Official Report 1128KB pdf
The next item on our agenda this morning is day 5 of our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and her officials. The committee is also joined both online and in the room by other members of the Scottish Parliament who have lodged amendments to the bill and are present to debate those with us today.
Members who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my or the clerk’s attention. Voting is by a show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names. That is especially important for colleagues online. I will let you know when we have counted your vote.
We will not dispose of any amendments beyond the end of part 4 of the bill before 1 o’clock today.
At previous meetings, we explained the procedure that we will be following. I propose to move straight into the consideration of amendments.
I remind members that we have additional meetings this week to finalise our consideration of the bill at stage 2. The length of our speeches and our interventions all contribute to the time taken to consider the amendments, so I ask members to take the opportunity for brevity, while recognising that it is important that we thoroughly scrutinise the legislation.
Before section 24
09:00
We begin with the group entitled “Dealing with Evictions”. Amendment 119, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, is grouped with amendments 120 to 123, 491, 124, 125, 163, 452, 487, 126 to 129, 164 to 167, 187, 188, 250, 251, 362 to 369, 268, 269, 141, 409, 502, 413, 414, 200, 395 and 404.
Thank you, convener. I might fall at the first hurdle of brevity, because of the number of amendments that I have in the grouping.
I thank the wonderful team at Marie Curie who have worked alongside MSP colleagues on the amendments that I have lodged in this group.
A study that was undertaken by Marie Curie and the University of Glasgow, entitled “Dying in the Margins; The Cost of Dying”, laid bare the barriers to and experiences of dying at home for terminally ill people, their families and carers who are living with financial hardship and deprivation. Research analysis outlined the lack of compassion in immediately evicting relatives after a terminal illness or a terminally ill person has died, with relatives being forced to vacate properties only two weeks after the death, with no alternative accommodation in place. Not only are those individuals dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one and having to box up their possessions while grieving, but they are faced with the challenge of finding a new property should they receive an eviction notice, especially if they have no succession rights.
We can all understand and sympathise with the individuals who are impacted, because grieving takes longer than two weeks. The additional stress of whether someone will have a home that they can live in can take an unbearable toll on families who are adapting to life without caring for someone 24/7. I seek to bring some compassion into the Housing (Scotland) Bill through my amendments.
Marie Curie is rightly advocating that the bill should be used to strengthen the rights of terminally ill tenants and their families to ensure that they are protected from eviction. Evidence sessions that were undertaken by the UK Commission on Bereavement to better understand people’s experiences of bereavement found serious issues with eviction. It was noted that people in local authority housing can be asked to move out if they are not on the tenancy agreement, or they might be required to move to a smaller property. Surviving family members then face further challenges in raising sufficient funds to cover security deposits and advance rent payments on a new property at a time when they have likely had to pay expensive funeral or other administrative costs associated with death.
A survey that was conducted by Opinium for Marie Curie concluded that, every year, 27,600 people in Scotland must move out as a result of a bereavement. It stated that 13,200 people had to move out because they could no longer afford to live in their home, and 11,400 people had to move because they did not hold the tenancy. Of those whose housing situation is likely to be impacted as a result of a bereavement, under-35s make up 28 per cent, followed by those aged 35 to 54, at 11 per cent, and those aged 55 to 74 and 75-plus, at 5 per cent. People find themselves in precarious situations and might declare themselves as homeless, for example, because the right support is not in place to help them.
Following discussions with the cabinet secretary, it is not my intention to press amendment 119 or move amendment 120 today, with the proviso that there will be further discussion with stakeholders and supportive MSPs on protections from evictions for terminally ill people.
I would like to work with the cabinet secretary to define “terminal illness”, as we understand that individuals’ prognoses can be wide and we want to ensure that there are clear margins between diagnoses of chronic, life-limiting and life-ending conditions.
I will wait to see what the cabinet secretary says before I consider the other amendments on terminal illness, particularly in relation to succession rights for bereaved families. I believe that that is important and that it will help to tackle unintended homelessness on the back of a terminal illness.
Convener, if you can bear with me, before I conclude my remarks, I will turn to amendment 487, which is on a different matter. It is similar to amendment 452, which was lodged by Willie Rennie, and concerns decisions that were taken during the time of Covid on legislative changes to protect tenants from eviction, which have made it significantly more difficult for a congregation to reclaim the use of a manse once they have called a minister.
Manses are often let out by parishes when the minister’s post is vacant or when they are in between ministers. That provides much-needed income, as well as making that dwelling available for use. I believe that the issues to do with recovering possession of manses that have been let out on short-term basis will be exacerbated should section 24 of the bill be enacted in its current form. For the bill to be proportionate, there need to be further discussions with the Church of Scotland and other religious groups to ensure that the bill is fair and encompasses all groups.
Proposed new section 51A of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016, as set out in section 24, states:
“When specifying in an eviction order the day on which a tenancy is to end, the First-tier Tribunal must consider whether it would be reasonable”
to delay the end of the tenancy. In doing so, the tribunal may consider certain factors, particularly factors relating to the tenant and to the landlord. Those relating to the landlord are:
“whether a period of delay in bringing the tenancy to an end would ... cause the landlord to experience financial hardship ... have a detrimental effect on the health of the landlord, or ... have another detrimental effect on the landlord due to the landlord having a disability”.
The balancing protections that will be available to landlords under that proposed new section will not be available to a landlord who is not considered to be a natural person. That is the point that I wish to make through amendment 487. The protections will not be available to Church of Scotland congregations. Manses are owned or let either by local congregational trustees or on behalf of the congregation or by the Church of Scotland general trustees.
Self-evidently, those factors cannot apply to the landlord in such cases. They are unlikely to apply regardless of whether the landlord is a general trustee or local congregational trustees, as their interest in securing vacant possession of a manse is not primarily financial but is to use it for housing a minister.
Prior to the removal of the mandatory eviction ground that let property was required for occupation by a person engaged in the work of a religious denomination as a residence from which their duties were performed, the Church of Scotland let out a large number of their manses on a temporary basis as a result of parish minister retirements and recruitment difficulties. The income that is generated from such lets is an important contribution towards sustaining the work and the mission of congregations and their local communities.
When ministers are called to a parish, it is important that a manse is available for them. However, it is challenging for a congregation to let an empty manse when it might not be able to get back the house when it is needed. That is already resulting in many situations in which congregations are now unwilling to let out such properties, and the church finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being the custodian of a considerable number of large dwellings that are standing empty. I do not think that that helps to tackle the housing emergency that we are experiencing.
This morning, I am asking the cabinet secretary to consider the impacts on manses—and properties belonging to religious groups other than the Church of Scotland, as highlighted in Willie Rennie’s amendment 452—to see whether there is a way forward in which it does not become difficult for those properties to be let out or brought back into use under the church when a minister is made available.
I understand that an amalgamation process is under way, but we must look at all those issues as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill in relation to tenants’ rights.
I will end my remarks there, convener. I know that I will be coming back in shortly to speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments.
Thanks, Meghan. I ask that you move amendment 119. If you would like to speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments now, you can do so.
I do not plan to move amendment 119.
If I might speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments—
I will pause you there. Part of the process is that you have to move it first, then we will come back to you after the debate. We will follow the process, then you can withdraw it.
Thank you, convener. I will move amendment 119 but I confirm that I will withdraw it later.
Edward Mountain’s amendment 163 seeks to ensure that the three-month eviction process is concluded within three months of a tribunal application being submitted by the landlord.
I believe that Edward Mountain’s intention in relation to his amendments in this group—amendments 163 to 167—is to ensure that the tribunal application process is dealt with swiftly. Instead of the current process, we would have a defined three-month eviction process. The process will be concluded within that time, which will not just allow the tenant to move on to another property, wherever that might be, but allow the landlord perhaps to bring in a new tenant.
I conclude my comments there. Edward Mountain’s intention is straightforward.
I move amendment 119.
I call Fulton MacGregor, who joins us online, to speak to amendment 491 and other amendments in the group.
I will mainly speak to my amendment 491. The amendment came about through a discussion with the Church of Scotland. I know that Willie Rennie’s amendment 452 came about through similar conversations and may be in a similar area—Meghan Gallacher has just highlighted some of that.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the constructive conversations. I confirm at the outset that I do not intend to move amendment 491; it is more of a probing amendment.
The amendment seeks to address the issue for a landlord who is not an individual, in relation to the proposed new section 51A of the 2016 act. The bill as drafted says:
“The Tribunal may consider in particular ... whether a period of delay in bringing the tenancy to an end would—
i) cause the landlord to experience financial hardship,
ii) have a detrimental effect on the health of the landlord, or
iii) have another detrimental effect on the landlord due to the landlord having a disability”.
Those provisions mirror the considerations that are contained in section 51A(2)(a). In the case of a manse let, the landlord may not be able to prove financial hardship, as they will still be entitled to rent during the period. The provisions in proposed new sections 51A(2)(b) and 51A(2)(c) could not apply to a landlord who was not an individual.
The proposed new section would enable the First-tier Tribunal to consider another detrimental effect on a landlord that is not an individual. For example, in the cases of manses, the detrimental effect would be that the house could not be used by the landlord for occupation by a person engaged in the work of a religious denomination as a residence from which the duties of such a person are to be performed. The detriment would prevent a minister who is called to the charge from being able to take up occupation in the parish if the manse is occupied. The example that was given to me when I met the Church of Scotland representatives was one in which a manse is used for charitable aims such as hosting refugees. Amendment 491 may be helpful in such a scenario.
I reiterate that I do not intend to move amendment 491. I am happy to continue discussions with the cabinet secretary and others ahead of stage 3.
Meghan Gallacher and Fulton MacGregor have set out the case in relation to the problem that churches and religious groups are not natural persons but are groups of people, which means that the bulk of the criteria that have been set out do not apply to them. My amendment 452 seeks to include all religious groups, rather than only the Church of Scotland, as Meghan Gallacher proposes. Fulton MacGregor’s proposal to include an additional criterion is also a sensible way to solve the problem.
The main problem is that there are manses that are potentially not getting used because congregations and other religious groups fear that they will not be able to get those properties back when they need them. We need to try to solve that problem.
I know that the cabinet secretary will not accept my amendment, although I do not know what she will do with the other amendments. I would like to hear from her what she intends to do about that problem, because it is a real issue, and whether she thinks that section 24 exacerbates the problem. Church of Scotland congregations are fearful about letting out the manses on a short-term basis because they fear that they will not be able to get them back when they need them. I would like to understand what the cabinet secretary and the Government are going to do to improve communication and the application of information.
There is also an issue around the tribunal that we need to look at in relation to the groups that are impacted. Usually, the congregation needs to go to the tribunal and must weigh up the costs that are associated with that and the time impact on its ability to move a minister in and move the tenant out—that is, of course, if the tribunal agrees with the decision.
09:15
That might touch on one of the solutions. Partly, our amendments are trying to remove the ability to delay, because that exacerbates the problem. I do not know whether that is what the cabinet secretary is thinking about as a solution to the problem.
I will conclude at that point, because I am keen to hear what the minister has to say.
I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendments 187 and the other amendments in the group.
Like Meghan Gallacher, I will fall foul of the request to be brief, in this group at least. However, as one of my amendments is 12 pages long, I think that I can get away with it this once—maybe.
