 Gweithio. Those are some of the topics. The next item of business is a debate on motion 6178, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the cost of living tenant protection Scotland Bill at stage 1. I remind members that I will put the question on this motion and the financial resolution immediately after the financial resolution has been moved. Members who wish to speak in this debate, please press their request to speak buttons now. I call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move the motion up to 16 minutes, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be able to open today's debate on the introduction of the Scottish Government's cost of living tenant protection, Scotland Bill. In doing so, I want to express my thanks to everybody within government who has worked so hard at an extraordinary pace to make this possible. Almost a month ago, the First Minister launched this year's programme for government, which was published in the context of a severe cost crisis—a crisis that poses a danger not just to livelihoods but to lives. At that time, perhaps we thought it couldn't get much worse, but thanks to the frankly astonishing actions of the UK Government in the last two weeks, it has. Make no mistake, this has the makings of a humanitarian emergency. This Parliament doesn't have all the levers we really need to fully tackle this crisis, but we are determined to do what we can with the powers that we have to protect those who need it most. Tenants have, on average, lower household incomes, higher levels of poverty and are more vulnerable to economic shocks. 63 per cent of social rented households and 40 per cent of private rented households don't have enough savings to cover even a month of income at the poverty line. That is compared to 24 per cent of households buying with a mortgage and 9 per cent who own outright. Not many households will escape the cost crisis altogether, but tenants are just so much more exposed. That is why this bill will provide tenants in the private and social rented sectors, as well as colleges and university halls of residence and purpose-built student accommodation with greater protection. The UK Government's response to the energy crisis through the energy price guarantee falls far short of what is needed to help to protect people from severe financial hardship. We anticipate that, as a result, many more tenants will fall into fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty over this winter. Tenants do not just need help with their housing and energy costs, they need to feel secure at home over the winter. With that context in mind, the cost of living bill has three key aims. First, to protect tenants by stabilising their housing costs by freezing rents. Secondly, to reduce impact on the health and wellbeing of tenants caused by being evicted or being made homeless. Thirdly, to reduce unlawful evictions. In addition to those important measures to protect tenants, the Government also recognises that not all landlords are in the same financial position, so we include in the bill necessary safeguards, which will give them flexibility where it is genuinely needed. It is the intention for those provisions to last until at least 31 March next year, and I will go through those provisions in some detail now. First, the rent freeze. Yes, I will take an intervention. I am very grateful to the minister for giving way at this stage. One of the impact assessments that rightly has been published is the Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment, which says the impact of the cost of living crisis, particularly on our young people, is the minister confident that this document also considers those people who are children, i.e. under the age of 18, but are in fact tenants through their university or higher education position, given their role as still being young people, given that the UNCRC is not on the statute bootgif, but the intention is to support the protections therein. The impact assessment aims to capture those points, but I will perhaps, if I can, take the opportunity to address that in the closing speeches later, if that is okay. The bill allows for Scottish ministers to set a cap on the level of increase in rents initially at 0% until 31 March. Under those proposals, ministers will take powers to vary the cap, and it will operate separately for the social and private rented sectors. Students in college, university, halls and PBSA will also be protected through a 0% cap, ensuring that there will be no mid-tenancy rent increases. In just a moment, that applies to all rent increase notices served on or after 06 September. As I have said, we recognise that the cost crisis is also impacting on some landlords, and while the primary purpose of that legislation is about protecting tenants, it is also important to ensure that it reflects landlords' circumstances. Private landlords will be able to make an application to increase rent for limited, prescribed and legitimate costs associated with offering the property for rent where those costs have increased. That will be up to 50% of those costs, and no more than 3% of existing rent. Those percentages may be varied if circumstances justify it. Rose McAll Thank you very much to the Government Minister for allowing me to do my first intervention. As a Glasgow MSP, I am sure that Mr Harvey will be aware that the mere mention of this bill has made a significant contraction in the amount of the rental market that there is, and that is directly affecting students, especially in Glasgow University, where they have been reported to be instructed not to even enrol if they cannot find accommodation. Will the Government Minister agree that the real impact of those proposals will actively make it harder for students to rent flats, and that will create another barrier to Scotland's deprived young people from a disadvantaged background in obtaining a university education? I welcome the member to the chamber. I have not had a chance to say that on the record, but I strongly disagree with her suggestion that the situation facing students, in particular the new intake of students in Glasgow and Edinburgh, is a response to this bill. I do not think that there is any connection at all. I mentioned the private rented sector, and there are, of course, critical differences between the private and social rented sectors. For social landlords, there are already requirements for how rents are consulted on and agreed, and tenant participation and consultation in rent setting is a really valuable part of our current system. Social landlords are not for profit bodies, their rents are channeled back into quality of homes, services for tenants and public investment in housing. That is why we are working in partnership with the social rented sector to consider the implications of any use of these rent measures after 31 March. I told Parliament last week, and I emphasise again now that no decision has been made about any use of these measures after March, and any such decision will be informed by dialogue with the sector. I would like to turn now to an intervention from over here, and I will try to come to my answer. I am very grateful to the minister, and on that point in terms of what happens after 31 March, is the minister giving consideration to whether it might be possible to get rent controls legislation, even if it was through temporary emergency legislation and a temporary scheme in place more speedily, i.e., in months rather than in years? We are working at pace to get this legislation in place within weeks, and we are working in close dialogue with the social rented sector. I think that there are already good creative ideas coming forward about how we will work together with the sector. Turning to the provisions on evictions, those measures prevent the enforcement of eviction action in the private and social rented sectors and in college and PBS, college and university halls and PBSA, except in a number of specified circumstances. I am going to make a little bit of progress on the eviction measures, and I will let members in a moment or two. Once again, it is vital that this emergency legislation reflects a range of circumstances that face both tenants and landlords and ensure that responsible landlords do continue to offer properties in the private rented sector. Recognising those factors, as was the case with the eviction measures in the coronavirus legislation, we have allowed for a number of exemptions from the moratorium. Those are a mixture of existing eviction grounds and new temporary grounds for evictions that we have developed. That includes allowing evictions in cases of criminal or antisocial behaviour to protect other tenants and neighbours from behaviour that can have a hugely damaging impact on communities, in cases where a tenant has abandoned a property, in cases of repossession by lenders to ensure that there is continued lender confidence in the sector and also in cases where a landlord intends to sell the property or to live in the property specifically to alleviate financial hardship or prevent their own homelessness. Those last two grounds are new. In effect, there are versions of existing grounds, but with the important caveat that financial hardship must be demonstrated and we will work with the tribunal to support implementation of that. If Mr Balfour would like to come in. I wonder if you can clarify a situation for me. In regard to university students, if they don't pay their rent but can't be evicted, the normal places that you rent are not allowed to sit your exams and go on to the next year. Does this legislation should proceed that or would universities still have the right to stop people sitting exams and going on to another year if they don't pay their rent? I am aware that there have been some concerns expressed that a minority of tenants might be tempted to stop paying rent even if they can afford it. That is where I am going to move on to the additional ground for eviction that we are exempting from the moratorium. We have taken the view that both in the social and private rented sectors eviction may still take place in cases where there are substantial rent arrears. I want to lay that out in a little more detail because I know that some members have concerns about that. For the private rented sector, that means a total value of at or over six months' worth of rent arrears. For the social rented sector, that means rent arrears of £2,250 or more, that is around six months' worth of average rent in the social rented sector. The decision on that has not been an easy one but having considered it at length, I am firmly of the view that that will act as a safeguard both for landlords and for tenants. It will allay the concern that a minority of tenants might stop paying their rent even when they can afford it. Ongoing substantial rent arrears can mean that a landlord could find it increasingly difficult to offer the property for rent, especially when no rent has been paid for a prolonged period. In addition, for a tenant facing unsustainable rent arrears, simply prolonging the situation will only increase their debt and financial insecurity and can trap them with debt that they will never be able to service. The protection that a tenant needs in those circumstances is different. What they need is direct support, and we are already making that support available through discussionary housing payments and through the tenant grant fund, which was introduced in recent years and which, more recently, has had additional flexibility added to it to allow it to be used for more recently accrued arrears not related to Covid. I give way to Miles Briggs. Miles Briggs. Begared to the tenant grant fund, that is a loan. In terms of going forward, do Ministers intend to provide that as a grant that would not be paid back to individuals? Originally, under the initial coronavirus measures, there was a tenant hardship loan fund. There is now a tenant grant fund. That has been the case for some time. I am going to have to move on. I am afraid that I have taken quite a number. As a result of the changes that Parliament approved back in June, any eviction for rent arrears also already has to take into account all of the circumstances of both landlord and tenant, as judged to be reasonable by the tribunal or court. It also has to demonstrate that steps have been taken to help tenants manage or reduce their arrears. The bill also contains a provision to ensure that the restriction on the enforcement of an eviction order applies only for a maximum of six months from when the order was issued. That applies to individual cases and is separate from the consideration of whether or not the moratorium on evictions will be extended beyond March 31. Those restrictions will apply to all eviction orders granted in proceedings raised after the moratorium comes into force and also apply to proceedings raised before the bill comes into force, where the eviction notice was served after 6 September. It will not apply to eviction orders granted in proceedings raised before 6 September. Our aim here is to ensure that no one is evicted in a case started after or in response to the announcement of our intention to introduce an emergency rent freeze. We know that many private landlords are very professional and supported their tenants during the pandemic, but we cannot ignore the fact that a small minority will try to circumvent the new protections, including by trying to unfairly bring existing tenancies to an end. That is an affront both to tenants and to those landlords who follow the rules. That is why the bill also makes some vitally important changes to the way in which civil damages can be awarded for unlawful eviction, making it more attractive for tenants to challenge an unlawful eviction and receive appropriate damages where one has occurred. The provisions introduced today replace the basis for assessment of damages that the tribunal or court can award to a minimum of three times and a maximum of 36 times the monthly rent, though there will be discretion to award a lower amount if that is appropriate. In addition, the legislation will create reporting requirements where a landlord has been found to have unlawfully evicted a tenant. That will act as a strong disincentive to those unethical landlords who would seek to avoid going through the proper legal process. I will now turn to the measures on rented adjudication. That part of the bill looks ahead to a time when hopefully we will be entering recovery from the cost crisis and are therefore able to support transition out of those emergency measures. A big concern here is that the lifting of the restrictions could lead to a large number of landlords seeking to increase their rent all at once. Returning straight to open market rents could result in significant and unmanagable rent increases for tenants and a volatile market. In those circumstances, the existing rent adjudication process would not provide an effective mechanism for determining a reasonable rent increase. The bill therefore contains a regulation making power to temporarily reform the rent adjudication process to support transition out of the emergency measures and mitigate any unintended consequence from the ending of the cap. That power will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that I need to finish up in the next minute or two ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is given to the necessity for any temporary changes proposed. Finally, on the general provisions, we are seeking to commence the bill the day after royal assent. We propose the flexibility to extend the provisions in part 1 for two subsequent six months period if Parliament agrees, and the powers in part 3 on rent adjudication will expire at the end of March 24 with the option to be extended by periods of up to one year. There will be powers to suspend and revive the provisions in part 1 and powers to expire those provisions earlier than March 31. Similar to the coronavirus legislation, there will be a requirement to review and report on the necessity and proportionality of the provisions in part 1. Ministers will be required to bring forward regulations to suspend or expire any provision that is no longer appropriate. We are bringing forward this emergency legislation in recognition of the fact that people who rent their homes are right now being hardest hit by an extraordinary cost crisis. The bill's primary purpose is to provide the protection that is necessary for tenants while also recognising the circumstances of landlords. The bill significantly strengthens the protection against unwarranted rent rises and eviction. It sends a strong signal to landlords about the damages that can be awarded for unlawful eviction, and it provides a bridge into the longer-term reforms that I set out in the new deal for tenants last December. The safeguards in this bill provide a total package of fair and robust measures. This is a Government that confronts the cost crisis head-on, a Government that gives people stability in their homes and assurance about their rents, a sharp contrast with those who want to cut taxes for the wealthiest and let bankers' bonuses soar. This bill demonstrates our determination to use all the powers that we have to protect the people of Scotland from the harshest of times. Let us hope that all of this Parliament will do what is necessary to support tenants. From the outset of the debate and the passage of the bill through Parliament, I recognise the intentions of the Scottish Government to look at how best we can support tenants during the cost of living crisis. From the unprecedented help for energy bills being provided by the UK Government, people across Scotland are rightly looking at both of Scotland's Governments for support to assist individuals and families through this difficult period. However, the bill will do little to increase the incomes of most social housing and private tenants. Instead, it will threaten both the Scottish Government's ambitions on affordable house building and climate change, as well as the actual ability of housing associations and private landlords to provide their tenants with exactly the type of targeted support that is required during these difficult times. We on these benches would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss workable policies with the Scottish Government a 15-minute meeting with the Minister after the bill was published, and the emergency use of the legislation to railroad the bill through Parliament has not presented that opportunity. For most people in the sector, they find that we will have a negative impact on what is going forward. Private and social landlords should have been brought round the table to discuss policies around rent stabilisation, for example, and the further use and development of the tenants charter. Instead, they have been left in the dark and they face an uncertain future, with the significant unintended consequences that the bill presents. I am sure that the member will appreciate that, although many landlords would not have behaved in that way, there would be a great number who, if the information had come out that we were intending to do this and consulted on it, would have gone for an immediate rent increase as much as they could get away with. Surely he is aware of his constituents seeking 10, 20, 30, 40 per cent rent increases. We should not have decided to do this in a way that has exacerbated that problem. Miles Briggs I am not sure that the Minister understands his own bill because it is backdated to September, and the extensions that he has outlined mean that this will be going forward with two up to 18 months that there has now been outlined. I think that the Minister probably needs to rethink that, because the Scottish housing market is complex, especially here in the capital. We all rely on the mixed housing market to provide the homes Scotland needs now and in the future. This decision by SNP green ministers has been made without any consultation with the sector and will have consequences. In Scotland, we have never had Government rent controls in the social sector. Housing associations are rightly independent organisations and have been able to set rents each year, taking into account tenant feedback, affordability and resources required to invest in maintaining properties and buildings and building the much needed homes at which the Government has also failed to achieve. The impact of this bill is therefore worrying as it goes against the historical position and brings in the real possibility of wider rent controls for the sector, shattering the confidence in the sector to take forward investment in new affordable home building