 4? If not, I can ask my question on theme 5.

My question is at a slight tangent, but, as we were talking about welfare issues and sea lice, I thought that it might be a good moment to bring up wrasse fisheries.

As I understand it, the remit of the report was to review the operation of the regulatory framework for aquaculture from the perspective of other users of the shared marine environment, including wild fisheries. Wrasse fisheries are wild fisheries, and they are entirely economically interdependent with aquaculture. Will you talk the committee through your rationale for not considering that as part of your report?

That is reassuring.

In relation to wild wrasse fishery, would it be appropriate to introduce stock assessments or limits on catches, given that we are getting reports of extreme declines in wrasse populations?