A warm, safe home that we can call our own is absolutely essential to our wellbeing. That being the case, forcing somebody out of their home should only be done in the most rare and unavoidable circumstances. At the moment, eviction notice periods work differently depending on how long a person has been in a property, and I struggle to see the justification in that. Being forced from your home against your will is going to have an impact regardless of how long you have been there. That being the case, my amendment 187 provides a four-month notice period for everyone, so that all tenants are treated equally. It also has the virtue of simplifying the system.
The same amendment provides a 12-month protection from eviction in the same way as will shortly be provided to tenants in England under the Renters’ Rights Bill. The amendment would ensure that people have a guarantee of a minimum of one year of stability in their home, and it also ensures that protections in Scotland do not fall behind those of other parts of the UK.
My amendments 188 and 200 provide for a ban on winter evictions, specifically between November and March. Disallowing evictions during the winter period is not at all exceptional or experimental. We had an evictions ban in Scotland very recently, and almost the same measures as I am proposing have been in force in France for more than 70 years. Similar provisions exist in certain states in the United States, where evictions cannot happen when the temperature drops below a certain level. In a country that can be as cold as ours, I do not think that I need to press home the point too strongly that we should not be moving people out of their homes and into temporary accommodation that is often poorly insulated, and, where new arrangements do not work out, onto our freezing streets.
There are, of course, appropriate exemptions, but the ban will apply to most of the common grounds for eviction. I understand that the Scottish Government’s approach prizes flexibility, and that is appropriate when ensuring that evictions do not coincide with exams taken by a member of the household, for example, which can happen at any time of the year. The case is similar for religious holidays, as clearly Christian and Muslim households, for example, will need protection against evictions at different times of the year. However, winter evictions are a different matter. As we all know from sliding down the Royal Mile in the ice and snow, Scotland is reliably cold in the last few months and first few months of each year.
The Scottish Government’s approach is asking for inconsistency. The bill says that tribunals “may consider” delaying an eviction due to a “seasonal factor”, but they might not. They might also differ in the interpretation of a “seasonal factor”. Even if members have concerns about particular aspects of the drafting, I ask those members of the committee who agree with the basic principle to support the amendment when I move it, which I intend to. I will be happy to work with them ahead of stage 3 to iron out any details.
If the cabinet secretary does not intend to support the proposal, I have one simple question. The Scottish Government—including my party and that of the cabinet secretary—brought in an evictions clause through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. If it was the right thing to do then, why is it not the right thing to do now?
Amendment 251 gives effect to a long-standing ask from Generation Rent. It would require the First-tier Tribunal, when allowing an eviction, to order the landlord to make a payment to the tenant equal to two months’ rent, or allow the tenant to withhold the last two months of rent. That is in recognition of the significant costs that tenants incur when being evicted.
Polling by Survation for Generation Rent showed how much money tenants lose. Fifty-two per cent of tenants reported that they took more than four days to pack, move and clean at the end of a tenancy, often requiring time off work, which can be costly for those who do not have leave available. Due to overlapping tenancies, 40 per cent of private renters reported that they had had to pay rent on more than one property at once when moving home. More than a third—40 per cent—of those renters had paid rent on two properties for more than two weeks. That is not to mention the costs of cleaning the property or having it cleaned and hiring vehicles to move possessions. When up-front costs, deposits set at five weeks’ rent and time off work are all considered, it typically costs renters £1,400 just to move home. The measure in the amendment is a modest one to help people deal with those costs, which are often put on them at short notice.
Moving to other amendments in the group, there are many that we in the Greens support. Mark Griffin’s statutory review of eviction grounds is a timely and helpful measure. A root-and-branch review is desperately needed. His amendment to restrict evictions where ECO4 energy improvements have been made addresses issues arising recently in respect of troubling evictions, whereby people agree to the disturbance of installation works, only to be evicted so that the more energy-efficient property can be sold or rented more profitably.
Meghan Gallacher’s amendments to restrict evictions in the case of terminal illness make well overdue compassionate changes. I also welcome the tougher sanctions on landlords who do not play by the eviction rules or seek to manipulate them. Those amendments have been lodged by Katy Clark and I thank her for doing so.
However, there are a number of amendments that I cannot support. Edward Mountain’s amendments appear to water down the bill’s plans for evictions to be delayed. I opened by noting that evictions should happen only in the most rare circumstances and only when absolutely unavoidable. That being the case, and with all due respect to faith groups who rent out properties, needing the property for a religious purpose is not a good enough reason for an eviction not to be delayed. I also see no reason to exempt the Church of Scotland alone from those provisions. I therefore encourage colleagues to vote against Willie Rennie’s amendment 452 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 487.
I call Emma Roddick to speak to amendment 250 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 250 modifies the 2016 act to give local authorities and registered social landlords first refusal on purchasing a property when a landlord evicts a tenant for the reason of intent to sell. Amendment 141 adds using intent to sell as a reason for eviction and then not selling the property to the list of wrongful eviction reasons. That would be triggered if the property is not sold within a year. We know full well that the reason is misused. There may be legitimate reasons for a sale to be held up or for a council or social landlord not to want to buy the property but, as it stands and given that we are trying to crack down on unfair evictions, it is too easy for landlords to use intention to sell as a reason for eviction, with no checks or balances on whether that claim is being made in good faith.
I have a lot of sympathy for Maggie Chapman’s amendments on winter evictions and notice periods. We have to remember that evictions can be a matter of life and death, and they can certainly quickly become life changing. The current law and the bill as introduced do not give that enough recognition. We recognise the landlord’s right to sell up or move into their property, or to let a family member move in, but if eviction might risk the life of a tenant, as well as their right to a safe and secure home, the balance of rights must come down on the side of protecting the tenant.
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 362 and all the other amendments in the group.
Thank you, convener, and good morning. Apologies, but I, too, will not be brief, given the number of members’ amendments in this group. However, I can assure you that this will be the largest speaking note.
I share the intention behind many of the amendments in this group to increase eviction protections in certain circumstances and to strengthen existing penalties where an unlawful eviction or wrongful termination occurs. However, I cannot support them, for the reasons that I will set out. Amendments 119 and 120, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would prevent private landlords from applying to the tribunal to evict in cases where a tenant or a member of the tenant’s household has a terminal illness. I am very sympathetic to the outcomes that those amendments are seeking to achieve. However, they do not strike the right balance between protection for tenants and the rights of landlords. The amendments would prevent a landlord from recovering a property, regardless of the circumstances, and for an indeterminate period, including where those circumstances relate to their own health or ability to continue as a landlord. We have strong existing protections from unfair eviction, and the tribunal must consider all circumstances in determining whether it would be reasonable to grant an eviction. That would include where a person has a terminal illness.
Sections 24 to 27 of the bill will further strengthen those protections, ensuring that, when an eviction is granted, the tribunal must consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of the eviction. That will increase protection for all tenants, including those with a terminal illness, and it will ensure that the rights of tenants and landlords can be appropriately balanced.
However, I appreciate where Meghan Gallacher is coming from. She spoke earlier about bringing compassion to the bill and I assure her that I share that determination. I thank her for the genuinely useful and meaningful conversations that she and I have had over the past few weeks, and I also thank the Marie Curie charity for the direct discussions that we have had.
I accept Meghan Gallacher’s point that the ending of a tenancy via an eviction is exceptionally difficult and that people should be treated sympathetically and provided with support and advice. That will particularly be the case for those with a terminal illness. I am therefore keen to develop guidance for private landlords that will set out good practice in this area. I will seek input from organisations that support those who are facing terminal illness, such as Marie Curie, to ensure that tenants are supported as early as possible and to avoid the ending of a tenancy in eviction whenever possible. I hope that Meghan Gallacher will be able to contribute to those conversations and meetings.
Meghan Gallacher also mentioned amendments on succession, which I believe are in a later group. Without spoiling the surprises that are in my speaking notes for group 22, I am also keen to work with her on many aspects that relate to that group.
Amendments 122 to 129, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would add terminal illness as a specific consideration for the courts or the tribunal when exercising the new duties to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction. Although the bill will allow the courts or the tribunal to take terminal illness into account, I understand the desire to highlight this specific issue. However, further consideration is needed on how best to address it in legislation. I am happy to work with Meghan Gallacher to lodge amendments at stage 3 to ensure that terminal illness is added to the list of things to be taken into account. On that basis, I ask her not to move those amendments and to instead work with me ahead of stage 3.
Amendment 491, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, would amend the new duty to consider a delay to the enforcement of an eviction to include a consideration of the detrimental impact it could have on a landlord that is a company or a business. I confirm that, although the bill refers to a specific number of factors, that is a non-exhaustive list and the tribunal may take all circumstances into account. The impact on the landlord, regardless of whether it is an individual, a business or another entity, will be a key factor in determining whether it is reasonable to delay. The amendment is therefore not necessary and I ask Fulton MacGregor not to move it.
Amendments 163 to 167, in the name of Edward Mountain, would prevent the tribunal and courts from ordering a delay to an eviction of longer than three months. I understand that those amendments respond to concerns from landlords about the length of any delay. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the discretion of the tribunal and courts. There are also issues with the drafting of the amendments that mean that, in practice, there could be no delay, or a minimum delay, which would undermine the purpose of the measures in the bill. I ask Edward Mountain not to move those amendments.
Amendment 452, in the name of Willie Rennie, and amendment 487, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would create further exceptions to the duty to consider a delay when the property is needed for religious purposes and when
“the landlord is the Church of Scotland”.
I recognise the concerns that have prompted those amendments. However, I am not persuaded that an exemption is appropriate. Existing exemptions to the duty reflect areas in which it would rarely be reasonable to delay enforcement and mainly relate to the conduct of the tenant. For all other repossession grounds, the tribunal is the correct place to balance the rights of tenants and landlords. The type of landlord or the purpose for which the property will be used do not, in and of themselves, merit an exemption, particularly when such an exemption would remove the protection that the measures in the bill are intended to provide for tenants.
The requirement on the tribunal to take all the circumstances into account, including for the landlord, will ensure that a delay to an enforcement is only ordered when it is reasonable to do so. That will protect the interests of landlords as well as tenants. I therefore ask Willie Rennie and Meghan Gallacher not to move those amendments.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Church of Scotland. My understanding is that the Church of Scotland is keen to have this issue debated because it has a number of properties that it would like to make available due to long-term ministry vacancies, but it would obviously still require those properties when the ministry vacancies are filled. However, it has found it challenging to engage with the Scottish Government on this issue. Would the cabinet secretary be amenable to a discussion with the Church of Scotland about how its considerable property portfolio can be used to help tackle the housing crisis, given the limitations on that portfolio?
09:30
I would indeed, and my very next paragraph was to say that the aspects that Willie Rennie, Meghan Gallacher and now Ross Greer have mentioned reiterate a concern from the Church of Scotland. I appreciate its desire to make its housing stock available to assist with the housing emergency where possible and I am keen to have those discussions with the Church of Scotland to ensure that we can work through its concerns. I hope that that will provide the reassurance that we all want to see and that I believe to be the intent behind the amendments. I am happy for those discussions to take place between the Church of Scotland and me and my officials.
Amendment 187, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would insert into the 2016 act a new section that would extend notice periods for ending a tenancy, for example, when there are rent arrears, to four months rather than the current 28 days, or to 12 months rather than the current 84 days, when the landlord is ending the tenancy in order to sell, or the property is to be sold by the lender. That change would make it harder for a landlord who needed to sell a property due to financial hardship; it would delay the sale for a substantial period and contribute to that hardship. It would also mean that a landlord could not end a tenancy quickly when there was antisocial behaviour or the property had been abandoned. Scottish ministers are committed to a wider review of repossession grounds, and that issue is best considered as part of that work. Again, I appreciate what Maggie Chapman is looking to do with her amendments, but I am concerned about their unintended consequences.