programmes, as well as the very real prospect now of private landlords removing private rented properties from the market in the coming years. For housing associations and for private landlords, this bill now presents a real risk of hundreds of millions of pounds of lost income and the need to rewrite their future business plans, scrapping investment in new affordable home builds, not to mention undermining of budgets in relation to energy efficiency and decarbonisation for net zero. Both key Government targets specifically the responsibility of the minister, which will be impacted. This bill has already had significant impact on the potential delivery of new homes in Scotland and is going to be much harder for housing associations to plan ahead if they are able to do that now. Lenders may be nervous around lending or lend at higher margins, as confidence over future rental income introduces a risk that has not been there in Scotland. Historically, we have had lower rents in Scotland. Therefore, this bill will undoubtedly trigger a slowdown in the building and construction of affordable homes in Scotland and could trigger a wider downturn in the construction industry at the very worst possible time for our economy. Just a few short months ago, I think that the rise in interest rates is a direct cause or effect of the many budget of his Government that has sent mortgage rates spiralling. Do you think that that might have an impact on landlords of all social and private rented sector and, indeed, their investment plans? Do you think that that might have had an impact on their business plans going forward? I think that the minister needs to look at inflation across the eurozone, but more specifically as well, looking at where—no, but looking—just a few short months ago, both the ministers sitting here— Mr Briggs, if you can resume your seat a second. We have a bit of time in hand, so anybody who wants to make an intervention should stand up and ask to make an intervention rather than holler it across the chamber. Miles Briggs will give you the time back. Of course, just a few short months ago, the Scottish National Party and the Green Ministers—in fact, the two ministers sitting on the front bench—were describing Labour's proposals around rent-free schemes as unworkable and that they would heighten the risk of eviction for tenants. Your bill will include opportunities that will be also leading to that, and that is where ministers need to be clear. Let's look at Ireland, where similar policy has resulted in a 30 per cent increase in homelessness. We have already seen and do see here in Scotland and in Edinburgh a record number of people living in temporary accommodation in Scotland. This bill has the potential to supercharge the housing crisis in Scotland, with fewer private tenancies being made available, fewer new affordable homes being built and the ripping up of the very tenants rights framework that we hear ministers want to see protect tenants. For example, the circumventing of local authority rent setting processes will not only override the statutory responsibilities of elected members, but local processes are currently in place for tenants to have a constructive opportunity to have their say and input into rent settings and negotiations. There is a real and growing concern in the Scottish housing sector around unintended consequences of the bill. I hope that the minister heard that at committee this morning. We have already seen the impact on students, as has been outlined by members with Glasgow, and Stirling University is telling students not to matriculate unless they have secured accommodation. One of the key aspects is unintended consequences—few private rented properties. How can Miles Briggs try to link the issues in student accommodation that happened last year and the year before, when no-one knew anything about the bill at the time? It has absolutely nothing to do with it, and it is absolutely ridiculous that he would try to link the two. Government has presided over 15 years of the housing crisis, and this will supercharge it now. The years to come, the situation can only get worse for students if there are fewer private rented properties available, and that is clearly going to be the impact of the bill. It is clear that what we have already seen from the Scottish National Party Green Government is likely to use its majority in Parliament to push the legislation through without listening to genuine concerns or accepting amendments. Scottish Conservatives will look to bring common sense and safeguards to the bill and ask for key sectors such as the social and charitable housing associations for their concerns to be put within the bill, because that is vitally important. We also want to see additional resources for tribunals who will now be tasked with this extra work. Also, what is key to this going forward in the minister—I did not really outline this in any detail—is incorporation of robust planning and monitoring of the potential negative impacts of the bill. That is going to be critical. It is also not clear how long ministers actually intend to freeze rents or keep in place rent controls beyond what the First Minister described as the March 31 date. Therefore, we need to see that time limitation put in place and what mitigation measures are also going to be provided for social and private landlords. To conclude, the process in which the bill has been introduced under has been unacceptable and flawed and also looked to bypass any real indepth scrutiny that Parliament could bring to it. The very organisations that it will impact will not be able to also be part of that conversation. S&P, Green and Labour MSPs are about to use Scotland as a guinea pig and undermine the foundations of Scotland's housing market. International rent control schemes demonstrate the negative impact that rent controls can have and, indeed, the long-term negative consequences that they will have on our Scottish mixed housing market. We know how that will end. Fewer private lets, a slump in building of affordable homes, increased rents for future tenants and students unable to secure vital accommodation to go and study at university. S&P, Green and Labour MSPs will be directly to blame for this significant damage done to our housing sector. The greater housing crisis that will come from this will be at their desks. I hope that they will also make sure that the people of Scotland can hold them accountable for their actions. Thank you, Mr Briggs. I now call on Mark Griffin to open for the Labour Party for around nine minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members' attention to my legislative interest, which shows I am an honour of our rental property in North Lanarkshire Council area. Labour will be supporting the emergency legislation this week. We want to see this rent freeze and moratorium on evictions on the statute boots without delay. In fact, we wanted to see it happen months ago. When we called for emergency legislation in the summer, we did so because we know that the Government has the powers to help people battling with living costs. Even if it has taken months to get to this point, we welcome the change of heart within the S&P Green Government. It goes without saying that thousands upon thousands will struggle to heat their homes or keep a roof over their head this winter. People who were previously just managing find themselves pushed to the brink with repeated financial shocks. Those are extraordinary times that have been made worse by the economic chaos unleashed by the Tories after this legislation was announced. That chaos will make this winter longer and harder than any of us expected just weeks ago. The blame will rightly be at the door of the Conservatives for the sky-high interest rates that we see pushing up people's bills right now. Food, heat and bills, fuel costs and, of course, spiling on rent keep going in one direction, and that is up. I will take the intervention. I remind the chamber that I have a rental property, like the Speaker. The member talks about heating over the winter. The fabric and structure of housing is going to be key to the heating and to the health and wellbeing that the minister talked about earlier. One housing association wrote to me saying that a rent freeze means that associations will have to cut back on improvement and maintenance programmes. How does the member suggest that housing associations raise the money to keep those going? If the member had heard me in the chamber over the past six months, he will have heard me repeatedly calling on the Government to ensure that as many homes as he possibly could before the winter. Similarly, housing associations have said that they are able to manage the existing programmes up until 31 March. Scottish Labour will be tabling an amendment to make sure that there is additional funding provided for social landlords if the freeze goes beyond that date to provide tenants and those associations with assurance that no capital investment programmes will be affected when I look forward to the member's support on that amendment. I will make a bit of progress. My colleague, Mercedes Villalwa, made the case for an immediate rent freeze back before we broke for summer recess. Even then, it was increasingly the only solution to offer tenants temporary respite from the escalating crisis that we see right now. At the time, it seemed like the Government did not want to listen to that evidence. Had we backed those proposals back in June, the rent freeze could have been in place months ago. Indeed, if members of the Government had backed Pauline McNeill's bill in the previous session, we could have seen far more support for Scotland's tenants. In May, Citizens Advice Scotland reported that concerns around landlords' increase in rent was eight times higher now than at the start of the pandemic. In June, the ONS reported that private rental prices were growing at their fastest rate since 2012. During the passage of the coronavirus recovery bill, Mercedes Villalwa told Parliament, told members of that committee what members of living rent were reporting. A tenant to his landlord increased their rent by £300, with no reason that they were forced to leave. Another landlord decided that he could raise the rent by £100 to £900 just by having a look at the average rents on the street. Another, with a pregnant wife living on a top floor flat with nicotine-saturated carpets, whose landlord increased their rent by £150 because he could not be expected to stand still while the market moves on, talking about people's homes. I will take the intervention from Mr Mountain first. Edward Mountain. I thank the member for taking my intervention, and I too have rental properties. Under the Rent Act 1984, the Housing Act 1988 and the 2016 act, every tenant can appeal a rent rise, and it would be much simpler if this Government had given a determination that no fair rents would be set until this had been consulted on, which would have meant that this legislation wouldn't be required to be emergency legislation. Does the member agree with me that that would have been a better way of resolving this, and given that the Parliament chimed to discuss this really important issue? Mark Griffin, I can give you the time back for both those interventions. I think that that is a proposal that holds merit, but rather than talking about limiting the rent rise that tenants experience, and this extremely difficult time that a rent rise of 0% is far, far better for Scotland's tenants than any rise that at all will support people through the winter, which is why we called for it months and months ago. The Government was ready to turn a blind eye to those calls. We heard the usual excuses from ministers and Government members back then that amendments were not competent. They would be subject to a legal challenge that the Government had not consulted that they would in fact push up rents. Those were excuses that have been advanced by the Government months ago to dismiss Labour's campaign for a rent freeze, but now seem to be accepted as absolute nonsense. I am grateful to the member for giving way. To put that in the kindest possible tone, surely the member can see some slight differences between what was proposed as an amendment to the coronavirus recovery and reform bill and the blanket two-year rent freeze, with very little legal justification offered, and the much more substantive, well-worked-up proposal that is before the chamber this week. Mark Griffin. The justification for it was the severe hardship that tenants were and are facing, which is why the Government has acted. It seems that the moves that Labour made were justified, but it clearly was an opening point in the debate. It was an invitation to the Government to get round the table and discuss how we seriously implement measures like that. Instead of just poo-pooing the idea and then coming back months later to claim it as their own, they could have worked constructively. They could have included my colleague, Mercedes Villalba, in this whole process, and everyone would have been a lot better placed for that. Presiding Officer, it has taken a month for tenants to have sight of the detail. We will continue to scrutinise the content of the bill to ensure that there is the flexibility to deal with the crisis in the long-term well-garden against any potential unintended consequences. There remains a real threat of more unmanjable arrears and homelessness after the moratorium ends. It is not a feature of the bill, but we urge the Government to renew the tenant grant funding urgently. I welcome provisions to review and report on measures for Parliament to then come back and agree to whether to extend or end those powers. Likewise, new verification processes and protections against evictions are badly needed, but communication about the cap, the moratorium and the right to those protections is key. Rent Better reported in May that there is a lack of confidence and some would say that there is actual fear in residents exercising their rights due to the potential repercussions of rent increases or losing their homes. Labour will draft an amendment to put a duty on the Government to write to all registered landers and tenanted properties, providing advice and information about the provisions, and I look forward to sharing that with the Government and having a discussion on that. However, the fact still remains that rents will continue to rise between tenancies at what look like increasingly higher rates, and that rents will rise in tenancies right now until 5 December. There is a contrast between what the First Minister said in her statement in the programme for government. I think that she said that the practical effect of her statement was that rents would be frozen immediately. There is a gap between that record trick and what will happen in practice. Rents will not be frozen until 5 December, due to notices being issued in advance of 6 September, still having a three-month notice period, and that is confirmed by the policy memorandum. I want to highlight what the social sector including SFHA, COSLA, local housing conveners and housing associations have alerted committee and parliamentarians to that the risk of a freeze next year to the affordable house building delivery and maintenance programmes. Last week I visited tenants and staff at Abernhill housing associations, new Aspen Place development and new warm affordable homes that we need to see many tens of thousands more of. They told me about the financial implications of a rent freeze for next year. Upwards of £100,000 lost from the business, that would mean cancelling all investment plans for 23, 24 and 24, 25. Plans were nearly £400,000, including kitchen, bathrooms and heating upgrades. Given that seven in 10 social tenants get housing benefit or universal credit, the majority of social tenants will not benefit from a freeze but will lose out in a lack of investment in their home. Where rent is paid by the UK Government, so are the increase. Modelling on a 3 per cent rent rise for next year would mean that £30 million would be lost to the housing sector and go back to the UK Treasury. The regulator itself puts the cost to the whole sector at £50 million, rising to £230 million by March 2027. That clearly would put at risk the 110,000 affordable homes and all the other measures that we would like to see as part of those investment programmes. I would ask if ministers would be able to fill that black hole if they were to continue the rent freeze into the following year. However, this is not a panacea. It does not make for a long-term solution. For that, housing policy in Scotland needs fundamental reform. We need to build far more houses, and this, even though we are very welcome in the short term, should not get in the way of that. It is right for the Government to take emergency steps and an emergency, and this is certainly an emergency. It is extraordinary the cost of living pressures, and it has been exacerbated by a reckless Conservative Government. I want to make an appeal to the minister today. We will support the Bill at stage 1, but we are opposed to the inclusion of social rented properties in the rent freeze, and we are also concerned about the inclusion of mid-market rental properties. Those homes are already subject to a form of rent controls, so I do not think that it would be right to impose another set of controls with a freeze. That would undermine the fine judgments involved in setting those rents by housing associations, councils and charities. Those fine judgments mean that social rents are about half those in the private sector, while also funding proper maintenance and house building programmes. Those fine judgments enable councils, housing associations and charities to modernise the homes, make them more energy efficient, meet their climate change obligations and build new properties for the thousands of people who are desperate for a home. Finally, those fine judgments will allow for targeted funds to be available to help those struggling to pay the rent. Let us not undermine all those fine judgments that have worked well for decades. Let us stick with what works. Well over half of all the properties in the social sector are occupied by tenants who pay their rent through universal credit. In Cairnhouse Association, it is 60 per cent. In Kingdom, it is 70 per cent. Those people will not benefit from a freeze. There will not be any more money in their pocket. The Treasury keeps the money depriving the Scottish economy of important revenue and undermining those house building programmes. With that targeted support and the universal credit rental payments, is the rent freeze for the social and mid-market sector really worth it when it could undermine the house building, maintenance and climate change programmes? Yes, certainly. Minister. Full to the member for giving way, he will have heard me I think two or three times now during the debate make it clear that we have not yet made decisions about what would happen after the end of the 31st of March. In the period before that, there is no direct impact on the rental income for social housing. Does he accept that we are working in good faith and are having constructive dialogue already with the social housing sector to understand all the important issues that he raises? Willie Rennie, I can give you the time back. I accept what the minister says but there is a point of principle here about how the rents are set. The rents have been set for generations working in partnership between the tenants and their landlords in the social sector. It has worked well. It has delivered rents that are half of what they are in the private sector. I do not understand why we are seeking to undermine that process, even though we have a cost of living pressures involved because of all the other negative impacts and because of all the universal credit and special targeted payments. However, his point about it is not going to impact the sector until potentially after March and he has not made any decisions about that either. That leads to the uncertainty. There is uncertainty in the sector about how they are going to project for the next 20, 30 years with the house building programmes. Even if it is only six months, it interrupts the flow of decision making. It will apply for six months, but it may last for much longer. The minister has not ruled it out. I accept that he is talking to the sector, but we do not absolutely know that there will not be controls after March next year. How can the bodies plan for the future when it is unclear what the Government policy will be? There must be a more stable policy environment if housing decision makers