How would you respond to the question of there being different protections in other parts of the UK, where there will soon be that 12-month protection—with appropriate exemptions for the issues that you raised, such as the abandonment of property or antisocial behaviour?
I have looked very carefully—again, only yesterday—at what is proposed in the UK Renters’ Rights Bill. There are areas where aspects in Scotland provide better support for tenants, and there are, of course, different aspects of the overall application of a tenancy that mean that we cannot just replicate what is happening in a UK bill.
I am happy to carry on conversations about that between stages 2 and 3, should there be a situation in which tenants’ rights are lesser in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK. That is not how I look at the legislation, but I am more than happy to be challenged if we feel that our rights are falling short of rights elsewhere. I am also content that there are other areas where the rights of a tenant are still better served in Scotland. In addition, sometimes, the rights of the landlord are better served by the current circumstances. However, if there are aspects in which we are falling short, I am quite happy to go through them in detail in the run-up to stage 3.
Amendments 188 and 200, also in the name of Maggie Chapman, would introduce a winter eviction enforcement ban, except in limited circumstances, which is similar to the temporary emergency measures under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. The time-limited nature of the 2022 act was a key factor in achieving the lawful balance between the protection of tenants and the rights of landlords. However, Maggie Chapman’s amendments would be permanent and would apply every year. That is in addition to the enhanced eviction protections that are already in the bill.
I, too, want to ensure that we protect tenants and prevent, as far as possible, the negative impacts of eviction, but we must do so in a proportionate manner. In developing the bill, we explored greater restrictions on evictions over winter and consulted on that as part of our new deal for tenants. That highlighted support for additional protections, but reflected that the Scottish climate can be challenging at any time of year and that other times also present financial and emotional wellbeing pressures for people, such as periods of religious significance and exam periods.
I am also concerned about the creation of an eviction season after the end of the winter period and the negative impact of the additional pressure that that could put on housing and homelessness services, along with the issue of tenants finding alternative accommodation.
The measures in the bill will ensure that a more person-centred approach is taken, as the tribunal or court will need to consider whether the enforcement of an eviction should be delayed at any time of year, although seasonal impact is set out as a specific factor that should be considered.
I understand that the intention behind Emma Roddick’s amendment 250 is to increase the supply of affordable housing, which we are all committed to doing. However, the amendment does not appropriately take account of landlords’ rights. It would be overly restrictive to prevent landlords from selling a property on the open market, even if they had good reason for doing so. Amendment 250 could have unintended negative consequences should landlords decide to exit the market due to the increased risk of being unable to dispose of their property on the open market, so I cannot support it.
However, I reassure Emma Roddick that, in addition to being able to sell empty homes, private landlords can already approach social landlords with a view to selling their property with tenants in situ. Our affordable housing supply programme supports such purchases when they meet a clear strategic purpose and the tenants are at risk of homelessness. A recent example was the purchase in March this year of 20 homes, most of which were tenanted, in a pressured area of Perth and Kinross. We will continue to promote that existing flexibility through our close working relationships with councils, and we are in the process of strengthening our guidance to encourage that still further.
I ask Emma Roddick not to move amendment 250, but I will keep her informed of, and would welcome her thoughts on, the strengthening of the guidance that we will undertake.
Amendment 251, in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a proposal that responds to concerns about the costs of moving when a tenancy ends through no fault of the tenant and the misuse of repossession grounds. I am sympathetic to the issues that have been raised, but further detailed consideration of the need for, and the impact of, the amendment is required. That would best be done through the review of repossession grounds that we are committed to.
Amendments 362 to 368 and 395, in Paul McLennan’s name, will ensure that tenants who pay no rent or a low rent are appropriately compensated under the new unlawful eviction damages process. The current unlawful evictions legislation applies to all residential occupiers. That means that the provisions apply to all forms of tenancy and to forms of tenure other than a lease, such as a service occupancy or licence. It is therefore possible that a person who occupies a property will not necessarily pay rent or will pay a low rent. Changes in the bill that base damages on a calculation that involves multiplying the monthly rent could disadvantage people in those circumstances, which is not our intent.
Our amendments address that issue by prescribing that the figure of £840 should be used for the calculation in circumstances in which no rent or a low rent is paid. That figure is based on the average rent for a two-bed privately rented property, which is the most common size in the private rented sector. The amendments also provide powers for ministers to amend that amount through regulations.
Amendments 369 and 404, in Paul McLennan’s name, seek to change the compensation that can be awarded when a wrongful termination occurs to an amount between three and 36 times the monthly rent. That mirrors the way in which damages for an unlawful eviction are calculated. By prescribing £840 as the figure that should be used for the calculation for tenants who pay a low rent, amendment 369 will ensure that such tenants will be appropriately compensated. Powers are also provided for the Scottish ministers to amend the amount through regulations.
Amendment 268, in the name of Mark Griffin, would introduce a requirement for the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of eviction grounds under the 2016 act within 12 months of the bill receiving royal assent. As I have said, I remain committed to such a review being carried out for the private rented sector, and I understand Mr Griffin’s desire for it to be carried out in a timely manner.
However, if a detailed and robust review of repossession grounds is to be delivered, that work must be supported by stakeholder engagement. The imposition of a 12-month timeframe risks limiting the scope of the review, and I am sure that Mark Griffin would agree that none of us would want that to happen.
As I said when I wrote to the committee following its meeting on 6 May, I am committed to engaging with committee members on a range of issues. As part of that process, I will write to committee members with more information regarding our plans following the conclusion of stage 2. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move amendment 268.
Amendment 269, also in the name of Mark Griffin, introduces a similar requirement for a review of all the other grounds for eviction within the same timescale. There is no existing commitment to review the grounds for eviction more broadly and no evidence of a need for a review of that for the social rented sector or, indeed, evidence of calls from stakeholders to do so. Also, as no new tenancies can be created in relation to older protected or assured tenancies, that broader review would have little benefit. I therefore ask Mark Griffin not to move the amendment.
Amendment 141, in the name of Emma Roddick, seeks to address an important issue, the misuse of repossession grounds, which was also highlighted by the committee’s stage 1 report. No landlord should wilfully mislead a tenant or the tribunal into ending a tenancy. There are existing penalties for doing so through the Scottish Tribunals (Offences in Relation to Proceedings) Regulations 2016, which could result in imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both. I recognise the need for further action in that area; however, I am not convinced that amendment 141 will deliver the outcome that is being sought. It is through the wider review of repossession grounds that the issue is best considered.
I reassure members that we are taking immediate action to increase penalties for wrongful termination through amendments 369 and 404. They would see compensation for a wrongful termination increasing from the current maximum of six months’ rent to 36 months’ rent. I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.
There are some interesting amendments in this group, but I will focus on amendment 141, in the name of Emma Roddick, which raises the issue of when a landlord says, “I intend to sell; therefore, you need to go.” Does the cabinet secretary accept that, when that happens—and it happens quite regularly—there is no monitoring of whether the landlord does put the property up for sale or sells it. That is just not happening. I think that that is what Emma Roddick is trying to address—she is nodding—and it does need to be addressed.
I agree. The conversations that I have had directly with Emma Roddick on the issue have absolutely strengthened my opinion that there can be—indeed, in some circumstances, there has been—a misuse of that ground. That is why the existing penalties are very strong, but, regardless of that, I think that it still can happen. One aspect of that might be the lack of monitoring, which is why I am keen that that is looked at in the review of repossessions. As with other aspects of the bill, we must not just be satisfied that something is in the legislation if it is not being used to the benefit of the tenant or, in some circumstances, the benefit of the landlord; we must look at why those things are still happening. I am sure that monitoring is one of the areas that will come up in the review of repossession grounds.
Monitoring is key. The questions are, who does the monitoring, and then, who does the enforcement? The reality at the moment, is that, if you are a tenant and you are told by the landlord, “I intend to sell; therefore, you need to go”, chances are that the tenant will just go and will not bother monitoring what happens with that property.
Then, of course, the tenant falls foul of the cost of removal. Maggie Chapman raised that very good point in the discussion on amendment 251. Removal costs can be extremely high. I have been in that position myself here in Edinburgh. The property did sell—I checked—but I incurred significant costs to move. If the property had not sold and I was not monitoring whether it had, it could just have been rented out again. These are significant issues, so who does the monitoring?
I am sure that we will come to that question during the review of repossession grounds, when we will get into the details of those aspects. We cannot sort out the details of that issue in the bill, but we will clearly have to look at it.
Again, I make the point that there is no point in having those aspects in legislation if we are not able to make use of them, whether because of monitoring or other areas where there are gaps in implementation. We must look at the use of the legislation, and awareness of rights is a key aspect of that. The monitoring is indeed challenging.
09:45
On that point, I wonder whether the work that the cabinet secretary is considering around data collection in relation to another part of the bill might help to highlight that inconsistency. If we are getting the data from landlords that I have suggested, it would be much easier to spot when the ground of intent to sell is being used but the property is let out for a different rent further down the line.
The aspects of data collection that we are looking at in relation to the bill are to ensure that we can implement rent controls. I appreciate that there are other pieces of data that members might wish to see collected for overall information purposes relating to the private rented sector. In one of the many round-table meetings that we will have over the summer, we will have to look at why we would be collecting the data, its purpose and what it would be used for. Those are the questions that we will need to get into if we are looking at evictions and the question of whether a property has been sold. We will need to consider how often that ground is used and how we can monitor the sale of properties.
Those details will have to be teased out. I do not know whether that can be done through data collection provisions in the bill, because those would specifically relate to rent control implementation. It is a challenge that we will have to come back to.
I thank Graham Simpson for referring to amendment 251. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the review of repossession grounds. In the letter that you will write to the committee after stage 2, will you include the timeframe for that review, so that we know when we will have that information and what we will be able to do with it when it comes out?
I am conscious that I am offering to work on a great deal over the summer with committee members. I am also conscious of their commitments over the summer, particularly in constituencies, and of the time limit in relation to what we can achieve before the election. I want to send that letter because I am keen to set out the Government’s suggested workload and to seek the committee’s views on that, so that there is full openness on what we expect to be able to do and in which areas.
However, I hesitate to give timeframes for each area because I am notching up quite a lot of commitments. I want to make sure, when I look at the totality, in the round, that those commitments are genuinely deliverable and that I do not overpromise—or, indeed, ruin everybody’s summer holidays to too great an extent.
I think that is happening already.
Convener, I assure you that I am nearly there. I will move on to amendments 409, 413 and 414, in the name of Katy Clark. Amendment 409 would introduce a new offence, with the potential for a prison sentence, for landlords who are found to have misled the tribunal or misled a tenant into ending a tenancy. I understand and sympathise with the hardship that wrongful termination can cause, as we have mentioned, and I agree that it is vital that suitable recourse and proportionate compensation are available. However, I do not think that amendment 409 is necessary, as I have already set out in relation to amendment 141.
Amendment 413 seeks to increase the maximum penalty that can be applied for wrongful termination, from six months’ rent to 36 months’ rent. I am supportive of deterring landlord malpractice and, as I have set out, amendment 369 seeks to do that.
I sympathise with the intent of amendment 414; however, I cannot support it. As I said in relation to other amendments in the group, there are existing offences that can be used in relation to the provision of false information to tribunal proceedings, and, through the bill, we are strengthening penalties in relation to wrongful determination. Therefore, I urge Katy Clark not to move amendment 414.
Mark Griffin’s amendment 502 would prevent an eviction where the landlord has received ECO4 funding for energy efficiency measures in the previous 12 months. I recognise the good intent behind the amendment, but I cannot support it. The amendment does not enable a landlord’s circumstances to be taken into account, so it does not strike a proportionate balance between the rights of tenants and landlords.
There are existing protections through the legal framework that ensure that all circumstances of a case are taken into account when deciding whether it is reasonable to grant an eviction. I share Mark Griffin’s concern about the issue of potentially vulnerable tenants being evicted after such funding has been received. However, the design of the ECO4 scheme is decided by United Kingdom Government ministers, and they did not agree to the changes that we proposed last year to strengthen the safeguards for householders. I would welcome Mark Griffin’s support in pressing UK ministers to do that urgently, but I urge him not to move amendment 502.
For the reasons that I have set out, I ask members to support the amendments in the name of Paul McLennan. I urge Meghan Gallacher, Fulton MacGregor, Edward Mountain, Willie Rennie, Maggie Chapman, Emma Roddick, Mark Griffin and Katy Clark not to press or move their amendments. If they do so, I urge the committee not to support the amendments.
I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 268, Katy Clark’s amendment 409 and any other amendments in the group.
Amendments 268 and 269 would require Scottish ministers to review grounds for eviction under schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 within 12 months of the bill coming into force. From analysing the case load of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, listening to the submissions of organisations that act on behalf of tenants and observing the outcomes of changes that were made to schedule 3 of the 2016 act and the emergency legislation that was made during the pandemic, it is clear that at least some of the grounds for eviction mean that the balance of rights in such cases is tilted unfairly away from tenants. While the grounds remain discretionary, the opportunity will exist for unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of the imbalance to unfairly evict tenants.
Although I am in favour of much of the thrust of part 2 of the bill, which will tighten up the circumstances under which eviction should be allowed, there is further to go in ensuring that the balance of rights is fair. That is why I support all the amendments in this group that will make it more difficult to allow unfair evictions.
My amendment 268 would allow the Government to review the structure under which such unfairness can take place. The amendment deals with the cause of the imbalance, while the rest of the bill attempts to mitigate the effects of that. We have all heard stories about tenants who, having been told that the landlord intends to put the property on the market, found that, after they were evicted, the property was put back up for rent, often at a higher price. All my amendments in this part of the bill seek to ensure that the balance of rights is re-weighted towards tenants, while still allowing landlords the ability to end a tenancy when there is a legitimate need to do so.
The time has come to review the grounds for eviction so that the Government can properly consider them in the light of the time that has passed and the experience that has been gained of the application of the grounds since the 2016 act and the subsequent amendments to the schedule came into force.
I take on board the Government’s commitment to undertaking the review and the fact that the timescale of 12 months might be overly prescriptive in relation to consulting on and providing a full perspective of the changes that are required, so I do not intend to move amendments 268 and 269.
Amendment 502 would prevent landlords from evicting tenants under no-fault circumstances for 12 months after they have carried out work as a result of a grant made under the ECO4 scheme. A 2023 Scottish Government report estimated that, by March 2024, nearly half of all households in the private rented sector would be living in fuel poverty. The ECO4 grants are part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet carbon emissions targets and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis. The focus is on households that are deemed to live in fuel poverty. Grants are means tested to the tenant’s income; there is no relation to the landlord’s situation. If a landlord receives a grant to make improvements to the energy performance of the home, the decision has been taken to award the grant because of the financial circumstances of the tenant and not those of the landlord.
The tenant in question, having been the reason why the landlord got the grant and having been inconvenienced by the work that was carried out in their home, should be given more protection from eviction, so that they get the intended benefits of the improvement to the property, rather than the landlord being able to evict them and then, as is often the case, re-let the property at a higher price due to the improvements, which were funded by the Government because of the circumstances of the tenant.
I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary makes, so I do not intend to move the amendment at this stage. However, there is a gap in the legislation on how we deal with that, whether that be at a UK or Scottish level. I am happy to have further discussions to iron out the anomaly of a landlord getting funding to improve a property on the basis of a tenant’s circumstances and then evicting them to re-let it.
I wonder whether the issue is best dealt with at a UK level, and whether conditions should be attached to the issuing of a grant, which would tackle the issue that Mr Griffin raises.
I am not opposed to conditions being attached to the grant. I am not aware of the legal discussions that have gone on in relation to that scheme or whether there are difficulties between reserved and devolved competencies with regard to the laws on housing evictions and other areas. As I said, I am happy to have a discussion with the Scottish Government on the legal interaction between reserved and devolved competencies. I am happy to not move the amendment, to leave that to a further discussion and to come back at stage 3, potentially.
I turn to the amendments in the name of my colleague Katy Clark. Amendment 409 aims to strengthen the criminal law relating to unlawful eviction and the action that can be taken against the worst landlords, particularly repeat offenders.
Freedom of information requests from the Legal Services Agency to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service revealed that, of the 153 complaints that it received of unlawful eviction in the five years to 31 March 2018, COPFS proceeded against only 56 to 59 people. Such proceedings resulted in a minimum of three and a maximum of 12 convictions annually. At the time of a 2020 publication by the Legal Services Agency, the First-tier Tribunal had made an award of damages for unlawful eviction only once in its entire history.
Amendment 409 seeks to tighten the legal provisions against unlawful evictions by amending the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to create a wrongful termination offence that criminalises the act of misleading
“a tenant into ceasing to occupy a let property.”
That allows for a defence where an individual had not intentionally misled the tribunal or the tenant.
An individual who is guilty of that offence on a summary conviction would be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to a six-month maximum custodial sentence, or to both. If convicted on indictment, the individual would be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum two-year term, or to both. The amendment is an attempt to strengthen the penalties in the most extreme cases.
On amendments 413 and 414, further to the previous amendment, amendment 413 also seeks to strengthen deterrence against unscrupulous actions by landlords by setting higher penalties under a “wrongful-termination order”. The amendment would increase the maximum penalty for wrongful termination. It also seeks to increase the cumulative total that the tribunal may require landlords to pay from six months to 36 months.
Amendment 414 relates to eviction orders for occupied properties on the grounds of sale, only for landlords to later seemingly abandon those plans to sell. Research from Generation Rent in 2022 found that, despite tenancy reforms, nearly a third of private landlords who evicted tenants in order to sell their property failed to sell the home more than a year later, with 9 per cent of cases of tenants who were evicted on grounds of sale seeing the home simply sold to another landlord who then re-let the property. Therefore, amendment 414 would add protections on property sale, restricting landlords from letting or attempting to let the property in question within 12 months of an eviction order being granted.
10:00That covers the amendments in my name and Katy Clark’s name, but I want to touch briefly on the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher that relate to protections due to terminal illness. I support the work that Meghan Gallacher, the cabinet secretary and Marie Curie have done in that area and hope that we can reach a consensus and strengthen protection for those who are terminally ill and their families.
I also want to touch briefly on the issues raised by Willie Rennie, Fulton MacGregor and Meghan Gallacher on the use of properties that are held by religious organisations. In general, I agree with Maggie Chapman that the organisations that hold such properties should not dictate how easy it is to evict. However, if that leads to those properties lying empty, especially when they are the large, family-sized properties that we are crying out for, it would be helpful for the Government to look at how to allow those organisations to let such properties and relieve that pressure, with the assurance that they can bring them back into use for a minister, a priest or any other employee.
A lot of important issues have been raised in relation to this grouping on evictions. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for our conversations on my amendments that deal with terminal illness. I have worked alongside Marie Curie, and other colleagues have been involved in those conversations. The conversations, working relationships and cross-party work that have taken place show a resetting of the approach to the bill. I welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with the cabinet secretary over the summer, which I hope will involve Marie Curie—the organisation that is behind the amendments on terminal illness.
I will touch on the amendments that relate to religious organisations letting out properties, which is a really important issue. I understand that that relates to legislation that was introduced during the pandemic, but there is a legacy issue. How can we find a balance between letting those homes out and ensuring that, when those homes need to be occupied by a minister of a local church, that can happen? I do not believe that we can resolve that issue overnight, but Ross Greer’s suggestion about the cabinet secretary meeting religious groups and organisations to see what can be done to tease out the issues would be a step in the right direction.
It has been made clear at stage 1 and now, at stage 2, that we need to consider how to strengthen the tribunal’s powers in relation to its overall authority to strengthen tenants’ rights. We also need to consider, from the perspective of landlords, whether the tribunal has followed the correct processes and, if it has, how landlords can find a suitable resolution to any issues that are being raised. That is raised in various amendments today, and certainly in relation to evictions, which this grouping deals with.
I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendments on winter evictions. My problem is with how we define winter. Maggie Chapman might want to explore that but, given the climate in Scotland, it will be incredibly difficult to work out. We have some summers that look like winters, for example, and we could end up with a year-long process that does not allow any eviction processes to happen.
I understand that that could be the position that Maggie Chapman wants to set out, and she is within her rights to do so. However, there has to be a balance, because there are situations in which landlords need to take back their property. If we put in measures against winter evictions, that could prevent such things from happening in situations where they genuinely need to.
The protection would specifically be for the four months over winter—November, December, January and February—so that is clear. I am not saying that it needs to extend to awful weather at other times of the year; it is about winter evictions.
I take on board Maggie Chapman’s comments. As I said, I am sympathetic to the situation that people could be faced with, given the climate in Scotland. However, we have to balance that against what our climate is like generally. There could be a means to expand what such a protection would do, given that we have extreme weather throughout different parts of the year. I know that Maggie Chapman is saying that that is not her intention, but I feel that her amendments could be the starting point for expanding such an approach.
I understand what Mark Griffin is trying to do in his amendment 502. Graham Simpson made an important point about whether the grant issue should be dealt with at UK level instead of in the bill. However, given that Mark Griffin’s proposal is about tenants’ rights and housing in general, I believe that it was right to lodge the amendment, even if he decides not to move it.
I understand that time is ticking on, convener, so I will leave my remarks there. I seek to withdraw amendment 119.
Amendment 119, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 120 not moved.
Section 24—Private residential tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction
Amendments 122, 123, 491, 124 and 125 not moved.
Amendment 163 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division on amendment 163 is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 163 disagreed to.
Amendments 452 and 487 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25—Scottish secure tenancies etc: duty to consider delay to eviction
Amendments 126 to 129 not moved.
Amendment 164 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 164 disagreed to.
Amendment 165 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 165 disagreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
Section 26—Assured tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction
Amendment 166 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 166 disagreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27—Protected tenancies and statutory tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction
Amendment 167 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 167 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 167 disagreed to.
Section 27 agreed to
After section 27
Amendment 187 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 187 disagreed to.
Amendment 188 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 188 disagreed to.
Amendment 250 not moved.
Amendment 251 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 251 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 251 disagreed to.
10:15Section 28—Unlawful eviction: notification and damages
Amendments 362 to 368 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
After section 28
Amendment 369 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendments 268, 269, 141, 409, 502, 413 and 414 not moved.
Amendment 442 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 442 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 442 disagreed to.
I suspend the meeting and invite us all to have a 10-minute break.