are to reach the best possible conclusions. The uncertainty also limits the councils, charities and housing associations from having meaningful discussions about rent levels post-March 31, utilising their well-tried tenant consultation processes. I know that the minister has indicated that consultation and debate and discussion can be had, but how can you have a discussion about that when you do not know whether you will be under a rent freeze post-March 31? The minister indicates that discussions can be had, but they will be very limiting. Look at what the housing associations have been telling us. Care and housing associations say that we are already making decisions to significantly reduce our planned investment programme of improvements to tenants housing. That will mean fewer new kitchens, fewer new bathrooms and reduced programmes of windows and roofing works. We are also now having to consider postponing or cancelling major planned modernisation projects such as major innovation of the sheltered retirement schemes. Cairn is a registered social landlord. It is a not-for-profit charity. It grew out of the Royal British Legion housing arm in 1989. It is a good people with a social conscience. Why are we trying to fix them? We are in the middle of delivering 500 new homes in a programme. As a direct result of the rent freeze announcement, we are actively considering postponing on cancelling a number of new build schemes to protect our cash position. That cannot be right that the housing association is considering cancelling the new build programme. I do sense a real anxiety in the social sector, despite the positive discussions that the minister has had. In my own area in the Kingdom housing association, it says that the impact of a rent freeze or a rent cap will remove our ability to financially manage our business plans and will have an impact through unintended consequences related to the reduction in our provision of new homes, the deferral of planned maintenance works, restrictions on our ability to provide enhanced net zero and innovation investment and, most importantly, result in a potential reduction in service delivery standards to tenants and removal of enhanced added value services that we provide. It cannot be right that good housing associations like that are considering measures like that. That is why I hope that tomorrow, in stage 2, the minister will be open to amendments that I will be putting forward. I will provide a number of different opportunities for the minister to recognise that the social sector, the charity sector and councils are different. They have a different regime. They have rent controls of sort in place already. It is well tried and tested systems. They have rents that are half the private sector. Why they are being lumped in with this process I simply do not understand. That is why I hope that the minister will be open to consideration of those amendments. We can end up with a bill that perhaps works, which helps the people who are desperate for help at this time to make sure that we can deal with the cost of living crisis, not undermine the good work that housing associations, councils and charities have done for a long time. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate, and I call first Eleanor Whitham to be followed by Stephen Kerr for around six minutes, Ms Whitham. Today we see a clear evidence that our Parliament can act quickly to bring about protections for those who rent their homes during a time when we are seeing the cost of living spiralling. Inaction in another place should not be replicated here, and good ideas across political lines can and should be embraced where possible, as collectively we should aim to make the lives of those who live in Scotland better. I spent years working in and around the housing and homelessness sectors, and in amongst the dargon, the spreadsheets, the HRA accounts, the bureaucracy, people, the tenants can often be forgotten. The pandemic and now this cost crisis have put people back into sharp focus. During the height of the pandemic, I was still a councillor and a causeless housing spokesperson, and we saw a surge in action to get people into accommodation, to prevent evictions and to mobilise the entire sector to work collectively to ensure people and communities were safe from the clear and present danger. Presiding Officer, we need to see this cost of living crisis in the same light as the pandemic, a clear and present danger to wellbeing. Yes, I will. I am having a menopausal moment, but I will try and deal with it as best I can. Jeremy Balfour. I am confident that my member will deal with it very well, but can I ask her what advice does she give to the landlord who has a mortgage and that mortgage goes up in the next six months? How does he pay his mortgage, or are we simply going to end up with people having to be evicted because the landlord cannot afford to pay the mortgage? Thanks very much, Jeremy Balfour, for that intervention. It allows me to turn that focus back around on why we have spiralling inflation and mortgages that are hitting a point where it might be unsustainable for some landlords. I think that within the provision in the bill we see that if landlords are facing a situation in which they cannot afford the increases, there are protections for them. We can see that they have listened to the private landlord section. People are experiencing a contraction in their incomes, the likes of which most of us have never experienced before. Sure, many of us might have come through the financial crash of 2008, but our food and energy bills had not skyrocketed to the alarming extent that we are seeing now, and our incomes at that point had yet to suffer a decade of austerity. We know that those who rent their property are disproportionately spending a large part of their income on rent and have overall lower incomes. Those who are in the private rented sector pay a significantly higher percentage of their income on rent, and that can be much higher if the local housing allowance does not cover all of their housing costs due to local pressures, meaning that they will be required to use some of their universal credit towards rent. Add that to the disproportionately large increases to living costs for those with limited incomes, and we are dealing with an impending crisis over the winter months. I respect the member's experience in that area. Given that, what we have seen throughout the process is evidence from places where rent freezes have been tried to suggest that the policy can create housing shortages, does the member have any evidence to suggest that the experience will be any different in Scotland? Eleanor Whittingam, I can give you the time back for both of you. I think that we could always cherry-pick the evidence that we choose, and I think that we have to look wider than perhaps just immediate neighbours on to the continent of Europe, because there are a lot of places in Europe that have quite stringent rent controls and a really buoyant private rented sector. We cannot just look for the ones that we choose to because they suit our narrative, so I urge the member to have a look at that in his own time. Social justice and anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe, who is the bootstrap cook, drew attention to the author Terry Pratchett's concept of the boots theory of socio-economic unfairness, according to Discworld character Sam Vines. The reason the rich are so rich, Vines reasoned, was because he managed to spend less money, wrote Pratchett. Take boots, for example, he said. A really good pair of leather boots costs about $50, but an affordable pair of boots, which are sort of okay for a season or two, but then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about $10. Someone who could afford $50 had a pair of boots that would still be keeping their feet dry in ten years' time, whilst a poor person who could only afford cheap boots would have spent $100 on boots in that same time and still have wet feet. Deputy Presiding Officer, with the rent increases in the private rented sector of up to 40 per cent and the recent past, Scotland's tenants' feets are ringing. This evaluation of socio-economic unfairness is hugely pertinent today, as we see our most vulnerable bear the brunt of austerity and, frankly, economically illiterate fiscal events in another place. Why is it right that we have this bell before us today that seeks to place a cap on rents to 0 per cent and reintroduces a moratorium on evictions until the end of March 2023? Folk, with the least, are paying the most for essentials as a percentage of their income. Women, those with disabilities and from black and minority ethnic communities, are facing the starkest of choices and it is incumbent upon us in this place to ensure they do not face rent increases that could lead to homelessness during a cost of living crisis. That is a humanitarian crisis in every single community. Now, while the Scottish Government does not have control over energy or inflation, it has sought to mitigate the worst effects within a largely limited budget to the tune of £3 billion every single year. With those emergency measures, increases to the tenant grant fund and discretionary housing payments along with— The member is winding up. Yes, sorry. Along with fixed abilities to allow a cost of living and fuel poverty issues to be considered, that means that there is support for those who cannot afford to cover all of their housing costs at this time. It is vital that those funds are publicised and maximised at every opportunity, along with the Scottish welfare fund. I welcome Mark Griffin's suggestion that we ride out to all registered landlords to make sure that they do that. With regard to the proportionate measures that are set out to protect landlords' facing financial difficulties, I would also ask that we work to ensure where a landlord needs to sell their property. They are supported to do so with a sitting tenant, and that if appropriate local authorities and registered social landlords consider buying back as many as they are able to. That would also protect the tenant to continue to live in their home without disruption. Housing is about much more than bricks and mortar. It is about feeling safe and secure. It is about wellbeing and warmth. I look forward to the substantive housing bill to come, but, in this immediate emergency situation right now, I urge members to support the bill. Thank you. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Paul MacLennan around six minutes, Mr Kerr. Whatever the intentions of this bill, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that this is SNP-Green grandstanding. This SNP-Green coalition Government is treating this Parliament with contempt for the sake of a headline. This is a bill that will create homelessness, it is reckless, and it is certainly not evidence-led policy. Any truncation of the legislative process is bound to mean that scrutiny is not what it should be, especially given the consequences that will flow from the enactment of this flawed bill. Mark the warnings of the expert voices in the sector, and they could not be clearer. In deep down, I cannot help to believe that the more thoughtful members of the SNP and Labour know that the grave concerns that are being raised from the sector are well grounded, as was cited by Willie Rennie in the evidence of the Kernhousing group. I am grateful to the member who mentioned experts in the sector. Does he accept that tenants are experts in how the rented sector works and that tenant organisations have been crying out to us? Stephen Kerr. Of course I accept that tenants are an important part of the rental housing market, but listen to the consequences that are going to flow from this piece of flawed legislation. I will. Michelle Thomson. Lack of scrutiny, does that mean now that he regrets the rush of blood to the head of his Tory chancellor and the impact that it has had on costs for housing providers? Stephen Kerr and give you the time back for his intervention. What that has got to do with this bill, I cannot possibly answer for the logic that drives that kind of political point-scoring for the sake of it. Not only are the SNP treating this Parliament with contempt, but I put it to the chamber, they are also treating the tenants and students across Scotland with contempt by pushing through a policy, which international case study after international case study shows does not work and it doesn't work as it reduces the supply of rented accommodation, increases the likelihood of homelessness. It doesn't work, it reduces the maintenance of properties and increases the number of tenants and students living in lower-quality accommodation. It doesn't work because it reduces the incentive for landlords to invest in their properties to improve energy efficiency, increasing the energy bills of tenants and students and increasing the difficulty of reaching our net zero targets. All of this at a time when the rental market is already shrinking. John Mason, would he accept that at least some landlords have not just been increasing rent to match their costs, but have been increasing rent to make a super profit? I am talking about the evidence of the general market situation. If there are specific examples that the member is aware of where that kind of ruthless landlord exists, then I am sure that someone can be done about that, but this is to take a sledgehammer to crack that particular knot. At the same time, Scotland's university's funding from the SNP green Scottish Government is being cut in real terms. It is a time when Scotland's universities are being bailed out effectively by fee-paying international students and housing is already being squeezed. Students at Glasgow University are being encouraged to withdraw from their courses or to defer a year of their studies. Students are being forced to take up accommodation 30 miles away from their place of study. My friend Miles Briggs mentioned the example of the Irish case study. The Irish Economic and Social Research Institute and the Irish Department of Housing have both stated categorically that whatever the benefits that are promised around these policies are, they say, quote, these measures come with supply side health warnings. They have been shown to lower investment and maintenance in buildings and lower overall rental supply. Our friends in the Republic of Ireland also don't need to look at international examples to determine how disastrous policy rent controls are. They are living with them. They introduced them in 2016 and the Irish have seen the number of homes available to rent plummet. As of August this year, only 716 homes were available to rent in a country with a population of 5.1 million people. A by-product of that shocking increase is homelessness. Again, according to the Department of Housing, figures in July this year in Ireland there were 10,668 adults and children who were homeless across the Republic of Ireland. That is a record high, a 30 per cent increase on the homeless figures since May 2021. It's not just Ireland. The important consequences of rent control can be seen clearly in any city or country that has introduced them. Stockholm, the average wait time for rent control departments is now over nine years. The introduction of rent controls in New York led to more than 125,000 people being homeless in California, over 100,000 people. The minister is shaking, he said, but we have University Scotland's response to the bill and their warning of unpalatable unintended consequences. First, the University of Scotland makes the point that it has already acted to protect students for the next academic year, as rent, including bills such as electricity, are fixed for the next academic year, so it will not increase regards of inflation or changes to gas and electricity prices. Second, if the rent freeze lasts more than six months, it could mean that the cost of running student accommodation will become financially unviable, putting jobs at risk in reducing further reducing supply. Third, this is from University Scotland. Third, and I asked the minister to make the Government's position very clear on this point, University Scotland stated that banning eviction would put students at risk if universities are unable to evict an individual whom they believe poses a risk of sexual or physical violence to other students. I am willing to take an intervention. Minister. I am grateful. The member will be well aware that, as with the temporary restrictions under the coronavirus legislation, criminal and anti-social behaviour—and that is not just criminal and anti-social behaviour as well—is very clearly exempted from the moratorium on eviction, just as it was in the previous emergency legislation. Stephen Cairn will be grateful if he begins to wind up, please. If an individual is believed to pose a risk in terms of sexual or physical violence, they can be evicted. Is that what the minister is saying? Can you shake your head, minister? That is not what I am asking. I think that we need some clarification from the minister on that. This is what University Scotland is asking. If the universities—I am sorry to indulge the patients of the Deputy Presiding Officer—if the universities cannot ask students to depart accommodation on terms agreed, it will put vitally important revenue-generating summit events at risk. It will also put at risk accommodation for the following academic years, first-year student intake. That is a very important consideration. Finally, University Scotland believes that the focus should be on long-term strategy and not on this emergency bill that has had so little strategy. I think that the minister should deal with each of these concerns expressed by University Scotland in her response to the debate. At that point, I will conclude. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Richard Leonard for around six minutes. I refer members to my register of interests as I own a rental property in East Lothian. This week is challenge poverty week, and that is exactly why we are here today with this bill being brought forward. They say that a week is a long time in politics. It is an old saying, but it is still so true, just to ask what is he quoting. The cost-of-living crisis has been budding for a long period of time, and it is hitting the poorest in our community. Again, that is why we are here today. Of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated the issue in terms of inflationary pressures, but those pressures were there before then. The price energy cap was set at an average of £2,500. I remind you that it was 1119. However, the £2,500 is an average, not a limit. Maybe somebody should tell Liz Tristat too. Recent studies show that 25 per cent of people in Scotland and up to 35 per cent of single parent families will not be putting the heating on this year. For context, that is 25,000 residents in East Lothian. 