10:18 Meeting suspended.Section 29—Private residential tenancies: keeping pets and making changes to let property
Welcome back. The next group is on a tenant’s right to keep a pet. Amendment 522, in the name of Emma Roddick, is grouped with amendments 259 to 261, 523, 24, 25, 524 to 527, 370, 168, 26, 169, 528, 529, 170 to 172, 263 to 265, 180 to 182, 27, 530 to 532, 28, 533, 534, 563 and 564
I remind members that amendments 523 and 24 and amendments 532 and 28 are direct alternatives—that is, they can both be moved and decided on. The text of whichever is the last agreed to will appear in the bill.
As somebody who lives with a cat and has struggled to find landlords who are happy with that, I am really excited about the fact that the bill will strengthen the rights of tenants to keep pets. My amendments simply seek to provide that certainty to tenants as soon as possible.
Amendment 523 seeks to change the period in which landlords must respond to a request to keep a pet from 42 to 28 days. Having spoken with the cabinet secretary about that and explored the likelihood that forcing an answer before the landlord has had a chance to take everything into account might lead to an unnecessary no, I understand that there are debates about what is the best time frame. On that basis, I will not move the amendment. I am happy to rethink the matter before stage 3, to ensure that the balance is in the right place.
Some of my other amendments, along with those of Maggie Chapman, remove reference to assumed refusal in the bill, as we both believe that a non-response should be considered to be consent.
On amendment 522, I am aware that, in a later group, we will discuss property factors—one of many reasons why I am concerned about the burden that might be placed on the First-tier Tribunal. Where it is clear that a tenant has or can comply with reasonable conditions for keeping a pet and the landlord has not refused the request but has simply failed to give consent, I do not believe that it would be a good use of anyone’s time for the tenant to have to challenge the default refusal through a tribunal, while others are waiting to hear back from the tribunal on unreasonable conditions.
I also believe that, unless there are considerable, reasonable reasons why a tenant cannot keep a pet or why the property is simply not suitable for that pet, there is no good reason for the landlord to make such a refusal, and the tenant should be very clear as to why a refusal has been made in any circumstance.
Could you move the amendment?
I move amendment 522.
Thank you very much. I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 259 and other amendments in the group.
This is another fairly lengthy—but not too lengthy—contribution from me. I know that many members of the committee and, indeed, many members of the Parliament, are pet owners and animal lovers. Emma Roddick entered Sparky, her beautiful English bull terrier, into the Holyrood dog of the year competition earlier this month, and Meghan Gallacher entered Trevor, a Dogs Trust dog.
Pets make a house a home, and this part of the bill seeks to set up a clear framework for tenants to make requests for their pets to live with them as part of their family. There is a lack of pet-friendly rented homes in Scotland. A 2021 survey of landlords, letting agents and tenants on pets and rental properties conducted by YouGov on behalf of Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust found that 68 per cent of private Scottish landlords who do not currently allow pets in any or all of their properties say that nothing would persuade them to do so. That demonstrates the need for a legal framework to actively encourage landlords to see the benefits of pet ownership for responsible tenants.
Additionally, the survey highlighted the number of blanket no-pet policies in Scotland. Some 18 per cent of Scottish landlords do not allow cats because they use a standard contract template provided by the letting agent, and 6 per cent because they use a standard contract template which they download. Tenants are being denied the opportunity to experience the benefits of pet ownership simply because their contract says no to pets. The proposals will end blanket no-pet policies by enabling tenants to request to keep a pet without fear of automatic rejection because of a contractual clause.
Giving responsible tenants a right to request to keep a pet in their home that landlords cannot unreasonably refuse, will decrease the burden on animal rehoming organisations such as Cats Protection. In 2023, Cats Protection took in the equivalent of around three cats each day due to landlords not allowing them in their properties. Our proposals have the potential to help relieve the large waiting lists that rehoming organisations face and allow them to focus their resources on other animals in need.
A number of my amendments would make the pet request process work better and they have all been developed in partnership with Cats Protection, Dogs Trust and Sight Scotland. My amendments 24 and 28 reduce the time a tenant has to wait to get a response to a pet request from 42 to 14 days. Dogs Trust believes that that would allow tenants to better plan for pet ownership, reduce any kennelling or cattery expenses and lessen the significant stress of not knowing whether they will be able to keep their pet in their rented property. From the landlord’s point of view, it would still afford a reasonable timeframe in which to consider the request.
My amendment 26 addresses a loophole in the proposed system. If a landlord does not meet the timescale, they are deemed to have refused the request, which is simply not fair. The tenant has no way of knowing why the landlord does not consent to the pet and therefore has no ability to offer assurances to the landlord or to challenge the decision. Amendment 26 would change that, so that the landlord is deemed to have consented if they do not reply within the timescale. That is not new or an untested formula. It is the same approach that appears in section 30 of the bill, on social housing. There is no good reason at all why social and private tenancies should not be treated exactly the same in that respect. It is very important that all parties are clear on what does and does not constitute a reasonable request and a reasonable refusal, so my amendments 26 and 27 would require ministers to produce appropriate guidance on that.
My amendments 259 to 261 and 263 to 265 cover assistance animals. The amendments exempt assistance animals from the pet request process, granting an automatic right to have an assistance animal in a rented property. I have heard concerns that the subject of the amendments is already covered by the Equality Act 2010, which, of course, prohibits discrimination against disabled people, but there are no specific protections for disabled tenants who need their assistance animals at home. Sight Scotland reports having to work with the landlords of blind and partially sighted people to ensure that their assistance animals can live with them. If the 2010 act were perfectly clear on that point, that would clearly not be happening, but it is.
I would like to provide a quote from a person with sight loss living in Edinburgh who has repeatedly been refused a tenancy because they need their guide dog to live with them and have been told no:
“It was very disheartening when I was told that I could not rent a property because of my Guide Dog. It made me feel very upset and frustrated.
Even when I explained the laws and legislation, I was still told no and that the letting agent had to take the landlord’s side. It made me very wary of looking for a rental property, and I started to discount a lot of properties, as the adverts stated no pets.
This left me with a very limited choice of houses to pick from. The stress of finding a property is bad enough without having to explain my sight loss and why I have a Guide Dog as my mobility aid.”
Disabled people should not be made to jump through the hoops of the Equality Act 2010 to prove that it covers having their assistance animal with them in their home. There should instead be a very clear and simple statement in Scottish housing law confirming that they can, and that is what my amendments seek to do. I am very pleased that Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs and Sight Scotland support the amendments.
Amendments 522 and 564, in the name of Emma Roddick, would provide for a new appeal route if a private landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. There exist routes of recourse in the private rented sector through the First-tier Tribunal in relation to a breach of the tenancy agreement, which could be used in those circumstances.
Although I think that the amendments are unnecessary, I appreciate the member’s desire for clarity on the issue, because it is an exceptionally important point. Guidance for tenants and landlords will be important in supporting those new rights, and further support on that type of issue will be addressed through that guidance. I give Emma Roddick reassurance on that point and therefore ask her not to press amendment 522 and not to move amendment 564.
10:45Emma Roddick’s amendment 259 and Maggie Chapman’s amendment 263, and her associated amendments 260, 261, 264 and 265, would allow private and social tenants to keep an assistance animal without the landlord’s consent. While I am sympathetic to the sought outcome, I do not think that the amendments are necessary, because a disabled tenant can already ask a landlord to keep an assistance animal. If the tenant requires any such animal, such a request cannot be unreasonably refused. Under the Equality Act 2010, that is known as making a “reasonable adjustment”. The amendments are likely to confuse matters as they do not take account of other tenants’ needs or the property’s suitability. We can address the issue that Maggie Chapman has raised today around guidance, and it is now easier to seek redress through the tribunal. I recognise the concerns that Maggie Chapman has raised, but I suggest that there is another way to address them.
I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying, but surely a disabled person should not have to go through a tribunal. They should not be put through that additional hurdle in order to have the animal that allows them to function in society living with them. It is another burden and adds more bureaucracy, which we would not ask of somebody who is not disabled, so why are we asking it of somebody who is disabled?
I agree that such a case should not get to the point of going through a tribunal. That goes back to a point that we have raised on many issues, about being able to support tenants in better recognition of their rights and landlords in recognition of their obligations. However, we also need to take account—in the private rented sector, for example—of aspects such as shared accommodation and whether other tenants have allergies.
I completely appreciate Maggie Chapman’s point. The case studies that she mentioned are clearly very concerning, which is why it is important that we do further work on tenants’ rights and landlords’ responsibilities on those issues. However, I unfortunately remain persuaded that the amendments are not necessary and that we can achieve the outcome that Maggie Chapman and I wish to achieve in other ways.
Amendments 523 and 532 in the name of Emma Roddick and amendments 24 and 28 in the name of Maggie Chapman seek to reduce the period in which landlords must respond to a pet request. We recognise that pets are important members of people’s families and believe that tenants should be able to benefit from the experience of pet ownership, as is the case for most other households, including my own.
Amendment 523 would reduce the period for private landlords to respond to a pet request from 42 days to 28 days, and amendment 24 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days might result in disputes that could be avoided if a slighter longer period is in place. Even if a landlord is content to agree to a request, the landlord might have further questions. Ensuring that there is enough time for the landlord and tenant to discuss the request will help both parties. The landlord might otherwise be unable to consent, only because there has not been enough time to agree reasonable conditions.
As part of our landlord and tenant engagement questionnaire, we consulted on the appropriate timescale for a landlord to respond. In setting the timescale at 42 days, we tried to strike a balance between providing landlords with a reasonable timescale to consider and respond to a tenant’s request and ensuring that the timescale is not unreasonably long from a tenant’s perspective. The timescale is also aligned to that for the consideration of a request to make a category 2 change to the property. However, I recognise that there are concerns, including from animal rights charities, that 42 days is too long. I am therefore happy to work with both members to consider the timescale before stage 3. On that basis, I ask the members not to move those amendments.
Amendment 532 would reduce the period for social landlords to respond to a pet request from one month to 28 days, whereas amendment 28 would reduce the period to 14 days. I am concerned that reducing the period to 14 days may result in unnecessary disputes, in a similar way to the private sector. The period of one month is a bit more onerous than the 42 days that are afforded to the private sector, but that was considered reasonable given that social landlords already respond within a month to other requests from tenants, such as requests to take a lodger, sublet, assign a tenancy or exchange a house. I think that it is helpful for social landlords to have a consistent period for responding to such requests, but I am happy to discuss that matter again with members. On that basis, I ask the members not to move their amendments.
Amendment 25, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would change the provision so that, when a private landlord fails to respond, a request would be automatically approved. I am concerned that there would be negative consequences to an assumed consent model in the private rented sector. For example, it would be difficult to remedy disputes in cases in which a landlord has not responded, or appears not to have responded, to a request in the timeframe, but there was a legitimate reason for a delayed response. If the tenant had assumed consent and had already obtained a pet in the interim, that would create significant issues. On that basis, I ask the member not to press the amendment.
I appreciate the potential issue that the cabinet secretary has highlighted, but, surely, the flipside of that is also true: if a landlord does not respond and, therefore, a tenant has assumed refusal, they would have absolutely no way of seeking to appeal or challenge the decision. That is how it is currently presented, although that might not be the intention. A landlord may be happy for a renter to have a pet but there may be reasons why they have not responded to their request. The tenant may think, “They haven’t met the deadline, so I have no options left.”
The tenant can appeal an unreasonable refusal, so I hope that that reassures Maggie Chapman that they would have the ability to appeal. As an animal lover and a pet owner, I am concerned that we would be asking people to have to rehome their pets or to find them alternative accommodation, when those pets are, in effect, members of their family. The issues that are raised with assumed consent would be quite concerning for the tenant and, indeed, the pet.
Amendments 524 to 527 in the name of Emma Roddick would remove the ability of a tenant to seek redress where a landlord has failed to respond to a pet request. I understand that the amendments intend to support the effective operation of the deemed consent model that is proposed under amendment 25. I have already set out my concerns about the risks that that model would create, and I do not think that that is the right way to deliver improved rights in this area. I ask the member not to move her amendments.
Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, in many situations, the person who is seeking to rent a property would already have a cat or dog and that they may have to leave them with a family member, or perhaps in a cattery or dog kennel? They would be in limbo while they were waiting to hear from the landlord.
I recognise that, which is why am more than happy to work with you and Maggie Chapman on the timings for how long some of the decisions can, and should, take. I appreciate the support that a person can draw from the company of their pet, and that the costs that would be incurred by placing them in a cattery or kennels can be quite substantial, even over a short period of time. As I have set out, although there are reasons for the timings that the Government has proposed, Emma Roddick’s and Maggie Chapman’s amendments have importantly highlighted the issues and that we do not have the balance correct. I am more than happy to see what can be done before stage 3 in order to try to alleviate some of the concerns and to assist with the points that Emma Roddick has just made.
Amendment 370 in the name of Paul McLennan is a minor technical amendment correcting a previous typo, which makes no change to the effect of the provision.
Amendments 168 to 172 and amendments 180 to 182, in the name of Edward Mountain, relate to reasonable conditions for approval to keep a pet. I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill with regard to ensuring that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers that the bill provides for and on some of the detail that they should cover. For example, that would include setting out that it would be a reasonable condition for approval for the landlord to require the tenant to have the property professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
I note that, in order to make those additional rights operational, regulations will need to be introduced to set out further detail. The details of what would be considered an unreasonable refusal or reasonable conditions for approval must be developed in consultation with landlords, tenants and other relevant stakeholders. I firmly believe that that is the right approach, and that is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. We will include in that work the aspects that are highlighted by these amendments, and I therefore ask Mr Mountain not to move them.
Amendments 26 and 27, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend the bill so that the Scottish ministers “must” make use of the regulation-making powers in the bill to set out when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet. I can reassure members of the committee that, although the provisions as drafted use the word “may”, making use of the regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the bill’s implementation. Effective guidance will be essential to the successful implementation of those measures, as will ensuring that landlords are provided with sufficient information to inform their decisions. I therefore ask the member not to move those amendments.
I turn to the other amendments in the group, which are in the name of Emma Roddick. Amendments 528 and 529 seek to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill. Current provisions in the bill already mean that refusal and any consent conditions must be reasonable—which is the appropriate test—and amendment 528 is therefore not needed.
Amendment 529 includes aspects that the regulations may cover, and I do not believe that the amendment is necessary either. As I have made clear, we are committed to consulting further with landlords and tenants on the detail that should be included in regulations under the affirmative procedure, in order to support the operation of the new rights. There is already a duty in the bill in connection with that, and I can reassure members that the aspects that are covered in the amendment will also form part of that work.
On that basis, I ask Ms Roddick not to move amendments 528 and 529.
Amendments 530 and 531 relate to the refusal of a request to keep a pet by a social landlord. They would make it a condition that landlord refusal is
“necessary and proportionate”
and that there is
“clear reasoning or supporting evidence”.
A tenant who is unhappy about the landlord’s decision to refuse their request can appeal using the landlord’s complaints process, and has a further route of redress beyond that to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I believe that any additional conditions for refusal are best developed, once again, through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation.
Amendment 533 seeks to provide that, where a social landlord fails to respond to a pet request within the period required, the landlord is “deemed to have consented”. What the member is seeking is provided for by new paragraph 8H, which is inserted into the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 by section 30(3) of the bill. On that basis, I do not think that anything more is needed to deliver what is being sought, and I therefore ask Emma Roddick not to move the amendment.
Amendments 534 and 563 would provide for a new appeal route if a social landlord withdraws consent for a pet because the tenant has not complied with the reasonable conditions imposed. All social landlords provide their tenants with a written tenancy agreement, which sets out their tenancy obligations, including the conditions to which the tenant is required to adhere in relation to keeping pets. Any breach of tenancy conditions could result in appropriate and proportionate action being taken by the landlord, which could include, where necessary, withdrawal of consent to keep a pet.
I believe that, if any changes are required to the existing process for withdrawal of consent by social landlords, those are best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector, and set through secondary legislation, following public and parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to move the amendments.
In summary, for the reasons that I have set out, I ask Emma Roddick, Maggie Chapman and Edward Mountain not to press or move their amendments in the group.
I call Meghan Gallacher to speak on behalf of Edward Mountain to amendment 168 and other amendments in the group.
As the cabinet secretary has set out, amendment 168 would make it a duty for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to consent to a tenant keeping a pet at a let property. The amendment is about clarity. Similar to other amendments in the group, it is about knowing what is fair and reasonable, and it is about ensuring that landlords know what the parameters of that would be. It is similar to the amendments that would allow a tenant to know why keeping a pet in a property has been refused.
11:00Amendment 169 would give the landlord the ability to reasonably refuse consent for pets to be kept at a property
“if the landlord has a medical reason”
for doing so. The amendment is very important. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who said that 18 per cent of landlords say that they do not allow pets. I believe that a small proportion of those landlords will have allergies to cats or dogs. In my view, that could be a justifiable reason for not allowing a pet at a property, particularly if the allergies are severe.
With the amendment, Edward Mountain is attempting to strike a reasonable balance. It does not say no to pets, but provides that, if a landlord owns a property and has to visit it for checks and other reasons, a medical condition would be a justifiable reason for not allowing a pet in that property. I imagine that that would apply to a relatively small number of landlords and would not be a widespread circumstance across the private rented sector.
Amendment 170 seeks to make it a duty for the Scottish ministers
“to make provision about when a landlord’s consent condition for keeping a pet”
at a let property
“is reasonable.”
It relates to amendment 168, as well as to amendment 171, which seeks to ensure that the Scottish ministers “must”, by regulations,
“make provision about when a condition specified in a landlord’s notice is reasonable.”
Again, that is about creating further clarity and guidance for landlords, should there be changes to tenants’ right to keep a pet.
Edward Mountain’s amendment 172 seeks to provide that a landlord can reasonably make it a condition that, when he or she consents for pets to be kept at a let property,
“any carpeted floor surfaces and soft furnishings must be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy by”
an independent company. With amendment 172, Edward Mountain is again seeking to put pet ownership responsibility into the bill. If someone has a pet that sheds, for example, that could lead to the need for carpets and other soft furnishings to be cleaned. Amendment 172 seeks to address that circumstance.
Will the member take an intervention?
Of course.
I appreciate that these are not your amendments and that you are speaking on behalf of Edward Mountain. One of my concerns with amendments 172 and 182, on professional cleaning, is the costs. I wonder whether, if we had conversations with Edward Mountain between now and stage 3, he would consider amending the wording slightly to say that the property must be cleaned either professionally or in another way to a similar standard, to ensure that tenants are not liable for extortionate costs. I also wonder whether there would be room for conversation about exempting people with assistance animals from those costs.
I understand exactly what Maggie Chapman is saying. I do not want to pre-empt what my colleague Edward Mountain would say, but I am certain that he would like to bring these or similar amendments back at stage 3 so that he can speak to them himself, as he been unable to attend committee for the reasons that I gave at an earlier committee meeting on the bill. I can certainly take the conversation that we have just had back to him. As the amendments are his, I do not think that it would be right for me to come to any conclusion on that.
Amendment 180 seeks to put a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision about the consent condition for keeping a pet and what makes that reasonable. Again, that is about seeking more clarity.
Amendment 182 is, as Maggie Chapman and I have just discussed, in relation to carpeted floors and soft furnishings being professionally cleaned by an independent company at the end of a tenancy. Again, that is about responsibility in pet ownership. It is probably what you would do in your own home should furnishings need to be cleaned for any pet-related reasons.
I turn to other amendments in the group, because these are issues that I care about. Maggie Chapman is absolutely right that about my entering a Dogs Trust dog in the Holyrood dog of the year competition. I have done so every year bar one, when I was on maternity leave, and that is because I believe in what the organisation is trying to achieve. It is trying to make it easier for people to own a pet and, of course, ensure that animals do not end up in rescue homes, when they can have forever homes. I think that most committee members would support that.
I have an issue with amendments 24 and 28. Actually, it is not an issue as such; I have a view on the timeframes that are acceptable or reasonable. Will the timeframe be 14 days, 28 days or something else? I do not think that we can necessarily determine that at today’s committee meeting. We might need to have another discussion about it—I know that we will be having a lot of discussions—to work out what would be fair and reasonable. I can come up with scenarios, such as a landlord being on holiday or ill, or there could be other personal circumstances that might mean that they do not have sufficient time to respond within the 14 day period. I understand that there could be workarounds to allow for those circumstances, but I wonder whether 28 days would be more reasonable than 14 days—I have already discussed that with the Dogs Trust—or whether there should be another timeframe. We can all have a good debate about the timeframe as we approach stage 3, because it is important.
On amendment 25, on whether a request would be automatically approved, we need to determine what timeframe would be appropriate before we consider the amendment. However, I understand the reasoning and I am sympathetic to the proposal, given the points that have been raised about people having the right to own a pet, which I think that many members would support in principle. We also need to consider the type of pet, which has been mentioned briefly but not at length. There is a massive difference between a Border terrier and a Siberian husky, for example. I am not trying to say which breed of dog is my favourite, because I have friends who own each of those breeds, but we need to consider that and be mindful of whether a small rental property would be an appropriate place to keep a large dog.
On Maggie Chapman’s amendments on assistance animals, I take the cabinet secretary’s point about the Equality Act 2010, but I would be interested in understanding whether that would cover additional animals such as therapy pets. I am not entirely sure that it does, which is why I am throwing out the issue for discussion. We also need to look at that as we approach stage 3. Assistance dogs could be guide dogs to assist people with their sight or hearing loss, or it could refer to other therapy pets.
I will leave my comments there. I think that I have addressed all Edward Mountain’s amendments in group 26, and, certainly, the amendment that I have an interest in.
If no other members wish to speak, I call Emma Roddick to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 522.
I will withdraw amendment 522, but I remain concerned about some of the aspects raised in the amendments that Maggie Chapman and I have lodged. I have concerns about the period of time in which people could be waiting in limbo and the ability of tenants to dispute the reasons that they have been given for not allowing them to have a pet. I believe that it is much more difficult if no reason is given and there is simply a default refusal. I am also concerned about what would happen when the person who is waiting in limbo relies on their animal to perform daily tasks.
Amendment 522, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 259 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 259 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 259 disagreed to.
Amendment 260 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 260 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 260 disagreed to.
Amendments 261, 523, 24, 25 and 524 to 527 not moved.
Amendment 370 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.
Amendment 168 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 168 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendment 169 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 169 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1. As there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote. My casting vote is against the amendment.
Amendment 169 disagreed to.
11:15Amendments 528 and 529 not moved.
Amendment 170 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 170 agreed to.
Amendment 171 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 171 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 171 agreed to.
Amendment 172 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1. As there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote. My casting vote is against the amendment.
Amendment 172 disagreed to.
The next group is on tenants’ right to make changes to let property. Amendment 173, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments 174 to 176, 262, 252 and 177 to 179. Meghan Gallacher will move amendment 173 on behalf of Edward Mountain and speak to all the other amendments in the group.