72 per cent of residents are projected to be in fuel poverty in Scotland this winter. That is over 70,000 residents in East Lothian. Rental costs are usually the biggest costs for everyone. Inflation is projected by some commentators to rise to 22 per cent, and that is the fault of the UK Government. Food inflation at the moment is forecast around about 13 per cent. It makes a point about inflation and then tries to blame the UK Government exclusively. Is the UK Government also responsible for inflation rate in Germany of 10 per cent? The EU 10.1, Australia 10.5, Belgium 11.27, Greece 11.4, Netherlands 12, Romania 15.3, Hungary 15.6, Poland 17.7. Is the UK Government also responsible for that inflation? No, it is not, Mr Kerr, but you will know that it is the highest rate projected in the G7. Yes, it is, and that is the fault of the UK Government. Scottish Government mitigates Tory UK Government policy choices by over £700 million per year. That is the cost of this broken United Kingdom. The United Kingdom prioritises most well-off in society over the most vulnerable in society, a United Kingdom that will borrow to cut taxes for millionaires over people who do not earn enough to pay tax. No, I won't, sorry. This is all better, Prime Minister. We are not only dresses like Margaret Thatcher, but we are trying to stimulate our policies with a perverse ideology. Now, the Tory party is touting the possibility of cutting benefits, placing more people into poverty. I am setting the context, so no, I want to get an intervention. I am setting the context of this. How many policy reversals will Douglas Ross support? He is the candidate of the police of Scottish politics. Maybe he is I, maybe he is no. That is the context, and that is a problem facing many employers in Scotland. Please resume your seat, Liam Kerr, point of order. I think that he requires that the member address himself to the subject of the motion. I would suggest that the member does that. Thank you. Mr Kerr, as Mr MacLennan has indicated, he is setting the scene. I would hope that he will return to the subject of this afternoon's debate, and with that, Paul MacLennan, I can give the time back. Point of order, Stephen Kerr. Does Mr MacLennan have an obligation to give points of truth in fact in this debate, or is he completely unrestraint when it comes to that obligation? Mr Kerr, I think that he will know at this point that that is a debating point, rather than a point of order at Paul MacLennan. Please resume. My last line was that that is a context that is a problem facing many players in Scotland. The context is important. My very next line is, so what can the Scottish Government do to help on top of the £700 million that it makes every year within a fixed budget that is not inflation proof, nor has the vulnerability to support those most affected? That is why the bill to freeze rents and safeguard against evictions has been brought forward because of the context that the UK Government has set. I am proud to be part of a Government that supports our residents in this way. This emergency legislation simply seeks to increase protection for tenants from rent rises and eviction action during the cost of living crisis created by the Tory Government. If approved, the bill will give ministers temporary power to cap rents for private and social tenants with a cap set at 0% from 6 September until 31 March next year. The bill also includes further power to maintain or vary the rent cap over two further six-year periods. The local government housing planning committee six-month periods. The local government housing planning committee will be reviewing the legislation over the next six months in a regular period. We discussed that by the minister this morning, and he was quite happy to advise us of that. Enforcement of eviction action that is resulting from cost crisis will be vented over the same period except in a number of specified circumstances that the minister has talked about. Damages for unlawful evictions will be increased to a maximum of 36 months worth of rent. Crucially, those mergers will also apply to students in college or university halls of residence or other types of purpose-built accommodation. In the summer, and I know that some other MSPs were at the time, we heard from the NES about rent rises of over 30% over a number of years. It was clear that this was a deterrent from those who were choosing the study. Scottish Government has also recognised that the rental sector is a source of income for many in Scotland. That is why the legislation includes safeguards for private sector landlords. I align them to imply to increase rent to partially cover a limited number of specified costs, including increased mortgage interpayments on the property they are letting, an increase in landlord's insurance, or increases in service charges paid as part of the tenancy subject to an overall limit. I want to close with four priorities that were raised in the joint briefing from Citizens Advice Scotland, the choice of Round Tree Foundation, Poverty Alliance and Shelter Scotland. The four priorities were protect all tenants from rent increases in eviction, except in cases of antisocial or criminal behaviour, recognising address unintended consequences for both tenants and landlords. Three, incorporate a robust plan for monitoring impact, and four, be accompanied by an immediate plan to raise tenant landlord awareness of the changes and the financial help that I will offer to households that are struggling. I believe that the ministers touched on that in his introduction today, so I can ask the Cabinet Secretary who might be summing up to just touch his and sum up. I'm proud to be supporting this Bill at stage one. It's looking after the most vulnerable people in our society. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr McLean, I now call Richard Leonard to be followed by Jackie Dunvart. Richard Leonard, for around six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Until yesterday afternoon, the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants' Rights has been very coy about this emergency legislation. I've written to him. I know that Mercedes Villalba, who is sadly unable to be here today, who has courageously led Parliament in this campaign for a meaningful rent freeze, has written to him, seeking clarity, but he refused to give it. What we do know is that the Scottish Association of Landlords met with the Government just last week, and they could tell their members after that meeting, and let me quote them, it is expected that landlords will still be permitted to serve tenants with notice to end the tenancy as normal. If the tenant doesn't vacate during the notice period, landlords can then apply to the tribunal for an eviction order as normal. They go on. If the eviction ban was to be extended beyond 31 March 2023, then each individual eviction order would be subjected to a maximum delay of six months, e.g. an eviction order issued in December 2022 could be enforced in June 2023 at the latest, or on 1 April 2023 if the ban isn't extended, and the Bill confirms this to be true. So this is an eviction ban, but the best that can be said of it is that it is a temporary, it is a deficient, it is a semi-semi eviction ban, a ban in which tenants can still be served with a notice of eviction, which does not make it any harder for landlords to evict tenants, which does not strengthen tenants' rights, which simply pauses the eviction for a time-limited period. Let me turn to the rent freeze. This is what the Scottish Association of Landlords said about that. Rent increase notices issued before 6 September are expected to be enforceable as normal. It is possible that safeguards may be put in place to allow rent increases in exceptional cases where a landlord can demonstrate that, without one, they will suffer in their words extreme financial hardship. They go on. The rent freeze will only apply to mid-tenancy rent increases and will not affect a landlord's ability to apply a rent increase between tenancies, and the Bill confirms that this is true. So this is not only a long way from a universal freeze on rents. There is a real danger that the Government's promise of a rent freeze, the most significant announcement in the words of the First Minister, will melt under the heat of fact. I'll give way. I'm grateful to Richard Leonard for giving way. I've laid out exactly why this needs to be a balanced package, and I've been saying since the member's colleague moved an amendment back in June that a universal, blanket approach would almost certainly fail the test of proportionality. So I'm a little bit confused why the member is using his speech simply to read out what I've already said is the Government's position in an ever more angry tone of voice. Richard Leonard, I can give you the time back. Well, I will choose to speak in whichever tone I wish, Mr Harvey, and I will include the content that I wish to include in my speech. I won't be dictated to by you whether you're on the front bench or not. I'm bound to say to the Scottish Association of Landlords if you are concerned that the proposals will cause extreme financial hardship for your members, what about the extreme financial hardship your members are imposing on tenants? If landlords are complaining that their altruism is being tested, that a temporary rent freeze will drive them out of business, and so the supply of homes for rent in Scotland will dry up, I say to them, if this really is about altruism, why not sell your private rental properties to the public sector so they can become socially rented homes and the tenants can stay? What we truly need is a rebalancing of power between landlord and tenant. At the moment, if a tenant considers their rent to be unfair, the honest is on them. Firstly, to know that there is such a thing as a rent officer, secondly, to know where to find a rent officer, thirdly, to contact that rent officer and get them to undertake an assessment, and fourthly, to then negotiate the implementation of that fair rent with the landlord themselves. So I say to the Minister for Tenants' Rights, why shouldn't the burden of proof be placed on the landlord to justify any rent rise rather than on the tenant to win a case against it? A constituent of mine, Ashley, contacted me a day or so after the First Minister's announcement to say that her letting agency had sent her a contract which puts up her rent from £475 to £530 a month. Her rent doesn't include her bills like gas and electricity. The mortgage on the property is paid off. In other words, there is no justification for this huge rise whatsoever. I've got a letter here. She told me it's hard for everyone right now. My gas is up, my electric is up. What a time to pick to up my rent as well. Ashley has not signed the contract, but she doesn't know if the rent freeze will apply to her or whether at the end of this month. She will have to start stumping up this 11.5% hike. Ashley said to me, I personally don't think it's fair that only some rents will be frozen. She is right, and Ashley speaks for thousands of young people like her. So a temporary freeze will not help. If it is designed to take the heat out of this effective grassroots campaign that has got us to where we are today, it will not work. We need proper rent controls. That's what this parliament must legislate for. Instead of short-term emergency legislation, we need long-term transformational change to tackle the housing crisis, to tackle unaffordability overcrowding and homelessness, and to take on the rogue landlords and properly protect tenants. Without tackling insecurity and the soaring cost of housing, we cannot begin to tackle inequality, and without tackling inequality and injustices in housing, we will never tackle it in wider society. We must be on the side of the tenant, not the landlord, and today we must deliver with action and not just with words. Thank you very much, Mr Leonard. I now call Jackie Dunbar to be followed by Jeremy Balfour for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'll try not to use my angry voice today, but I'll try to use my reasonable one. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and while the Scottish Government does not have the power to prevent people's energy bills from soaring, it is right that it has taken action to ensure that the rent does not rise and that they are not evicted from their homes over winter. I therefore welcome that this emergency legislation will ensure that this is done in a way that is legally robust with the right safeguards in place. The bill aims to restrict landlords from raising rents, with exceptions, as we have heard, until March 2023, and it also puts a ban on evictions for the same period. Rents will be frozen unless landlords are experiencing increased property costs, such as increased mortgage interest or service charges that the bill confirms. It is important to point out that landlords will be able to evict tenants, but only if they can prove that they are suffering from financial hardship. That is not necessarily obvious from the commentary from the media and, indeed, some landlords. Under the bill, rent can still be increased between tenants under those proposals, with the policy notes attached to the bill stating that the rent freeze protects tenants, helping them to stay in their homes during the cost crisis, while responding to the need to ensure that the measures are proportionate. The cap on rent increases will initially be set at 0 per cent, meaning that no rises will be permissible in the short term. However, the Government has made clear that this will be until March 2023 until the policy will be reviewed. My Aberdeen-Donside constituency has many people living in socially rented accommodation, as well as private lets. Many of my constituents will be among the hardest hit by the Tory-made cost crisis, and tenants, especially in the private rented sector, spend a greater proportion of their income on housing than people who own their own homes. People who rent have, on average, lower incomes and poorer energy standards. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that almost a third of people who rent their homes in Scotland were already finding it difficult to pay their rent before the current cost crisis hit. We face the threat of a humanitarian emergency in every community across Scotland, and it is the responsible move from the Scottish Government in the absence of the powers to act properly on energy bills to act through this emergency legislation that will protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is also worth noting that organisations who have welcomed this legislation the poverty alliance said that a rent freeze will help tenants across the country. Shelter Scotland has stated that short-term emergency measures in the programme for government are great news for tenants and will stop people from losing their homes. Shelter Scotland also told the Parliament that any measures to ensure that citizens have the access to the right to a home are very welcome in the context of the cost of living, though they wait to see the final detail. Living rents said that a rent freeze would have a massive impact as skyrocketing rents continued to pile on top of out-of-control energy bills. Stephen Kerr, I am grateful to Jackie Dunbar for giving way. Did she receive briefing papers from housing associations? In particular, did she receive the briefing paper from the Cairn housing group, and how does she respond to their sincerely held concerns? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yes, I did receive the briefing papers, as I am sure that Mr Kerr has done as well. I have read them over just as much as he has done, and I know that the Government has done as well. The Scottish Trade Union's congress has stated that the Scottish Government is to be commended for freezing rents. If implemented correctly and we are pressing for further answers, that will help thousands of households across Scotland when they need it most. When used, the powers of our Parliament can bring positive change. Those expert testimonies from the organisations on the front line of the cost crisis speak for themselves and show the absolute need for this bill. It remains essential that tenants continue to pay their rent, and anyone struggling to do so should contact their landlord at the earliest possible opportunity. That legislation aims to freeze rents at an affordable level so that folk are able to continue paying their bills and not fall into arrears. Tenants and landlords who are willing to work together to address rent arrears can receive the support from the Scottish Government and local authorities, such as through the tenant grant fund and discretionary housing payments. I also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to continue to engage with landlords as well as housing authorities, while the legislation is in place and up to March. I met one of the chief execs of a local housing association in the South Scotland yesterday, and they have concerns over the impact of their rent cap on future development and maintenance and support. However, I understand that the plans for the housing authorities as they are already set are up until 1 April, so would Jackie Dunbar agree with me that the cabinet secretary should seek a commitment to engage with the housing authorities continuously for the process as we go ahead? Yes, I absolutely agree with my colleague Emma Harper. As a former vice convener and a former spokesperson for housing for the SNP group in Aberdeen City Council, I know that most social sector rents are already set until 1 April 2023, so having this temporary measure in place until March should not have a financial impact on housing authorities or the social landlords. I will join Emma Harper and ask the cabinet secretary to reaffirm her commitment to keeping housing authorities fully informed with the Government's plans as we approach March. In closing, during the current UK Government made-cost crisis, I welcome this emergency legislation from the Scottish Government, which will work to protect my Aberdeen-Donsai constituents, as well as folk across Scotland during the winter months. Thank you very much, Mr Dunbar. Jeremy Balfour, who will be followed by Michelle Thomson, has advised the chamber that most of the time that we had in hand has now been used up, so I will have to require speakers to stick to their speaking allocations for around six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The world is in a grip of an economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a number of years. As a result of global factors for people of this country, we are facing down an incredibly difficult winter and it is incumbent upon all Governments to provide. However, when Governments are considering measures to implement, they must be due consideration given to the potential consequences outwith the primary intent of the legislation. It is very rare that any action or piece of legislation has no consequence outside of the area that is directed to. In that vein, I have real reservations about the proposed rank control measures that the Government is bringing forward today. Unintended consequences will lead to policy promises that could be devastating, particularly to the people that I represent here in Milovian. The Scottish Government is far from the first to have this idea. There is an example after example of rank control schemes that have been implemented only to be rolled back after the disastrous unintended effects manifested themselves. As others have mentioned, look at what happened in Germany. They were hailed as a policy that would fix every problem that the market could not. The same was said of the rent pressure zones that were introduced in Dublin. Both cases were supposed to ensure affordable rent for all, but instead they manufactured an extreme shortage of available properties to rent and drove many landlords from the market. The number of classified adverts for rental properties fell by half as a result of the measures in Berlin. According to economist Jim Powers, the Irish rent pressure zones are causing an exit of private landlords from the market and is reducing the supply of rental property and putting upward pressure on rents at a time when significant increases are required to satisfy demand and create a functional residential property market. The definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Does the member not recognise that this is actually a temporary legislation to get over a cost-of-living crisis created by the Government that he represents in Westminster? The legislation that we are debating this afternoon within this Parliament gives the power of the Scottish Government to extend it for 18 months. That is not temporary, according to me. I am going to make progress that is okay. It is not a controversial point out that rent controls limit the stock in the rental market. It has been observed time after time and it is a mystery why this Government is expecting something different. If price friction was not enough, the proposed eviction from property would add even further uncertainty to the market. Removing the incentive that tenants to pay and landlords to regain their property throws up a litany of issues that I do not think that the Government has thought through. For one, there are costs associated with letting a property that are met by rental income that is paid. If a landlord cannot rely on a steady stream of rent, many will be unable to fulfil their financial obligations such as repairs, and we will see properties going into even more worse repair. In addition, some landlords are getting a lot in the law in Edinburgh, and they rely on regular rent to pay for the mortgage. Especially for those who have a buy-to-let mortgage, a hot-to-income could cause the property to be repossessed, which would result in the tenant likely being evicted as well. If the Government has thought through the situation, I am sure that, as it would appreciate, it needs to bring something different to the table. The other group that is going to be deeply affected by this is housing associations. Banks lend association money with rental income acting as a guarantee against the debt. If the income becomes unsustainable, it is likely that they will remove that incentive because suddenly the bank will refuse to lend their money. That will bring again another pressure to the sector and we will receive a market in regard to