With amendment 173, Edward Mountain seeks to ensure that, at the end of the tenancy, a tenant who makes any category 1 or category 2 changes must return the property to its original state. Edward Mountain seeks to provide clarity and ensure that landlords do not have additional expenses at the end of a tenancy should a tenant wish to make personalised category 1 or category 2 changes to a property.
In relation to category 1 changes, I am referring to adjustments such as putting up posters and pictures. Category 2 changes would include things such as painting walls. That can vary a lot according to personal taste in colour, for example, so amendment 173 is about providing clarity for landlords and giving them reassurance that, should any of those changes be made, the tenant will be expected to return things to their original state.
It is interesting that the bill has little to say about tenants of social rented properties. That contrasts with the provisions that relate to the private sector. It makes you think that social tenants have perhaps been overlooked. There are slight differences between the new provisions for private rented properties and the existing provisions for social rented properties. However, we must ensure that, should tenants be allowed to make changes—I do not think that anyone is necessarily arguing against that—there will be a degree of reasonableness and proportionality in relation to what would be expected and the costs that the landlord would have to incur to change things back once a tenancy ended.
Amendment 174 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to specify changes to a let property that may be made by the tenant. That is really important. Again, this relates to category 1 and category 2 changes. I have already referred to the definitions of those, but it must be made clear in guidance that, should changes be allowed, landlords must know exactly what the changes look like and what category they fall under. If that is not the case, there might be a lot of discrepancy between what landlords and tenants think is reasonable. It would not be helpful if there were disagreements about that because it has not been properly legislated for in the bill.
Amendment 175 would specify that structural changes to a property must not be categorised as category 1 changes. Again, I believe that the amendment comes on the back of conversations that Edward Mountain had with people in the private rented sector. The Government should clarify category 1 and category 2 changes. Amendment 175 would provide more clarity by specifying that structural changes would not be categorised as category 1 changes.
Amendment 177 would make it a duty on the Scottish ministers to make provision in relation to when it is reasonable to refuse consent for a category 2 change, which, of course, is a step above a category 1 change. Again, this is about what it is fair, measured and reasonable for tenants to seek to do to a property. It would not be about painting walls a certain colour, but clarity on provisions on refusing consent would be helpful.
Amendment 178 would amend “may” to “must” in relation to the provision for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to the making of a new category 2 change to a let property. That is similar to amendment 177.
Amendment 179 would add that regulations must provide that it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent to any structural changes to the property. This is to ensure that we have seamless directions on what is expected and allowed and on what guidance landlords can follow. I do not believe that the bill currently provides that.
There are only two other amendments in the group, so it seems appropriate to allow the member who lodged those to speak first, and I can summarise at the end.
I move amendment 173.
I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 262 and the other amendments in the group.
Amendment 262, in my name, continues on from my amendments on assistance animals in the previous group. It takes the Equality Act 2010 provisions on changes to rental properties for disabled people as the starting point but makes more explicit the fact that changes to make the property accessible should not require explicit approval. The amendment is meant to clarify disabled people’s rights in relation to changes to a property and to stop disabled people having to rely on the provision of section 190 of the Equality Act 2010. Those include changes to make a property wheelchair accessible, changes to create accessible washing and cooking facilities and facilities that relate to assistance animals, and changes that relate to the installation of guardrails, handrails, visual alarms and bells.
As with my previous amendments, these provisions are supported by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, Guide Dogs Scotland and Sight Scotland. I am happy to work with colleagues on the drafting of the amendments ahead of stage 3 to address any concerns that they might have about any of the wording of amendment 262.
Amendment 252, in my name, establishes a right to grow food and plants in outdoor spaces of rented properties. The physical and mental health benefits of gardening and growing your own food are well established, and this amendment would ensure that there should be no undue barriers to renters using outdoor spaces that are part of a property to grow their own food and plants as well as to promote animal and insect life, such as by planting flowers that support pollinators. That kind of action is vital as we are facing a nature emergency, with many of Scotland’s animal, insect and plant species threatened with extinction.
Given that young people in the most deprived areas of Scotland have significantly worse access to play space, the amendment also seeks to make it easier for modest changes to be made to garden and other spaces, so that they can enjoy the benefits of outdoor play.
Turning to the other amendments in the group, I agree that major structural changes should be out of scope, so there is Green support for Edward Mountain’s amendments 176 and 179. However, on his amendment 173, although it would help to smooth the process of tenants gaining approval for changes to a property, requiring all changes to be reversed unless the landlord agrees otherwise might have unintended consequences, including for disabled people who have made accessibility changes. Therefore, I ask Edward Mountain to work with colleagues ahead of stage 3 to address those concerns.
I turn to amendments 173 to 179, in the name of Edward Mountain, in relation to making changes to let property.
Amendment 173 places a statutory duty on a tenant who has made a category 1 or category 2 change to a let property to ensure that the property is returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy, unless the landlord agrees otherwise. That might discourage some tenants from making use of their right to make changes to the let property, and even perceived improvements might have to be stripped back if the landlord did not agree that they could remain, with no test of the reasonableness or proportionality of that requirement. Measures in the bill enable the Scottish ministers, following consultation, to set out through regulation a non-exhaustive list of reasonable conditions that a landlord might set, where they consent to a category 2 change, such as reinstatement at the end of a tenancy, where it was reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Where a tenant did not view that as a reasonable condition, they would have a route of redress through the tribunal.
In relation to amendments 174 to 179, I recognise that Mr Mountain is seeking to provide greater clarity and certainty in the bill as well as to ensure that ministers make use of the regulation-making powers. I reassure committee members that, although the current drafting of the provisions uses the word “may”, making use of these regulation-making powers will be an essential part of the implementation. The framework that relates to personalisation would require that detail be filled in via regulations in order to set out the pertinent definitions.
I understand that landlords and tenants will be keen to understand what it will be possible to do without consent under category 1—for example, putting up a picture—and what will fall under category 2, such as painting walls, which will need consent. However, I am clear that it is essential that the detail of the types of changes that fall into each category is best developed through consultation and engagement with the sector and set through secondary legislation. That is why the bill specifically includes statutory provisions that require consultation for the exercise of the regulation-making powers under the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that we take account of landlords’ and tenants’ views. It will also ensure further public and parliamentary scrutiny of how the powers are used.
Amendment 252, in the name of Maggie Chapman, seeks to set out some of the detail of category 1 changes that would not require the landlord’s permission. The amendment is exceptionally broad in scope and would allow for a very broad range of changes to the outside of a property without the landlord’s involvement. Although I recognise that the member has specified in the amendment that the change must be reasonable, as these would be category 1 changes, the landlord would have no ability to prevent the change, if given prior knowledge, or recourse, where they did not view the change as reasonable after it was carried out.
When providing new rights to tenants, legislation must strike the right balance with the rights of landlords. Amendment 252 would not do that, so I cannot support it. The detail of the changes that are to be included in categories 1 and 2 are best provided through the secondary legislation that I have mentioned and developed through consultation with landlords and tenants. Existing measures in the bill provide the framework for that, and that is the right way to facilitate greater rights for tenants while respecting landlords’ rights.
11:30Amendment 262, which is also in the name of Maggie Chapman, sets out a broad range of changes that a disabled tenant or a tenant who is a guardian or carer of a disabled member of the household could make without needing permission. I am very sympathetic to the outcome that Ms Chapman is seeking to achieve and I, too, wish to see the lives of disabled tenants, guardians and carers made easier. However, as with amendment 252, this amendment would allow for a broad range of potentially very significant changes to a let property without any involvement of the landlord. Setting that out in the bill without consultation or engagement on the provisions with tenants and landlords would not enable us to ensure that we have the right balance between the respective rights.
Existing measures in the bill provide the overarching framework that is needed for us to get this right. As I indicated, further consultation is required to inform the types of changes that would fall into categories 1 and 2. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure additional scrutiny from Parliament. That is the best way to deliver rights in the area while ensuring that they are compatible with landlords’ rights.
I therefore ask the members not to press the amendments in this group.
I believe that it was Edward Mountain’s intention to press the amendments, although he would welcome the conversation that we have had about the best way to provide clarity and whether that is in guidance or in secondary legislation. However, I believe that those things need to be introduced as quickly as possible to ensure that the private rented sector is aware of the changes that could happen to properties that are let out, and so that tenants who wish to make adaptations to their homes are also aware of that.
I am sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 262 and would welcome a conversation with her on the issue before stage 3. She raises a valid and important points about tenants who have a disability, measuring that and setting out what adaptations they can make to their homes to make their lives easier. We are looking to the housing of the future. With a lot of new-build housing in particular, it is commonplace to have adaptations such as rails or wider doors anyway. We need to look at the issue in a reasonable and pragmatic way. We could have conversations in the run-up to stage 3 about how the proposal would impact the private rented sector as well as making life more comfortable for tenants who have a disability.
On the points about categories 1 and 2, I believe that we need more clarity. The engagement questionnaire suggested that category 1 would be things such as putting up pictures and posters on walls, as I said, but it also suggested that category 2 would be things such as painting walls and installing wall shelves. That is very limited information on what adaptations could be made. I understand that the information on that will come following further consultation and engagement, but the reason why members have lodged amendments on the issue is that they are unsure what the categories will look like. Members have had discussions with the sector and wanted to bring clarity to the bill.
I will press amendment 173, in the name of Edward Mountain.
The question is, that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1. As there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote. My vote is against the amendment.
Amendment 173 disagreed to.
Amendment 174 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 174 agreed to.
Amendment 175 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 175 agreed to.
Amendment 176 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 176 agreed to.
Amendment 262 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 262 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 262 disagreed to.
Amendment 252 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 252 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 252 disagreed to.
Amendment 177 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Fulton, in subsequent votes, I ask that you please put your hand closer to your face to indicate your choice when we are voting.
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 177 agreed to.
Amendment 178 moved—[Meghan Gallagher].
The question is, that amendment 178 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendment 179 moved—[Meghan Gallagher].
The question is, that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 179 agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
After section 29
The next group is on social housing: Scottish secure tenancies. Amendment 440, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 456, 423, 457 and 457A. Paul Sweeney joins us online.
The purpose of amendment 440 is to bring the legislation on housing into alignment with sections 109 to 113 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. That would mean that registered social landlords could transfer engagements only if two thirds of tenants vote in favour of a resolution to do so. Currently a simple majority of tenants in favour is required to proceed through the process.
Section 111 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, which governs shareholder voting and takeovers of societies and is legislation that applies across the UK, stipulates that a special resolution must be passed at a general meeting by at least two thirds of the eligible members who vote.
I was motivated to lodge amendment 440 by what happened at Reidvale Housing Association in 2023 and 2024. Had the measure in amendment 440 been in place then, the tenant ballot would not have reached the threshold required for the proposal to proceed to the special general meeting, at which the two-thirds majority requirement to transfer engagements was not met.
In December 2023, Reidvale Vale Housing Association proposed to transfer its housing stock of 900 properties, valued at around £180 million, to Places for People Scotland. In a tenant ballot, which was open for 32 days and in which 72.9 per cent of tenants cast their vote, 61.8 per cent of tenants voted in favour of the proposal. Had a two-thirds majority rule been in place, the proposal would have fallen at that point because it did not meet the threshold of 66.6 per cent.