rental property simply collapsing. That is not just me saying this, Presiding Officer. We even had representations today from COSLA not necessarily in favour of everything we on this side do, but they have said that this is a power grab by the Scottish Government. They have said that this is taken away from localism at any level. They are saying that why should local authorities not be sending rents rather than central government? Setting rent caps and freezers on a national level strips local government off its power. Its ability to set rent for local housing is in the last 30 seconds, unfortunately. With no consultation with the sector, we are going to end up with more people being homeless over the next few months. That is a fundamentally wrong policy. It will end up with people being in a worse place and we will see more people selling their properties simply to be able to meet their own rising costs. I refer you to my register of interests that states that I rent some property out. I consider it unethical to speak on issues where it could be construed that I am attempting to influence the Scottish Government on my own interests and as such the speech will make no reference to the by-to-let market. However, I will make some remarks on the broader housing market. Fundamentally, the Scottish Government is seeking to do the right thing, but it is subjected to limitations. The first is adequate powers. The Government's job above all else is to protect Scottish citizens and there is nothing more fundamental than a roof over your head. However, without an appropriate basket of powers, including borrowing, the Scottish Government is heavily constrained. The second is a macroeconomic context. The Scottish Parliament has no monetary policy powers and very limited fiscal powers. That is why the Scottish people are facing the full brunt of Tory economic incompetence, rising food inflation, rising mortgage costs and the recent, quite frankly, disastrous fiscal event by the latest Tory chancellor and prime minister, all call for action. The willingness of the Scottish Government to take action is to be commended. I will carry on just now because I am changing theme. Yet I sound a note of caution and quote from Susan Actomale of Homes for Good, she notes in LinkedIn. The Scottish Government seems to be legislating against new housing supply in the midst of a housing crisis. Those remarks go to the heart of the very difficult balancing act that the Scottish Government must undertake. How do they take action to protect tenants without cooling the underlying supply of housing? I would like to open some areas for discussion. The mood music for institutional professionals in the housing market must be right. They must know that Scotland is open for business and that their long-term investment plans can proceed. Pension schemes, in particular, with their long-term focus on patient capital, must be considered. I would highlight the bill-to-rent model, which offers a route for Scotland to get to the scale of housing that is required against a backdrop of undersupply and over-demand. I reference the Scottish property for— Sorry. I am very grateful. Just that point that I made earlier, that there is evidence that moves such as rent freeze can reduce the housing stock that she rightly calls for, that we need more of. What evidence does she have, the member, to say that this isn't going to be the unintended consequence of this legislation? I don't have any evidence because I don't have a crystal ball. However, what I am pointing out here is that there is a housing market. We are not having the debate about the housing market, and a critical point of the housing market is macroeconomic powers and fiscal powers that we could take action, for example, to build more houses if we had adequate borrowing powers. That is the point that I am making. I am going to carry on, Presiding Officer. I reference the Scottish Property Federation in that they state that there is a point line worth of £3.5 billion of new built-around properties, and their concern is that some of this may be put in hold. For other businesses such as SMEs, their risk assessments are growing more complex and are becoming more risk averse. Access to funding is already problematic with interest rates increasing and exacerbated by the current Tory-induced chaos. No one who lived through the credit crisis of 2008 will forget clauses in commercial contracts that allow for a demand for the repayment of bank loans, regardless of whether any debt is being serviced regularly. We need strong guarantees that the finance sector this time around will act appropriately to support businesses. On that point, specifically about regulatory environment for SMEs, I make the intervention on that point to say that she is making some very good points, but she did not quite answer the intervention of my friend Liam Kerr. Does she acknowledge that international study after international study shows that the imposition of rent freezes creates constrictions in the supply of available property for the homeless? I acknowledge that restriction of supply can have an impact. That is true. What I am making clear here is that it is very complex. If the member really cared about the housing market and indeed the member over there, he would be calling for increasing borrowing powers for the Scottish Government to build more houses. He would be increasing the calls for more macroeconomic powers for the Scottish Parliament so that we can take further action. That is the point that I am making. He wants us to sit passively and leave these matters to the Tory Government in London. We see where that has ended up. Sorry, Presiding Officer. It is worth noting that all those economic factors, and many more, I have not mentioned, are out with the control of Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, adding emphasis to my opening remarks. House providers are nervous because of uncertainty. The vast majority of that uncertainty is because of macroeconomic policies set in Westminster. Any initiatives must look at the overarching housing sector in the round. I would like to ask the minister what specific assessment has been made to the availability of housing supply because of the proposed changes. Will there be checkpoints on supply against demand? Those are difficult times. With strictly limited powers, it is hugely difficult to both extend tenant protections and ensure the optimum environment for investment in new housing. The UK Government has used a property market to give the illusion of wealth and wealth. You are over your time. Can you bring your answer please? Last sentence, leading to a bloated asset class. Despite the complexity that I have outlined, the Scottish Government fundamentally has a duty of care to citizens. For that reason, I absolutely stand by this legislation. I now call Karen Moffin to be followed by Emma Roddick up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before making my contribution today, I refer members to my register of interests. I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate. That action is welcome, but it is long overdue. Scottish Labour has been calling from the beginning of this cost of living crisis for real, measurable action that will help those in most need. From a windfall tax on energy companies, making eye-washing profits while working people struggle to a rent freeze to support tenants who have been exploited by rogue landlords increasing bills during a time of severe economic uncertainty. It is therefore welcome that the SNP and the Green Government has U-turned on this particular issue. However, let us not forget that if the SNP and the Greens had backed the proposals from my friend and comrade Scottish Labour's Mercedes Villalba in June, the rent freeze would have been in place months ago. We would not see tenants having to wait until December. A point that the First Minister had implied would not actually be the case. I do not really expect the member to accept this, but I am just going to put it on the record one more time. If we had voted for that amendment in Parliament and passed it, the rent freeze would not be in place. The rent freeze would have gone to court and been struck down, and we would have done nothing but harm. The member knows that the position on this benches is that he could have come forward with an amendment or a discussion on those points at that time. In fact, the proposed rent freeze from the SNP and the Greens will not help those who had their rents hiked over the summer as we have been discussing after this Government's failure to support a rent freeze in June. When Loving Rent and my colleague Mercedes Villalba first raised the need with the First Minister in April, the average rent in Scotland was £780. It now stands at over £850, which I think we can all agree is a significant increase in just six months. Clearly, this is not a time for patting the back of a Government who, before summer, said that it was unworkable. It is a time to highlight the power of working people and of our trade unions in their campaign to deliver that change. In action and empty promises, we are never going to be enough during a cost of living crisis. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has come to that realisation. I agree with the Scottish Government that this cost of living crisis is a result of years of irresponsible Tory economic policy, of austerity, of cutting taxes from the rich and increasing costs for the workers. However, we have powers to mitigate in Scotland and we have powers in social security and through local councils to improve service delivery for those who are most in need. It is often suggested in this Parliament that there is only one way out of this mess. What the last weeks, months and even years have shown is that Scotland has two Governments often set on dividing communities. However, the fact that people power has brought about this change of heart in this Government today highlights that the people of this country want to unite around policies that will improve their lives and set a brighter future for the next generation. As highlighted in this chamber today, tenants and tenants organisations are knowledgeable enough to come to us here in this Parliament and give us sound advice that we should listen to the people of Scotland. I am not sure from the Labour Party whether or not, when they envisage this rent control, they envisage the social rental sector being such an integral part of it. I therefore ask whether or not members would be voting to remove them from this, given all the unintended consequences that they are raising with elected members. Thank you for the intervention. The member will know from my colleague Mark that we have amendments that we are going to bring forward around this issue, but we know that we are secure until the end of this financial year, and we are happy to debate that again tomorrow in the chamber. The introduction of the legislation is a welcome step forward, but, as mentioned previously, it will not help all tenants, and it is by no means a long-term solution to the challenges that Scotland faces with regard to the housing market. Scotland's councils are being starved of funding from this Government and from the Tories in Westminster, and in recent years, Labour and local government have been delivering nation-leading house-building programmes despite those cuts. Essential work, programmes that are proud once again to be council housing, knowing that that provides stability and security in the most uncertain of terms. As was mentioned by the member from Carrick Cymru Cundun Valley, a home is more than bricks and water. That is why we must challenge the balance between landlords and tenants, as my colleague Richard Leonard mentioned in his contribution. I do hope that the Scottish Government realises the short-term nature of the plan set out in this legislation and calling them to invest in our councils to ensure that they have adequate funding to build the required quantity and quality of houses that are needed in Scotland today. Furthermore, I hope that the minister listens to calls to ensure that the rent freeze remains in place and that a national system of rent controls comes into effect. We know that we can be bolder, we know that we can go further and I call on the Scottish Government to show that ambition. I pay credit to my colleague Mercedes Vallalba, tenants organisations such as Living Rent and the Trade Union movement for their relentless campaigning to force this U-turn. It is a welcome step that we know will make a positive short-term effect, but Scotland is in desperate need of reformed housing policy that delivers first and foremost for our working population. Today is a step forward, but there is room for us to go forward. I reaffirm my party's support of the principle of the bill, and I highlight once again our commitment to delivering a long-term housing strategy that meets the needs of our populations. I am over the moon that this legislation has been introduced. It was to me the highlight of a programme for government that had many policies announced to it that will have a great impact on the people of the Highlands and Islands. That is radical, bold and will have wide-ranging benefits for tenants. Reading the policy memorandum last night genuinely made me proud to be a member of the SNP. Whatever safeguards or caution is in the bill, the intent is very clear to protect tenants by stabilising housing costs, protect their health and wellbeing and avoid evictions. I told the Orkney News only yesterday that this rent freeze at this time during a very real cost of living crisis will ultimately save lives, and I have absolutely no doubt that that is true. In the run-up to winter, making sure that people who are actually paying rent, even rent, which is already unfairly high, are able to stay in their homes, must be our priority. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I noticed a question in the chamber earlier on today from Tess White regarding the growing challenge of policing mental health and challenging the Scottish Government to do more. Does the member agree that housing security is an absolutely essential key wellbeing indicator for us? The Tory Opposition to the provisions in the bill that seeks to provide that housing security is, frankly, hypocritical? Yes, I absolutely agree that housing is integral to mental health. I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative group today. They claim to care about mental health, but they do not support this bill, which specifically has mental health of tenants listed as one of its aims, and they claim to be worried about the amount of time that we are spending debating this bill and yet seem to be wasting an awful lot of it on things that have nothing to do with the content of the bill. I think that it is also worth reflecting on the fact that this is not the only way that the Scottish Government is supporting tenants with household bills and low income right now. Many will be benefiting from housing benefits, including mitigation of the bedroom tax, from the Scottish child payment from an uplift to Scottish benefits, best start grants and many other progressive policies brought forward by the SNP Government. Nobody can accuse this Government of oversimplifying and trying to address an incredibly complex issue with only one action or thinking that this is a panacea, not without looking a bit ridiculous. This is world-leading work going on in this building, bringing forward legislation on social security and homelessness, which is unprecedented, not to mention constantly criticised by Conservatives whom I can only assume would rather see as protect the growing wealth of bankers. Frankly, I cannot believe the brass neck of some of the members claiming that this is not an emergency bill and criticising in an action that is only necessary thanks to the shameful string of right-wing harmful policies announced by the UK Tory Government from cutting universal credit not only failing to act on but being complicit in the increase in cost of energy linked to eye-watering profits in energy companies. It is a great pity that this Government, while carrying out such progressive impressive work, particularly in the social justice housing and local government portfolio, is so constantly and hugely hamstrung by not having full fiscal powers, not being able to rely even month to month on what our budget is going to be and not being able to legislate on many of the biggest causes of poverty in Scotland today, like energy policy. Renting was already extortionate before the cost of living crisis, before Covid, before Brexit and all of those things have only made it worse. The Scottish Government is taking brave action to protect those who need it most, to make sure that tenants can keep a roof over their heads and that must surely be the most important consideration in this debate. I do recognise that there is a need to be able to defend this legislation and not just to our electorate but legally. It has to be robust, it has to be strong and the Government has to have confidence that it can defend it to the hilt. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to present anything otherwise, and that is particularly important when we consider that while landlords and letting associations often have money behind them to take legal action, tenants generally struggle to do the same, but we do have to be careful not to create policy based on which group is most litigious. I echo my colleague Elena Whitton's call for financial support, which is available to tenants to be well advertised and accessible. We have to make it as easy as possible for tenants to access help. I also agree with her comment on sitting tenants being able to remain in a home when the owner changes. It was pointed out to me this week that if a commercial property were being sold, a sitting tenant would be seen as a positive, it means immediate income following the sale. So if a new owner does not intend to live in the property themselves, perhaps we need to encourage an attitude shift towards supporting existing tenants to stay in their home because rented or owned a home is a home. Over summer recess, I told constituents that I was looking forward to coming back here because we had so much to get through and we have unfortunately lost a week of business since recess, but even in that context this bill is worth spending three days and possibly evenings debating, but let's make sure that it is a debate and not a foregone conclusion. I'm sure we'll have some cracking arguments over the next two days about the finer points and whether we can or should go further, particularly from Labour given we start from the same position that this is emergency legislation responding to an emergency situation and that tenants must come first. On housing, there is always more that can be done, always something you can go further on in theory and I don't envy those who have to narrow it down to what can be done in practice. I look forward to taking part in those debates though and I hope that in this room of legislators there will be real commitment to explore ideas, to look into possible changes and really consider whether suggestions to strengthen the bill are doable and defendable. Thank you. Thank you Ms Roddick. I now call Ariane Burgess to be followed by Bob Doris up to six minutes please Ms Burgess. Thank you Presiding Officer. This will be a crucial week for tenants across Scotland. We are living through the worst cost crisis for generations with inflation, soaring and bills, skyrocketing. One of the biggest expenses people have is housing, which is why this emergency legislation is so important. It provides immediate support to tenants at the sharp end of the crisis this winter. I welcome this bill. It will implement a cap on rents at 0% and significantly ramp up protections from evictions within tenancies until at least 31 March 2023. It will create a new system to make it easier for tenants to challenge unlawful evictions and bring in tougher sanctions for landlords. It will also grant powers for ministers to reform the way tenants can challenge rent rises in the private rented sector after the freeze. Those priorities stand in stark contrast to the cruelty and incompetence of the UK Government and its so-called mini-budget, which is a multi-billion pound giveaway to the bankers and polluters. It is super-wealthy, and this bill is part of a bigger whole. While Scotland already has the strongest tenants rights in the UK, the Bute House agreement set out why we need to do so much more to reform renting. I will take an intervention from the member. Thank the member for giving way on that. There is legislation that covers rental agreements that I repeat in the 84, 88 and 2016 act, which regulates how much a rent increase could be and a mechanism for disagreeing with it. Do you know which sections those are and what options are available for tenants? I am happy to explain them if the Presiding Officer gives me time. I really appreciate the member's long-standing knowledge and experience in this Parliament and for sharing that earlier in the debate. At this moment in time, I would like to press on with what I have to say. Over the course of this parliamentary term, we will be introducing the biggest expansion of tenants rights in more than a generation, including better protections against eviction, improved regulation, more rights and long-term rent controls. That was a core part of the partnership agreement between the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Government. It is part of our journey, set out in the Bute House agreement to make rents less about maximising profit out of homes and more about affordability, quality and tenants voices. That vital work continues and it will contribute to the biggest package of housing sector reform since devolution. Too often, renting in Scotland is expensive and insecure. Too many tenants pay extortionate amounts to live in damp, cold and overcrowded homes. No home can be left behind if we are to build a recovery that works for people and communities. In the region that I represent, the Highlands and Islands, the need for affordable... I'm going to continue, thank you. In the region I represent, the Highlands and Islands, the need for affordable, accessible and adequate homes continues to be pressing. Many people struggle to find a home where they want to live and if they do, they face unaffordable rents. The deepening cost crisis has left few people unscathed but many people who rent their homes will be even more vulnerable to the harsh winter ahead. If the UK Government will not act as it should, the Scottish Government should do all that it can. Protecting people from rising rents and losing their homes is the right thing to do as winter looms. The member talked about building new homes, but I have a letter from another housing association that says that a rent-free needs housing association will have to cut back on improvement and maintenance programmes. That greatly reduces our chance of meeting the Scottish Government's targets on building new affordable houses. Does the member recognise that consequence? If so, why is she voting for the legislation? I thank the member for that intervention. For the period covered by the programme for government, the vast majority, if not all social landlords, would not be raising their rent anyway. Some social landlords have frozen rents this year while others have set up extra assistance for tenants, hardest hit by the cost crisis. Patrick Harvie, in his role as Minister for Tenants' Rights, has committed to working closely. I heard that this morning at committee with social landlords if measures are extended beyond March to ensure that there is no adverse impact on long-term plans for more social housing. There is plenty of common ground to build on in making sure that all renters have rents that they can afford during this stressful period. I am proud that Scotland is leading the way on protecting tenants. No other part of the UK is proposing anything close to the Scottish Government's ambition on protecting tenants. It is part of our journey to join the norm in other European countries, where regulation of rents is built into the way housing works. In the short term, this emergency bill will make a substantial difference this winter for people who rent their homes. Ultimately, we need long-term solutions. Part of that is a culture change away from housing being seen as a money-making investment to one that is about providing homes for people. With the powers of an independent country, Scotland could do so much more to tackle the cost crisis head on. Today's bill shows that the Scottish Greens working constructively in government are delivering on the promises we made to the electorate in 2021. We are choosing to protect tenants, not bankers' bonuses. We are freezing rents, not freezing pensioners. We are doing the hard work, the detailed work that delivers that. I call Bob Dorris. We are followed by Graham Simpson up to six minutes. Please, Mr Dorris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I speak in support of this emergency legislation that will secure a number of welcome and essential provisions, mainly, as we have heard this afternoon, a six-month rent freeze for tenants across tenures and a similar ban on evictions across tenures for the same period of time. It will be a welcome and valuable measure for many hard-pressed tenants across Scotland, including in my constituency of Maryhill in Springburn. It will give certainty, stability and support for many for the next six months, something that will be very welcome given, if we are very honest about it, a cost-of-living crisis fuelled by a Westminster Government that has been complicit in that cost-of-living crisis due to its reluctance to regulate and tax the energy sector, its keenness to cut budgets in this place, in herald and austerity, and its denial to acknowledge the need to go further in public sector pay awards right across the boards. Of course, that is before we look at the cat-handed approach of Liz Truss and quasi-quartang of the last couple of weeks. That is the context that we debate this emergency legislation in. I think that the legislation is a measured approach. There are reasonable caveats built in as to when it may be appropriate to trigger a rent increase or move for eviction during that six-month period. That is to make sure that bill is seen as legal and competent. We have heard that debate before with the previous Covid emergency legislation and the debate in the exchange with Richard Leonard earlier on today. I think that sums up the need to get a balance right in this legislation to make sure that it is indeed legal. However, I do need to flag up potential unintended consequences for the social rented sector, as I have done before, in this place. Within days of the announcement, I met three social housing providers locally in my constituency and have been contacted by several more. Housing associations are anchor organisations in the communities that I serve. They have great value, not just how they invest in their core rental stock and to improve it and bring with it the energy efficiency standards that we all need to meet to tackle the climate emergency, but also supported by the Scottish Government with grants, underpinning by borrowing from financial sectors. Housing associations are also building the next generation of social rented housing, and we must secure those gains and go further. I see that happening right across my constituency. The wider role activities of housing associations in my constituency are tackling work to tackle loneliness and isolation in the communities that I serve, supporting vulnerable groups, providing welfare advice and increasingly food and fuel support. They make a difference in the communities that I serve. All of that investment in stock and investment in the communities that we serve is in part predicated on rental income from tenants, and we have to remember that. When housing associations raise significant concerns, we have to listen carefully. I thank Bob Doris for taking the intervention. He has raised those concerns before. Does he accept that the very genuine concerns held by housing associations could see the investment that he talked about choked off by those measures? I say to Mr Simpson that I do not think that that will happen because I have got an on-going dialogue with housing associations and making representation to Governments very much in listening modes. I think that Mr Simpson is right to raise those as potential concerns, but I just simply do not think that that will happen. I thank him for raising that particular intervention. I have made clear what I think is the important situation and that important role that housing associations play in the constituency, which I have said. We have heard already this afternoon how our housing associations plan their finances over 10 years, 20 years or 25-year periods, and they are sensitive to year-on-year variations in their predicated rental incomes, including whether there are constraints and the ability to raise rents. We have to be cognisant of that. I do acknowledge that they have a rent affordability tool that they seek to use and that they have the statute that is required to consult with tenants. We have to look at that in the context of any potential rent freeze. I do not think that I have time, so I will have to note that they will not, Mr Rennie. I also point out that housing associations are buying large, not always, but buying large have showed constraint in the past few years. One housing association in my constituency in 2020 made hill housing associations had a rent freeze. That has consequences for their finances over a period of time, but they found a way of having a rent freeze in 2020. Housing associations make different decisions at different times, different pacing and a different trajectory of rent increases across different social landlords over the years, depending on their investment priorities and the pacing of that investment. When we talk about a rent freeze going forward, we should be cognisant that we are talking about a rent cap at 0 per cent. A rent cap going forward, if it was to include the social rented sector in the future, does not have to be 0 per cent. It could be higher than that, and there could be a differential cap if there was to be a cap at all. A differential cap could take into account the statutory consultation process that housing associations have with their tenants. That takes into account the previous rent increases that housing associations have made over a number of years and the constraint that they have already shown, and a variety of other factors that would have to be considered. I have to say that, in the round, my preference would be partnership, conversation and co-production with the social rented sector rather than a rent freeze and a rent cap more generally. However, we are in unprecedented times. We have to think of every way that we can stand there to support the most vulnerable society. That means that we have to think about rent freezes across all tenures. I hope that that does not happen in the social rented sector. I have put on the record what the potential unintended consequences are. We must keep working in dialogue with them. Thank you, Mr Doris. I now call Graeme Simpson to be followed by Michael Marat up to six minutes, please, Mr Simpson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This bill is a disgrace. This is not the way to do legislation. Emergency legislation should be an exception reserved for wartime or a pandemic or to make quick updates to law when needed. This does not qualify. This is a complex policy area. You cannot rush this sort of thing. I convene the cross-party group on housing and we have produced a report on rent controls, which took months to do and was meant to help the discussion around this issue. I will come on to it. What it shows is that you cannot and should not pass this sort of legislation in three days with MSPs given less than a day to scrutinise the bill beforehand. If this law passes it will wreak untold damage on the very people this Government and their green partners purport to stand up for. This is an attack on the entire rental sector fuelled by the green's hatred of anything private. I will. Mr Simpson, for giving way, I was wanting clarification on the conservative position. Mr Balfour, on the other hand, we should seem to be talking about an attack on local democracy and suggesting that the powers to cap and freeze rent across all tenures should sit with councils. Is that a conservative party policy? This applies to councils as well as the social rented sector that Bob Dorris talked about. The greens see the private rental sector landlords as inherently bad, up to no good and generally out to make a killing off the backs of tenants, as does apparently my good friend Richard Leonard. But how wrong can you be? They have produced rushed and flawed legislation which also attacks the social rented sector, who have been up in arms about it. Others have already spelled out the concerns, but they are worth repeating. As the SFHA said, this policy will do little to increase the incomes of most social housing tenants. Instead it will threaten both the Scottish Government's ambitions on affordable housebuilding and climate change and our member's ability to provide their tenants with exactly the kind of targeted support that is required in these times. There is not a problem with high rents in that sector. There will be a problem with investment if this goes through. Any ambitions for targets on the building of affordable homes can be thrown out of the window. The SFHA warn of dire consequences. The Glasgow and West of Scotland forum of housing associations fear this legislation could be a precursor to something permanent. They say, quote, state intervention in our sector's rents after March 31, 2023 would set a very worrying president and would savage plans to invest in existing and new homes. We know that such intervention could indeed continue beyond March next year because it is in the bill. I thank him for giving way. Would he accept that David Bookbinder from the Glasgow and West of Scotland forum said that he could live with her freeze up to the end of March quite happily? He did say that and I'll come on to that. Andy Young of the East Kilbride Housing Association told me that this has united the sector like never before and will make the delivery of net zero impossible. It's quite something that a Green Minister is taking a wrecking ball to helping the environment. Today we've had some stark comments from people in the sector who know what they're talking about. David Mellewish, director of the Scottish Property Federation, warned the legislation that could see £3.5 billion of planned investment in new private rented accommodation withdrawn. That would be quite an achievement. John Blackwood of the Scottish Association of Landlords is a mild-mannered man who's never been party political in all the time I've known him until now. He says, quotes, with this bill, the SNP and Greens have put political rhetoric ahead of measures that would achieve real results in solving Scotland's housing crisis. They've neglected the housing sector in Scotland leaving it to crumble. He calls the bill irresponsible and he's right. Back to that rent control report that I mentioned earlier. It was balanced in a way that this bill isn't. It looked at evidence from across the world. One thing we did discover is that there is a lack of robust data on rents in Scotland. What there is shows a mixed picture between property types and different parts of the country. A one-size-fits-all approach is simply wrong in my view. Our report didn't ask if rent control is desirable. It's a discussion paper which assumed it was coming. The minister has been sent a copy. If he's read it, he will know that if this current legislation is extended, there could be severe consequences. There are different ways to control rents, all with pluses and minuses. Now, as I said earlier, it's complicated. To come back to the point that Mr Mason raised, the fear in the sector is that rent freezes will continue beyond March 2023. That is their real concern and that is contained in the bill. Patrick Harvie has not taken a considered approach. He has taken a mallet to the sector. This haphazard and blunt approach to lawmaking must be resisted. This dreadful cost of living crisis is being felt across the country. It has resulted in human misery and great harm. Many of my fellow Dondonians and many across the north-east are struggling to feed their children, are missing meals themselves and have no idea how to pay their ever-increasing bills. Paying the rent accounts for a huge slice of a family's income, and Parliament must intervene at this moment of crisis. We are right to do so. We cannot do so blind to either the causes or the various impacts of our actions. The only real long-term solution is increased housing supply, and we must guard against actions beyond the immediate emergency that further decreases that supply. I want to principally address my remarks to the issue of student hardship, the impact of the proposed legislation on our universities, and the need for those long-term solutions for university accommodation. One in eight Scottish students have experienced homelessness since the start of their studies. One in three consider dropping out due to financial difficulties, and one in four are unable to pay their rent in full. Little wonder, then, that the NUS has welcomed this action today on housing costs. University of Scotland, however, has raised with me well-founded practical concerns around university halls of residence and the impact that those laws could have if extended in the way that this bill allows for. If extended to beyond the end of March, it will likely cause significant challenges if rent rises are capped well below inflation. The cost of operating these facilities are subject to all of the inflationary pressures found elsewhere in our economy, including the employment of staff, some of whom are not particularly well paid, it's fair to say. We must remember that these universities are tax-funded, tax-payer-funded institutions with a vital social purpose that are already facing down 8 per cent budget cuts from this Government. So why are we here? The inflationary shocks ripping through Britain have been triggered by the invasion of Ukraine, but we are being particularly badly hit in comparison to other countries because of the chronic failure of Government at UK and Scottish level to ensure that we have a resilient economy with energy self-sufficiency, robust supply chains and economy based on innovation and productivity, rather than debt-fuelled consumption. Market shocks such as the Quarteng mortgage premium are ruining the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people. The Tory Chancellor's grotesqually inept mini-budget has added £1,500 to the average mortgage borrower's annual bills. It has resulted in hundreds of mortgage products being withdrawn and costs are soaring for those seeking to buy. That demand shock will be felt for years and it's going to further chill Scotland's house building sector, all for zero benefit whatsoever, given the ridiculous series of U-turns that have been undertaken in recent days. However, the problems for universities and students are particularly acute. The Scottish Government imposes a business model that drives international recruitment to pay the cost of Scottish students. That has meant a 27 per cent increase in student numbers in the past decade. Take the University of Glasgow, which is cited by other members already today, where student numbers have risen by 20 per cent in only four years. That is a dramatic and substantial change that we will play havoc in any marketplace for accommodation. Despite that 20 per cent rise, there has only been a 10 per cent increase in the available housing for those students provided by the university and purpose built halls, certainly. I thank the member for raising an important point. There is a huge shortage of accommodation across our university campuses. That is why the private sector fills in those gaps. The key question facing us, however, is whether the legislation makes that situation better or worse, given the sheer demand for properties and the lack of properties on the market already. Michael Marra, you have made it clear that we have to balance us to be struck between emergency action to deal with the costs that people are facing. Students included in that, and some of the rent rises that they are facing are absolutely unacceptable. However, we have to make sure that there is long-term supply. I share some of the concerns in terms of the long-term supply in the student marketplace. The university has already told me that developers are cancelling projects given the current circumstances that they face, so that we have to make sure that there is the possibility of bringing supply back online as soon as possible. The national story on student housing that I alluded to is even more concerning. In the latest statistics available, there has been a 14 per cent decrease in the number of private sector halls and university-provided