As you may know, Reidvale Housing Association was one of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations and was formed after the Housing Act 1974. In 1975, it had around 900 homes in the Dennistoun area of Glasgow. There had been significant concerns about its governance and investment, and the board had decided to seek a transfer partner to take over the association—its tenancies, properties and staff. However, there were significant concerns about the process being railroaded through with coercion, and the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations resisted the proposal.
The forum highlighted concerns about the tenant ballot. At the time,
“GWSF director David Bookbinder said the 61.8% ‘Yes’ result”
in favour of transferring the housing stock
“must be viewed in the context of previous transfer votes, most of which have generated positive results by at least 90%.”
Indeed, if we look at the transfers of engagements of housing associations over the last few years, we see that they have largely had the support of over 90 per cent of tenants. I think that only one fell below the 90 per cent level, which was for the Pineview Housing Association and Kendoon Housing Association transfer, and the support for that was 88 per cent.
Clearly, in instances in which transfers of engagements are sought, they should enjoy the support of the vast majority of tenants for the propositions to be reasonable. With yes votes in transfer ballots normally exceeding the 90 per cent threshold, it was clear that there was a concern in Reidvale’s case, as almost 40 per cent of voting tenants opposed the transfer, despite the offer of a five-year rent freeze. That was hardly a resounding vote of confidence.
11:45The requirement for a supermajority, which would require support from two thirds of the tenant body, would make it clear that there was a settled majority view on what would be the best future for a community-based housing association. After all, it is a one-way road from being a community-based association to joining a large national housing group. There has never been a case in Scotland when a large national housing group has devolved or spun out a small community-based association, so I think that my amendment 440 is important in order to protect the sector.
Once it had the required tenant approval of the transfer, which was in place by a simple majority, Reidvale Housing Association went on to hold a special general meeting of its shareholders on 16 January 2024 in order to seek ratification of the transfer of engagements to Places for People. At the meeting, 138 shareholders, or 66.3 per cent, voted to reject the takeover and backed continued community ownership, with only 70 shareholders, or 33.6 per cent, supporting the transfer. It was clear that that was a huge victory for community-based ownership, after a grass-roots campaign that was fighting against an overwhelming narrative that there was no alternative but to transfer to a large national housing group. Presenting a counter-proposal was very challenging but, nonetheless, the proposal cut through and was able to win the support of shareholders. The chair of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations, John Hamilton, said at the time that, as an obvious supporter and promoter of community-based housing associations,
“GWSF welcomes the 2 to 1 decision of Reidvale’s members not to ratify the outcome of the tenant ballot. We recognise many of the concerns expressed by members, including the impending loss of community assets, and the inevitable disappearance of local decision making. The relative closeness of the separate tenant ballot, with less than 62% in favour, compared with the usual 90+% yes vote in previous transfers, was a clear sign of the anxiety and uncertainty felt by many tenants despite the promise of a five-year rent freeze.”
That is why I think that amendment 440 is reasonable and coherent. It proposes the prudent measure of bringing the voting threshold for tenants and shareholders of housing associations into alignment with a two-thirds threshold. That would serve to provide extra protection for community-controlled housing associations against what are often cynical attempts to railroad through irreversible takeovers of community-controlled assets and risk pitting tenants against member shareholders, which has been a worrying trend in Scotland’s housing sector in the past few years. It would be particularly fitting for the committee to support the amendment now, because this year marks the 50th anniversary of Scotland’s first community-based housing associations being established. The proposal has the backing of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations.
I move amendment 440.
Amendments 456 and 423 work together to make a small practical change to how RSLs are required to give notice of rent increases to tenants. If agreed to, the amendments would allow notices to be delivered by normal post as well as by hand, email or tracked mail. Currently, associations are obligated to use tracked mail, email or hand delivery in order to meet the existing legal requirements under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Housing associations agree that hand delivery of notices is unnecessarily resource intensive and wasteful, that email delivery does not offer a guarantee that all tenants would receive a notice, and that tracked mail is too expensive.
In Scotland, existing legislation sets out that documents can be delivered only in one of three ways: personal delivery, delivered through a method of post that can be recorded, or delivery by agreed electronic transmission. However, the general law can be overruled by the specific terms of a statute, so I am confident that my amendments are legally competent. My amendments would allow landlords to deliver notices by different delivery methods, as they state that standard post can be used without any legal implications, which would lessen the burden on RSLs to comply with housing legislation and would allow them more time to support tenants in other ways and deliver a strong supply of housing in Scotland.
Amendments 457 and 457A would ensure that, when their current accommodation does not meet families’ needs, social landlords cannot prevent them from moving to more suitable accommodation because they have outstanding house arrears and housing-related debts. The amendments do not prevent debt recovery action. In many cases, people who are on low incomes and in unsuitable accommodation can be trapped in a cycle of debt. If they are in social housing, the opportunity to move to more suitable accommodation can be denied by the organisation if they have built up arrears. That can leave families trapped in debt and in housing that is either too big, not safe or overcrowded.
Unaffordable, overcrowded and substandard housing conditions have an adverse impact on people’s ability to cope, physically and mentally, and on wider family wellbeing, and that can exacerbate the cycle of debt. Urgent and compassionate reforms to public debt management and recovery, including rent and housing arrears, are required to tackle child poverty, support families, uphold children’s rights and ensure that every child and family has the opportunity to thrive. We need to promote compassionate and supportive debt management approaches. It is imperative that public bodies and housing associations develop debt recovery policies that recognise the impact of domestic and economic abuse to prevent victims/survivors from being pursued for debt coerced in their name as a result of abuse.
My amendments will work to prevent families from being denied more suitable accommodation as a result of built-up arrears. They will create greater protections for families that are affected by domestic abuse and ensure greater consistency with statutory human rights, children’s rights duties, and equally safe commitments for protecting women and children from the impact of violence and abuse.
I accept that local authorities should be able to pursue arrears, but I do not believe that that is best done by preventing families from accessing more suitable accommodation when it becomes available.
I welcome the conversations that I have had with Paul Sweeney, particularly on community-based housing co-operatives. I spent many an enjoyable time on placement when I was training to be a housing officer at a community-based housing co-op, so I absolutely share his passion for them and their place in our housing sector. I thank him for his interest in the area.
Unfortunately, however, I cannot agree to his amendment 440. Although I understand his intentions to ensure that the views of tenants are rightly taken into account in significant decisions relating to their homes, I have reservations. The position that is set out in section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 is that, for a transfer to proceed, a majority of tenants should agree to it. The rationale for the suggested change is not wholly clear, although I appreciate the comments that Mr Sweeney has made about the Reidvale Housing Association.
Moving to a requirement for two thirds of tenants could be viewed as setting out a position in which the expressed wish of a majority of the tenants can be ignored. Given that there has been no consultation with the sector—either landlords or tenants—it is difficult for the Government to support such a change to what has been in place since 2012. I understand that 21 transfers out of the 22 that have been proposed since 2010 have all received well over two thirds of tenant approval. Although that could suggest that the amendment would not be problematic in practice, it could indicate that there is no real need for change as well. For those reasons, I urge Mr Sweeney not to press amendment 440.
Amendments 456 and 423, in the name of Mark Griffin, aim to amend the provisions in the bill to allow social landlords to serve rent increase notices by sending them by regular post. A social landlord is required to provide a tenant with 28 days’ notice of a rent increase and the 28-day period needs to be evidenced. If a notice does not reach the intended recipient, they could be unaware of the rent increase, which could result in a tenant being in rent arrears. Tenants would not be able to evidence any change that they had not received the rent increase notice if regular post is an acceptable service method. There needs to be certainty that the notice has been delivered to the tenant, and a tracked service provides that certainty while regular post does not.
The bill at present, which also allows for electronic or personal service, aligns the service options for the social rented sector with the private rented sector. The amendment would remove the requirement for a tracked service, which would be at odds with the protection that is provided to tenants in the private rented sector.
The bill already provides for two additional methods of delivery. The first is electronic delivery, which reflects the increased use of web-based tenancy management systems, email and paperless communications that, over time, are likely to become the default for the majority of tenants and will primarily be cost neutral for landlords; the second is a tracked postal service to point of delivery, which removes the requirement for a signature. I therefore urge Mark Griffin not to move amendments 456 and 423.
Although I understand the intention behind Mark Griffin’s amendments 457 and 457A, they would prevent a landlord from refusing consent for a mutual exchange on the basis of rent arrears when the criteria that are set out in his amendments are satisfied. Those are that
“one or more children under the age of 18”
live with the tenant, that the tenant’s current home is inadequate and that the proposed exchange home would be suitable. That would apply regardless of the total amount of rent arrears or whether the tenant was currently paying the rent arrears or keeping to a repayment plan. The only situations when a landlord could refuse consent for a mutual exchange would be when a notice of proceedings had already been served on the tenant on conduct grounds or when an eviction order had been granted against the tenant for the current tenancy.
Although Mr Griffin’s amendments would not prevent the landlord from taking steps to recover any rent arrears, those would become former tenant arrears, which are generally more difficult for social landlords to recover and often must be written off, which reduces landlord income and impacts on the service that social landlords provide to tenants and on their ability to maintain affordable rent levels.
Social landlords already have discretion to agree to a mutual exchange between their properties when there are rent arrears, if moving to a property with a lower rent would be more financially sustainable for the tenant and if a repayment plan is put in place.
I accept the points that Mr Griffin made in his remarks about those suffering from domestic violence and instances when there is domestic abuse in the home. I would be happy to have conversations with Mr Griffin in the run-up to stage 3 on aspects of those particular cases when there is a threat or there has been a history of domestic violence. However, on this occasion, I urge him not to move amendments 457 and 457A.
I call Paul Sweeney to press or withdraw amendment 440.
I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not see the logic in having amendment 440. The fact that the Reidvale case was so unique demonstrates the need for the extra safeguard of having a settled majority of tenants. In the case of Reidvale, there was a significant level of discord in the community about contentious transfer; the way to deal with that is to have a settled majority.
As the cabinet secretary highlighted, in every other example of a transfer of engagements in Scotland, there tends to be a supermajority in support of that transfer of engagements. I would like to see a supermajority requirement in the bill. It would be a good safeguard and a demonstration that we have learned the lessons of what happened in Reidvale. In one of Scotland’s most-deprived communities, the loss of more than £100 million worth of community-owned assets would have been devastating.
I would like to work to build support for amendment 440. Therefore, I will not press it now but will look to return to it at stage 3. Given that there is agreement on the sentiment behind the amendment, we could perhaps discuss whether there could be more appropriate wording or an appropriate measure to provide for the extra threshold for tenants, which would bring it into alignment with what is required for shareholders. The reality is that a two-thirds majority is required with shareholders, so why not increase the threshold for tenants as well? That would bring everything into alignment. It would be a neat and logical process.
Amendment 440, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 30—Scottish secure tenancies etc: keeping pets
Amendment 263 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 263 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 263 disagreed to.
12:00Amendments 264 and 265 not moved.
Amendment 180 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 180 agreed to.
Amendment 181 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 181 agreed to.
Amendment 182 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].
The question is, that amendment 182 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 182 disagreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Maggie Chapman].
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Against
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Amendments 530 and 531 not moved.
The Convener: I remind members that amendments 532 and 28 are direct alternatives—that is, they can both be moved and decided on, and the text of the one that is agreed to last is what will appear in the bill.
Amendments 532, 28, 533 and 534 not moved.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
The Convener: We have come to a convenient point in the groupings to close our work on the bill for now. We will continue day 5 of our consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 this afternoon at 20 past 2.
12:05 Meeting suspended.