accommodation. All of that has delivered a marketplace with no capacity to absorb external shocks. We have students being told by the University of Glasgow to defer courses and to put their life plans on hold. There is no real strategy that I can see. Frankly, I do not even understand from this Government that if they insist that our universities pursue a never-ending growth strategy, they must put in place the policies to make that possible. In short, more students require more houses. Universities certainly have told me in recent days that things are going in the opposite direction. This rent freeze is an emergency measure. It is right that we act. Very briefly, I am a great admirer of Michael Marra's intellect. He is making a startling case for voting against this bill. Why is he not voting against it? Michael Marra? Absolutely not. I do not think that Mr Kerr is listening to the totality of what I am saying. There is absolute urgent need that people have to make sure that we freeze rents across this country. My concern is that, in the long run, we have to make sure that we bring supply back online as quickly as possible. That requires engagement from the Government in doing that work, which has been sadly lacking so far. I am coming to a close. Paul Krugman says that rent freezes are among the best understood issues in all of economics. It is understood precisely because it has been tried in many places many times. Long-term rent controls will inevitably choke off supply, and it is supply that is the honest answer, the only answer to ensuring that more people have a place to call home. Thank you, Mr Marra. I now call John Mason, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Mason. We have had a hugely damaging budget from the Conservatives at Westminster, so disastrous that even the Conservatives at Westminster would not back it. Thankfully, they have now backed down on abolishing the 45 per cent rate, but there is very little in it to help those who are struggling the most. The question is how can a much more reasonable SNP and green administration tackle poverty and inflation—let me get going a wee bit, Mr Kerr— tackle poverty and inflation with the limited powers that we have? Rent is a key and essential part of many people's expenditure and something that the Scottish Parliament can impact on. It makes sense to look at what we can do on this. We have all heard the accounts of dramatically increased rents, especially in the private rented sector. It seems that some landlords have been increasing rents to as much as the market will accept rather than linking increases to inflation or their actual costs. Therefore, I fully support action to tackle that in this bill. However, not all landlords have been increasing rents in this way. John Mason, for taking the intervention. I mentioned a report by the CPG on housing earlier. One thing that we found was that there is a lack of robust data on rents in Scotland. Does he agree with that? I am sorry, but I have to say that I am not on either the committee or the CPG on that, so I would be struggling to comment in detail about that. Not all landlords have been increasing rents in such a bad way. I think that we have a challenge in drafting legislation that will restrain the bad landlords without punishing those who have been responsible. Some landlords in both the private and social rented sector have kept rents down in recent years and so do not have reserves or savings to absorb a rent freeze. Housing associations in particular have been in touch in recent days, as Mr Dorris and Mr Rennie have already said, and we had the SFHA, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, at the finance committee last Tuesday. Their main points would be that they have been keeping rents below inflation in recent years. They were looking at increases of perhaps 5 or 6 per cent next April, which would be well below inflation of 10 or 13 per cent. No, I think that I am going to carry on if you do not mind. Even this level of increase would mean curtailing new building. One association based in my constituency told me that, even without that legislation, they had agreed with lenders to borrow £90 million in the next few years, which was partly to refinance existing loans and partly for development. They are now reducing that borrowing to £50 million purely to refinance and complete existing projects. They will not commit to any more new build for the time being. If rents are frozen from April, they also tell us that improving properties for energy efficiency will have to be put on hold. Further restrictions on rent could mean staff reductions and reduced maintenance, and the main beneficiary, as has been pointed out before, of a rent freeze would be the DWP, who pays 60 or 70 per cent of all rents. The problem for most housing associations seems to be that they have to balance grant receipts, what they can borrow, reactive and cyclical maintenance, and rent increases. Any surpluses or deficits go in or out of that same pot. I used to work in this sector as an accountant, and I can confirm that this is the case. Restrictions on rent increases inevitably mean cuts elsewhere. I accept that even housing associations are not all in agreement. Members may have seen that Parkhead Housing Association, which is in my constituency, had a letter on the herald yesterday, arguing that they could and should have a freeze up to a year or maybe even more, but I think they would want to be allowed to catch up again in the future. However, I do not think that that is the thinking of the majority. I noted in the financial memorandum for the bill at paragraph 37 that it has accepted that, if the freeze goes beyond 31 March, the Scottish Government may be required to provide resources to protect RSLs whose financial viability is threatened due to a loss of rental income. That strikes me as a scenario that we do not want to be in. If we have to go ahead with the legislation, there is a better way forward. We simply have the six month freeze up to March. If we need to do that again to bring forward primary legislation at that point, will housing associations have a better idea of what is going to happen rather than having the dagger hanging over them for another 12 months? I think that we do want to perhaps review things in April so that there would be more differentiation perhaps between good and bad landlords, as I have suggested. Can I just also point out to Mr Balfour, I think that in his speech he suggested that the Government would have power to extend beyond 31 March, whereas in fact that is not the case. Parliament will have the opportunity to make that decision. Can I finally go on and say that in relation to local authority housing, which we do not have in Glasgow, COSLA makes the point in their briefing that quote, rent caps are really not needed for affordable housing as it is affordable. Therefore, I really have a series of questions to ask at this stage in the stage 1 debate. Are we distinguishing enough between responsible landlords, both RSL and private, who have kept rents down in recent years and those who have made excessive profits? For example, could we take past rent increases into account say over the last three to five years when we set limits going forward? Should it be an actual cap in money terms or should it be in percentages so that landlords with existing lower rents, even within the social rented sector, are not disadvantaged? I realise that I am running out of time, so I would just welcome the assurance that this legislation is to be in place up to 31 March. I welcome the fact that it is going to be reviewed during that time, but hopefully in the new year we can revisit this and consider different options after 1 April. We will now move to closing speeches. I call on Pam Duncan-Granthy to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour up to eight minutes, please, Ms Duncan-Granthy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. People across the country are in dire straits. The Tories have abandoned them and the SNP are not doing enough either. I agree with the Minister Patrick Harvie in his opening remarks when he said that we are in a humanitarian crisis. Although the mortifying UK Government U-turn on income tax might hold back some of the irresponsible damage inflicted on the pound last week, we have now seen just how willing the Prime Minister and our Chancellor are to play games with our economy and with people's lives. Their haphazard approach introducing such severe economic measures with no consultation, no forecast and no cabinet oversight is terrifying. I will give way. I am grateful to her for giving way. Does she welcome the energy price guarantee that was announced over a week ago, two weeks ago, that supports families in this country and gives the greatest help to those who are in the most need? Does she welcome that measure from the UK Government? I welcome any measure, but I think that it has been wiped out largely by what they have done in recent weeks. I know that the SNP agrees with us on the recklessness that the Tories have wreaked with our economy, and Paul MacLennan certainly made that clear. That is why I cannot help but wish that they had not squandered opportunities to take action on rent years ago when my colleague Pauline McNeill suggested that they do. That is also why I wish that they had in more recently in March copied the Tory scattergun cost of living mitigations, and in so doing missed an opportunity to divert support to those who needed it most. Instead, they too lined the pockets of the wealthy while failing to do anything specific for disabled people and unpaid carers and barely scratching the surface for low-income families. Meanwhile, those Labour benches were writing them a fully cost of living plan, setting out how to do just that, using a targeted approach, rather than spreading the money so thin that its impact was diminished for those feeling the heaviest weight of the crisis. That plan included a temporary rent freeze and a winter evictions ban. My colleague Mercedes Villalba put forward a vote on exactly that back in June, and the SNP and Greens refused to vote with us. Today and on this occasion, I am pleased that they listened to us, to living rent and to the trade unions, shared the Tory ponch on for a U-turn and came round to the idea. However, I stressed to the Government and, as the chamber has already heard in some grim detail from my colleague Mark Griffin, there are real-life impacts of its delay. In the time since we urged the Government to take action, rents are already rising as my colleague Carol Mocken has set out clearly. My inbox is filled with constituents in Glasgow unable to afford a roof over their heads, particularly disabled people, young people and students. My colleague Michael Marra has set out eloquently the challenges that students are facing and that must be addressed. More families are finding themselves homeless than ever before, with homelessness among children increasing by 17 per cent since last year. Delays have consequences, and brave Governments take action without delay. Many are facing rent increases and forced over the summer months, as landlords responded to the cost of living crisis faster than this Scottish Government did. A rent freeze now is too late for them. Had the Government listened to Mercedes Villalba in June, or indeed my colleague Pauli McNeill in the last session, they would not be experiencing those increases. It is not just delays that have consequences either. The lack of ambition and scale of change of the Greens in SNP do too. Richard Leonard set those out perfectly angrily today. I have to say that I was disappointed to hear the minister's response. I am old enough to remember when the member would have been squarely on the side of tenants. Presiding Officer, like others, I too would like reassurance on some of the wider impacts of this bill and would specifically welcome the Government's reassurance that the bill will not impact the social housing programme and that social housing landlords will not face a black hole of costs to make essential improvements to their homes if the freeze is extended. On that point, I asked that the minister could tell Parliament in closing the date that it will be able to vote on his recommendations on the decision to extend or change the provisions of the bill so that registered social landlords can plan for the future. Presiding Officer, the SNP's fail... Can I have my time back, Presiding Officer? We're now tight for time, I'm afraid, so you'd have to accommodate it in your remarks. Okay, I'll try and fit it in. I'll take a brief intervention. Would the member agree with me that much of the situation-facing tenants is down to demand, outstrip and supply? The SNP's Government over the last 15 years failed to address the chronic undersupply in social housing? I agree that demand is outstrip and supply and that there hasn't been enough on that, but that doesn't address the problem right here, right now. The SNP's failure to act fast enough on rents was a failure to protect my Glasgow constituents and others across Scotland, but it's not just on pace that they've let them down. They have also let them down on scale, as I've said. We heard today and not for the first time that the SNP and Greens have put £3 billion into the cost of living crisis. They have not, and we must say this. This figure includes actions from years and years ago, some of which the Labour Government legislated for. The actual figure of the cost of living interventions from the SNP-Green Government, according to SPICE, is a sixth of that at closer to £500 million. That is welcome, but I'd ask that the Government don't overinflate action whilst families can't feed their children. All that does is mask reality and lead to complacency. Scottish Labour has set out a whole platform of ideas for this Government to pick from that they could up the scale of the support that they offer, but sadly, they have an inevitable pattern of shouting those down. Cabinet Secretary, say they welcome ideas from across the chamber but don't act on them. Maybe this bill is a turning point here, and if so, I'd like to seize the opportunity and invite them to consider our suggestions for further action. The Government could make transport more affordable, having rail fares and freezing them for a year, creating online fuel price checkers and supporting local authorities to reduce the cost of bus journeys. The Scottish Government could also not only save people money on crucial outgoings such as transport and by giving households a rebate on the water bills, but it could also help people to get out of problem debt, debt that people are now taking on just to afford basic essentials, not for TVs or holidays, for food and rent. I hope that the Government will consider action on debt in short order. When the Social Justice and Social Security Committee carried out our inquiry, we heard that public authorities often aggressively pursue debt, so there is much that the Government can do on that, including by ensuring that people in debt keep more of their money by raising the threshold of protected income and have funds from carer disability benefits protected, not doing so risks destitution. Action should also be taken to write off school meal debt. Aberlawer found that 11,000 families across Scotland are unable to pay for their children's school meals. Labour-led Scottish Lanarkshire Council have already set a gold standard on that by wiping existing school meal debt, providing relief to my constituents in Ruthergyn. The Government could and should do the same across Scotland. £250 million of council tax debt was referred to sheriff officers in 2021. If the SNP had kept the promise that it would first enter government on, to abolish council tax, that debt would not exist, however it does, and right now it is crippling people who are struggling. We believe that the Government should consider what more it can do to ease the burden of collection of council tax ar ears 2. After a pandemic and now a cost of living crisis, having come from the backfoot position from before, people are pushed to their limits, they need support, which is why it is essential to properly fund money advice services too. Those services are stretched to their limit and we need to make sure that they have resources they need to keep providing their lifeline services to anyone who turns to them. I welcome the aim and the bill to address the health and well-being impacts of unaffordable rent rises and ask that the Government set out in closing what they will do to support third sector organisations to help people. Scottish Labour, as the original proponents of the rent freeze, will support the bill this week, but we believe that there is far more this Government must do to address the cost of living in Scotland. We on these benches have simple, cost-effective, effective solutions in front of us to do this, and I hope that the Government will consider those wider actions, not leave a delay like they did on rent freezes, and set in motion the wider scale action that is needed to get people through the cost of living crisis and ultimately save lives in Scotland. Thank you, Mr Duncan Glancy, and I call on Mordel Fraser for around 10 minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I should start by reminding members of my register of interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I also have an interest in two residential properties that are let on a long-term basis. It takes a particular type of government to identify a problem that is affecting hundreds of thousands of Scots, and it actively proposes a change in the law that will make matters worse for them. It is a particular type of Government minister to put forward a policy when the evidence suggests that it will exacerbate the problem that he is claiming that he wants to solve. That is what we have with the bill before us this afternoon. I will start with a word about the process. Graham Simpson, in his contribution, talked about the fact that the bill is being rushed through Parliament in three days, with no time for detailed scrutiny or consultation with those affected. Mr Simpson is the convener of the cross-party group on housing. He is something of an expert in this particular field. I think that he probably knows what he is talking about on this subject, at least, Presiding Officer. I think that the comments that he makes about the fact that Parliament is rushing us through, when we only saw this bill, I think that five o'clock last night. There is no time for Parliament to give it the scrutiny that it deserves when it has huge wide-ranging consequences, as we have heard throughout this debate. Rush law is bad law, and I fear that that is what we are about to make. There are already significant issues in the provision of private rented accommodation across Scotland, particularly in our cities. Rents have been rising—that is true—fuelled by a shortage of available accommodation. Rose McCall, earlier on, reminded us that, just two weeks ago, the University of Glasgow was advising students that they might have to consider either suspending their studies or withdrawing from courses due to the chronic lack of rented accommodation within the city. Just last week, we heard that students in Edinburgh were having to be offered beds in dormitory-type accommodation, because there was simply nowhere else for them to stay. Letting agents report that there has been a significant and on-going reduction in the number of private sector tenancies coming to the market. Yes or go away? Given Mr Fraser's very passionate concern about supply, I am surprised that he has not whole-heartedly welcomed the measures that we have taken in relation to short-term letting, which has siphoned off what should be proper affordable homes for people into effectively untaxed hotel businesses. Mr Harvey does not even want to talk about the bill that he is proposing today, which is the one that has a negative impact on the supply of rented property. So already we are seeing private landlords frustrated by changes in tenant legislation withdrawing their properties from the market or selling them up or putting them into other use, such as short-term lets. Those properties, which are available, too often see a bidding war for higher rents. Fraser Gaye with me that the SNP-Green Government has failed to see the bigger picture, and I have just heard that right now. The interests of tenants and the interests of landlords are not in opposition, but by preventing any and all evictions and freezing rent, which sounds like an easy short-term solution, tenants may lose out in the long-term. I absolutely agree with that intervention from Mr Carson that it makes his point very well, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can understand why the Scottish Government, in response to the rising cost of living, thought that it was clever politics to bring in this six-month rent freeze to apply until the end of March next year. However, what it did not consider, it seems that this would exacerbate the difficulties that we have already seen in the private rented sector. John Blackwood, chief executive for the Scottish Association of Landlords, said that he had been in response to what was announced by the Government, inundated by landlords, saying that they will be removing their vacant properties from the rental market. The consequence of the legislation will be to reduce still further the availability of properties in the private rented sector, leaving students and others in an increasingly desperate situation. It is simply unbelievable that we have a Scottish Government and a Minister who are so arrogant that they cannot see with the outcome of their actions will be. At least from the SNP benches that we heard from Michelle Thomson earlier on, I think that there will be an impact on the supply of properties if the legislation goes through. It is not just in the private rented sector that we see concerns. A number of members, including Willie Rennie, Bob Dorris, Graham Simpson and others, talked about the impact on the socially rented sector. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, representing the providers of social housing across the country, have warned that this policy will threaten both the Scottish Government's ambitions on affordable house building and those on climate change, and their member's ability to provide their tenants with exactly the kind of targeted support that is required in these difficult times. Several of their members have already been forced to cancel plans for kitchen and bathroom renovations for the next several years, due to the projected loss of income from the legislation. We have also heard during the debate that the massive investment that will be required to help to meet net zero ambitions in our housing stock will be jeopardised by the legislation, as indeed will be the construction of new social housing projects. Willie Rennie quoted from the Kingdom Housing Association of Fife. I referred to him in the chamber last week. They expressed exactly those concerns that a number of other housing associations have also referred to. While the bill being considered this week only initially introduces a rent freeze for six months, there are real concerns that there are plans to introduce rent controls going further than that. A move that can only make the situation much worse. That point has been made very well, both by the Federation of Housing Associations and also by COSLA. I was very interested to see that, in relation to local government, in the policy memorandum in front of the bill, it suggests that, should the cap be extended, it will remove at least £50 million in income from the business plans of registered social landlords and at least £230 million over the four years to March 2027. Where is that money going to come from? Who is going to make that money up in the budgets of social landlords or in the budgets of local authorities? We have had no answer on that point from the minister and hope that will be addressed in terms of the winding up reports. Of course, as COSLA says in their briefing, it is extraordinary because this is the Government centralising power over rent setting. As they say in their briefing, rent setting has never before been taken out of the decision-making of local elected members as a sphere of government. Once again, this Government has nothing but contempt for local government and its centralising power in its hands. A number of members, Stephen Kerr and others, reminded us that all the international evidence shows that rent controls cause housing shortages. We have seen that in Ireland, following the introduction of rent control zones, only 716 homes were available for rent, as at 1 August, in the entire country. There are similar issues elsewhere. The average waiting time to lease a rent control property in Stockholm stands at nine years. As Jeremy Balfour said in Berlin, we have seen the emergence of a grey market in rent control properties, where landlords will now demand that tenants pay a ridiculous price for furniture, for kitchen appliances and other basic amenities, as a condition of renting, to get round the rules on rent controls. The danger is that we will see the same here. However, rather than looking at the international evidence, it seems that Mr Harvie and all those in the Scottish Government believe that the Scottish exceptionalism means that we can buck the trend and somehow introduce rent controls here without seeing the adverse impacts that we have seen elsewhere. There are serious issues in terms of the cost of living that needs to be addressed. The UK Government's substantial intervention to cap the cost of energy will deliver real benefits, particularly for those on low incomes who spend a high proportion of them on heating costs. Perhaps the Scottish Government can look at—of course it will. I am really surprised that any Tory member would try to give this argument. Given that Murdo Fraser must know that every penny and more of that is wiped out entirely by the cost rises of food and fuel because of inflation driven by his Government and for those who own their home by interest rates going through the roof, every penny of that and more will be wiped out. The Scottish Government has got a record high budget. The highest budget in the history of devolution. What are they doing to help those with the cost of living? They are making matters worse, perhaps the Scottish Government could look at supporting tenants with helping to pay rents rather than bringing in a rent freeze. It claims that it will support landlords who are facing additional costs. This is a fig leaf. Landlords are allowed in the event that costs and mortgages go up to increase rents by just 3 per cent more. If interest rates go up, as the cabinet secretary suggested, it might go up much more than that. Landlords will be left out of pocket as a result. Once again, we see an SNP Green Scottish Government not listening to those in the sector, not listening to those representing letting agents from private landlords, not listening to local authorities, not listening to those in the social rented sector, railroading through Parliament and the emergency piece of legislation without proper scope for scrutiny and amendment. I am failing to properly consider what the unintended consequences will be. I fear Patrick Harvie's legacy. As a result of this bill, we will be to drive up homelessness in Scotland, and that will be a very sorry legacy. Parliament should reject this legislation today. I now call on Patrick Harvie to respond to the debate minister for around 12 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been a lively and wide-ranging debate. I think that the differences of views and the divergent values that exist in the chamber on this issue have been well expressed. Of those who have criticisms and concerns about the bill, some of them have been expressed very seriously, and I will try to address them. Some have been a little more on the silly side. In particular, I find it difficult to take seriously the accusation from the last speaker that we are only doing this because we thought it was clever politics. That is from the party that thought it was clever politics to abolish the top rate of taxation until they realised that everybody outside of Tufton Street was revolted by the values behind that kind of politics. If the root cause of rising rents is a mismatch between supply and demand, why is he proposing a piece of legislation that will reduce supply? I do not accept the premise that it will, and I also do not accept that that is the only issue affecting rent rises. It is not the only one, but there are landlords who are simply raising rent too. I quote even one, to keep pace with the market. That is simply exploitation. I want to address, first of all, some of the slightly more technical points that have been raised. In particular, there are valid questions around reporting duties on government and the decisions about how any discussion around possible extension of those measures will be taken forward. The questions around whether there will be robust planning and reporting are very fair questions. I would like to make some progress. I engaged with the committee this morning and offered to remain engaged with them on this point, but it is also very clear under the terms of the bill that we had to review the operation of the bill every three months to consider whether the provisions remain necessary and proportionate. We will have to review whether the measures for a rent freeze and eviction moratorium remain necessary and proportionate in light of the changing economic circumstances, and that will include considering the available evidence of the impact of the measures and how that changes over time. Can the minister outline how the figure of 3 per cent was arrived at for the maximum increase for rents agreed by the adjudicator? That figure is not an absolute, of course. The provision exists within the bill for the Government to come forward with a change of that. We will look at that in light of changing circumstances. There have also been a number of calls throughout the debate for the Government to spend more money on all aspects of housing. I absolutely understand that, if we were able to throw money at direct tenant support more than we have done already, social housing provision more than we have done already, retrofitting more than we have done already, or indeed at the cost of running the tribunal, and the wider cost of living measures that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned, I think that we have a strong track record of prioritising these things, but we also have to say that we do not yet know what scale of brutal cuts are coming down the line from the UK Government. I am going to have to make some progress. The emergency budget review will have to consider all of those. Several members have mentioned the purpose and necessity for this measure. I welcome the comments from Mark Griffin from the Labour benches, recognising that thousands of people are being pushed to the brink. A crisis is indeed made worse by the UK Government. Eleanor Wittam spoke of a clear and present danger from the current cost crisis, and again, recognising that some of that lies the hands of the chancellor over the past couple of weeks. The measures in the bill do provide direct protection in terms of rent, but they do more than that. They also provide a sense of security. A good reason to ensure that all tenants in all sectors have equal protection, at least for the first six months, is to ensure that everybody has that sense of security. Emma Roddick spoke about the direct connection between a secure sense of being secure in one's home and the impacts on mental health. I would like to emphasise briefly a couple of points that did not come out very much during the debate, and I hope that we will discuss them later in the week. The measures on penalties for unlawful evictions and the powers for changes to rent adjudication will be very important in how those measures are implemented, and I hope that we will have further discussion of that later in the week. Very clearly, for some people in the chamber, the provisions signal the end of private renting or some sort of imagined hostility that we have to the rental sector. For others in the chamber, the measures do not go far enough. I have to say that I think that Richard Leonard's suggestion that the bill does nothing to strengthen tenants' rights is frankly absurd. It is very clear that some members think that none of this should be done at all and others are still demanding the impossible. Mr Leonard asked why we are not placing the onus on landlords. That is exactly what this bill does. Landlords will be the ones who have the opportunity to apply for a limited prescribed set of costs to be taken into account within clear limits. I think that I heard a call for an intervention. Does the Minister not accept that he is the Minister for Tenants' Rights? We have heard an awful lot this afternoon about the defence of landlords' rights, but does he not accept that the argument that we are making is that not that these should simply be temporary changes to the balance of power between tenants and landlords. There should be permanent changes to the balance of power between tenants and landlords. I do. That is why the Government have a long-term programme of reform under the new deal for tenants that we consulted on and that we will be working on permanent legislation. He is well aware that temporary emergency legislation needs to be justified as proportionate in relation to the immediate circumstances. That, indeed, is what we are doing. To move on, Presiding Officer, a great many members spoke about the potential impact, as they see it, on the social rented sector. That is extremely important to the Government. Miles Briggs and Mark Griffin, from different perspectives on this debate, shared some of the concerns on that. Some of those concerns are very legitimate. Some suggested that that measure has already had an impact on the rental income of RSLs. That is not the case. It will have no direct impact on the rental income of RSLs during that first six months. Indeed, how about the UK Government having an immediate impact on RSL's cost of borrowing? Just today, during this debate, we see yet again a major lender saying that they are increasing their interest rates. That will have an impact on RSL's ability to borrow. I guarantee you, Presiding Officer, that move was not a response to the Scottish Government's emergency legislation, that move was a response to the UK Government's many budget. I give way to whoever it was. Thank you, Minister. I am lucky at the financial memorandum. My problem is that you estimate the cost to landlords being somewhere between £3 million and £32 million, which will have a direct effect on Government income, because that will be less income tax raised. Could you not be a bit tighter on that? Do you have a feeling on how much income it will affect coming into the Government? I do not believe that we have precisely modelled the revenues of the Government through income tax. Many of the measures in the bill are subject to extension or potential early expiry if the economic circumstances change. For example, the measures on prescribed limited costs—the percentages of 50% and 53%—will be variable throughout the life of the bill. I was talking about the impact on the social rented sector and saying that the impact has not been to immediately reduce their rental income. That is absolutely the case, but we want to give the social rented sector confidence that the long-term impacts will be taken into account and that we share its priorities about its fundamental purposes. Social landlords exist for a social purpose, and they invest not only in quality of affordable rental housing but on retrofit, the net zero agenda and the wide range of other services. Government shares that priority, and the Government understands the ways in which the social rented sector is fundamentally different. Rental income is reinvested for the public good and the various other differences that have been mentioned. That is why we have invited representatives of the social rented sector and others to take part in a short-life task and finish group that will inform how those measures are used in the longer term. There have been very productive first meetings of that group that will recognise those circumstances. I genuinely believe that there is creative thinking already being brought to bear about how we go forward in a way that protects tenants without endangering those other issues. Is there a problem? I am trying to catch Mr Fraser's eye, so I do not have to call him out for carrying on a private conversation while you are speaking, but please continue. RSLs are not for profit bodies, they exist for social need, and we share their priority to protect those public investments. I want to move on briefly and talk about the private rented sector. There have been some claims. I am not sure that there are really justified claims about a direct impact on supply here. Over the long term, over the years, there has been an improvement in the quality of regulation of the private rented sector, and at the same time, the sector has continued to expand. Indeed, I have a quote here from one bill to rent business who has recognised that temporary measures are designed to support families facing fuel poverty this winter. They have gone on to say that we continue to believe that the delivery of PRS housing offers a viable revenue stream in the longer term. I am not sure that I agree with the idea that there is some direct impact between having short-term regulation fundamentally changing the long-term viability of the sector. Eleanor Whitham was quite right to point out that there are several countries in Europe with higher regulation than we have and rent controls, long-standing systems of rent controls, with a thriving rented sector, including with private investment. I think that in many ways there is an analogy here with the scaremongering that was brought in when people first debated a minimum wage. Some of those arguments clearly were born out of self-interest and did not come to pass, and I think that in many ways the arguments of rent controls are similar. However, there is a wider question here. If we do not do this, if we do not accept the responsibility to control some of the eye-watering rent increases that some of our constituents have been faced with, just because we believe that that is how the market works, then what are we to do? We will be leaving them with a situation that is simply unacceptable. It is clear that this cost crisis is being felt right here and right now by people who rent their homes. We are determined to take action to help people to keep a roof over their heads during a crisis that is not of their making. The bill that we have introduced presents a package that is both impactful and practical. It is radical and robust. Its purpose is to offer increased protection to tenants who are more vulnerable to the cost crisis than others, but it also recognises that some landlords can be impacted by that cost crisis by including safeguards that address specific, defined and limited circumstances that they will face. It also builds a bridge to the longer-term work that we are doing on the new deal for tenants. In conclusion, many of the important points that have been made in today's debate have been heard. I am grateful for members who have brought them. I am also grateful for the time that the committee took this morning to consider the bill. I look forward to the discussions that are continuing as members debate the bill over the rest of this week. That concludes the debate on cost of living tenant protection Scotland Bill at stage 1. It is now time to move to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6179, in the name of John Swinney, on a financial resolution for the cost of living tenant protection Scotland Bill. I call on John Swinney to move the motion. The question is that motion 6178, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on cost of living, tenant protection Scotland Bill at stage 1, is agreed? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. Colleagues, the question is that motion 6178, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the cost of living tenant protection Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed? Members should cast their votes now. That is the vote closed. Point of order, Claire Adamson. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Adamson. I will make sure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on motion 6178, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is yes, 88, no 29. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed. The next question is that motion 6179, in the name of John Swinney, on financial resolution, cost of living, tenant protection Scotland Bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. We now move to the next item of business, which is a statement by Humza Yousaf on the health and care recovery and winter planning. The cabinet secretary, members who are leaving the chamber should do so as quickly and quietly as possible. In fact, I will pause to allow a change in the front benches here at the back.